Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I do not know, and I have not been out there so I have not looked at it, and I do not know all the nuances of the law. I just know that the agencies of this administration approved it, told them to go ahead and make the investment. They did everything required by the laws of the United States and the State of Washington, and what more can we ask of a company? And again, if we think this is wrong, we have a responsibility to deal with it in a policy decision in this body.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, if I have any time, I would just say that the provision that was put in by the other body was very sweeping. The House conferees narrowed it, and got it very narrow in its application.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, apparently there has been some discussion on the floor about environmental riders in this bill. We resisted some of those that were included in the Senate bill. We tried to have a balanced bill. On the case of the finalizing of hard rock mining regulations, the facts are that there is a National Academy of Sciences, which is an independent agency, doing a study to give us an analysis of the provisions that are being proposed in these regulations. This report is due out by July 31, and there is a 120-day comment period thereafter. So what we are really saying in this bill is give us time to get the report from the National Academy of Sciences, give the people, both sides, time to comment, which is also provided in that arrangement, and then we will decide what the national policy should be. And all this bill does is to put a moratorium on until such time as we get that information. On the Crown Jewel Mine issue, again this is retroactive. The Crown Jewel Mine is a mining company that has crossed every T, dotted every I, has had all the permits issued by the Federal and the State government. They are ready to go forward. It was pointed out in the debate on the supplemental that several State retirement systems and State governmental agencies had invested in this mine, and if it were not allowed to go forward, there would be a total loss of money to these retirement systems. So my colleagues are talking about taking money away from public retirement programs if they were to allow this Crown Jewel Mine to be shut down. Now it is not as if this was prospective. This mine has been okayed by everybody, had a NEPA statement filed, done everything required by the law of both the State of Washington as well as the Federal Government, and all we have said in this bill is they can go forward so that these large groups of investors, such as the retirement systems, do not suffer huge losses and because it is the right thing to do. They have done everything required by law. That is an issue that this Congress will have to address. Whether or not we choose to preclude mining in the United States in the future is a policy issue that will continue to be before this body in the future. But at least in fairness we should not legislate retroactively, and that is what has been attempted by the Solicitor's opinion. We are simply putting a stay on that so that those companies that have abided by the law in every way, have made huge investments, $80 million investments provided by funds from the groups that I mentioned, are allowed to continue operating. So I think these are responsible amendments. We did have some that were anti-environment, and we did not approve those. There were amendments from the other body that were denied in the conference because they were not constructive environmental actions.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, on March 9, 1999 the 1999 Student Congressional Council in my district passed a bill that proposes to strengthen Social Security for years to come. I feel privileged to have sponsored this student group and I am especially impressed with the students' diligent work in creating this bill. I believe Congress can learn from their example by likewise working together to tackle this difficult issue. I hereby submit the attached 1999 Student Congressional Council Bill on Social Security into the Congressional Record. Bill Passed by the 1999 Student Congressional Council on March 9, 1999. Event Sponsored by U.S. Representative Ralph Regula, 16th District-Ohio Bill Summary--Committee A The basic concept of this bill is to individualize a portion of Social Security while keeping at least half of it completely governmental. The individualized portion will serve to stimulate the American economy, lead to a general higher-than-present public understanding of investment, and grant more independence to employees with the money that they have rightfully earned. Employees will be able, with education and limitations provided by the company, to invest in endeavors such as stocks, funds, IRAs, and the government, in order to increase their playback while lessening the load on Social Security. The bill also provides for a check-and- balance system between the companies and employees, and encourages cooperation among these and the government. The employees have the ability to cause the companies to lose benefits if they are unsatisfied, and the companies have the ability to limit the investment of the employees. Under this bill, money is provided for the Social Security fund by the budget surplus, less stress on the money resulting from less money in the actual Security fund by the budget surplus, less stress on the money resulting from less money in the actual Security fund, and, in cases, the ``matching-the-employees investments'' of companies. The bill also provides for changes that may result from financial crisis, economic slumps, and/or corporate dilemmas, if not addressed by the bill (which many are), then