Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, in the next several weeks, we in this body will consider the fate of our Nation's President. This undertaking will be balanced with our continued efforts to do the people's business on this floor. It is imperative that we do not lose site of this as we enter the waning days of the 105th Congress. I have come to the floor this evening, not to discuss the White House crisis, but to discuss the agricultural crisis plaguing rural America. Today will be the first of a series of floor appearances that I plan on making to try and educate my colleagues on the severity of the crisis now facing our Nation's producers. As a cow/calf operator from western Oklahoma, I can tell you firsthand that the crisis in the country is real. Our producers are plagued by weak grain prices, drought, bugs, wildfire, and dwindling forage and hay supplies. Good farmers, good farmers are losing equity and millions of dollars are being lost to our economy. The 1996 Farm Bill was a bold step. In farmer's terms, it can be likened to the purchase of a new farm truck. We expect it to be reliable and dependable. It should have all of the tools to get us through the harvest, and it must be flexible enough to allow us to use our ingenuity to conquer unexpected tasks. In these trying times, I believe it is time to assess whether the farm bill is running right. There are those who would advocate trading the whole thing in for an older model that did not run all that well in the years gone by. I do not think this is the proper route to take. We must diagnose the problem and fine tune the farm bill to make it better. In mid July, the presidents of Oklahoma's major farm groups came to Washington to ask our delegation to come up with short-term and long- term steps to help producers. I asked this group what the number one need was for Oklahoma producers. The number one answer was a quick infusion of cash in producers' hands to help them put in a crop this fall. In response, we passed legislation to speed up the disbursement of $5.5 billion in 1999 market transition payments. This is a good but limited step that must be built upon. Mr. Speaker, the farmers of this country have been hit by what could be likened to the 7 plagues of Egypt: drought, bugs, fire disease, the Asian financial crisis, and low prices. Any one of these is bad, and right now we are being hit by all seven. Over the next several weeks, it is imperative that we in Congress work with the USDA to develop a package of relief for our Nation's producers. This is a must pass issue. We cannot close this session of Congress without responding in some fashion.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the ``Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 1998''. This bill will address the serious infrastructure needs of our nation's aging community sponsored--USDA assisted dams. ``The Small Watershed Amendments of 1998'' provides a responsible legislative proposal aimed at addressing the infrastructure needs of our aging watershed dams. It defines the problems, calls for an assessment of the problem, creates a cost-share program to address the need, and authorizes funding of the program. During the week of July 4th, 1998, a celebration in Cordell, a small farming community in Western Oklahoma, marked the 50th anniversary of America's first United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) floodwater retarding structure. Constructed in 1948, the Cloud Creek Watershed Site #1 was built under the authorization of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 534). This authorization was a result of a belief in Congress that rural watershed protection, flood protection, proper land management, and keeping raindrops close to where they fall was best addressed through technical assistance available through the USDA. Works under P.L. 534 were authorized in 11 major watersheds throughout the country. The success of P.L. 534 spawned the enactment of the Pilot Watershed Program in 1953 and the Watershed Protection and Floodwater Protection Act of 1954 (P.L. 566). P.L. 566 is commonly referred to as the USDA Small Watershed Program. Over 10,000 flood retarding structures have been built across the nation under these combined programs. The Small Watershed Program is one of our nation's most successful public/private partnerships. In all instances, the USDA served as a partner with states and local entities by encouraging sponsorship of sites, providing cost-share funding for construction, doing site and geologic surveys, and providing engineering and design expertise. The local district provided all the land, easements and right of ways, covered local construction costs, managed the contracting process, and continue to operate and maintain completed works. The Cloud Creek celebration serves as a reminder to all of us that over 1,000 of the structures built under these programs are now over 40 years old. Most of the structural measures built have an evaluated life of fifty years or have been swallowed up by urban development. It is time to address the rehabilitation needs of these aging structures. Every state in the Union will eventually be impacted by this problem. I would encourage my colleagues to review the legislation, and I look forward to their support.