Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. This amendment is just another solution in search of a problem. What risk is this amendment looking to eliminate? Both the House Agriculture Committee passed language and the Peterson-Frank amendment, which this seeks to amend, recognize that there are swaps that need not go through the cost and formality of the executed on an exchange or swap execution facility. As long as the regulator can see the swap and has the appropriate tools to mitigate risk to the U.S. financial system, what more does the exchange execution require add? This amendment requires unique agreements of no consequence to anyone but the parties involved to be regulated as if it were a credit default swap transacted between systemically risky counterparties. These swaps serve no price discovery function, they aren't conducted between systemically risky parties, and most are unique for an exchange or SEF to appropriately rate the risk. Forcing these swaps to be executed on an exchange or SEF will only artificially increase the cost of managing risk or discourage legitimate risk management activity altogether. Neither should be the purpose of this legislation. I urge the defeat of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chairman.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Murphy amendment which would, indeed, insert into the bill the House Agriculture Committee passed definition of ``major swap participant'' and ``major security-based swap participant.'' Like the definition of the same term in the Frank-Peterson amendment, the definition in this amendment excludes those positions held primarily for hedging, reducing, or otherwise mitigating commercial risk. Unlike the Peterson-Frank amendment, this definition in this amendment focuses the regulation on swap positions that could have a serious adverse effect on the financial stability of the United States banking system or financial markets. In other words, Mr. Murphy's definition focuses on the big boys, the big guys, those market participants that the regulatory enhancements in this bill are aimed at. It excludes the commercial users that are using over-the-counter markets to risk management, not to try and create wealth. Once again, though, I have to note, the good effect of this amendment may well be lost in the massive overreach of the entire bill.

Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentleman. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in support of the Peterson-Frank amendment. It represents a year-long attempt to balance the needs for stronger regulation and a need to manage legitimate financial risk. Under this amendment, end users will not be regulated as though they were a major financial house residing on Wall Street. They are not systematically risky, they did not cause the financial collapse, and they should not be regulated as if they did. Not all concerns, however, have been resolved. And I would have preferred language that would have made clear only those that can cause a significant, adverse impact on the U.S. financial system to be regulated as major swap participants. For that purpose, I am supporting Congressman Murphy's amendment that we will see shortly to cure that deficiency. Similarly, I don't understand why market makers that only deal in cleared products need to have additional capital and margin requirements imposed on them by the Federal Government. Instead, this amendment allows the appropriate financial regulator to more closely monitor the markets and those that may accumulate or generate too much risk for a healthy and robust financial system. It then gives the regulators the appropriate tools to reduce the risk before it can negatively affect our economy. I have other concerns about this amendment. I am sure we would all do things differently if we could. This amendment isn't perfect, but it is a marked improvement over other legislative efforts either proposed or considered. This amendment is worthy of our support. Now I will also admit, unfortunately, all of the hard work that went into the creation of this amendment may very well be overwhelmed by the massive overreach of the rest of the bill, but we should vote for and support this amendment.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. LUCAS. Can I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining, please?

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. In my concluding remarks, I'd like to observe to my colleagues you can pass a 1,200-page bill, you can set up the process to generate tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations, you can hire an army of faceless bureaucrats to enforce all of that stuff, to make decisions for the economy, to make decisions for business, to make decisions for people, but you can't repeal the laws of supply and demand. If you add enough fees and enough rules and regulations to the process of delivering credit, you will drive away the sources of credit, reduce the supply of credit. At the same time, we hope to reinvigorate this economy, to start it growing again. Demand for credit will go up. What happens when you lower the supply of credit and you raise the demand for credit? Through pieces of legislation like this, ultimately you drive up the cost of credit for everyone. The laws of supply and demand. I know my friends believe they're sincerely doing the right thing, but the right thing in this scenario will drive down the availability of credit while at the same time demand goes up; and costs will go up, too, and that will affect every business, every person, every entity that needs credit. I come from a capital-starved district in Oklahoma. Credit's important to every farmer, rancher, businessperson, every person engaged in the industry of energy production, every individual with a family trying to send their kids to school. Let's not make everything they do cost more. I would now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Bachus of Alabama.