as designated by new amendments, law, or judicial review. Introduced by: Committee A, Central Catholic High School, Canton, Ohio, GlenOak High School, N. Canton, Ohio, Jackson High School, Massillon, Ohio, and Minerva High School, Minerva, Ohio. 1. Over the next twenty years (1999-2019), an amount of each year's gross national budget surplus equal to the higher of 50% of the surplus or forty-four billion three hundred million dollars will be allotted to the Social Security pool of finance. This investment will provide a foundation for and complement to the near-future implementation of Social Security funds. All mentioned money will be placed into an exclusive Social Security fund. II. The money currently allotted for Social Security on each American citizen worker's income will be hereafter dubbed ``The Security and Investment Plan.'' A. The S&I Plan will divide current Social Security allotments into two parts: an unchanged Social Security fund and a Long-term Investment Allocation. 1. Social Security fund a. The money under this account will be monitored and administered as it is in the current system as of the nineteenth of February 1999. b. The money under this account must represent at least fifty percent of the S&I money. 2. Long-term Investment Allocations a. The LTIA will be money that has the opportunity to increase at a rate that will produce more money in the long run than the regular Social Security fund. It will also run than the regular Social Security fund. It will also stimulate the American economy via individual investment in US interests. b. This money will be monitored by each company and reported to the Congressional Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee annually for reference. c. This money is in the control of the individual who has the option to surrender its control to the company to invest as it sees fit or to monitor it individually. Individual Investment i. The employing company will provide access to employees as to the status of the questioning employee's money. This access may be via computer network or server, the Internet, telephone, and/or other mediums. This access may be either inherent in the privileges of the employee or granted upon request and approval through a superior or other employee or employer. ii. The employing company will provide employees with investment education. iii. The employing company may place limits on employee investment such as the restriction of certain forms of investment, certain risk-levels of investments, and/or simultaneous sums of investment transactions. iv. If an employee subscribed under the LTIA option has a reason agreed by the employing company and employee to be a situation or plausible cause for a situation of extreme need for the invested money, the employee may withdraw the LTIA funds before the designated time of retirement with a ten percent penalty to be paid to Social Security. III. Employing companies will be given the option to establish a Security and Investments Plan. A. The employing must demonstrate competent use of the plan. If less than twenty-five percent of the company's employees are not participating in the LTIA option of the S&I Plan, the company will no longer be considered eligible for the plan. B. There will be incentives for companies to subscribe under the S&I Plan. 1. An overall four tenths of a percent tax cut for the first twelve months of the S&I incorporation and two tenths of a percent for each year of incorporation thereafter. 2. The company may choose to match each worker's choice of LTIA investment with an equal investment in the interest of Social Security. In this case, the tax cuts will be raised to five tenths of a percent and three tenths of a percent receptively. 3. Corporate brokerage firms who aid companies in organized investment of the LTIA funds will be granted a one-hundredth of a percent overall tax cut. IV. this bill may be altered or amended as the law-making processes of the Untied States deem proper and necessary to the improvement of the plan without destabilizing the basic tenets of the bill. V. If an individual's employing company is not a member of the S&I Plan, then that individual may, through an application process determined by an S&I company, apply to become involved in that company's S&I plan without becoming an employee of that company. However, that individual will have to pay a maximum of 10% in commission to the company.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to pay tribute to the two brave servicemen who lost their lives this week during a training exercise in Albania, Chief Warrant Officer Kevin Reichert of Wisconsin and Chief Warrant Officer David Gibbs from my district. David Gibbs grew up in Massillon, Ohio, graduating from Washington High School in 1980. I wish to express my sympathy to David's family, his mother Dorothy, his wife and three children. Their pain can only be eased by the knowledge that his country salutes his heroic service. These two men chose to serve their country in one the noblest traditions and they made the ultimate sacrifice in protecting the principles and freedoms which the United States represents. All our men and women in uniform are to be commended for their service. We must support our troops so they can do the job they so valiantly volunteered to do when they joined the armed services. And we in Congress have a responsibility to ensure that our troops have the resources they need for the best equipment, the most reliable and advanced technology, and the needed training to make them the most respected military in the world. I will support this bill, because while we do not yet know the cause of this latest tragedy, the American people need to know that we are adequately supporting our men and women in uniform.