Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. I thank the ranking member, and I thank the chairman. Mr. Chair, I would simply note that the provision requires U.S. business to factor in new costs of a guarantee for repayment to the Ex- Im Bank, in addition to the fees and interests already required. Those additional costs would make U.S. business less competitive. Now, that said, once again, I urge my colleagues to turn back this amendment, turn back all 10 amendments. Remember, the Bank expired in July. When my friends say they don't want to kill it, they already have. Now they are just trying to keep it from being brought back to be able to function as a part of our economy. Look through the amendment process we are going through here. Look at the whole process we are involved in. Understand what is really occurring. Nothing ever happens by accident in politics--right?--or the legislative process. Understand the fight we are engaged in. Turn back this amendment. Turn back all these amendments. Let's get on with it. If we could have made things better 6 months ago, we would have, but we weren't allowed to.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member. Mr. Chairman, first, before we talk about the substance of the amendment, let's look at the lay of the land. I am a farmer by trade. That is always something you do, you look at the lay of the land. The six principal authors of the 10 amendments offered today, all members of Financial Services, none of them were proponents 6 months ago when we were attempting, pleading to bring this bill up for consideration. None of these six, as I remember, demanded that we bring the bill up 3 months ago when frustration caught up with us. None of these six signed the discharge petition to use a rule of the House to allow this body to have its say. I don't believe any of these six authors actually voted to discharge the petition or voted for the final product last week when 313 Members of this body and a majority of the majority voted for it. So understand the lay of the land. Understand the nature. Now, I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I sat next to him for 20 years on Financial Services. He is extremely sincere. My friends, the issues he brings up in this amendment are relevant, but his chairmanship of the committee he presides over has primary jurisdiction on this. This particular amendment would address a small part of one part of the things the Federal Government does. Maybe we need a bill to address all of these kinds of situations. Maybe we need--as we should have had on Export-Import in Financial Services--a thoughtful and considerate process to craft a good, solid piece of legislation. I know he is capable of it. I know he can do it. I want him to do it. But let's do it in that concept of regular order in regular process. Let's not take this situation where we have had to do extraordinary things to give the House a chance to make the decision. Let's not take this situation now and in the spirit of the folks who set up the discharge process 100-plus years ago say: Well, the House decided, but really the House's opinion doesn't matter. Now we are going to redo it. We are going to go a different way. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have faith this evening that, after my colleagues have listened to this debate on 10 amendments, when they come to the floor and vote on all 10 amendments, they will turn all 10 down. I am sorry, my colleagues, that you have to do this, because we shouldn't be here doing this tonight. This was decided last week. But I hope if we will send a clear message and turn back all 10 amendments, that this will be over with. Let's not do this again next week. That is contrary to the spirit of the House.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportunity to respond. I think that probably it is better that you finish the discussion.

Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield for a brief response?

Mr. LUCAS. So, Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to reaffirm that whoever ultimately claims the time is, indeed, in opposition to the motion to recommit?

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, in order to seek time in opposition, wouldn't the gentleman or gentlewoman have to be opposed to the motion to recommit?