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself what time I might consume. Mr. Chairman, I must rise today in opposition to H.R. 4173. Regulatory reform of our financial system is indeed needed. However, rather than using this opportunity to enact meaningful reform that creates financial stability and encourages economic growth, the majority has constructed a massive piece of legislation that will restrict credit availability and does little to address the real problems in the financial industry. In addition to dramatically expanding the power of the Federal Reserve and establishing what is, in effect, a ``credit czar'' who will have virtually unlimited authority to restrict consumer choices, this bill will create a permanent bailout, some would call slush fund, for so-called ``too big to fail'' companies funded by a $150 billion tax on financial institutions. This tax will reduce available capital for lending and will most certainly be passed on to consumers in the form of higher fees. As the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, I also rise in opposition to title III, the OTC derivatives title, that is currently in H.R. 4173. This is the same title that was adopted by the Financial Services Committee. I opposed this title in the committee, where I'm also a member, because it makes it too costly for end-users to manage risk and unnecessarily ties up capital that could otherwise be used to create jobs and grow their businesses. However, Chairman Peterson and Chairman Frank will bring an amendment to the floor that will strike and replace this derivatives title. This Peterson-Frank amendment is the product of negotiations between our two committees. I prefer, I must admit, the version reported by the Agriculture Committee, but this compromise is significantly better than the current title in the bill, and I will support its inclusion. But, I support its inclusion only if the other secondary amendments that may be offered by my friends on the other side of the aisle are defeated, save one. I would be remiss if I didn't thank Chairman Peterson for working with Agriculture Committee Republicans in a process that started back in February when our committee reported out H.R. 977. Chairman Peterson worked in good faith to address issues our members brought to the table, and we learned together the concerns of all of the participants in the over-the-counter derivatives markets. Although we were able to address some of these concerns, many still remain unresolved. We were able to improve areas most important to end-users; the manufacturers, the energy companies and food processors that use swap agreements to manage price risk so they can provide consumers with the lowest-cost products. End-users should not be regulated as though they were major financial houses residing on Wall Street. They did not cause the financial collapse. They should not be regulated like they did. I would have preferred language that would have made clear that only those entities that can have a significant adverse impact on the U.S. financial system be regulated as major swap participants. Similarly, I don't understand why market makers that only deal in cleared products need to have additional capital and margin requirements imposed upon them by the Federal Government. Finally, we should not forget that new opportunities, innovative products and services, and ultimately economic growth are born from people willing and able to take risk and invest. We should not attempt to regulate risk out of existence. As it stands now, the Peterson-Frank amendment allows the appropriate financial regulator to closely monitor market trends and market participants who may generate too much risk for a healthy and robust financial system. This amendment also gives the regulator the appropriate tools to reduce risk before it can negatively affect our economy. The Peterson-Frank amendment isn't perfect, but it is a marked improvement over other legislative efforts either proposed or considered.

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2868, the so- called Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009. It no longer surprises me that the Democratic leadership is, once again, racing to impose more government mandates on our farmers, ranchers and small businesses without considering the economic impact of their actions. From cap-and-trade to food safety and soon to health care, rushing ill-conceived, ill-timed legislation through Congress has shamefully become the norm around here. In renaming the bill the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act to the Chemical and Water Security Act, I appreciate that the authors of the bill at least acknowledge that it has nothing to do with protecting our country from acts of terrorism but, rather, that it has everything to do with pacifying the extreme environmental lobby. Some have said that agriculture should not be concerned about this legislation. Well, if that were true, then a coalition of agriculture groups, which includes the American Farm Bureau Federation, would not be circulating a letter to all Members of Congress urging them to vote against it. Let me be clear: this bill will have a deep and negative impact on the agriculture industry. Under the current regulatory framework, which I would support to reauthorize, farmers would have an extension appropriate to the small risks they impose. Under those regulations, chemical facilities are treated fairly and work with the Department of Homeland Security in a cooperative manner to enhance site security. This legislation destroys that relationship. This legislation contains absolutely no authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant extensions to farmers for the future. In fact, under this bill, there is no authority for the Secretary to provide for the appropriate risk-based treatment of farmers or any other disproportionately affected groups when it reissues its regulations. That's not all. Manufacturers and suppliers of agricultural inputs, like fertilizers and pesticides, will also not be exempt from the nonsecurity-related provisions of the bill. Such provisions will jeopardize the availability of those widely used and lower-cost agricultural inputs that are essential for agriculture production. In essence, this sets up a scenario where input supplies will be limited, where costs will skyrocket and where U.S. food security and the livelihoods of our farmers will be threatened. Beyond devastating the agriculture industry, this bill does not provide any additional security against acts of terrorism, which is supposed to be its purpose. National security will actually be compromised since provisions of the bill will allow citizen lawsuits in the national and homeland security arena.