Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

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

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 353) to improve the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's weather research through a focused program of investment on affordable and attainable advances in observational, computing, and modeling capabilities to support substantial improvement in weather forecasting and prediction of high impact weather events, to expand commercial opportunities for the provision of weather data, and for other purposes.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a moment to thank the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) for all of her efforts to bring us to this point. We still have a ways to go ultimately, but great strides have been made. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine) for his input and efforts and, of course, again, the chairman of the full Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Mr. Smith of Texas, for helping in that critical role of being the catalyst for all of this. From the perspective of a farmer, some will say: What does this really mean? But when it comes to trying to gauge how to plant your crops, how to harvest your crops, whether you are a truck driver driving up and down the highways and bi-ways of America, a citizen moving around the country, someone along the coast, or, as Ms. Bonamici pointed out, a fisherman, this information will make your life more efficient, it will make your life safer, and it will enhance the productive capacity of this country. This is one of those investments that we will all gain from. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) who has guided the Science, Space, and Technology Committee ever so carefully for a number of years.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine), my colleague who has worked very diligently on this effort for a number of years.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I first thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Smith, for his continued leadership on the Science Committee. H.R. 353, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017, prioritizes improving weather forecasting for the protection of lives and property at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This bill does so by focusing research and computing resources on improved weather forecasting, quantitative observing data planning, next generation modeling, and an emphasis on research-to- operations technology transfer. As a Representative from Oklahoma, I understand the need for accurate and timely weather predictions firsthand. Every year, the loss of life from deadly tornadoes in my home State is 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 the legislation has a dedicated Tornado Warning Improvement Program. The goal of this program is to reduce the loss of life 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. 353 makes clear that NOAA will prioritize weather research and protect lives and property through a focused, affordable, attainable, forward-looking research plan at the agency's Research Office. The bill also encourages innovations and new technology capacities by creating a joint technology transfer fund in NOAA's 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 to better protect our country. The 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 diminished leadership with their lives and their wallets. This is yet another reminder that we can do better. This legislation directs NOAA to actively consider new commercial data and private sector solutions to further enhance our weather forecasting capacities. The bill also includes a pilot project, which will provide NOAA a clear and credible demonstration of the valuable data from commercial technologies available today. H.R. 353 is the result of 4 years of work to craft a meaningful package that will create new and real improvements to our country's weather forecasting systems. The time has come for Americans to have the most accurate and timely weather predictions. They deserve nothing less. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, January 9, 2017. Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Smith: I write concerning H.R. 353, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017. This legislation includes matters that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In order to expedite Floor consideration of H.R. 353, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will forgo action on this bill. However, this is conditional on our mutual understanding that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation that fall within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I appreciate you working with us on the base text of the bill and request you urge the Speaker to name members of the Committee to any conference committee named to consider such provisions. Please place a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest in the Congressional Record during House Floor consideration of the bill. I look forward to working with the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology as the bill moves through the legislative process. Sincerely, Bill Shuster, Chairman.