Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, I am introducing this amendment in an effort to provide legal certainty for coin collectors who own certain coinage minted before January 1, 1933. My amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to seize or take possession of any coin, medal or numismatic item made or issued by the United States Mint before January 1, 1933, that is not already in the possession of the United States Government. Under current law, the Mint has the authority to seize coins created during this period if it believes that they are unauthorized coins. These unauthorized coins were never properly issued, but were created by people at the Mint or working with the Mint more than 75 years ago. A classic example is the case of the 1913 Liberty Head nickels. And now these items are a part of our numismatic heritage. These coins have likely been publicly bought and sold several times over without the Mint ever attempting to confiscate them. My amendment seeks, therefore, to provide legal certainty for coin collectors that they may buy, own or sell these coins without the threat of government seizure. Again, this amendment will only apply to any coin, medal or numismatic item made or issued before January 1, 1933. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply like to note that in the way this amendment is constructed, it would not require the additional expenditure funds, I believe. I believe in the way that it is crafted, it simply would prevent the Federal Government from using existing funds to take an action against numismatic collectors who have these pre-1933 items. And I believe this is crafted well within the rules of the House.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee regarding the Indian Arts and Crafts Museum funding within the Department of Interior. Chairman Dicks, I stand here today in support of the continued funding of the 2008 Interior appropriations bill for the three Regional Indian Arts and Crafts Museums that are currently operated by the Indian Arts and Crafts Board. Congress passed the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, which created and charged the Indian Arts and Crafts Board with promoting the Indian arts and crafts movement and with protecting the integrity of the art from nonIndian counterfeiters selling products advertised as ``Indian made.'' To aid in this mission, the board operates three regional museums including the Southern Plains Indian Museum in Anadarko, Oklahoma; the Museum of the Plains Indian in Browning, Montana; and the Sioux Indian Museum in Rapid City, South Dakota. In 1935 Congress recognized, under the first Indian Arts and Crafts Act, the unique and culturally rich art of the American Indian is vital to the importance of the economic welfare of tribal communities. The production and sale of these items provide an entrepreneurial opportunity to one of the most economically challenged groups of our society. These three museums play an essential role in promoting the ideals set forth in the Indian Arts and Crafts Act by creating interest in the Native American heritage, helping Indian artisans gain access to an interested market, and bringing members of the Indian arts community together to celebrate and preserve this way of life. The collections showcased by the museums are extensive in their display of American Indian artwork and artifacts. And to preserve the history and integrity of these priceless collections, the museums must stay intact and the collections under their roofs must stay in Federal control. I stand today in full support of appropriations to support the mission of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board and insist that the funding and operation of the three Regional Indian Arts and Crafts Museums remain a continued, imperative part of this mission. Mr. Chairman, it is the understanding of the committee that Congress charged the Indian Arts and Crafts Board with developing and expanding the market for the products of Indian art as well as protecting the integrity of such items through prohibiting and investigating instances of misrepresentation of ``Indian-made'' products.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, it is the understanding of the committee that the funding and operation of the three Regional Indian Arts and Crafts Museums in their housing, preserving, and promoting Native American history, art, and culture is clearly an essential part of the mission that Congress charged the Indian Arts and Crafts Board with.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman and the ranking member and the committee for their very diligent work this year.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify that that it is the intent of the committee that the money provided for the fiscal year 2008 Interior appropriations bill for the continued functions of the Arts and Crafts Board does include the operation of those three museums.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is to remove $810,000 in salaries and expenses from the Office of the Under Secretary For the Natural Resources and the Environment. Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege since and during the 2002 farm bill of chairing the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the conservation programs. In the 2002 farm bill we did an outstanding job of bringing new and substantial resources to conservation. Since then I have had the privilege of working with Chairman Bonilla and the subcommittee on appropriations in making sure those resources are effectively put in the hands of producers out there to protect our environment, our soil, our water, our wildlife. But after a number of years, I have worked diligently to address problems in the technical assistance programs, how these problems are paid for, the implementation. I must say after much frustration with working with the national office of the NRCS today I have to take action. In that I offer this amendment to set aside $810,000 so that when the Appropriations Committee begins the process of putting the final conference committee reports together this fall, that they will have the necessary ammunition to correct this situation. I know it is a bold statement, and I know it is a serious thing; but making sure that the technical assistance dollars are available to local and State NRCS offices so that the farm bill programs, conservation programs can be implemented is of the greatest importance. And only after tremendous frustration as a subcommittee chairman on the authorizing committee do I take this bold and drastic step.