Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding. I would like to thank my colleagues from the House Agriculture Committee, Mr. Gibson and Ms. Fudge, for their continued leadership on this issue; also, I would like to thank Ms. Moore and Mr. Stivers for working with my committee to introduce this compromise language as a stand-alone bill for the House's consideration. Almost identical language was included in the Agriculture Committee's CFTC reauthorization bill, H.R. 4413. I am proud to say that we moved that legislation through the Ag Committee by a voice vote and then passed it here on the House floor with overwhelming bipartisan support this summer. I am hopeful that this bill can receive the same strong bipartisan support. H.R. 5471 will provide American businesses the certainty they need to continue managing their risk in the most efficient manner possible. Today, businesses all over America rely on the ability to centralize their hedging activities to reduce their counterparty credit risk, to lower costs, and to simplify their financial dealings. It is important to remember that these transactions between affiliated corporate entities pose no systemic risk, and they should not be regulated as if they do. These transactions are used to reduce an individual firm's risk by consolidating a hedging portfolio spread across a corporate group. By doing this, firms can find savings with offsetting positions between affiliates and can reduce the need for the group to seek hedges in the wider market. H.R. 5471 will prevent the redundant regulation of these harmless interaffiliate transactions that would tie up the working capital companies with no added protections for the market or benefits for the consumers. I strongly support this bipartisan, commonsense legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5078, the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act. The Environmental Protection Agency is once again seeking to overstep its authority, and we are here to remind them of the balance of powers. This year, EPA proposed a rule to redefine the waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. This rule expands Federal control of land and water resources across the Nation. This rule would trigger an onslaught of additional permitting and regulatory requirements to protect not our great natural resources but, rather, our backyard ponds and agricultural ditches. These requirements would extend to every landowner, farmer, and rancher. What this means for farmers and ranchers is that their normal business activities for the production of food would be subject to even more permitting requirements or faced with penalties. Traditional conservation guidelines which were once voluntary will become mandatory or the farmer will be subject to fines and vulnerable to lawsuits. In this rulemaking, EPA assumes discretion never intended or granted by Congress through which Federal agencies would be empowered to make decisions, and those decisions could be made in an arbitrary fashion. H.R. 5078 blocks the Agency from finalizing, implementing, and enforcing this rule. It preserves States' rights, ensures the Obama administration consults States and local officials on any future proposal to regulate and protect our Nation's waters under the Clean Water Act. Protecting our natural resources is a noble cause and one that the agricultural community stands solidly behind, but this proposal is an underhanded way to harm American agriculture and threaten America's food security. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, how much time does my side have remaining?

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho). (Mr. YOHO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LUCAS. I do, indeed, have one further request, and then I will yield back to my friend from Ohio, who will close.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. This legislation was the product of collaborative work done by two House committees, along with technical assistance from the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency. This is the way legislation should be handled, and I am proud of our efforts in the House. To refresh our memories, this problem stems from an uninformed court decision in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision invalidated a 2006 EPA regulation exempting pesticides regulations that are in compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act from having to also comply with a costly and duplicative permitting process under the Clean Water Act. I want to be clear, our pesticides are vigorously tested by the EPA to be used over, near, and in water without causing adverse effects to the environment. When used according to the label, the EPA has built in a significant margin of safety. Communities without established mosquito control districts are being deprived of the economic and health benefits of mosquito control. Historically, a local contractor could be hired to provide spraying services with the understanding that, if they followed the FIFRA label, they would be in compliance with the law. Now these local applicators must apply for an NPDES permit, create a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan, publish a notice of intent to apply pesticides, and wait for approval from the State or EPA. In most States, the permits are not free. The steep fines under the Clean Water Act and the cumbersome administrative process have caused local applicators to discontinue mosquito control services. The effort to have these same products today doubly regulated through the Clean Water Act permitting process is unnecessary, costly, and, ultimately, undermines public health. It amounts to a duplication of regulatory compliance costs for a variety of public agencies and doubles their legal jeopardy. Think about that--doubles their legal jeopardy. I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) for debate purposes.