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, why are we here tonight? Why are we compelled to engage in this process? The circumstances, perhaps, might be a little bit like 1910. Do you remember 1910? A dictatorial Speaker who was so totally in control and who so totally refused to accept input from the membership made himself chairman of the Rules Committee, too. He stymied the legislative process. He brought it to a stop. What did our predecessors do 100-plus years ago? They finally rose up together and threw him out, and they created a process by which no dictatorial chairman, no dictatorial Speaker would ever be able to fully thwart the will of this body. It is amazing. That is what we are here for. It is to continue one century later the responsible actions that they put into place. Now, some of my friends have asked, ``Why don't we have thousands of amendments?'' Think about 1910--a dictatorial Speaker, a dictatorial committee chairman. Under no circumstances was Uncle Joe going to allow any input. So, when they created this process, they had to make sure that the bill could come to the floor for consideration in a way that would not allow it to be manipulated by that same dictatorial attitude. We are operating under the present version of that rule. If we had wanted unlimited amendments, we should have spent an unlimited amount of time in the committee of jurisdiction, working on those amendments, but that opportunity never availed itself. Had that opportunity availed itself, we wouldn't be here; but we are here. We have a bill that reflects, I believe--and that a majority of us in this House believes--what is in the best interest of America's workers and America's businesspeople in our competitive spirit. I simply say to you that to talk about the things we should be doing tonight that should have been done a month ago or a year ago seems most inappropriate. So, my friends, in a moment, let's honor the people who were on this floor in 1910. Let's say, ``Joe, you can't have your way then or now.'' Let's pass the discharge; let's pass the rule; and let's get on with the bill debate.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Congressman Newhouse, I am very appreciative of you organizing this Special Order to discuss an issue that perhaps not many of our neighbors back home have had time to focus on and to have speakers from a variety of perspectives discuss what it really means in job creation, economic growth, opportunities in their home districts and their communities, the Export-Import Bank. I would be remiss if I didn't note to our colleagues, you and I are both farmers, and one of the common threads in agriculture throughout this great country is, since colonial times, we have always produced more than we could consume in this country. We have always had to sell our surplus in the world markets. That is the only way that we could maintain a healthy production agriculture, to have reasonable job opportunities, a reasonable standard of living in our agricultural communities. Export-Import touches on many of those issues, created in the 1930s as a tool to help all parts of the American economy have the credit and the ability to sell in the world markets. As a matter of fact, the concept is so practical, it has been so well-defined, as you and I both know, 50-plus other countries have the same type of a system to help their manufacturers, their producers, their economic interests do business into the outside world. Now, that said, we have been engaged for some time on the Financial Services Committee and in this body in a very, at times, heated debate about whether not just should Export-Import Bank be reformed to make it more efficient, make it more accountable, more responsible to the taxpayers, but whether it should even exist at all. Now, some of our colleagues believe that, with a lack of action, the official expiration of the authorization, it is gone. We have heard our friends say here today that until all of the loans that are outstanding, all of the guarantees, all of the obligations that have been committed to are completed, the institution will continue to exist. It simply cannot provide new economic opportunities to do business around the world for our people. And that brings us to this point, and I think it is the point that I want to stress. Can Export-Import Bank, in its present form, be reformed? Can it be made better? Can it be made more accountable? Of course. There is not an institution in government anywhere that can't be made better, more efficient, more effective, more accountable to the taxpayers. But the real tragedy of what is going on here is we have been presented, many of us, with the stark debate of end it all or, through circumstances beyond our control, have it reauthorized, most likely in its present form, without any of those reforms. That is why many of us are on the Fincher bill, because we believe Export-Import serves a purpose in helping create better jobs, more economic opportunities for many of our citizens, but that it needs to be done in a more responsible, accountable fashion. I have been highly disappointed that we have not had a debate, a markup in committee on this very issue that would have ultimately led, I believe, to a debate and consideration on the floor of this United States House so that we could potentially have sent a better product than we have now to the other body. We have not been allowed to do that. So now we are faced with a stark contrast. How do we continue this very effective effort at moving our products into the world markets, creating those jobs here at home for our fellow citizens? Either we have to wait for a bill to come from the other body, most likely not containing the level of reforms that we would have placed in such a reauthorization bill in the House, or, at some point, we will have a markup, either in committee or on the floor, of another piece of legislation where there will be an effort to attach it. That kind of an effort probably