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 353, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of S. 3395, the Prescribed Burn Approval Act of 2016. Across much of the country, Forest Service land borders private lands that are essential to the livelihood of farmers, ranchers, and foresters. While the Forest Service is tasked with managing these lands, many techniques are effective but carry risk. On April 3, 2013, the Forest Service conducted a controlled burn on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands intended for 130 acres. As weather conditions changed, the fire escaped its boundary and burned 16,000 acres of private land. The prescribed burn planned by Federal officials resulted in millions of dollars in damage to private lands in South Dakota, with ranchers losing valuable pasture, hay, fence, and structures. In the aftermath of the fire, the Office of the General Counsel of USDA determined that the Forest Service had done nothing out of line and claimed no responsibility to those harmed by this carelessness. This commonsense piece of legislation that we are addressing today, simply put, would require the Forest Service to conduct prescribed burns only when the national fire rating system indicates that it is safe to do so in that county and contiguous counties. Furthermore, this bill will encourage greater collaboration with local officials, helping to mitigate more of the risk to private lands. We all strive to be good neighbors and hope our neighbors will do the same. With passage, this bill gives many neighbors to the Forest Service additional certainty, and I urge your support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC, December 1, 2016. Hon. K. Michael Conaway, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding S. 3395, the Prescribed Burn Approval Act of 2016. This bill contains provisions under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this bill before the House of Representatives in an expeditious manner, and accordingly, I will agree that the Committee on Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill. I do so with the understanding that this action does not affect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources. I also ask that a copy of this letter and your response be included in the Congressional Record during consideration of S. 3395 on the House floor. Thank you for your work on this important issue, and I look forward to its enactment soon. Sincerely, Rob Bishop, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3395) to require limitations on prescribed burns.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is worth noting that before there were ever farmers and ranchers on the plains, before Coronado ever came up from the south, or Lewis and Clark crossed through the north, and even before our Native American friends first appeared in North America fire has been an important management tool in the ecosystem of the Great Plains--whether the northern plains where my colleague, Mrs. Noem, lives or the southern plains where I live--an important tool. Maintaining the health of the grasslands, addressing the woody plants that are invasive, this is an important tool. This is why today we rise together to ask for our colleagues to vote for this bill, to provide the ability for everyone who occupies the plains to comfortably work together to use this tool to maintain the health of the Great Plains. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join us in passing the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), who not only understands these issues but lives these issues.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Edward Knipling and Raymond Bushland, who are two scientists who posthumously received this year's Golden Goose Award for their research into the screwworm fly. No doubt, many people have never heard about the screwworm fly, but my father and grandfather, both cattlemen, often told me stories of how devastating these pests were to their herds. By laying eggs in animal wounds, the screwworm could kill a full-sized cow in less than 2 weeks, costing ranchers millions of dollars in losses each and every year. Using funds provided by the USDA, Dr. Knipling and Dr. Bushland focused on sterilizing the insects. Thanks to their efforts over 20- plus years, the screwworm population was eradicated in the U.S. by 1982, leading to healthier livestock markets and lower beef prices for consumers after only $250,000 in basic research. As vice chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I am pleased these men will be honored this year, and I hope my colleagues will keep their story in mind as the House considers how to use scientific research in the Nation's collective interest.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Farm Credit. The Farm Credit system we know today was established in 1916 under the Federal Farm Loan Act. This law aimed to increase credit to rural family farmers by focusing on providing capitol for agricultural development. This was important to our country primarily due to the fact that, at that time, families who lived and worked on farms made up the largest demographic of the country. While the demographics of our country may have changed over the past 100 years, the important role Farm Credit plays in our rural communities has not. Farm Credit has made it a priority over the years to invest in and support the industries and individuals that are vital to the success of rural communities across the country. By supporting the future of the agriculture industry, Farm Credit helps to insure that agriculture and rural communities will continue to be a vibrant, successful and lasting part of our country.