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, the steel import crisis, which began in 1997, is still continuing today. The numbers tell the story. Total steel imports in 1998 were at the highest level ever, 41.5 million net tons of steel mill products. This was a 33 percent increase over imports in 1997, which also was a record year. While the pressure was on as the House debated the steel issue earlier this year and overwhelmingly passed H.R. 975, we saw steel imports begin to come down in December 1998 and in January and February of this year. But as soon as the pressure let up with uncertainty over the fate of this legislation in the other body, steel imports shot up again in March. We saw a 25 percent increase in steel imports in March over the levels in February. The U.S. market continues to be the market of last resort for many exporters. As markets overseas continue to face economic turmoil, exporters continue to ship unprecedented levels of steel into the United States, the world's most open market. In order to obtain hard currency, exporters have sent the world's oversupply of steel to the U.S., often at prices that bear no relation to the actual production costs. In March we also saw some imports source and product switching, which all of us had feared. We saw an increase in imports of blooms, billets and slabs and in hot rolled sheet from countries not subject to the current trade cases. The impacts of this steel import crisis cannot be overstated. Every single ton of dumped steel displaces a ton of domestic production. The United States industry is losing competitiveness because of these unfairly traded imports. Companies are finding that as prices drop and imports continue to increase, they cannot commit to future capital investments, they cannot commit to needed modernizations, and they cannot commit to additional research and development. These effects, if not reversed soon, could have a lasting implication on an important industry well into the 21st century. Company by company the impact is also being felt in the short term. Four companies have filed for bankruptcy protection. Mills are dramatically cutting production in capacity utilization. Foreign producers that dump their products are now realizing the benefits of American companies' successful efforts to rebuild the market for steel products here in the United States, and most disturbing is the damage that is being done to many American families as steelworkers lose their jobs. As stated in the President's steel report in January, 10,000 Americans have lost their jobs because of this crisis. Many will never return to jobs that can provide the level of pay and benefits that were provided by the steelworker jobs that have been lost, and that does not take into account the impact on local community services where jobs are lost, the impact of suppliers. So the job number could be much larger. Some workers may not lose their jobs, but short work weeks, reduced shifts and lost hours can also have a devastating impact on their families. Those laid off and those with reduced hours are struggling to pay rent and mortgages, to put food on the table and to provide their children with the things they need. As I have stated before, this crisis does not just impact steelworkers and their families. The shortage or the imports affect outside contractors, suppliers and everyone in the community that depends on these steel mills. I recently read a statistic that for every one million tons of domestic steel lost, nearly 5,000 U.S. jobs are directly or indirectly affected. The highly competitive United States steel industry cannot compete with massive foreign subsidies, closed home markets and industrial cartels that protect an enormous worldwide overcapacity. It is now time for Congress and our government to step in and take the steps necessary to provide the U.S. industry a fair and level playing field in the global marketplace. I urge the other body to complete action on H.R. 975. I further urge the House to take up other important trade law bills, including H.R. 412, which I introduced; H.R. 1120, which was introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton); and H.R. 1505, which was introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English). The current steel import crisis must be stopped, and we must ensure that such a crisis will not happen again in the future. I might add, I thought it was interesting that President Clinton even took the time to take this subject up with the Prime Minister of Japan because of their dumping practices.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, after this week we will be losing a trusted friend at the Congressional Research Service (CRS) who has been instrumental in providing timely and accurate information to Members of the Congressional Steel Caucus and to our staffs regarding the U.S. steel industry and its workers. I am speaking of Dr. David J. Cantor, who is retiring at the end of this month after spending 18\1/2\ years with CRS as a specialist in industry economics. Dr. Cantor brought to CRS a distinguished academic and professional background when he joined the staff in 1980. Dr. Cantor has a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University and held faculty positions at Boston University, Nasson College and Golden Gate University. He spent several years with the U.N. Industrial Development Organization in Vienna, Austria and worked as an Energy Specialist with the California Energy Commission. At CRS, Dr. Cantor has followed energy economics and the pharmaceutical industry, but his primary specialization has been following the steel industry. In the early 1980s, Congress enacted an enforcement mechanism for the Voluntary Restraint Agreements (VRA), which allowed the domestic steel industry and its workers to take actions to modernize the U.S. steel industry and make it world competitive. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, Dr. Cantor authored numerous reports monitoring the Steel VRA program which allowed the Steel Caucus to closely monitor the Administration's enforcement of this program. Dr. Cantor also authored a report demonstrating that import limitations of the steel VRA program were not responsible for rising steel prices. More importantly, Dr. Cantor authored a series of reports that defined the steel industry as a basic industry, and not just as a supplier to steel using sectors of the economy. As Chairman of the Congressional Steel Caucus, Dr. Cantor's work has been instrumental in our work to maintain this vital U.S. industry and the important jobs associated with it. Most recently, many of us have worked closely with Dr. Cantor to understand the current steel import crisis and to formulate legislative proposals that respond to this import crisis. We in Congress who work closely on issues relating to the U.S. steel industry and to workers in this important industry have come to trust and value Dr. Cantor's analysis of steel issues. We have come to expect the clear and unequivocal conclusions that he has provided to us. To his tribute, he has earned the trust of not only Members of Congress and their staffs, but also of the steel industry, the unions and steel users. On behalf of the Members of the Congressional Steel Caucus, I would like to thank Dr. Cantor. We wish him and his wife all the best when they begin their retirement in Phoenix, Arizona this summer.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues know of my strong support for trails throughout this beautiful Nation. No trail is more dear to my heart though than the Buckeye Trail in the great State of Ohio. Today I would like to pay tribute to Emily Gregor, an icon of the Buckeye Trail. Emily Gregor's devotion to the preservation of the trail as a long-time member of the Buckeye Trail Association spans the entire 40 years of its existence. She has served as its historian and legislative coordinator and is its president for 5 years. Mr. Speaker, I often tell people that the greatest legacy we can leave is not what we put in our will, but what we put in our communities. On the 40th anniversary of the Buckeye Trail Association, I today would like to commend Emily Gregor for the legacy she has given and continues to give to the people of Ohio through the Buckeye Trail. Her tireless commitment to the trail will be cherished for generations to come as they explore the wonders of nature in the great State of Ohio.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say thanks to the Committee on Ways and Means and to the leadership for giving us this opportunity to debate this issue. I know that it was not something that the Committee on Ways and Means was supportive as evident by their recommendation, even our leadership, but they said in fairness--in fairness--people should have an opportunity to debate this issue and vote on it. For that, I express my appreciation. We are here because we have a crisis in this Nation. We have a crisis of unfair trading practices. The issue is not protectionism. That word gets bandied around so easily. The real issue is fairness. We want our steelworkers and our steel industry and all the ancillary jobs and suppliers to be treated fairly. It is difficult to compete when the steel products coming into the United States are being sold at less than cost. Our steelworkers are the most efficient, the most competitive, the best quality in the world today. But all of those things do not mean a lot if the competition from overseas is saying, we will sell it for almost any price we can get, simply to earn hard currency. We have heard speeches that say the sky is falling. The sky is not going to fall if we adopt this bill. It is going to give the President discretion to ensure that there will be fairness in the marketplace, that our steelworkers and the suppliers and the literally tens of thousands of jobs that are dependent on this industry will have an opportunity to compete on a level playing field. I think this bill just simply represents an opportunity for our industry to compete. It does have a 3-year time frame. Let me just say, lastly, I think we need to take a look at our whole trading policy. We are in a different world when many of these laws were put on the books and we need to say prospectively we want fairness for American products.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, on the first day of the 106th Congress I introduced H.R. 232, the Biennial Budget Act of 1999. This is an issue that I have been working on for the past 10 years, and I think it is time that we enact this important reform. My legislation, and I might add that the Speaker pro tempore this morning has also introduced a similar bill, along with others, establishes a 2-year budget and appropriations cycle intended to reduce the repetitive annual budget votes. It would also improve the entire process by allowing more time for long-term planning and careful oversight of government spending. The bill converts the annual budget, appropriations and authorization process into a 2-year cycle. The first session of Congress would be devoted to decisions on budget and appropriations issues. The President would start the process by submitting a 2-year budget, which would cover the 2 years of the biennium, and planning levels for 2 additional years. Then Congress would adopt a 2-year budget resolution, a 2-year reconciliation bill, if necessary, and 2-year appropriations bills during the first session of a Congress. The second year could be used to consider multiyear authorization bills and to oversight of