Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Congressman Hudson, who has crafted a key component of this major reform bill.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), an outstanding Member who also has worked a key portion of this bill, and his legislation reflects it.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4413, the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act. This is a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that I introduced along with my colleagues, Ranking Member Collin Peterson and chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, Mike Conaway and David Scott. This bill is years in the making, and I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for all of the hard work that they have put in to get us to this point. Throughout this process, the committee, as well as the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, held numerous hearings, heard from a variety of stakeholders with a wide variety of perspectives. We heard from end users representing farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, energy firms, and utilities. We heard testimony from every CFTC Commissioner and even foreign regulators. We also heard from exchanges, futures customers, and numerous other market participants. Ultimately, we developed legislation to reauthorize and reform the CFTC in a way that would not only improve operations at the agency, but also protect customers from another market failure, as we saw with MF Global or PFGBEST. Our efforts will also increase certainty in the marketplace and provide a more balanced approach to regulations impacting job creators. I am proud to say this overwhelmingly bipartisan bill passed unanimously out of the Agriculture Committee by a voice vote. First of all, H.R. 4413 will better protect farmers and ranchers who use the futures markets to manage their risk by cementing several new and existing protections into law. These protections are designed to restore confidence in the marketplace following the failure of MF Global and PFGBEST, where customers, who thought their money was safely segregated, suffered severe financial loss due to the illegal use of their funds. Such protections include requiring firms to calculate and report customer account balances electronically to regulators, requiring firms who become undercapitalized to immediately notify regulators, and imposing strict reporting and permission requirements before the movement of a customer's funds from one account to another. Now, as for the reforms of the Commission, H.R. 4413 reauthorizes the appropriations to the agency through 2018. Furthermore, the bill strives to enhance the efficiency of the Commission operations and ensure all Commissioners' voices are heard in the regular order of a well-reasoned rulemaking process. For example, H.R. 4413 closely follows an executive order issued by President Obama to improve the quality of cost-benefit analysis performed by the Commission prior to promulgating rules; requires division directors to serve at the pleasure of the entire Commission, rather than solely at the whim of the chairman; and clarifies the judicial review process of agency rules. The Commission reform title also calls for the development of a much- needed strategic technology plan to enhance market surveillance and the interpretation of collected data. Importantly, H.R. 4413 also provides much-needed relief to end users. Those are the market participants who account for only 10 percent of the swaps market and had nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis, yet represent 94 percent of U.S. job creators, including farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, energy firms, and utilities. Due to the consideration of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress clearly intended to exempt end users from some of the most costly new regulations. However, the CFTC has narrowly interpreted the law, resulting in burdensome and often arbitrary compliance requirements which have negatively impacted end users by making it more difficult and costly to manage the risks associated with their businesses. To address these concerns, H.R. 4413 includes provisions which relieve business owners from arbitrary and costly record-keeping requirements, allow businesses to continue successful fuel-hedging strategies, and prevent the physical delivery of commodities from being unnecessarily regulated as swaps. H.R. 4413 provides help to America's job creators by including five carefully crafted measures designed to enhance market certainty, which have previously passed the House of Representatives Agriculture Committee and the United States House of Representatives, with overwhelming bipartisan support, three of which received over 400 votes in favor. In closing, the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act is a wide-ranging, bipartisan CFTC reauthorization bill that provides a blueprint for the newly elected Chairman and Commissioners to use in making numerous improvements at the Commission, better protects futures customers, and reduces burdens on America's job creators. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation. I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC, May 21, 2014. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4413, the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act. As you noted, there are provisions of the bill that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. I appreciate your willingness to forgo action on H.R. 4413, and I agree that your decision should not prejudice the Committee on the Judiciary with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I will also include a copy of our exchange of letters in the Congressional Record during floor debate. Thank you for your courtesy in this matter and I look forward to continued cooperation between our respective committees. Sincerely, Frank D. Lucas, Chairman.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), who not only has a key component of this bill, but in his role as chairman of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management carried the lion's share of the subcommittee hearing work and the day-to-day efforts that came to be known as H.R. 4413.

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 move that the Committee do now rise.

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. 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. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the enrollment of the bill, H.R. 4413, the Clerk is authorized to correct the table of contents, section numbers, punctuation, citations, cross references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending this bill.