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, this is an irresponsible and carelessly crafted piece of legislation that will impose mandates on family farms, small businesses, hospitals, and universities. It expands the environmental legal framework under the guise of security; and it fails to preserve, let alone expand and protect, current security protections for our country. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, as you've heard my colleagues in the Oklahoma delegation address today, Wes is a unique individual. He is a self-made man. In a world where the American ideal is coming from nothing to becoming something, which is the ideal goal, I think, of all of us, Wes represents that. Remember, he was born just across the line in Arkansas in 1938. He lived his life in Oklahoma. He was born in the Great Depression period, a time of economic challenges for all Oklahomans and all people in rural America. He came from a family that had tremendous challenges. But he and his mother and his brother overcame those. He put himself through university at Oklahoma State. He was southeast district FFA vice president. He was State president of what was then the Future Farmers of America. He made himself a homebuilder. He got himself elected to the State senate over tremendous opposition. He got himself elected to the United States Congress. This individual that we know as Wes, and many Americans on the floor remember as our colleague, Congressman Watkins, is an amazing fellow from the absolute, most humble beginnings in a great little community called Bennington to accomplish for his friends and neighbors back home, because everyone was his friend and everyone was his neighbor, what he did is a testament. That is why I am so pleased and we are so pleased on this side of the aisle to name these two important facilities in the old 3rd Congressional District in his honor because he worked incredibly hard for the good folks of the 3rd District of Oklahoma and, by the actions he took, improved everything for all of us across America. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to discuss H.R. 1713, which would name the South Agricultural Research Laboratory of the Department of Agriculture in Lane, Oklahoma, and the United States Post Office facility in Bennington, Oklahoma, in honor of my friend and predecessor, Wes Watkins. Wes has enjoyed a long and distinguished career in public service, first as a member of the Oklahoma State Senate and then as a United States Congressman from Oklahoma's Third District for 20 years. During his tenure, Wes had the honor of serving on three of the House's most prestigious committees, including Appropriations, Budget, and Ways and Means. Before Wes, no other Congressperson had ever served on all three of the House's major committees during their career. Beyond his committee work, Wes was intimately attuned to the financial needs of the constituents back home in Oklahoma. Recognizing the hardships Oklahoma families had to endure on a daily basis, Wes used his committee assignments to steer resources back to the Third District of Oklahoma. As a part of his efforts to restore financial security to his constituents, Wes took a particularly strong interest in economic development issues, which no doubt changed the economic landscape of Oklahoma's Third District for the better. Let there be no doubt, had it not been for Wes's dedication and strong leadership, Oklahoma's Third District would not have been what it is today. On behalf of Wes Watkins and my constituents back home in Oklahoma, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to a fellow member of the Oklahoma delegation, Congressman Cole.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Today I rise in support of H.R. 3175. This bill will allow the Ag Research Service (ARS) to sell 2 acres of land in southeast Florida to the local government of Miami-Dade County, Florida, for the purpose of constructing a new fire station. Current response times for firefighters in the village of Palmetto Bay and South Coral Gables have fallen below the district-wide average, and there is a safety concern for local residents and neighborhoods. ARS has no current use for the land and supports the sale of the fire station, as does local government and local residents. Miami-Dade County will pay market price for the land along with all associated costs. The Congressional Budget Office has scored H.R. 3175 at no cost to the Federal Government. This bill passed the Agriculture Committee with no opposition, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the Congresswoman from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Mississippi. This resolution recognizes the 100th anniversary of the first experimental forest, which was created in 1908, at Fort Valley, Arizona. Today, there are 78 of these forests in 30 States contributing valuable research and knowledge to help us better manage one of our most precious natural resources, our 750 million acres of forests across America. Experimental forests allow the Forest Service to engage in important research on the threats that our forests face such as invasive species and diseases. These forests allow for Federal research to be conducted on plant and wildlife communities in controlled settings. We know about how best to ensure the health of our forests, rangelands and watersheds, and share their knowledge with States, localities and private landowners. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, having no additional speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 511. This bill will allow the Secretary of Agriculture to terminate certain flood easements in the village of Caseyville, Illinois, in return for compensation. Termination of easements is essential for flood protection projects in Caseyville. This bill has passed the House Agriculture Committee with no opposition. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.