Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, 5 years after the Persian Gulf war our Nation still imports over 9 million barrels of oil a day. What's worse--oil imports have hurt domestic production and taken away U.S. jobs. We've lost over 500,000 American jobs since the early 1980's because of oil imports. Our Nation's growing reliance on foreign oil is not just an issue that affects the oil patch--it's something that everyone should be concerned about. If we want to lessen our reliance on oil imports, then we need to take steps to stimulate production of oil and gas right here in the United States. In order to boost production, we need to look at reducing unnecessary regulations that cripple U.S. production. There are indeed, Mr. Speaker, many alternatives to oil dependency. Educating people about those alternatives will be a key to a stronger American oil and gas industry.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Mr. Hyde's amendment to H.R. 2703. I support this amendment because among other things, it provides for closed-circuit broadcating of court proceedings in cases where a trial has been moved out of State, and more than 350 miles from the location where the proceedings would have taken place. I appreciate the chairman and his staff's efforts on this provision. As the Member of Congress who represents downtown Oklahoma City, I believe this provision is crucial, especially in light of the upcoming trial of the suspects in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building. Recently, this trial was moved from Oklahoma City to Denver, and the judge ruled cameras impermissible in the courtroom. For the victims and survivors of this, the worst terrorist attack to occur on U.S. soil, the trial and any subsequent punishment of those who committed this heinous crime are part of the healing process. For most, this is a time to rebuild their lives, therefore the upheaval of going to Denver to watch the trial seems cruel and unfair. I believe victims deserve the opportunity to view the trial of those accused of committing a crime. Although it is uncommon for a trial to be moved out of state, this manager's amendment would provide relief for those victims. This is the least we can do for those that experience such a great loss. Support the manager's amendment and show your support for victims of crime.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I stand before you today in a position that I never would have envisioned for myself when I was elected to Congress. I am here today as a champion of habeas corpus reform. This is not because I have had a change of heart, but because of the heartbreak of the people of my State. April 19, 1995, the day of the ruthless bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City, will be etched in the minds of all Americans for years to come. To the people of Oklahoma, and especially to the families of the 168 people that died in the bombing, this year has been especially long and difficult as we have tried to begin the process of healing and putting our lives back together. An important part of the healing process for the survivors will be to see that those who committed this heinous crime are punished. The habeas corpus reform that is included in this bill will ensure that those who committed this crime will not be able to delay punishment through endless appeals. Last week, many of you had the opportunity to meet with the Oklahomans who have suffered the most in the past months. They are real people with real stories. For example, there is Clint Seidl, an 8-year- old boy who will never see his mother again or Nicole and Kylie Williams. Nicole's husband Scott was making a delivery to the Federal building that fateful day. Nicole was 6 months pregnant at that time and now Kylie will never know her father. The message of these victims and survivors is that they will never see their loved ones again, while those who committed this heinous crime, if convicted, will. And even if they are sentenced to death, they could languish on death row for as long as 17 years. I believe a fellow Oklahoman, Diane Leonard, who lost her husband in the bombing, said it best. She said, ``The victims had no judge, no jury, no pretrial hearing, no trial, no defense, no appeals, no convictions except that found in a sick mind. My husband and others were executed with no dignity, no time to prepare, no chance to repent, no opportunity for their family to know of their love or to be reassured of their families' love for them. They had no guarantee of a painless and swift death. These innocent were left to linger and die in the rubble.'' Mr. Chairman, this bill is about these victims and preventing what happened to them from ever happening again in this country. I stand here today and say enough is enough. Support fundamental habeas corpus reform. Support mandatory victim restitution. Support closed-circuit broadcasting of the Oklahoma City bombing trial for its victims. Support H.R. 2703.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is the pending business before the House should be entitled, ``the how many rural economies can we wreck amendment of 1996.'' Simply put, the Shays, Lowey amendment will devastate rural economies throughout the South. The opponents of the peanut program wanted a no-cost program. The peanut provisions of H.R. 2854 create a no-cost program that represents a $434 million savings to the Government. The opponents of the program wanted a significant cut in the support price. This bill has a significant cut in the support price and will reduce farmer income by more than 20 percent or roughly $200 million. The opponents wanted reform of the quota system. This bill reforms the quota system. Further reductions in the price support level or elimination of the program altogether will cause the economic ruin of thousands of farm families, rural banking systems, and the country towns they support. We have truly reformed the program. But for some people, I guess that's not good enough. It seems the sponsors of this amendment want to exact as much pain out of rural America as possible. I would urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the amendment.