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I appreciate the opportunity to rise to the floor today to speak on behalf of S. 2344, the companion bill to the gentleman from Oregon's H.R. 4265, an effort to reach out and address some of the needs that we see in rural America in production agriculture. In my very own western Oklahoma between the drought and the bugs and the supply problems, or should I say demand problems that have been brought on by the side effects of what some up here call the Asian flu, the Asian financial flu, I should say, we have some real problems that need to be addressed out in production agriculture. One of the efforts that I think provides a short-term band-aid that puts us in a position in a number of areas to be able to put another crop in the ground this fall is S. 2344. It makes available on or about the first day of October when you consider the option, the option, to take the entire 1999 market transition payment if a farmer who signed up under the 1996 farm bill chooses to do so, you take that money along with the funds that will come in the second half of the 1998 payment, it makes literally $8.3 billion cash available out in farm country for those farmers and ranchers to put into a crop. It does it in a way that my budgeteer friends sitting in the gallery right now who I have worked with, who are very dedicated to maintaining the financial integrity of this country, it does it in a way that does not impact the budget, because as the folks who have spoken before me pointed out clearly, it accelerates to the first day of fiscal year 1999 that farmer's option to take that money. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, this is not a cure-all in itself but this provides us with a window of opportunity. It gives our farmers and ranchers a chance until we can do the things that are necessary to make agriculture as healthy as it could be and should be, things like using every cent in the export enhancement program fund. In the last 3 years, we have had about $1.5 billion that has not been spent. Perhaps that should have been used and should be used and could be used to defend our market share or grow our market share around the world. I am a strong supporter of the CRP program, the conservation reserve program. We have got about 5 million authorized acres out there that are not being used, another 5 million come out in just a matter of weeks, 10 million acres that could be channeled in States like the Minnesotas and the Dakotas and the Texases and the Oklahomas where we do not need to use that soil right now, and because of mother nature, we are going to start losing it into the air and have been losing it into the air. Let us fully utilize CRP. And, yes, the ultimate thing that we have to do as a body in this Congress, and, that is, work to open those markets. We have been grain exporters in this country since the very founding of this Nation. We literally are the breadbasket for the world. But the world has to have access to our commodities and we have to make sure they have an opportunity to purchase those.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. That literally a cow or a sheep is defenseless from a pack when they are on the move together, a factor that we need to bear in mind.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. We have discussed the nature of coyotes. The gentleman having been involved in the livestock business a substantial part of his life, could he describe a moment to my colleagues the nature of coyotes and how they interact in certain times of the year and how they travel in packs and how they go after breeding stock and some of the other things that go along with this?

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference committee report. It has not been all that long ago that we passed the 1996 farm bill, the most dramatic 7-year farm bill in the history of agriculture. At the time that we passed the bill, a majority of the Members of this body supported it, the leadership of this body supported it, the other body supported it by voting for it, and by his signature the President showed his support. What was one of the main points that we made in the 1996 farm bill? We said, ``Farmers, go forth and farm for the market and we will help provide you with the tools that you need.'' Today, Mr. Speaker, we have a wonderful opportunity to help provide those tools. This bill provides additional resources for agricultural research to the tune of $600 million, a commitment that the Federal Government has been involved in for 130 years that has benefited not only farmers and ranchers but the American consumer, as well as crop insurance, almost $400 million to make that program work, to make those resources maximize themselves. The amazing thing is, this is funds that the committee in effect made decisions that were saved, the money was saved in other areas and then spent in these areas. The best of all worlds. We live up to our commitments, we use the resources that we have more efficiently allocated, and we have done what we said we would do. I thank the chairman for the opportunity to support this conference committee report.