Here are comments from members of the Oklahoma delegation:

Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Cheyenne: “I voted for the third time to fully repeal Obamacare.
“I have voted over 30 times to defund the flawed law, and I will continue to vote for measures that will dismantle the Affordable Care Act. My constituents in Oklahoma’s Third Congressional District and many other Americans have unanimously voiced their opposition to Obamacare. The law clearly isn’t working. Families have already seen a major increase in health care premiums, and the additional taxes and mandates continue to place an extra layer of burden on hard-working Americans.”

Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Westville: “Even initial supporters of the health care law are now deeming it a “train wreck.” As one of the few members of Congress who still owns a business, I represent thousands of concerned business owners across the nation who are burdened with federal regulations. Employers should not have to compete with the federal government or subject their companies to financial risk. Additionally, employers should not be penalized for wanting to grow and expand their business.”

Rep. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma City: “Oklahomans consistently tell me how the law is already negatively impacting their families, businesses and healthcare options. The only way to avoid the unwanted side effects of this law is to repeal and replace it with a more patient-centered approach. We should not denigrate every Oklahoman’s healthcare options and increase their costs to subsidize the uninsured.

“The health care law has already caused the pending termination of a great state-run insurance program in Oklahoma, Insure Oklahoma. The State sought a waiver to continue operations after 2014, which was recently denied by the Administration. There is no reason an effective local solution providing affordable health insurance options should be terminated in favor of a detached Washington-based approach.”

Here’s Lankford’s takeaway from the six-hour hearing:

_ Facilities in Libya at BOTH the official embassy in Tripoli and the outpost consulate in Benghazi fell well short of the Department of State’s minimum security requirements.
_ The Government Accountability Office (GAO) listed the facilities in both Tripoli and Benghazi as critical, high-risk facilities, two of only a handful of facilities listed as high-risk among the more than 260 world-wide.
_ The Department of State was actively trying to “normalize” the mission in Libya by drawing down uniformed security forces. State denied several requests by security personnel for increased security. Diplomats on the ground reported active terrorism in the area even as the State Department in Washington withdrew security forces.
_ Mr. Hicks’ testimony established that the State Department did not have a military or security contingency plan for an attack on these vulnerable and high-risk facilities.
_ According to testimony from Mr. Hicks during my first round of questions, the Committee learned that the only person who can waive security requirements for high-risk, high-threat locations is the Secretary of State.
_ The contracted Libyan guards outside the gate of our facility in Benghazi fled when the fighting started on the night of the attack.
_ The witnesses testified that the initial information coming out of Benghazi was that the attack was an act of terrorism.
_ NO ONE in Libya EVER said the attack was the result of a demonstration from an obscure YouTube video. That claim came from someone in Washington.
_ The initial statement by the new Libyan President was that it was indeed a terrorist attack.The initial—and later proven false—American government claim of a demonstration directly contradicted him. Our government impugned his honor, an important facet of their culture.
_ The Libyan President’s subsequent embarrassment and shame slowed the FBI team entry into Benghazi to investigate after the attack.
_ The 1998 bombings of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya perpetrated by Osama Bin Laden also resulted in a State Department ARB report. Under #12 of the “findings” section of the report on the facility in Nairobi, Kenya, the ARB found:

_ The State Department did not assess the threats or take note of the clear warning signs and escalating threats.
_ The facility was inadequate for even the most modest attack.
_ There was a lack of preparation or warning systems at the facility.

_ The 1999 ARB reports on the embassy attacks in Tanzania and Kenya could have been written a month ago. We must learn the lessons of the past. In 1998 our embassies were attacked, and we failed to learn the lesson to prevent future attacks.
_ The State Department’s Accountability Review Board (ARB) report, released on December 19, 2012, provided an incomplete record of the events that evening. Those who provided testimony to the ARB were never able to check the transcript of their statements for inaccuracies. Despite efforts by the State Department to allow all employees to provide comments to the ARB, they chose not to interview some who had requested the opportunity.
_ As of now no one has been held accountable for perpetrating the terrorist act, nor has the Department of State taken disciplinary action on the communications and security failures of the event. Several federal employees involved with the attacks have resigned their posts, but we will continue to seek answers about the security and communications failures at State in order to prevent them in the future.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said on the day of the hearing that the administration “has made extraordinary efforts to work with five different congressional committees investigating what happened before, during, and after the Benghazi attacks, including, over the past eight months, testifying in 10 congressional hearings, holding 20 staff briefings, and providing over 25,000 pages of documents.

“I mean this is a subject that has, from its beginning, been subject to attempts to politicize it by Republicans, when, in fact, what happened in Benghazi was a tragedy. And the President has been committed from day one to two things — making sure that those who are responsible for the deaths of four Americans are found and brought to justice, and that we do everything we need to do to ensure that this kind of attack cannot happen again. And the standing up of the Accountability Review Board by then-Secretary Clinton, with the full support of the President, demonstrates the seriousness with which she took this issue.