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2854, the Agriculture Market Transition Act of 1996. It is the agriculture policy that will shape rural America as we head into the 21st century. This new farm policy is based on four basic themes: The current program is flawed and must be reformed; the Government must get out of the farmer's fields; farmers must have the ability to produce for the markets, not Government programs; and finally, we must provide a predictable and guaranteed phasing down, but not out, of Federal financial assistance in farm country. Taking these basic themes into account, we on the Agriculture Committee formulated the Agriculture Market Transition Act. To those who will say that this bill does not contain true reform, I would encourage you to wake up and smell the coffee. This bill is the biggest change in farm policy that we have seen since 1949. This includes peanuts, sugar, and dairy. Many during this debate will cite high commodity prices as a reason for sinking this reform. This argument has no merit. High prices are a result of a short harvest last year and another dismal crop projection this year. Sure my producers would enjoy $5 wheat if they had a crop to sell. But the reality is that the High Plains from west Texas to the Canadian border are in financial turmoil. At the time of my producers greatest need, Uncle Sam's current assistance program is no help. For in a time of short crops and high prices, the current program asks for money back. It is truly senseless. Colleagues, in short, the current program doesn't work. Our job on the committee and in this Congress is to construct a program that will stop this bleeding. I believe the Agriculture Market Transition Act is the best way to do this. My friends, agriculture is truly at a crossroads. It is time we break the bonds of the old and ring in a market oriented program that will guide us into the next century. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2854 without significant amendment. The future of rural America depends on its passage. We must have a farm bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley]. (Mr. DOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, simply put, the amendment offered by my colleague from Massachusetts represents the worst possible option for our Nation's agricultural policy that we will discuss today. It had been my understanding that this bill's goal was to reform the Nation's agricultural programs. The author of this amendment must have a different idea. This amendment contains no reform. It only breathes life into the failed policies that have shackled the Nation's producers to the heavy hand of Uncle Sam. Continuing these policies will be the death knell to many producers throughout the Nation. Most Members of Congress, most producers, most national agricultural groups, and yes, most agricultural economists agree that farm policy must be changed. The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], ignores this fact. It does nothing to ensure a viable agricultural sector in our Nation. It does nothing to aid producers in a post-NAFTA and GATT world trade environment. It does nothing to move toward a more market driven agricultural sector. My friends, agriculture is truly at a crossroads. It is time we break the bonds of the old and ring in a market-oriented program that will guide us into the next century. I cannot say it any clearer: The current program does not work. With its draconian reductions in target price and lack of any true reform, the Frank amendment only makes a bleak outlook in farm country worse. I urge my colleagues, join me as I vote to defeat this amendment. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] in order to give us some history on this amendment.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment to rip the heart out of the current cotton program represents probably the greatest step backwards in American industrial policy that any Member of Congress has proposed in many years. This amendment would pull out the cornerstone of the most successful Federal agricultural program any Congress has ever designed. In a sea of failed agriculture policy, the current cotton program is a program that truly works. Both the American taxpayer and the cotton industry can point to its success. Following the lean years in the 1980's cotton's marketing loan has revitalized our country's most important industries. We have gone from an ``also ran'' in the world cotton market to a market leader. As world demand increases, the cotton industry's positive influence on the U.S. economy will only grow. We should not take any congressional action that will inhibit this growth. This amendment most assuredly would. I would urge its defeat.