won't contain the level of Fincher reforms that we all want. That is the tragedy, Congressman. We are going to reauthorize Export- Import. It is just, in what form will it be reauthorized? We cannot allow 50-plus of our competitors around the world to have a tool, a resource, an ability for their businesses to push their products into the American economy that we don't match punch for punch economically. We cannot allow that to happen. I hope we are going to work on behalf of our fellow workers, our fellow citizens, our fellow businesspeople in this country. But it is a tragedy, Congressman, that we are not going to have the kind of discussion and debate where we could create a dramatically improved, refined, or reformed Export-Import Bank. We each represent our constituents. I care about mine just as you care about every one of yours, and making sure that we have the ability--the ability--for all those citizens to have good jobs, good- paying jobs, good, new economic opportunities, is just too important for us to back away--too important for us to back away. If we don't get the reforms that our fellow citizens deserve, it won't be because you and I didn't try. We have tried for months. It will be because the choices thrust upon us by others are either all or nothing at all, present or nothing. I want to keep selling those products that our hard-working fellow citizens make into the world market. I want to keep competing economically, blow for blow, with the rest of the world. You know, some have said: Let's just do away with Export-Import. We will establish the principle, and the rest of the world will follow us. Does anybody really believe that, that when we give up our ability to sell our products into other markets they will suddenly say: Oh, what a great principle. We will stop selling into your markets. That is not the way it works, Dan, not the way it works. I appreciate the gentleman's time, his effort on this critically important issue. Something will happen; it is just how soon and in what form.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a momentous event in this Nation's history and honor the men and women who worked so diligently to make it happen. The Apollo-Soyuz test project, which took place in July of 1975, was the first international human spaceflight, a joint operation between two rivaling superpowers: the United States and the Soviet Union. The Apollo-Soyuz test project was so successful, many historians attribute the handshake in space between Apollo Commander Tom Stafford and Soyuz Commander Aleksey Leonov to be the beginning of the end the cold war. Lieutenant General Tom Stafford was born in Weatherford, Oklahoma, in 1930. After graduating from the Naval Academy, earning his wings from the Air Force in 1953, and graduating from the Air Force Experimental Flight Test Pilot School, Stafford went on to serve as a pilot on Gemini 6, a commander of Gemini 9, commander of Apollo 10, and, finally, commander of the Apollo-Soyuz test project. Thomas Stafford is a true patriot, a man who served this country in inspiring ways for over 60 years. I want to congratulate him on his accomplished service and his distinguished career.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the underlying bill, H.R. 2289, the Commodity End-User Relief Act. This bipartisan bill is the result of a series of hearings in which the Committee on Agriculture heard from stakeholders that do business with the CFTC as well as every CFTC Commissioner. As chairman of the committee last year, I began the process of CFTC reauthorization, which resulted in the House-passed bipartisan bill, and I laud our committee chairman, Mr. Conaway, for his efforts in tackling the same subject and coming to the full House with another bipartisan CFTC reauthorization that passed the committee by a voice vote. A chief selling point of this bill is its commitment to good governance reforms at the CFTC to increase transparency and efficiency. First, the bill closely follows an executive order by President Obama to improve the cost-benefit analysis performed by the Commission prior to promulgating rules. In addition, the bill would improve this oversight of Commissioners over activities which are outside the normal rulemaking process that still impact many futures market participants. Many of these activities, such as policy statements, guidance, and interpretation rules released by CFTC, would also be subject to public comment under the provisions of the bill when they have the force of law. Furthermore, H.R. 2289 establishes an office of the chief economist at the CFTC to provide objective economic data and analysis. The committee also heard from end users during this process and included several provisions to provide relief to those end users, such as a more workable definition of bona fide hedging and relief from burdensome recordkeeping rules for many businesses. The CFTC has gone unauthorized since 2013, and it is time many CFTC activities were reformed by Congress. This rule will make possible the underlying bill that will improve the CFTC in many important ways. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 2262, the Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, or the SPACE Act. Since 2004, when Congress last amended the Commercial Space Launch Act, commercial space companies have made significant contributions to space technology development and helped to strengthen American leadership in space. Congress must keep up with the changes in the industry, and the CSLA needs to be updated to ensure that the space sector can flourish in the years to come. Currently, all major spacefaring nations require some form of third- party liability insurance for launching entities. The indemnification regime of the CSLA expires next year. The act would extend indemnification to 2025 in order to prevent U.S. launches from going overseas and taking high-tech American jobs with them. In a letter praising the act's extension of the indemnification, Tom