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to note that there are only a handful of my colleagues on the floor or in the body who were here when the precedent for this process was set in 1995. Some of my colleagues on this side of the room argue that we are setting a new precedent. We are not. Some of you remember 1994, when I came as a new Member in a special election. Some of you remember the economic chaos, the near collapse of the District of Columbia and the city of Washington. Some of you remember how we were told in those days that you can't go into certain parts of town because it is not safe. Some remember the stories about how a high percentage--if not almost half--the police cars wouldn't run at any one time. I remember waking up one July night and looking out the fifth-floor window of the apartment building I was in as the firemen were hosing down a spot not many paces from the corner of First and D Streets where someone had been killed, literally within hundreds of feet of the Federal campus. Washington, D.C., the District of Columbia, was about to collapse into chaos--1994. So what did we do in 1995? We passed a bill very similar to this. We set up a supervisory board that took control of the finances to help right the ship. For 2 years, there were tremendously painful decisions made here in Washington, D.C., at the municipal level; but after those 2 years, we had 4 years of balanced budgets, and the Control Act, as it was called, was suspended. It was successful. And the renaissance this town, this community has gone through all started with that bill in 1995. Now, I am voting for this piece of legislation because I believe my fellow American citizens who live in Puerto Rico deserve the right to have a renaissance, deserve the right to move forward. But we are all Members of elected bodies and we know how tough these decisions and situations are. Pass this bill; create the supervisory board; give the good citizens of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth, our fellow Americans, a chance to benefit, just as Washington, D.C., did. They deserve the chance.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, the President submitted his final annual budget proposal to Congress this week. It was my hope that the President would have used this opportunity to progress an agenda that reflects our Nation's needs. Unfortunately, it seems to be exactly the opposite. The President's proposed budget is supposed to serve as a blueprint for our Nation's prosperity. Sadly, his plan offers an unrealistic way forward. Currently, our national debt stands at over $19 trillion. If the President got his way, that number would rise to $27 trillion over the next decade. The President has chosen to ignore the facts. If Americans have to balance their checkbooks and live within their means, so should the Federal Government. To pay for his spending, the President hopes to raise taxes and institute a $10 per barrel levy on an already anemic oil industry. I believe my constituents deserve better than that from the President, and we should work together to ensure certainty, not uncertainty, in today's challenging environment.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. I thank Chairman Chabot for the opportunity to visit this day about our friend and old colleague. Mr. Speaker, I came to this body in May of 1994 in a special election; and I can't remember whether it was that day or the next day or the day after, but that is when I met Mike. He had a way of charming and disarming you, a way of being warm. Mike, from that very first moment, referenced me as ``Big Frank.'' Now, I am not sure whether he was representing height or girth, but that was his affectionate term. He noted to me in that first conversation we had that he, too, had been a ``special election baby'' and that I was pursuing the route that he pursued, not coming in as a part of a big class, but coming in by myself, as he had done in 1981, getting to know the Members, working the way to the committee that I would want to be on, as he had done. He had a very open-arms sort of a fashion. Now, I will confess that, even at that point, I understood in those days, as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, an E&C guy, the unique nature of that committee. But he was always kind and warm to me. And when, as the result of a great compromise--actually, a statement, when we became a part of the majority then not that many months later-- because Mike had served in the minority from 1981 until we became the majority in 1995, in January. He had served in the minority. He understood both sides of the perspective. Ultimately, in the great compromise of 2001, when he came to be chairman of what used to be the Banking and Urban Affairs Committee, the Financial Services Committee, and brought substantial new jurisdictions to the committee, Mike made a huge difference. Suddenly, it went from the committee that Members wanted off of to one of those committees that everyone wanted to be on. Suddenly, it became a committee of action that wasn't just a constant battle over whether Karl Marx or Adam Smith was right, but a committee that made a difference. And the way he worked with both Republicans and Democrats, the way he addressed the crises that we dealt with--Sarbanes-Oxley being a major example of a piece of reform legislation that no one ever thought would occur; that was Mike Oxley. As my friends have said before and my friends will say after me, an amazing fellow, a charming personality, a kind of individual that I would describe as an old-school Member of Congress, an old-school chairman. What do I mean by that? Someone who cared about this place and cared about the Members. Sometimes that is absent now in what we do. But he cared about the institution, and he cared about the membership. He cared about the country, and it was demonstrated in his work product. I am a better person, a better Member of Congress, for having served with Mike from the day I walked in here in 1994 until his retirement at the end of 2006, a better Member. I think this place is better for him having been a Member. The only regret I have is that there are not more Mike Oxleys out there; there are not more Mike Oxleys out there. But, you know, his legacy, I think, should lead all of us to try and emulate the way he conducted himself, the way he focused, the way he worked. If we do that, then his spirit will live on. Again, Chairman Chabot, thank you for the opportunity to come and visit about my friend and the fellow that I served with for half of his career in Congress. And to the family, thank you for having shared him with us for all those years, all those years. Thank you.