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I know what an emotional issue this is, for I have been very involved in the BRAC process. I, too, had base on the closure list, Vance Air Force Base in Enid, OK. And many of my constituents work for Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City. I was fortunate, my bases are not slated for closure, but I remember the stress I felt when commissioners visited the base and when I was waiting for the final closure list. None of us want to lose something so valuable as a base in our district. That is why the 101st Congress created BRAC. They knew that base closures would best be handled by an unbiased, nonpartisan group. They knew that when politics are involved, base worthiness and cost- effectiveness fall by the wayside, as was demonstrated by the President earlier this year. It would be nearly impossible for Congress and the President to decide objectively which bases to close. Sure the BRAC process has flaws, but it has worked well thus far. I do not think any of us can argue that this process was not fair and open. We each had ample opportunity to participate and to validate the information used. [[Page H 8698]] Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to finish this process and vote ``no'' on the resolution of disapproval.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, Members, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment to eliminate funding for disaster relief programs administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. As the Member of this body who represents the congressional district that has been rocked by the most horrendous of disasters this country has faced, I could not sit in my office and watch this assault on the Agency that stood as the foundation for the relief efforts following the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building on April 19 of this year. The response of FEMA to the Oklahoma City bombing is best described in this excerpt from the committee report accompanying the underlying legislation. I quote: On April 19, 1995, at 9:04 a.m., an explosive device contained within a rented truck was detonated outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, thereby killing 168 individuals and injuring another 467. Within minutes of this disaster, FEMA personnel were actively engaged in structuring the Federal response which, coupled with the response of the State and local governmental entities, business and charity groups throughout the area and the country, and thousands of Oklahomans and others from throughout the United States, represents perhaps the finest example of public and private cooperation, during a time of crisis as has been observed in many decades. Despite having no specific experience with this type of disaster, well trained personnel dealing with virtually every aspect of disaster response were quickly and efficiently in place and beginning the difficult job of responding to this devastating event. Starting with FEMA's Director and on down the chain of command in FEMA and numerous other departments and agencies, every individual involved with the response to this disaster deserves the sincere appreciation and gratitude of this Committee for a job well done. From personal experience, I can say without a doubt that the FEMA response to this disaster was virtually flawless. Their treatment of the good people of Oklahoma City must be commended by all in this body. I ask my colleagues: Can we be assured that without the funds targeted by this amendment, would FEMA have the ability to react in the manner described in the committee report or that the Nation witnessed in regards to Oklahoma City. I would think not. Please oppose this ill-advised amendment.

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

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's point is very appreciated. That is a very valid point. But we must, as I observe the process in Oklahoma City, the effective quick way in which the FEMA people responded, it is necessary that they be funded so that they have the contingency capacity to do in the other parts of the country--heaven forbid that something should occur that requires that kind of response--the incredible job that they did in Oklahoma City. It was amazing to watch the efficiency of FEMA and the State and local government. It made me proud to be an Oklahoman and an American.

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

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, most in America understand the term ``learn from our mistakes.'' However, it seems Congress sometimes forgets this fundamental dogma of society. Does the author of this amendment realize that over the years numerous changes have been made in the way Federal farm program payments have been made, limited and targeted to certain individuals? These changes have always been made by the Committee on Agriculture and have had a wide variety of results, sometimes intended, sometimes not so intended. Who does this amendment really impact? Banning the so-called wealthy landowners with large off-farm incomes from participating in the programs will create collateral damage, surely unforeseen by the author of this amendment. This amendment will not hurt rich people, it will hurt the small tenant farmers who rent from someone, who inherited their property, or left agriculture for other opportunities. These amendments hinge on many factors, or agreements, I should say, including crop yields, weather, good management, and yes, Federal farm programs. If a source of income was stripped out of this equation, the small tenant farmer is likely to be pushed off the land or forced to move to a cash rent agreement, which moves all the production risk to the producer and away from the landowner. Mr. Chairman, let me make a personal observation about this issue. I am a career farmer and rancher from western Oklahoma. I have experienced the euphoria of a bountiful harvest, and the financial burdens of a short crop. I know what it is like to be a young farmer just starting out, being primarily a cattle rancher, a cow-calf operation. It has been about 10 years since I have participated in any Federal program, and I have no plans to start in the future. Being a Member of Congress, and the compensation that comes along with this job, the author's amendment would prohibit me from participating in any of these programs. I do not quibble with that. I do argue the fact that should I decide to change the focus of my agribusiness, this amendment would place a young farmer-rancher from my home county who is just trying to start out in farming at a disadvantage. With this limitation, Mr. Chairman, we force them to cash rent, take them out of crop share, put the burden only on the small producer, and wipe him or her out.