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. This piece of legislation before us today is very familiar to many of us. As many of you will remember, we stood here 3 years ago voting on this same bill text. That bill, H.R. 872, was passed by this body with an overwhelming demonstration of bipartisan support. The legislation was the product of collaborative work done between two House committees, along with the technical assistance of the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency. This is the way legislation should be handled, and I was proud of our efforts in the House. To refresh your memory, this problem stems from an uninformed court decision in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision invalidated a 2006 EPA regulation exempting pesticide applications that are in compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act from having to also comply with a costly and duplicative permitting process under the Clean Water Act. The effect to have these same products doubly regulated through the Clean Water Act permitting process is unnecessary, costly, and ultimately undermines public health. It amounts to a duplication of regulatory compliance costs for a variety of public agencies and doubles their legal jeopardy. Additionally, more than 40 States have endured increased financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the new permitting requirement process during a time when many States are already being forced to make difficult budget decisions. Should vector control agencies cease operations due to these costs, it will expose a vast new unprotected population cohort to mosquitoes potentially carrying a number of dangerous exotic diseases such as West Nile. Some will argue the costs associated with this permit requirement have been small. As it stands, some people may believe millions of dollars to be a small amount, but I think most of our constituents would disagree. What nobody can document--and let's think about this again--what no one can document is a single benefit this burden has offered. In a time when our economy is struggling, regulatory burdens that add cost while providing no quantitative benefit need to be eliminated. This is an unnecessary, costly, duplicative permitting requirement. It is a poster child for regulatory reform. Now, my friends, if you can only look at one thought, simply bear this in mind: by this misguided court ruling requiring the double permitting process, you are causing States to waste money. They don't have the money to waste. I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chair, I submit the following exchange of letters: sifma, June 19, 2014. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi: SIFMA and its member firms strongly support H.R. 4413, the Consumer Protection and End User Relief Act, bipartisan legislation that seeks to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to better protect futures customers, provide market certainty for end-users, and make basic reforms to improve the functioning of the CFTC. One provision in this bill seeks to create harmonization of cross-border swaps regulation by requiring the CFTC and SEC to jointly promulgate rules in full compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act and within 270 days. This is necessary as the two agencies share jurisdiction over the swaps markets and currently have inconsistent approaches to the extraterritorial application of rules under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. This provision is largely similar to H.R. 1256, Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act, which passed the House by vote of 301-124. Another provision in the bill would prevent costly margin requirements from being imposed on non-financial end-users for their derivatives activity used to hedge commercial risks. This provision is largely similar to H.R. 634, Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act of 2013, which passed the House by vote of 411-12. SIFMA strongly urges you to vote for H.R. 4413. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Andy Blocker, EVP, Public Policy and Advocacy, SIFMA.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to state that I really do appreciate the cooperative nature of the Ag Committee and the way that we have worked hard to put this very logical piece of legislation together to address a variety of issues. I must say, though, in all respect to my colleague, I don't believe this particular language ever came up in any of the markups; so I must respectfully, in that regard, say that this is the wrong hour to be suggesting this language. But I will go farther than that to say to my friends, if you are concerned about the price of fuel, if you are concerned about the availability of energy for industry and for individuals, we have some really good legislation out here that you should consider. You should be looking at H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act; you should be looking at H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act; you should be looking at H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act. If you really want to make a difference, work for those pieces of legislation, support those pieces of legislation; but otherwise, let's take the bill that has been so carefully crafted, let's reject the motion to recommit with instructions, and let's just pass the bill. With that, I do the greatest thing I can do for you: I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I would simply note: let's cut to the point here. The CFTC, when finalizing the rules for registered investment companies, deferred almost entirely to the SEC to regulate them, so this amendment is in line with what the CFTC has already done. I urge my colleagues to support the commonsense amendment. Let's just do what is reflected here, and I thank the gentleman for his input.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In crafting the Consumer Protection and End User Relief Act, I worked closely with Ranking Member Peterson to ensure that judicial review of CFTC rules would be on the same footing as a review of security laws from the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission. The current disparity between security laws and the Commodity Exchange Act has resulted in confusion in the past, as aggrieved parties were unsure of where to go to seek review of CFTC rules. Quite simply, I urge my colleagues to vote against what I fear is a regressive amendment. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment sponsored by the gentlewoman from Washington and her cosponsors, the gentlemen from New York and California--all valued Members of the House Agriculture Committee-- builds on the enhancements of the cost-benefit analysis required in this bill by preserving the court's ability to review the Commission rules or orders. I congratulate the sponsors of this amendment. Once again, the House Ag Committee proves that working in a bipartisan manner is possible and productive. This is the type of cooperation I think our friends back home would want to see and demand. With that, I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself whatever time I might consume. Once again, I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote against what I am concerned is a regressive amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chair, in a time of economic uncertainty, tight fiscal budgets, I advise against the use of valuable Commission time and resources on a study with some ambiguous terms and no clear practical use. H.R. 4413 already includes carefully crafted requirements for studies on the pertinent issues of agency funding and on the effects of high- frequency trading. So I respectfully urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time remains for both sides?

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I would note to my colleague, I have no additional speakers and would reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4413.