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 on the bill, H.R. 4413.

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.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding citizen of Oklahoma's third congressional district. Dr. David Cockrell of Stillwater, Oklahoma, will soon be elected President of the American Optometric Association (AOA) as the association's 92nd president. Dr. Cockrell is a graduate of the Southern College of Optometry. He is a past president of the Southwest Council of Optometry, and served in Oklahoma as chair of the Congress Committee as well as the State and Federal Legislative Committees. He is also a past President of the Oklahoma Association of Optometric Physicians and has been honored as the Oklahoma Optometrist of the Year. In 2012, he was named Distinguished Optometrist of the Year by the Oklahoma Association of Optometric Physicians. These are just a few ways in which David has served his community, profession, and colleagues over the years. Dr. Cockrell is a dedicated advocate of optometric issues, and I am proud to have him serving as this year's AOA president. What an honor it is to have an Oklahoman serving in such a prestigious capacity! I am confident his leadership will serve his profession well, and I join his family, friends, and colleagues in congratulating him on this tremendous achievement and wish him the very best.

Mr. LUCAS

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

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear that my friend from Georgia agrees with the President on something. That is kind of a fascinating turn of events considering his traditional record, but let's focus for a moment on what the upstream flood control dams do. This is a program that began in the 1940s to build small earthen dams--too small to fall within the Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction--to act as interlocking flood control structures to protect people and property and assets below the structures wherever they may be, all the way to the Atlantic Ocean or all the way to the Pacific Ocean. The problem, you see, is that, as meritorious and as wonderful as these 3,000 structures have worked, time takes its toll on everything, and if we don't pursue this program to rehabilitate them--to extend the life--not only will they not continue the protection of people and of property and of wildlife and not only will they not restrain the silt and manage floods, but they will have to be taken out, and all of the good they have done will be undone. So what does this language in the bill do? It provides cost share money so that local entities can rehabilitate these structures. My colleague was exactly right in that the advance of technology is tremendous. The work that is done should last--instead of 50 years--100 years or more, but we have got 3,000 of these structures, and they are getting older. Spending a little money to extend their lives to continue to protect wildlife and people and property from every structure all the way to the ocean seems like a wise use of resources. Now, I understand that there is something like $900 million in requested funding in 2014 to meet this need. This farm bill language doesn't meet all of that need, but it takes a huge step in the right direction. We spend a lot of money around here on things that last just a few minutes or a few hours or a few days. This is an investment that will last a century in building on a previous half century's investment--a wise use of resources. The government built these dams to protect life and property, and many of these structures are hitting their life expectancies. Let's spend a little bit to continue that wise investment. Yes, let's keep the silt out of the streams, and, yes, let's enhance the wildlife qualities up and down these streams, but don't ever forget not just the property but the people who can sleep at night without the fear of what Mother Nature may do because of the upstream flood control dams. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I urge them to continue to support the investment that has been so wisely made since the 1940s. Please vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. My friends, once again, slightly different amount, same subject. What can I say? Yes, in the process of putting the farm bill together, where we saved $23 billion, we looked very carefully at all of the programs underneath our jurisdictions. Many things were reformed, reducing spending. Some things that have worked extremely well actually received more resources. I think that part of being competent and wise legislators is assessing how the resources are used, reducing spending in wasteful areas, and enhancing spending in areas that are wisely spent. I think that is what we are about here. Now, I know that apparently there are outside groups that have chosen to score this, and I would remind my friends that they score a variety of things. But why do you have to pick on the things that affect rural America? Why do you have to address the infrastructure issues that go after public safety, preservation of property, life itself? I suppose if you are sitting somewhere in an ivory tower typing out scorecards, you can pick the things that are less relevant to you. But of those 3,000 structures scattered across America, dating back to the 1940s, countless, countless lives and millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars of property have been protected. I think that is a good use of our resources, a wise commitment in how we allocate our funds. Now, some of my colleagues have alluded to the way in which the funds are handled, the mandatory dollars coming through the farm bill every so many years and how, in the magical process called appropriations, some of that mandatory money becomes discretionary. I do not pretend to have enough time to discuss the nuances of that art form, but I