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, as H.R. 1944, the House-passed rescission and emergency supplemental bill, wallows on the other side of this Nation's Capitol, the people's business again is held captive by a tiny fragment of the makeup of the U.S. Congress. Their opposition to making government smaller and more efficient creates collateral damage to which they seemingly turn a blind eye to. They must be made aware that H.R. 1944 is not just about deficit reduction, timber salvage or any other partisan issue. H.R. 1944 is about victims of flood, earthquake, and terror. I represent the area of Oklahoma City that was rocked by a man-made devastation never before seen in this country. H.R. 1944 contains crucial aid to help this damaged but healing city get back on its feet. I would plead with those who oppose this measure to listen to the calls of the President, congressional leadership, and overwhelming majorities in each House to free this legislation. It's time we put closure on this issue and put the people's business above partisan politics.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, over 2 months have passed since the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in downtown Oklahoma City. As you can well imagine, representing this area during this time has been quite a challenge. There is truly no clear formula on how a Member of Congress should deal with such a disaster. Since the bombing, I have expressed my belief that while private relief has poured in from throughout the nation, the Federal Government has a distinct responsibility to Oklahoma City above and beyond building a new federal building, or bolstering law enforcement in Oklahoma City and throughout the country. With the rubble removed and the rebuilding and healing of a damaged city in full swing, the magnitude of the loss is coming into perspective. The President's veto of the earlier version of the emergency supplemental and rescissions bill gave us in Congress the ability to listen and react to Governor Keating and Mayor Norick's pleas for Federal assistance in response to the economic losses pertaining to the bombing. The Federal response to the bombing contained in H.R. 1944 is a major step toward meeting the city's [[Page H 6637]] economic needs this tragic event has created. I would like to commend the Speaker, Chairman Livingston, Chairman Lewis, and Mr. Istook for their efforts as we have worked to develop the right course for this aid to take. I look forward to working with them and state and local leaders in Oklahoma as we continue to facilitate the healing and rebuilding process.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Jim Boles is survived by his loving wife of 12 years, Jennifer, his 8-year-old son, James Michael, and adult son, Stephen, and his family in Mississippi. Jim was born in Quitman, Mississippi. He attended Lake High School in Lake, MS and graduated in 1964. He entered the U.S. Army in 1964 and served as the noncommissioned officer-in-charge of the 793rd military police battalion, a small M.P. detachment, in Bayreuth, West Germany. Upon leaving the U.S. Army in 1968, Jim managed an oil station and served as accounting clerk for State Beverage Company, both in Jackson, MS. In 1970, Jim joined APHIS where he worked for the next 25 years. During his tenure with APHIS, he made many friends throughout the Department and lived in Mississippi, Florida, Maryland, and finally, Oklahoma. Jim met his wife Jennifer through APHIS. As administrative officer for APHIS' Veterinary Services office in Oklahoma City, Jim helped develop new and better ways of conducting the various administrative functions Government agencies must carry out. His progressive ideas paved the way for innovative resource--and responsibility--sharing with sister branches that saved the Government both time and money. Above and beyond his on-the-job duties, he will be remembered for encouraging, guiding and helping develop his coworkers' career goals. But his foremost concern was the well-being of his colleagues as people. He was careful to recognize fellow employees for their accomplishments and service to the community and agency. We all will miss his smile, sense of humor, and dedication. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, Margaret Louis Clark was known by her many friends and colleagues as Peggy. She is survived by her loving husband, David Spencer, three daughters, Rosslyn 16, Margaret Blayne 13, and Chelsea 6, her mother Mary Spurlin, and sister, Susan Winchester. Peggy was 42. A native of Chichasha, OK, Peggy attended Star Spencer High School in Oklahoma City. Her academic achievements were all made at Oklahoma State University, where she earned a bachelor of science degree in agriculture in 1976, and a doctorate of veterinary medicine degree in 1978. After completing her studies, Peggy began veterinary private practice placing special emphasis on the equine industry. In 1981, Peggy worked for the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture as a staff veterinarian and coordinated Federal/State disease control