Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

Offered By: Mr. Lucas

Amendment No. 9: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following new section:

Sec. 7_. The amounts otherwise provided by title II of this

Act for ``Natural Resources Conservation Service--

conservation operations'' are revised by reducing the amount

made available for National Headquarters salaries and

expenses, and by increasing the amount made available for

conservation technical assistance, by $50,000,000.

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

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.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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. 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

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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma

Amendment No. 5: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to bring my strong support to H.R. 2912 to reaffirm the inherent sovereign rights of the Osage Tribe to determine their membership and form of government. Because of a law created in 1906 by this Congress, the Osage Tribe has not been afforded the same rights as every other federally recognized tribe. According to that law, membership in the tribe would be extended only to those who owned a share of the Osage mineral estate and their descendents. Today, there are literally thousands of Osage Indians denied the benefits of membership simply because they do not hold a share of that estate.

H.R. 2912, which I introduced in July of 2003, was designed to clarify the 98-year-old law. It is intended to put the Osage Tribe on equal footing with all other federally recognized tribes by allowing them to determine their own membership criteria and system of government, while protecting the headrights of the shareholders.

I believe most importantly it will give many Osages, many young Osages, the opportunity to take part in Indian programs that have been previously denied to them.

At a field hearing in March of this year, members of the Committee on Resources and I heard testimony from members of the Osage Tribe, as well as others involved with Indian affairs. It was clear from the warm reception that the bill received that the Osage people are prepared for the right to decide for themselves who is and who is not a tribal member.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite confident in 1906 that this body was acting in the spirit of benevolent support to protect the Osages from what was, at that time, I should say, fantastic mineral wealth within their tribal reservation. Times have changed. The oil fields are not quite what they once were. It is important, I believe, now that we allow the Osages the same rights as every other federally recognized tribe; that we allow the Osages to go forward with their tribe.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2912, bringing the Osage Tribe one step closer to finally receiving that right.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to remember and honor an outstanding citizen, Henry Jo Von Tungeln from Calumet, Oklahoma, who passed away on February 28th.

Henry Jo was born on May 13, 1931 southwest of El Reno, Oklahoma. He was a fourth generation farmer and rancher in Canadian County. He was known throughout his community and the State for his commitment to community service and to the agriculture industry.

Henry Jo was a tireless champion of agriculture, which was exemplified through his dedication to numerous agriculture organizations. He was active in the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, where he served as Vice President of The Oklahoma Farm Bureau State Board of Directors. He also served as the Canadian County Farm Bureau President for 45 years. He served 3 terms as Chairman of the Oklahoma Wheat Commission and was appointed by three Governors. He also served as Secretary, Vice Chairman and Chairman of the U.S. Wheat Associates. He served on the Dean's Advisory Committee for the Oklahoma State University Division of Agriculture. In 2000, Henry Jo received the OSU Master Agronomist award. He was elected to the Oklahoma Agriculture Hall of Fame in 2002. Henry Jo served on the Oklahoma Beef Council Board of Directors. He received the Oklahoma Farm Bureau Service Award. Henry Jo served on the International Trade Commission. He was elected Progressive Farmer Man of the Year in 2001. He also received the Agriculture Ambassador Award from Redlands Community College.

Perhaps Henry Jo was best known for opening his home to many of us for discussions about the things that would benefit his community and the agriculture industry, so that future generations could enjoy the same way of life that he so enjoyed. He welcomed many to his dinner table, including international groups who were visiting Oklahoma to learn more about our agricultural products. He was an amazing ambassador for our State.

Mr. Speaker, I join today with Henry Jo's family, friends, and community to honor his life and his commitment to his family, his community, and to the advancement of agriculture. He was an outstanding man and will truly be missed by all who knew him.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) bringing this important bill to the floor, because the emerging commercial human space flight industry presents tremendous opportunities for my State of Oklahoma and our Nation as a whole. I am particularly appreciative of this bill's intent to ease the regulatory burdens for entrepreneurs who are developing new suborbital reusable launch vehicles.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, some suborbital reusable launch vehicles that will be used in commercial human space flight activities may have some attributes normally associated with airplanes as well as many attributes of rockets. My hope is that such hybrid vehicles would not have to be regulated under two separate regimes. What are the chairman's views on this matter?

I thank the chairman and I look forward to continuing to work with him and our colleagues in the other body to see if we can create a single regime for hybrid commercial space flight vehicles.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. I am a cosponsor of this important piece of legislation because I feel that reauthorizing uniform national standards included in the Fair Credit Reporting Act will ensure America continues to have the best credit system in the world.

Mr. Chairman, I came to Congress in 1994 and joined the Committee on Banking, now the Committee on Financial Services, because I knew that one of the common needs of my congressional district was capital. We were capital starved and I wanted to be a part of the committee that would have influence over the cost of and the availability of credit. And that is why I fully support this bill. It protects my constituents' access to fast and affordable credit, which is vital in today's economic times.

I also support this bill because it includes measures to protect the explosion of the identity theft in this country. Last week the FTC reported 9.9 million Americans were victims of identity theft in the last year, and that is a frightening statistic to all of us.

H.R. 2622 imposes meaningful new obligations on financial institutions to prevent identity theft and to ensure the accuracy of credit information. The uniform national credit reporting standards have lowered costs and increased choices and conveniences for all of our constituents. I urge my colleagues to support this important reauthorization.

Mr. Speaker, on the last day of this month this body will lose a Member who has for almost 18\1/2\ years been a critical part of several committees. The Committee on Small Business has been noted, serving as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. But for me personally his chairmanship of the House Committee on Agriculture probably provides me with my greatest memories and has had the most tremendous impacts on my legislative judgment, certainly on my constituents in Oklahoma.

I think back to 1996 when, in the heat of debate, at one of the most critical points of that farm bill, of sitting in a room with the then- Speaker and the late Bill Emerson and the soon-to-be-Chairman Combest as we discussed agriculture and southern crops and watching Larry make quite clear what the needs were of his constituents and what he felt like the needs were for agriculture in the United States and changing the course of the farm bill that day.

Then in 2002 under his chairmanship and leadership with the gavel, setting about as he said at the time to go forth and listen to our farmers, yes, to listen to the experts and, yes, to listen to all the academic input, but to create a farm bill for the producers, a farm bill based on the things that they thought should be in a farm bill. Many at the time thought it was a pretty amazing concept, not always the way things are done in Washington, D.C. But, lo and behold, hearings across the country, hearings beyond belief here in the Nation's Capital, and the result of that was an amazing farm bill.

And, oh, yes, the chairman's patience in conference committee, dealing with the, shall we say, other side of the building and dealing with some of our own membership, patience that would make Job extremely proud. And the result of that was a farm bill that locked in a tremendous amount of resources that, had we dug around that farm bill in 2003, would not have been there. Yes, a farm bill based on what our neighbors back home told us they wanted, crafted in a way that could build almost two-thirds majorities in both the House and the Senate placed on the books.

But, ultimately, I think when Larry and Sharon return home to west Texas, the final observation will be that they have been good servants of their constituents; and that is what it is all about, representing those folks back home to the best of your ability in a way that they would be proud of.

That, Mr. Chairman, you have accomplished. That is a goal I think we should all work towards.