Stroup, president of the Satellite Industry Association, wisely stated that the act is ``an important step in maintaining U.S. innovation and leadership in satellite launch and one that promotes overall access to space.'' Several other groups, such as the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, have had similar comments praising the extension. Moreover, this bill promotes stability and flexibility in the commercial space market through regulatory reform. By extending the learning period to 2025, the Federal Aviation Administration and industry will have more time to collect information and develop a safety framework for commercial spaceflight. This will ensure that the growing commercial space market will not be overburdened with uninformed regulations. Space-based technology has become a vital part of our economy. Americans rely on it every day, from GPS to weather forecasting to land remote sensing, in everything we do. The SPACE Act gives the private sector a chance to expand this growing portion of our economy by allowing commercial spaceflight companies to take passengers to and from space and by setting the groundwork for a comprehensive safety framework that will guide future spacefaring activities. Now is not the time to turn our backs on the innovators and the entrepreneurs who have made this Nation great. If we care about American leadership in space and the American space economy, I urge you to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Smith, for his continued leadership on the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H.R. 1561, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2015, prioritizes the protection of life and property at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by focusing research and computing resources on improving weather forecasting, quantitative observing data planning, Next Generation modeling, and an emphasis on research to operations technology transfer. I echo Chairman Smith's concerns that severe weather greatly affects large parts of the country, and as a Representative from Oklahoma, I understand the need for improvement firsthand. In 2013, the deadly storms in my home State were a stark reminder that we can do better to predict severe weather events and provide longer lead times to protect Americans in harm's way. I am proud that this legislation has a dedicated tornado warning improvement Program. The goal of this program is to reduce the loss from tornadoes by advancing the understanding of fundamental meteorological science, allowing detection and notifications that are more accurate, effective, and timely. Constituents in my home State will benefit greatly from longer tornado warning lead times, which will save lives and better protect property. H.R. 1561 makes clear that NOAA will prioritize weather research and protect lives and property through a focused, affordable, attainable, and forward-looking research plan at the agency's research office. This bill also helps encourage innovation and new capacities developed through NOAA's Weather Research Program, like creating a joint technology transfer from the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. This transfer is essential to get new forecasting models and technologies out of the research side of NOAA and into our operational forecast. This bill directs NOAA to develop plans to restore our country's leadership in weather forecasting. It is no secret that many people in our weather community are distraught that our forecasting capacities have deteriorated in recent years. While other countries are making great strides in weather advancements, Americans are paying the price for lost leadership with their lives and their wallets. This is another reminder that we can do better. This bill prompts NOAA to actively consider new commercial data and private sector solutions to further enhance our weather forecasting capacities. This legislation includes a pilot program which will provide NOAA a clear and credible demonstration of the valuable data from commercial technologies available today. This legislation is substantially similar to last year's bipartisan Weather Forecasting Improvement Act, which passed the House by a voice vote. The bill before us today updates authorization numbers to reflect current spending levels, adjusts dates to reflect current operating status, and incorporates minor additions and technical changes to improve the bill's clarity and intent. This legislation is the result of a bipartisan agreement last year and again this year. I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine), the Subcommittee on Environment chairman, for his active leadership on this issue in the last Congress and for getting us here today. I also want to thank the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), for her efforts in crafting a bipartisan agreement and joining in this most worthwhile initiative to save American lives and property through better weather forecasting. Finally, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act has received numerous letters of support which I would like to mention, including letters from Utah State University, Space Environment Technologies, Metro Weather, Utah Science Technology and Research Initiative. Once again, it is a good bill. It has been worked on diligently. We need to pass it.