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1872, the Communications Satellite Competition and Privatization Act of 1998. When Congress set up a satellite monopoly with the Satellite Act of 1962, few people could imagine a day when you could warm up dinner in 60 seconds with a microwave or put a plastic card into an automatic teller machine to get money 24 hours a day. And Congress did not think that private industry could afford to put satellites up into space. With that 1960's logic, Congress created a satellite monopoly to ensure the United States would not be left behind. Clearly, my friends, times have changed since then, and now we have many private businesses that are ready to invest in the satellite industry. In short, the private sector is ready for competition in this industry. But the major roadblock to competition is an outdated Federal law that needs to be brought into the 1990's and bridge us to next Millennium. That's why I'm supporting H.R. 1872, a bill that breaks down decades old barriers to competition by eliminating the bottleneck that has kept satellite rates artificially high. It's time for government to get out of the way and let competition brings its benefits of lower rates and enhanced technology to the satellite industry.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3546, the National Dialogue on Social Security Act. In 1949, when my father entered the work force, people could look at their paychecks, see their Social Security taxes withheld, and feel sure that the money would be waiting for them when they turned 65. When my daughter Jessica signs up for her first job in a year at age 16, and I can assure my colleagues her mother and I will help her find a part-time job, the amount that she sees deducted from her paycheck from Social Security will not only be higher than 1949, but it will not necessarily be waiting for her in about 50 years. In fact, for those of us under the age of 50, we may not be receiving anything until the age 67 or older. Now some say that we have, basically, three options: Raise taxes, cut benefits, or reform the system. One of the causes of our present problems is that high taxes do not allow individuals to save and supplement their pensions and Social Security savings as was originally meant to be done. There has been talk of adjusting the CPI, the Consumer Price Index, so as not to overstate inflation. This would make Social Security COLAs smaller. However, it is unfair to reduce benefits to current retirees. Personally, I am partial to the idea of supplementing, let me repeat that, supplementing our Social Security benefits by allowing individuals to invest for themselves. We should create individual savings accounts that allow individuals to increase retirement incomes by investing a portion of their payroll taxes in the market. These would be a mandatory savings account that could not be drawn on until retirement. A good first step in finding a solution like a personal Social Security account would be to pass this legislation, establish a bipartisan panel to study long-term Social Security reform, and report their findings to Congress no later than February 1, 1999. We should put aside our bipartisan politics and do what is right for the American people. We must make sure that Social Security is there.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Centennial Anniversary of Northwestern Oklahoma State University in Alva, Oklahoma. This institution of higher learning is one of the oldest in the State of Oklahoma. The roots of the school predate Oklahoma's statehood by 10 years. In 1897, the territorial legislature passed a bill establishing the Northwestern Territorial Normal School at Alva, the second such school in Oklahoma Territory. In 1919, the school became Northwestern State Teachers College. The Teachers College then became Northwestern State College in 1939, when the college was authorized to grant degrees in liberal arts, as well as education. With the advent of courses transferable to the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University in 1951 as well as the addition of a variety of master's programs throughout the ensuing years, the college's name was finally changed to Northwestern Oklahoma State University in 1974. Over the past century the curriculum has changed from that of a Normal school to a teacher's college, to a modern diverse university which currently offers bachelor's degrees in nearly 40 areas of study and master's degrees in education and behavioral science. Although Northwestern Territorial Normal School opened on September 20, 1897, the first building, The Castle on the Hill, was not completed until two years later. Classes were originally held in the Congregational Church until a building to house the new college could be built. In 1899 the school moved to its present location. The physical growth of Northwestern Oklahoma State University has continued throughout the past century, including the most recent expansion: the creation of Northwestern campuses in nearby Enid and Woodward in 1996. The size of the Northwestern Oklahoma State University student body has evolved along with the physical facilities and the curriculum throughout the past 100 years. In 1897 enrollment was 58 students; today it is about 2,000 students each semester. As Northwestern Oklahoma State University prepares to enter its second century, it does so as a dynamic institution, offering high levels of education and training in numerous vocational pursuits.