will say this: as long as the resources are of sufficient caliber to make a major effort in meeting the needs that exist, whether it is through the every 5-year farm bill or the annual appropriations process by our friends on the Ag Subcommittee of Appropriations, let's just do the right thing. And on this occasion, we are doing the right thing. If you care about long-term investments, if you care about public safety, if you care about property--and I repeat one more time: for those of you have ever been in the field that look at these structures, they act to control silt flows in streams. That is important to wildlife and fish. That is important to water quality, and they inhibit these floods that come, and then they meter the water out in a slow fashion. The overwhelming lion's share of them do not impound water, they simply slow the process down so that the streams and rivers below can handle it. My real regret here is that we haven't put more effort in the last 50 years into these structures. If we had, if we would have, if we could, or if we will some day, the effect on the environment, the effect on our fellow citizens will be tremendous, even more than it is now. Again, please reject this amendment. I know my Republican friends here are very sincere in following the President's lead on this, but please reject this amendment. Let's continue to make this investment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I respect my colleague from Tennessee greatly. I believe he is very sincere in what he is trying do. I do not question his motives. I have great faith in Congressman Duncan. But this amendment, like the previous amendment, has long-term ramifications. They have long-term ramifications on previous investments made. Let's reject these two amendments. Let's continue the good work that has been done. Let's focus on the things that we need to be doing. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who has some of the most productive agricultural land and some of the most amazing farmers and ranchers.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest of pleasure that I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek) who is so focused on these issues.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I believe I have the right to close. I reserve the balance of my time, unless we are ready to close.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I would also like to join my colleague in adding to the Congressional Record a list of the majority staff members. I must say in all fairness, while there was cooperation among the members of the committee itself, the cooperation among House and Senate Members was exemplary. I would also note the work of our staff, those good men and women, R and D, House and Senate, over the course of these years cannot be underestimated or underappreciated. The hours, the spirit of comity, the focus on accomplishing things, trying to do good policy, it just cannot be overstated how important all those good folks have been. With that, Mr. Speaker, let me simply close by saying this: no one cares more about agricultural policy, farmers and ranchers, consumers and everyone in the process that takes it from the seed to the plate or the bowl than I do. But I think in good faith I can say my colleague Mr. Peterson cares just as much as I do. The members of our committee care just as much as we do. This bill, done in what I would like to define as regular order through the committee process and the floor and the conference, may not have exactly everything my friends on the right would want or my friends on the left would want, but it represents making the process work, achieving consensus, putting into place policies that are better than what were there before to drive this effort forward. I know that we sincerely disagree on many things, and I know some of my friends don't sometimes act like they care about what happens out on the farm or the ranch. I know that is not the case. They do care. But I would simply say this: no matter how much money we spend on supplemental programs to make sure our fellow citizens have enough to eat--and that is important--never forget if there is not a product on the shelf, if there is not meat in the case, if there are not vegetables or fruit available, it doesn't matter how much you subsidize. The food has to be there. That is why I have said all along a farm bill still has to have farm in it. This Agriculture Act of 2014 lives up to that. It makes a commitment to our fellow citizens who are in tough times, but it will also ensure the food will be there. Don't take us down the path that many other countries have gone through in the last century of people lined up at empty shelves, people hoarding particular ag products because it is available that day because they will trade it the next day when something might be available. Let's continue to do this miracle called American agriculture. Oh, by the way, depending on how you define ``miracle'' in the environment we have worked together in, this farm bill might not be quite defined by most people as a miracle, but it is amazingly close. Mr. Speaker, let's pass the conference report, let's complete our responsibilities, let's show the rest of this place how it is supposed to be done. I yield back the balance of my time. House Committee on Agriculture Staff List Majority Staff: Brent Blevins, Caleb Crosswhite, Mike Dunlap, Bart Fischer, Jason Goggins, John Goldberg, Tamara Hinton, John Konya, Kevin Kramp, Brandon Lipps, Alan Mackey, Brian Martin-Haynes, Josh Mathis, Josh Maxwell, Merrick Munday, Danita Murray, Mary Nowak, Riley Pagett, Matt Schertz, Nicole Scott, Debbie Smith, Skylar Sowder, Patricia Straughn, Pelham Straughn, Pete Thomson, Margaret Wetherald.

Mr. LUCAS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), who understands the diversity of weather and understands the challenges that producers have.