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. I thank Chairman Smith for the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3293, Scientific Research in the National Interest Act. The NSF invests about $6 billion of public funds each year on research projects and related activities. It is the only Federal agency that is dedicated to the support of fundamental research and education in all scientific and engineering disciplines. Since its creation in 1950, the NSF has served a mission that helps make the United States a world leader in science and innovation. In recent years, however, the NSF has seemed to stray away from its created purpose and has funded a number of grants that few Americans would consider in the national interest. H.R. 3293 seeks to restore the NSF's critical mission by requiring the NSF to explain in writing and in non-technical language how each research grant awarded supports the national interest and is worthy of Federal funding. Now, think about that for a moment: not just explaining it in scientific terms that the fellow scientific community can understand, but also in terms that taxpayers can understand. In a time of distrust and suspicion of the Federal Government and of all institutions, that is a very important key point, being able to explain to the folks back home why it matters. The bill also sets forth that NSF grants should meet one of seven criteria that demonstrates the grant is in the national interest. Today, as was noted by the chairman, the NSF is able to fund only one out of every five proposals. This is a critical bill to restore faith in the process. We need to pass this.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. I thank the ranking member. Mr. Chairman, I will note to my colleagues that I think the world of the gentleman from Georgia. He is a wonderful fellow as he is trying to help his people, but politics is like life--a lack of action is an action. When there was no action to help move an Export-Import reauthorization bill this spring or this summer, then the opportunity to do all of these great things went away. We all knew it was going to expire in July, and the people in critical positions chose to let that happen. Discharge was just an opportunity to resurrect what has already died. Now, I would say this: Let's finish the process. Let's put it back on the books for 4 years. Let's start the hearing process. If there are reforms and changes that need to be made, then let's file a new bill, and let's go with it; but let's not stop the opportunities economically that are created by this in the intervening period of time. Mr. Chairman, I would say respectfully to my friend from Georgia, who has out-Southerned me, you are wrong on this one, sir.

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. I thank the ranking member. Mr. Chairman, I will just simply ask my colleagues: Why did we get to this point? Why should we vote against this amendment? Why should we vote against all 10 amendments? It is because, 100 years ago, our friends--our predecessors--set up a system so that, if a Speaker or a chairman thwarted the will of the body, there would be a way for the membership to bring it forward and pass it; but the system had to be created so streamlined that that same force or forces working to prevent the body from working its will could not overcome it. Last week, we demonstrated that rule worked. Unfortunately, today, we are demonstrating they didn't quite think everything through, because we are revoting or we are voting on 10 issues on a subject matter that was solved last week. My colleagues, if you enjoy being here this evening, if you enjoy listening to this debate all over again, I am sorry. The proponents didn't do this. We thought we had won by playing fair and square last week. Furthermore, we would have loved this debate 6 months ago.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is relevant that we think for a moment about the Bank. Some of my friends here who press these amendments--which, I would remind you, you should vote against all of them--say that they are not trying to kill the Bank. They are trying to do something. Well, didn't the Bank expire in July? Isn't it no longer able to do new business? Isn't that the definition of dead? By their lack of action, which is inaction, they killed it. Now they say, with their actions, they will resurrect it? Not likely, my friends. Turn all these amendments down. Let's get on with the core business here. Let's fight the fight we fought last week again, and one more time let's give American business an opportunity to compete with the rest of the world. Who knows--we might have to do this three or four more times, but let's keep doing the right thing for American workers. Let's keep doing the right thing for American business. That is all I am asking: just do the right thing and abide by the decision of the House and the majority of the majority.

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. Madam Chair, my colleagues, I would urge you to reject this amendment and all the amendments. This process should have happened 6 months ago. It should have happened in committee. It should have happened in regular order. But we weren't allowed to do that. We have been forced into this position. Reject this amendment, reject these amendments, and then let's begin the process of real reform.