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4473. It has been 5 years since this body last passed legislation aimed at reauthorizing the CFTC, which has jurisdiction over futures and options markets. The Ag Committee has jurisdiction over futures and options because the derivatives were first developed on agricultural products, or commodities as they are commonly called. These innovative products are now predominantly traded on other financial products, such as interest rates and foreign currencies. The CFTC implemented the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 in a very straightforward and responsible manner. Yes, there have been a few bumps in the road, but overall CFMA has been very successful. What issues brought us to the point in 2000 that a major rewrite of the futures laws and passage of CFMA was required? The U.S. futures markets were quickly losing ground to foreign exchanges in the late 1990s due to heavy-handed regulation and antiquated business models. The over-the-counter markets were coming to grips with the fact that they did not have a high enough degree of legal certainty to ensure that their swap products would not be challenged in court as illegal off-exchange futures. And, finally, some foreign exchanges were beginning to seriously encourage the development of single stock futures products. The futures markets, and other agricultural commodities, were deregulated to allow them to compete with foreign exchanges in both open outcry and electronically traded arenas. The OTC markets were given legal certainty, and the single stock futures guidelines were set in place. Fast forward to 2005, what has happened? The domestic futures and options exchanges have been reinvigorated. The OTC market is thriving, and a few issues have come to light. The President's working group, consisting of the Federal Reserve, Treasury, the SEC and the CFTC, have weighed in on the Zelener case which found that the CFTC did not have adequate authority to stop certain fraudulent activities regarding retail currency transactions. H.R. 4473 will authorize the CFTC to stop those unscrupulous actors. The natural gas markets have become an arena of intense scrutiny over the last few years. There is unprecedented demand for natural gas and still a fairly captive supply in the U.S., and indeed the world. It will take time for the energy bill that we recently passed to increase supply, and we are most likely in a period of relatively high natural gas prices. The CFTC does have fairly broad authority under the CFMA to investigate the natural gas markets. It is a very fine line for Congress and the CFTC to decide how much to regulate a market without creating excessive regulatory burden or causing it to become inefficient or allowing another country to become the leader of trading in that commodity. As a member of both the Agriculture and Financial Services Committees, I know how seriously the two chairmen take their responsibilities. I also know that fair and appropriately applied regulation is necessary. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4473.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 643, the bill just considered.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 643) to amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 to reauthorize State mediation programs.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 643. S. 643 will reauthorize USDA's Certified State Mediation Program through 2010. The State Mediation Program provides agricultural producers and the government with the means to allow a neutral third party to settle disputes between producers and USDA instead of going through potentially costly and time-consuming court cases. I have introduced S. 643's companion bill in the House, H.R. 1930. Since the bills are identical, it would be the most expedient thing to simply pass S. 643 so that the bill can go on to the White House for the President's signature. What is the Certified State Mediation Program? When producers and the USDA are in disagreement regarding loans, wetlands remediation, conservation compliance, grazing, pesticides, and other issues deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Agriculture, any State with a program can allow a mediator to help solve the differences between the producers and USDA. Both sides must agree to the mediator chosen to help resolve the dispute. Mediators can only help reach an agreement that both sides agree to abide by. The mediators are not arbitrators whose decisions are legally enforceable. The mediators work to find consensus. If the two sides involved in the dispute cannot reach agreement, they still have all the legal options available to them. States that decide to participate in the program must go through a certification process and provide 30 percent of the program's operating costs. The program is authorized to spend up to $7.5 million per year but, in 2004, only $3,950,000 was needed to operate the program in over 30 States. The program provides a great deal of bang for the buck and has been highly successful and useful. The USDA's Farm Service Agency, FSA, works with States to ensure that their mediation programs are meeting all required standards, and it also helps those States that are interested in becoming certified to navigate and complete the approval process. One of the most important aspects of the program is that it provides strict confidentiality for those who decide to use the mediation program. I have a breakdown of the States that are currently certified mediation States and the amount of money they received in 2004, I am happy to make that information available to any interested Member. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 643 to ensure that an extremely practical and cost-efficient program continues to be utilized. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 184, a bill recognizing a National Week of Hope in commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City. Yes, Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, on April 19, 1995, an act of unimaginable death and destruction occurred in Oklahoma City when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was blown up in one of the deadliest terrorist attacks on American soil, killing 168 of our friends and family, 19 of them children. In that instance, America's heartland lost its innocence. It shocked our Nation. It changed our lives forever. Few events in the past quarter century have rocked Americans' perceptions of themselves and their institutions and brought together the people of our Nation with greater intensity than this heinous act. My primary district office was a block and a half away from the Murrah Building. I will never forget, I will never forget being in Dallas with the rest of the Oklahoma Federal delegation at a BRAC hearing when a news station radio reporter tapped me on the shoulder and said, Congressman, we have a report that the Federal building in Oklahoma City has been bombed. They say the building is gone. Where is your office? The thoughts that went through my mind in that instant about my loyal staffers. The delegation came rushing back. As I walked through my damaged office, a block and a half away, on the opposite side of the Murrah Building, looking at the destruction, and being thankful I had lost none of my people, but knowing the heartbreak, the helplessness we all felt