“That review board issued a report that was unsparing and highly critical in some areas, and was led by two highly respected nonpartisan experts in the field of national security, Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering. And that report issued contained within it a series of recommendations, every single one of which has been acted on or is being acted on by the State Department. And I think, again, that demonstrates the seriousness with which we took the true issues here.

“It also, given the remarkable level of cooperation that we’ve demonstrated with congressional committees and investigators thus far, demonstrates again that we’re at a place where there are attempts to politicize this when that should not be the case.”

Cole: “Margaret Thatcher first came to my attention when I was a student living in London in the 1970′s. One of my best British friends served as her private parliamentary secretary and several others served as Conservative Members of Parliament during her extraordinary career. My own political career began as she became prime minister and I looked upon her as a role model and trailblazer. Indeed to this day, I keep a picture of her and Ronald Reagan on my desk in my congressional office.

“Lady Thatcher was the most consequential British Prime Minister after Winston Churchill in the 20th century. She led the Conservative Party out of the wilderness back into the majority and then transformed a failing socialist state into an economic dynamo that enriched and empowered its citizens while projecting power and advancing freedom on the world stage.

“The partnership between Thatcher and Reagan was comparable to that between Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt. The latter helped to win the Second World War while Thatcher and Reagan did the same in the Cold War. Thatcher’s career holds many lessons for us all. She showed the power of conviction and courage in the political arena, and she reminds us that when leaders lead, great goals can be accomplished in public life.

“Britons admire and are justly proud of Lady Thatcher’s extraordinary life and career. But Americans also appreciate her achievements and know that her leadership in the Cold War helped to assure our own security and freedom. Moreover, her domestic accomplishments were a model for the almost simultaneous Reagan Revolution which brought America a generation of peace and prosperity. Thatcher will be remembered in America as a courageous champion of freedom and a firm friend and partner of the United States.”

Lankford:

“Americans join our friends around the world today in mourning the loss of Margaret Thatcher.

“Thatcher embodied the hard work, tenacity and resilience that is synonymous with Great Britain. She brought the United Kingdom back from the brink of Socialism by focusing on private business, hard work and limited government intervention. She paved the way for strong female leaders with great ideas and a heart for responsible, compassionate change.

“Her contributions to her country cannot be overstated. Her positive relationship with the United States intensified our already strong connection to the British people We join the international community in mourning the tremendous loss of Margaret Thatcher, but we will not forget her work to serve the poor and all workers by promoting free markets and private initiative,”

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee: “The president is right to examine what can be done to prevent tragedies such as Sandy Hook from occurring again. I commend his effort and look forward to working with him on areas of agreement while we continue to honestly debate areas of disagreement. For instance, the president is right to take steps to strengthen mental health databases and reporting to the NICS system so we can ensure that guns do not end up in the hands of criminals or those who are a threat to themselves or others. In the hands of a deranged person, a clip size of one is one too many. Still, states are primarily responsible for enacting measures to improve reporting to the NICS system.
“I also support the president’s call for Congress to vote on these measures and I will review his recommendations in detail. Some have asked whether I will try to block or filibuster this debate because of my support of the Second Amendment. My goal is the opposite. I believe Congress has a responsibility to review all of our laws and make adjustments as necessary in a transparent, open and deliberative manner. I would welcome the opportunity to debate these issues on the floor of the Senate, and would encourage Majority Leader Reid to schedule a full and open debate. Members of Congress and the American people have a right to know where members stand on these key policies. If members can’t defend their positions, they don’t deserve to be here.
“However, as we debate these measures, we first must ensure our constitutional rights and individual liberties, including the Second Amendment right to bear arms, are protected. Instead of repeating the failed policies of the past, Congress should work on thoughtful and constitutional ways to prevent unspeakable tragedies like this from happening again. The fact that almost every public mass shooting tragedy occurs in a place where guns are prohibited shows that restricting Second Amendment rights tends to disarm everyone but the assailant.
“Secondly, we must acknowledge that with rights come responsibilities. Gun owners must exercise personal responsibility and do everything in their power to prevent firearms and ammunition from falling into the wrong hands.
“Finally, policymakers in Washington should remember that the legislative process is downstream from culture. The laws we make in Washington have less impact than the movies and video games that are shaping the hearts and minds of the next generation. Special interest groups from across the spectrum – from Hollywood to the NRA – all have a responsibility to defend a culture of life and liberty. Still, Congress shouldn’t take our cues from these groups. As elected officials, we should be beholden solely to the Constitution. Our job as it relates to interest groups is not to take instructions from them, but to give direction to them through our constitutional authority to legislate.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa: “While we mourn with those who have lost loved ones, in no way should the actions of those few who act illegally impact the constitutional rights of the many,” said Inhofe. “I will continue to strongly oppose any effort to undermine the Second Amendment and an individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms
“What people need to understand about today’s announcement is that it involved two very distinct actions by the president: 1) executives actions that the President will be implementing unilaterally, and 2) making recommendations to Congress for laws that it should pass. Most of the planned executive orders are common sense changes that are within the President’s current powers to implement, namely:

1) Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

2) Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

3) Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

4) Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

“I will adamantly oppose any executive order that I believe infringes upon duly enacted laws by the Congress or on our Constitutional rights. Where I do disagree with the President is on his recommendations for laws Congress should pass. We know from experience that an assault weapons ban will have no meaningful effect on gun violence, as many of the changes that are implemented by a such a ban are cosmetic in nature. Statistics demonstrate that a ban on particular weapons will not significantly decrease crime. Such a ban will, however, significantly decrease our rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
“The text of the Constitution clearly confers upon an individual the right to bear arms – and not just for the purposes of hunting as many liberals will claim. Our Founders believed that the people’s right to own guns was an important check on the powers of the government and ‘necessary to the security of a free State.’ I couldn’t agree more and I stand firm in my support of this right.”

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Moore: “I will oppose any legislation to limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, including a ban on so-called assault weapons. I represent tens of thousands of responsible gun owners who safely use guns for hunting and protection, and restricting their freedom is not the solution to gun violence.”

Rep. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma City: “We all remain deeply saddened by the tragedies and loss of life from the too-frequent incidents of violence in the United States.
“Since our founding, Americans have owned and kept guns in their homes. The recent rise in mass shootings is not a product of gun ownership but a cultural shift that has occurred in our nation, requiring serious evaluation. Any proposals to address this shift must work to solve the problem, not just force Congress to ‘do something.’
“On behalf of thousands of parents of students in central Oklahoma, I applaud the President’s emphasis on school safety. I support efforts to reduce bullying and violence in our schools through creative local solutions, and I encourage responsible adults to get involved in the health and safety of our nation’s children. The President’s efforts to begin to implement some of House Oversight’s recommendations to prevent gun trafficking in America will bolster local community safety initiatives for our children and families.
“State governments are best equipped to deal with local gun safety issues,” continued Lankford. “The State of New York’s recent choice to enact new gun controls on its citizens to meet a unique regional opinion does not force citizens of other states to live under a federal one-size-fits-all model.
“As a staunch Second Amendment advocate, I remain committed to the principle that any federal proposals must be constitutionally consistent and work to solve the societal problems we face. Since the President selected the Vice President, the de facto leader of the Senate, to lead his task force, it is my assumption that the Senate will immediately take up the President’s proposals.
“I will reserve judgment on any proposed legislation until I am able to review the Senate-passed versions of the President’s proposals.”

Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Cheyenne: “President Obama’s announcement that his Administration will be using executive actions to implement additional gun control is deeply troubling to me.
“Bypassing Congress to implement stricter gun laws is not the solution to preventing violence in our country. In the wake of recent tragedies, I believe it is important for leaders of our country to take a step back and calmly evaluate all factors, including mental health factors, contributing to recent tragedies. I can assure my constituents in the Third District I will fight against the president’s gun control agenda and oppose any attempt to instate new laws infringing on citizen’s Second Amendment rights.”

Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Westville: “The constitution was not written by the government to tell the people what rights they had. The constitution was written by the people to limit the government’s power. What the Obama administration is proposing in potential legislative actions and executive orders is a violation of 2nd amendment rights, which guarantee us the right to keep and bear arms.
“In Oklahoma there are many law abiding citizens who hunt, fish and keep guns for self-protection. The last thing we need to do infringe upon the rights of those citizens. Criminals who chose to break the law will not be deterred by any number of executive actions. These rights are a fundamental way of life for people in my District and across the United States.
“The President is politicizing a national tragedy to impose his own personal agenda. This is outrageous and an outright assault on civil liberties. I strongly oppose restricting the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms and will do everything I can to protect our second amendment rights.”

Rep. Jim Bridenstine, R-Tulsa: “I support the 2nd Amendment. The President’s legislative proposals including a ban on various types of guns and magazines violate our Constitutional rights and I will not support such proposals.”

Sen. Tom Coburn’s office will be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. His office will also be open on Monday, though security will be so tight, it is highly recommended that tickets be picked up before Monday. Coburn’s office is Room 172 in the Russell Senate Office Building.

Sen. Jim Inhofe’s office will be open from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Saturday and from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Sunday. Inhofe is in 205 Russell Senate Office Building.

Rep. Jim Bridenstine’s office will be open on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. He is in 216 of the Cannon House Office Building.

Rep. Markwayne Mullin’s office will distribute tickets on Sunday. He is in 1113 of the Longworth House Office Building.

Rep. Frank Lucas’ office will be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Sunday. Lucas is in 2311 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

Rep. Tom Cole’s office will be open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Cole is in 2548 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

Rep. James Lankford’s office will be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday and 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Sunday for ticket pick-up. Lankford is in 228 of the Cannon House Office Building.