programs. In 1985, she moved over to the State of Oklahoma's Horse Racing Commission. As the official veterinarian, she performed pre- and post-race examinations. Peggy joined APHIS in 1994 as part of a Federal training program called the Public Veterinary Practice Career Program. Her assignment to the Oklahoma City office as a Veterinary medical officer was part of that developmental training. Outside of the office, Peggy was very involved in the lives of her children [[Page H5569]] and was active in horse shows, livestock shows, and soccer. She was an active and popular member of the Oklahoma Veterinary Medical Association, and helped run her family's horse breeding operation. Peggy was appointed by the Governor to serve a 6- year term on the Oklahoma State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, where she served as secretary. Although she was the newest member of the Veterinary Service staff in Oklahoma City, Peggy's outgoing personality, willingness to help, and professional competence made her a most welcome addition. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday morning, April 19, at 2 minutes after 9 o'clock, America's heartland lost its innocence. The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in downtown Oklahoma City was a cowardly act of tragic proportions, with no justification. I, like you and the Nation as a whole, will never forget the scene or the devastation, the death, the suffering, and, most of all, the innocence of the victims. I cannot begin to express the heartbreak and sense of helplessness one feels when faced with such a gruesome scene. As each day has passed since this crime, the spirit, courage, resourcefulness that exemplifies our great Nation has been displayed. Our outrage, while still in mind, has been superseded by charity, kindness, prayer and healing. This evening, I join with heavy heart the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Roberts, and the equally distinguished ranking member of the committee, Mr. de la Garza, to memorialize the employees of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service who lost their lives in this bombing. While the building resided in my district, a number of these good folks were my constituents. With that, I would like to thank my colleagues for organizing this special order this evening. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Roberts.

Mr. LUCAS. Known by her many admiring friends and relatives as Adele, Doris Adele Higgenbottom is survived by her loving husband, David; his children, Kelly and Van; her mother, Melanie; and the Maddox family. She was 44. Adele was born in Pecos, TX, and graduated from Pecos High School in 1968. Several years later, Adele resumed her studies at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, OK, where she earned a bachelor of arts degree in English in 1982. Adele began her Federal career with APHIS as a clerk/typist in Oklahoma City in 1978. A few years later, she transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration where she served as a purchasing agent. In 1980, she resigned from the FAA and went to San Antonio, TX, to spend a few months with her family. While there, she worked as an advertising salesperson for the San Antonio Express and News. She rejoined APHIS in Oklahoma City in late 1980 as she mastered the often complicating purchasing regulations. Adele was popular in the Oklahoma City office, as much for her positive outlook as her animated personality. Adele served as manager of the Federal Women's Program and was an ardent supporter of equality and women's rights. Adele and her husband, David, met in 1989 through David's work with the State Department of Agriculture. Adele was heard to say she was happy to be married to someone with whom she could share so much of her professional life and who cared about the same people and issues she did. David and Adele considered themselves a happy and compatible team whose personalities and interests complemented each other well. Mr. de la GARZA. Carole Sue Khalil is survived by her daughter, Heather, and many loving relatives and friends. She was 50. Carole was born in Shattuck, OK, and attended Laverne High School in Laverne, OK. She graduated in 1962. Following graduation, she attended the Draughons School of Business in Oklahoma City for 1 year where she completed an executive secretarial course. Already she had big plans to serve her country and the civic good as a public servant. Carole began a lifelong commitment to the U.S. Government in 1964 when she took the first of several temporary positions in the clerical field with the Internal Revenue Service in Oklahoma City. Her career with the U.S. Department of Agriculture began with the Agriculture Research Service's Animal Health Division in 1967. In this position, which was based in Oklahoma City, Carole provided clerical support to a variety of animal disease eradication programs. Carole was promoted to export document examiner in 1992. In this position, she provided critical review of documents used to clarify the health of all animals exported from Oklahoma to other countries. Her eye for detail and ability to catch even minute errors were among the reasons she was a valuable contributor to the staff. Carole also took care of many routine personnel functions, such as time and attendance reports, training nominations, personnel reports and benefit actions. She was an able and dedicated employee whose contributions were appreciated by everyone with whom she worked. I yield to my chairman, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].

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 House Resolution 135.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].