looking at that terror, that devastation that transpired on that day. Now, the bombing was a cowardly act of tragic proportions, and 10 years after the bombing, many of those affected are still trying to make sense of it. But what we know for certain is that on that day we came together as a State and as a Nation in the face of adversity. We comforted those afflicted, we rebuilt our devastated city, we did not let the terrorists win. I want to take this time to honor and remember not only those who lost their lives, but also those who survived. We honor those who lost loved ones, those who upon hearing of the devastation rushed to the city to offer what help they could, the firemen, the policemen, the nurses, the structural engineers, even the community members who brought food and water for the rescuers. They are heroes to all Oklahomans. Like so many other people in Oklahoma, this event has shaped my life, and as the U.S. Congressman representing downtown Oklahoma City at the time of the bombing, I have had the privilege and the opportunity to work these past 10 years to help ease the burden on Oklahoma City as a result of that devastating tragedy. From requesting Federal money to assisting in the rebuilding efforts, to introducing to the House the legislation that established the national memorial, I am honored to have had the chance to help in some small way. Mr. Speaker, I close today the way I closed a speech I made on this very House floor on May 2, 1995, just 13 days after the attack. As you remember, a spontaneous memorial formed around the perimeter of the Murrah Building, just as one did years later in New York City, a mound of wreaths, bouquets, teddy bears, tear-stained poems laid out, paying tribute to those who perished. One particular offering spoke, I believe, for all Oklahomans. It consisted of a teddy bear with a paper heart attached, bearing a crayon inscription which read as follows: ``Oklahoma, brokenhearted, yes; broken spirit, never.'' Ten years after the bombing, we Oklahomans are stronger than ever.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, On December 29 of last year, the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People's Congress took a highly provocative action when it voted to submit an ``Anti-Secession Law'' to the full Congress which convenes on March 5. The text of this proposed law was not made public, but there can be no doubt about its intent. It is intended to create in China's national law the legal justification for a military attack against Taiwan. The law would spell out a range of activities which, if taken by the Taiwanese people and their democratically elected leaders, would legally constitute secession. Many of these activities, such as Constitutional reform and popular referenda, are the mainstay of any democracy. Yet the Chinese would use them as a legal excuse for a military attack. Mr. Speaker, this proposed ``anti-secession'' legislation which the National People's Congress plans to take up in March, is a significant and dangerous development. It goes far beyond the usual bellicose verbal threats of Chinese leaders. It would use Chinese national law as a rationale for military aggression against its democratic neighbor. The United States, for more than 25 years since the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act, has made clear its determination that the future of Taiwan must be decided only by peaceful means, not by force of arms, and that any final determination must be in accord with the wishes of the people of Taiwan. These are the fundamental building blocks upon which the future of the Taiwan Strait must rest: peace, and mutual consent between both sides. I urge the leadership of the PRC to put aside this ill- considered law as inimical to both peace and goodwill.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

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

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment No. 5 simply prohibits funding from being transferred from EQIP, WHIP, GRP, and FRPP to other conservation programs such as CRP and WRP for the purpose of technical assistance. I have been asked on numerous times if CRP, WRP, continuous CRP and CREP sign-ups would still occur if this amendment was passed. It would be up to the USDA to find other funds from which to provide this technical assistance. Mr. Chairman, quite simply put, I think it is a fairness issue. The programs should pay for themselves from their own expenditures.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. The gentleman much appreciates the Chair's offer. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he might consume that remains to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment printed as No. 4 in the Congressional Record. I know that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and his staff have worked diligently to create this year's bill under a very tight allocation. In fiscal year 2003, USDA cut $284 million from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Farmland Protection Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and the Grassland Reserves Program. I would like to include USDA's fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 chart of donor and recipient programs for the Record. Most of this money was spent to provide technical assistance for each of the aforementioned programs. However, language in FY 2003's omnibus allowed USDA to take money from those four programs and provide technical assistance for the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program. In FY 2004, USDA diverted almost $80 million to CRP and WRP. This creation of donor programs was caused by various interpretations of the 2000 farm bill and, unfortunately, has ended in four important programs being drained of funds. The budget recently passed by the House provided a fix for CRP and WRP so they would be able to pay for their own technical assistance. Unless the Senate acts on the budget, I am afraid that we will once again see the four donor programs losing a great amount of funding to CRP and WRP. I have held numerous hearings on technical assistance issues, and it is hard to find a solution. Since the Senate has not passed the budget, the only fair solution is for each program, each program to pay for its own technical assistance. If we do not address this issue, USDA has estimated that for FY 2004, $100 million will be transferred from EQIP, Farmland Protection, WEP, GRP in order to provide technical assistance. This number is most likely only to grow larger in FY 2005. Consider for a moment that the Farmland Protection Program this year is $112 million. And WEP, the Wildlife Enhancements Program, is $60 million. Based on last year's number, the $100 million spent on technical assistance for CRP and WRP is more than the entire WEP program and almost as much as the entire Farmland Protection Program. I urge Members to support this amendment. Point of Order

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.