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of weeks there has been a great deal of discussion in this body as to the legacy of our great former president, Ronald Reagan. I would like to add a short story which will serve only to enhance this well-deserved legacy. Recently, one of my staffers was watching a television program with his 10-year-old son, David. The program's subject matter dealt with the role of the news media in various wars our Nation has been involved in down through the generations. At one point in the program, David, who I know to always be an inquisitive lad, asked his dad what the Vietnam War was all about. And certainly that is a question that we all ask ourselves from time to time, I might add, but try explaining it to a 10-year-old. While explaining our Nation's involvement in Vietnam to his son, my staffer referred to our country's efforts to stem the spread of Communism during that era. At the mention of the word Communism, David posed a simple yet profound question. ``What's Communism, dad?'' Now, think about that, Mr. Speaker. Our generation is able to raise its children and grandchildren without the real and present fear of Communism and nuclear war with which we grew up. My staffer appropriately responded to his son's question with a truth that he could thank Ronald Reagan for the fact that Communism is now such a failed relic of the past. And I agree with my staffer's assessment. Great strides have been made when a 10-year-old is able to live without the fear that haunted my childhood and yours. No one among us should dispute the fact that under President Ronald Reagan's principled and unwavering leadership on the international stage, Communism crumbled. A new freedom has dawned in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and we live without the fear of days past. At the beginning of this month, on February 6 to be exact, those of us who love and respect this great president joined his family and his admirers around the world in celebrating his 87th birthday. On behalf of our children and their children, thank you, President Reagan, and belated happy birthday.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker. During the first session of the 105th Congress, nearly 300 members of the House rejected the President's federal testing plan as part of the FY 1998 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriation Act. A compromise was reached that prohibited the President from moving forward with national testing in FY 1998. However, no agreement was reached regarding national testing activities in FY 99 or beyond. Therefore, President Clinton is at it again. For some reason the Clinton Administration thinks people inside the beltway know what is best for my children and my constituent's children in Western Oklahoma. The Department of Education is moving forward to write a national test to be voluntarily administered to fourth and eighth graders in reading and math respectively. How can a huge bureaucracy such as the Department of Education know how to test the students of Hollis, Oklahoma? Has anyone from the Clinton Administration ever been to Hollis, Oklahoma? Is it appropriate to give fourth and eighth grade students in Boise City, Oklahoma population 1,509 the same national test as the students in Boston, Massachusetts? What is the Clinton Administration hoping to accomplish with the results of these beltway developed tests? Many questions still need to be answered regarding the manner in which the Administration is moving ahead with test development. During consideration of the FY 98 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Act, I head from hundreds of parents who were irate with the proposal of national testing. Parents, local PTA's, and local school boards know what is best for their local students. Lets support the parents in our districts by voting in support of H.R. 2846 and insuring that Congress will have a voice in developing any sort of voluntary testing. Parents need to know that their children's best interests are being protected.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Forage Improvement Act. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] should be commended by all in this body for bringing this well thought out, bipartisan piece of legislation to the floor of the People's House. As a Congressman who still tries to earn an honest living as a cow/ calf operator in western Oklahoma, or in truth I should point out, because of my responsibilities, whose wife is a cow/calf operator in western Oklahoma, I know firsthand the value that predictability and stability brings to those of us in the livestock industry. The legislation under consideration by the House today provides a uniform and consistent grazing policy that represents great progress toward enabling western ranchers the ability to plan for forage use. This is a good bill. Yes, it raises grazing fees 36 percent. Yes, it requires coordination between the BLM and the Forest Service. Yes, it mandates scientific monitoring of grazing conditions. And yes, it creates authority for Government and ranchers to enter into cooperative management plans. Mr. Chairman, this bill is bipartisan, it instills cooperation, increases Federal revenues, and mandates sound science. It is a good piece of legislation that deserves passage in this House.