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, I offer an amendment that will de-list the lesser prairie chicken from the list of threatened species over a period of at least 5 years. This time will allow the five States in the prairie chicken's range to implement their joint rangewide plan, which has been endorsed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Again, this does not permanently de-list the lesser prairie chicken. If in 5 years' time the Department of Interior thinks this plan hasn't worked, they can begin the process of re-listing the chicken. I am confident, however, though, that the rangewide plan will be effective not only in maintaining but in increasing the population of the lesser prairie chicken. The second portion of my amendment would de-list the American burying beetle. Since being deemed endangered in the 1980s, the beetle's population has skyrocketed well beyond the targets set in the Fish and Wildlife's own recovery plan. Military installations are among the entities that have to ensure their new development projects do not infringe on the habitats of these endangered species. Any military exercises that would take place on critical habitat also must meet those requirements before they can commence. It is highly inappropriate for such exercises critical to national defense readiness to be dependent on a bureaucratic process, especially given the large populations and State-level plans for these two species. There are numerous military bases in the lesser prairie chicken's range and dozens more in the ever-larger estimated range of the American burying beetle that are affected. This amendment would help many of our military bases to perform the critical functions that comprise our national readiness. I urge my colleagues to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), from another one of those States working very diligently to increase the population of these species in a very scientific way.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the great State of Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), where they are working very diligently on a State level to repopulate the species.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee and an individual who has worked diligently on preserving all of our environment.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, there is no way that the Oklahoma delegation can express our thanks to the country for the help over the last 20 years, but with this moment of silence just now, we ask that everyone, 2 minutes after 9, central time, this Sunday morning think about those 168 souls, those killed and those who survived, and those who were changed forever. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, when I was a boy, my father used to point out to me that there were certain moments, certain events, that not only defined, perhaps, a community or a generation but that left an indelible mark on a person. He referenced me to go speak to my grandparents about where they were when the news came that Pearl Harbor had been bombed. I can remember my Grandfather Lucas describing the exact field, the exact row that he was picking cotton in in December of 1941 when one of the neighbors stopped and asked, ``Have you heard?'' My father could tell you exactly the moment, while walking down the street in Elk City, Oklahoma, when he walked up on a crowd that was staring in the window of a store that was selling televisions. Everyone's mouth was down. Everyone was aghast at the news from Dallas. In many ways, the experience of 2 minutes after 9 a.m. on April 19, 1995, has had the same mark and the same effect on not only me and on my colleagues in this delegation but on our communities in the country. Like my grandfather in his remembering the moment that he found out about Pearl Harbor and like my father in the moment he understood that President Kennedy had been assassinated, I will never forget sitting with the Oklahoma delegation, waiting to give testimony in a BRAC hearing in Dallas, when a reporter tapped me on the shoulder, a reporter I had known for some time. He said: ``We have a report that there has been an explosion at the Federal building in Oklahoma City. They say the building is gone. Your district office is in one of those Federal buildings in downtown Oklahoma City. Which building are your people in?'' It is a moment that I will never forget. The delegation got up, and, en masse, we rushed out into the lobby. There on the television monitors was the building that we recognized as the shell of the Murrah building. It, literally, was gone. My folks were spared, but, on that day, 168 of our good fellow citizens in Oklahoma City were not. This Sunday morning, we will gather to remember that event of 20 years ago, an event that has changed us all forever. I am proud of my fellow Oklahoma delegation here today because we still work just now as we did 20 years ago to address those issues. Mr. Speaker, I yield to one of my colleagues from Oklahoma, who was at that time the secretary of state for the State of Oklahoma, one of the folks in the inner circle in Governor Keating's administration as State government responded to something that no one could have expected.

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Congressman Cole. I certainly want to acknowledge Congressman Mullin and Congressman Bridenstine. We work as a family delegation, so to speak, in the Oklahoma delegation. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to Congressman Russell, who has the responsibility of representing that site in the Fifth District of Oklahoma, to conclude with a few comments. Congressman Russell.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume simply to note that I think we have had a very good discussion today. I think we have raised a lot of relevant points. We have covered a lot of ground and some good amendments. We have worked our way through this process. This is a step in the great legislative effort that ultimately leads to good legislation. Some of my freshman colleagues might not be aware of this, but recently I was involved in a process that took 2\1/2\ years to ultimately come up with a bill. I hope that not every piece of legislation requires 2\1/2\ years to accomplish, but I would say this: regular order, respecting the input of all Members, both sides of the aisle, both ends of the Chamber, ultimately leads to a better legislative product to the benefit of everyone. And I think we are once again embarking on that effort, so I respectfully ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and pass the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.