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2414, the 50 States Commemorative Coin Program Act of 1997. Although most Americans are not coin collectors and do not give them much of a thought, coins are in reality a part of our daily lives. For most, the change in our pockets is something we do not think about. We simply pick through it when making a purchase, paying a toll on the highway, or buying a soda from a vending machine. Perhaps once in a while we may stop to look at a coin when it catches our eye. But for most of us, the pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters are simply coins in our pockets. In a sense, it is unfortunate that we take coins for granted, because they tell a story. For over 2,000 years nations and governments have used coins for commerce. And while many of those nations and governments have not survived, the coins that they created have survived the passage of time and provide a window into the past. In the case of our Nation's coins, we are reminded of our Nation's history and of those people, places, and events which were part of what made this country great. Although I am confident that our Nation will survive for centuries, I believe our coins, and specifically these commemorative quarters, will leave a record for generations to come. It is for that exact reason I am such an avid supporter of this legislation. H.R. 2414 will temporarily change how the quarter looks and replace it with designs emblematic of our 50 States. Beginning in 1999, there will be five new designs every year for the following 10 years, as the chairman and ranking member so eloquently pointed out, in the order in which the States ratified the Constitution. I truly believe that the real benefit of this program is that it will encourage coin collecting by all Americans. Because this is a circulating program, there will be no surcharge, no fees that have often made coin collecting prohibitive for most Americans. The cost of collecting the commemorative quarter set will be $12.50 spread out over 10 years. This means that Americans, regardless of age or income, will be able to collect a complete set. My vision is that this legislation will change the way we see coins. When this program is in place, I hope Americans will stop and take a look at the change they receive when making a purchase, instead of just throwing it in a pocket or a wallet. I hope everyone will stop to look at the designs on the quarters and reflect on our Nation's diverse and rich history which will be reflected in each design. I would like to thank the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the chairman, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], the ranking member, for introducing this legislation and for their efforts to bring it to the floor in such a timely manner. As someone with a personal interest in coins, I appreciate this effort to realize the potential of our Nation's coinage programs. Once again, I urge all Members to support H.R. 2414.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 871, the Oklahoma City National Memorial Act of 1997. I am a sponsor of the companion language, H.R. 1849, which was reported out of the Committee on Resources by unanimous vote on Wednesday, September 17. An amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley]. The language in the substitute amendment was agreed upon by all parties involved. Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Hansen's Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands and their staff for their hard work they have done on this legislation. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Alaska, Chairman Young, and the ranking member, the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, of the Committee on Resources for their support and efforts to move this legislation as expeditiously as is possible. This historic legislation is a huge step in the healing process for the people of my State and the entire Nation. When a massive bomb exploded in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995, it shook Oklahoma City's foundations and shocked the Nation. Few events in history have rocked America's perception of themselves and their institutions and brought together the people of our great Nation with the intensity equal to this devastating crime. Although those losses and struggles are personal, they resulted from a public attack and are shared by my heartland community, the Nation, and the world. One of my district offices is less than a block and a half away from that ill-fated building. When I saw the damage to my office, so near to ground zero, the disbelief that I shared with my staff will never be forgotten. As my colleagues can well imagine, there is no legislative road map to follow in the wake of this tragic event. It is both gratifying and a bit disheartening to realize that much of my legislative agenda in my short career in the House has been shaped by such an evil act. Over the past years, I have had the privilege and opportunity to help ease the burden on Oklahoma City that it has borne as a result of this devastating tragedy, and this is what brings me here today. Given the national and international impact and reaction, the Federal character of the site of the bombing and the significant percentage of victims and survivors who were Federal employees, a national memorial designation is highly appropriate. This legislation heralds the spirit, determination and hopes of Oklahomans and all Americans who have persevered in the wake of such a tragic event. This memorial will be established, designed, managed, and maintained to educate present and future generations. Through a comprehensive cooperative agreement, the Oklahoma City Memorial Trust will work together efficiently and respectfully with the National Park Service in developing a national memorial relating to all aspects of the April 19, 1995 bombing. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly believe this memorial deserves to be designated a national memorial. So as to not further burden the Federal Government and the National Park Service, this legislation is unique in its approach toward establishing a unit of the National Park System. The memorial will be a local, State and Federal Government partnership, with coordination with private sector and public donations. It will consist of three distinct components: an interactive learning museum, an institute dedicated to the prevention of crime and violence, and a remembrance component. The memorial's remembrance component design was unanimously chosen through an extensive international design competition, which drew entries from all 50 States and 23 countries. The love and respect Oklahoma City has received since being thrust into the national spotlight was most evident in the vast participation and outpouring during the international design competition. The winning design will be a fabulous beacon drawing mankind to a site that will remind us of our Nation's greatness. This Nation, as has been proven many times in the past, will not be defeated by forces that seek to divide us. On August 13, President Clinton put his seal of support on this memorial and embraced the design in a Rose Garden ceremony. S. 871 provides for establishment of a unit of the National Park Service and authorizes a wholly-owned government corporation, the Oklahoma City National Memorial Trust. As the entity responsible, through a cooperative agreement with the Park Service for the administration, operation, maintenance, management and interpretation of the site, the cooperative agreement, as provided by this legislation, states that the Secretary of the Interior will provide technical assistance for planning, preservation, maintenance, curator management and the interpretation of the site as mutually agreed to with the Trust. What has been most gratifying to me during this process is the good character of Oklahomans that continue to be on display in their asking the Federal Government for financial assistance for this meaningful project. The memorial trust is refusing to accept a dollar of Federal funding unless it is matched dollar for dollar by private donations. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile legislation.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is the pending business before the House should be entitled the ``How Many Rural Economies Can We Wreck in 1997 Amendment''. Simply put, the Neumann amendment will devastate rural economies throughout the South. Last year's farm bill contained significant reforms for the Nation's peanut program. Further reductions in the support price will cause the economic ruin of thousands of family farms, rural banks and country towns that they support. Contrary to the claims of many, this amendment will not give consumers cheaper candy bars or peanut butter. It is anti-farmer, and it should be defeated. Mr. Chairman, let us let the 1996 farm bill work. I repeat. Let us let the 1996 farm bill work. I would urge my colleagues in joining me to vote against this amendment.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of Mr. Bachus' timely amendment that would not allow individuals who commit capital crimes where the death penalty is an option to be eligible for a full military burial. Regardless of whether you support or oppose the death penalty, it is an affront that an individual who, in the case of Timothy McVeigh, has been convicted of murdering fellow Americans, to receive the same honors to which our veterans are entitled. Active members of the military and veterans embody the very virtues we as Americans cherish. They are the guardians of liberty and the caretakers of the freedoms we all hold dear. Convicted murderers do not represent these ideals and should not be honored for their service to our Nation. Currently, there are restrictions regarding what veterans are eligible for military burials. Anybody convicted of treason, espionage, mutiny, or assisting an enemy of the United States cannot request a military burial. It is morally right to add to this list those who have wantonly disregarded the sanctity of human life and have been convicted of a capital crime by a jury of their peers. Anything less would be a slap in the face of our veterans. Last week, I supported a constitutional amendment to prohibit physical desecration of the U.S. flag. This week, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which would prohibit the adornment of the flag on individuals who have rejected the very ideals which America represents.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned with the ramifications of this amendment. If this is approved, we will be endorsing the President's decision to contravene the 1995 BRAC law and giving the green light to future administrations to do the same thing in subsequent rounds of base closings. We are engaged today in a regional battle because the President refused to implement the very law he signed. Congress must have the fortitude to stand up and force the President to abide by the law and not give special treatment to two bases which were to be closed under the last BRAC. There is a lot of talk these days about forming BRAC-like commissions on a whole host of topics. The reason is that BRAC worked, or at least it used to work. Independent, objective, fair--these are words that were used to describe BRAC. Can we really apply these terms anymore? I urge my colleagues not to give the President a free ride on this matter. You had to vote yes or no on BRAC without conditions. Don't hold the President to a lower standard. Vote No!

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Chairman Solomon and the nearly 300 cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats, who recognize the importance of protecting the American flag. It is downright repulsive that the very symbol of our freedoms and rights can be trampled upon under the guise of the first amendment. The flag is what soldiers salute every day, it is what we, as Members of Congress, address every morning when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance, it is what we hoist during military ceremonies, it is what we drape over the caskets of our fallen soldiers, and it is what we placed on the Moon in 1969 during one of the proudest moments of my life. To minimize the symbolism of what the flag represents is reprehensible. Congress should have the ability to protect the sanctity of the flag. The Supreme Court has ruled that physical desecration of the flag is protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. This is a mistake and the reason why we are here today. Congress cannot pass statutory language prohibiting physical desecration of the flag because of this ruling. I join an overwhelming majority of my colleagues in protesting this decision and protecting our flag. Our veterans, those who have fought to protect the freedoms we cherish, have asked that the flag that they fought for be protected. The Government should attach the same level of importance to the flag that we respect and treasure. This amendment is the right thing to do at the right time. Let's show our veterans that we respect the flag by approving this today. I appreciate the opportunity to make my voice heard on this important issue and encourage my colleagues to support this measure and send this to the States for ratification.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation to establish a national memorial in Oklahoma City by establishing the Oklahoma City National Memorial as a unit of the National Park System and to designate the Oklahoma City Memorial Trust. Few events in the past quarter century have rocked Americans perception of themselves and their institutions, and brought together the people of our Nation with greater intensity than the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City. The results of the explosion resulted in the deaths of 168 people. Families and survivors struggled and continue to struggle with the suffering around them and with their own physical and emotional injuries which ultimately shaped their life beyond April 19. Although, these losses and struggles are personal, they resulted from a public attack and are shared with the community, the Nation, and the world. The response of Oklahoma's public servants and private citizens, and those throughout the Nation, remain as a testament to the sense of unity, compassion, heroism, that characterized the rescue and recovery following the bombing. Due to the national and international impact and reaction, the Federal character of the site of the bombing, and the significant percentage of the victims and survivors who were Federal employees, the Oklahoma City Memorial will be established, designed, managed, and maintained to educate present and future generations, through a public- private partnership, to work together efficiently and respectfully in developing a national memorial relating to all aspects of the April 19, 1995, bombing in Oklahoma City. The character of Oklahomans continue to be on display in their asking the Federal Government for financial assistance on this project. Although the memorial will need approximately $24 million to be established, Oklahomans are asking that legislation establish the Oklahoma City National Memorial as a unit of the National Park System and authorize only $5 million in Federal funding. In addition to the proposed Federal money, the Oklahoma City Memorial Foundation is seeking $5 million from the Oklahoma State Legislature and $14 million in private donations. The memorial will encompass the Murrah building site, Fifth Street between Robinson and Harvey, and the sites of the Water Resources and the Journal Record buildings. Both National Park Service and non-park service personnel will staff the grounds. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting such a worthy piece of legislation. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I met with a number of National Guard members yesterday and we discussed their crucial role in our Nation's military. I find it slightly ironic that their visit coincided with news from the Pentagon that the administration is going to propose that we initiate another round of base closings. I cannot help but make the connection that if the President had not circumvented the last round of base closings, the level of cuts that is being proposed would be unnecessary. If the reports are true, the administration will be asking the individual branches, including the National Guard, to substantially reduce their numbers, all to save money that could have been saved if BRAC had been followed by the President. The purpose of a BRAC is to depoliticize the process and allow objective outsiders to recommend which bases should be closed based on a number of objective criteria. This process worked well until the President signed the bill, then ordered something quite different. Another BRAC? Why does the President not start by respecting the decisions forwarded by the last BRAC?

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. What about the physical imparity?

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. I would gladly look at that next amendment when I am compelled unfortunately and have to vote against this amendment. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his input, and I respectfully thank my colleagues for an opportunity to clarify the true nature of this bill.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. I am not aware of that particular point. I would think that certainly that would qualify within the definition, but not being an expert on the definition, I cannot say that with certainty.

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