Federal programs. We do not do enough oversight now. We do not have time with an annual budget to really look into programs to see if they are working well. The current budget process consumes more and more of Congress' time. In 1996, budget votes totaled about 70 percent of all votes. It does not leave time for many of the other responsibilities of the Congress; and, obviously, it leaves less time for systematic oversight. Another problem is that we do not get the appropriations bills done on time. Only twice since 1974 have we completed action on all of the 13 appropriations bills on time. Whereas, with a 2-year cycle, we would have the opportunity to get this legislation completed and then go into the oversight program. Now, another benefit would be that federal managers, who are managing the taxpayers' funds, would know for 2 years how much they have to operate a park or other federal programs, and they could plan more wisely and could spend the money more efficiently. I believe that the benefits of moving to the 2-year budget cycle would be many, including reducing repetitive budget votes, allowing Congress to engage in long-term planning and management reforms for Federal programs, improving the systematic oversight of current government programs, and providing greater stability and predictability in Federal spending. I would just urge all my colleagues to take a look at H.R. 232 and sponsor this bill or some of the others, such as that introduced by our Speaker pro tempore today. It is an idea whose time has come, I think, as we try to manage the resources of our people and of our Nation more efficiently.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. And, Bob, tonight, when the phone rings, it will not be someone wanting you to change your phone service, it will be an automobile salesman. Just make sure it's an American model; saying that from Ohio. We cannot claim kinship with Louisiana, being much further north, but I want to say, Bob, we do appreciate that offshore oil that you send up to fuel our factories and our farms and our homes. And Louisiana, with your leadership, has been out front in providing for the Nation's security. Bob was given a tremendous challenge as the new chairman in handling a rescission bill. We tend to forget how vitally important that bill was to demonstrate the majority party's commitment in real dollars to reducing the cost of government. It was an enormously challenging responsibility, because what his leadership required was to say to people we are going to take something back that you already have, and that is not easy to do. And yet we had a very successful bill under the leadership of Bob, saved several billion dollars in rescinding programs that would have otherwise been wasteful spending. And, most importantly, it established a lower base. Because the programs in appropriations build on the base from year to year to year, that savings achieved by that first rescission bill will lead far into the future in saving the taxpayers money. That was an enormous contribution, and it was, I think, quite evident of his excellent leadership as the new chairman of the committee. I would also say that I was always impressed with his grasp of the issues. Because as chairman, Bob would go from committee to committee and participate in some of the difficult challenges of each of the subcommittees, and to do that he had to have an understanding of the issues. He did very well in serving in that role. And I believe that contributed substantially to the success of the appropriations process in achieving what we now have as a balanced budget, because basically the budget is a composite of all the separate programs. I would also say, Bob, if things get tough, you can be a diplomat. I experienced that in your office one day when you were between a couple of Members who had a somewhat different point of view, and you exercised great diplomacy in avoiding bloodshed. A good thing you did have those knives that you had for the first meeting out of reach. It was a real feat of diplomacy because of the different points of view. Also, Bob, if things get real tough you can start a restaurant. You have a wicked pot of jambalaya, and we enjoyed that in your home one night. I think you said you produced it. It was probably Bonnie's handiwork, but nothing like taking credit when she was not within ear shot. But, really, I have enjoyed your leadership and I have enjoyed the fact that you have always supported each of us in the subcommittees in dealing with some very difficult problems. Oftentimes we have to make decisions that are not necessarily pleasing to Members in order to keep a restraint in spending, and to accomplish this required having your support as we would bring a bill through the process. I think you have done a superb job of providing leadership. You have established a benchmark that will be a challenge to those in the future. And since it was the first time in 40 years that we had the chairmanship of that committee, the way in which you conducted it does create a pattern that I think will be followed in the future. So your contributions will reach far beyond your tenure in the Congress, and I join all my colleagues in wishing you and Bonnie the very best. You have been blessed with a good helpmate in Bonnie, and it has been a joy to just be part of this Congress and serving with you and knowing both of you.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the continued threat that the surge of low priced steel imports is having on our domestic steel industry and on the jobs of steel workers, their families and the communities in which they live. According to the President's steel report released on January 7, we have already lost 10,000 steel worker jobs in the United States. This import crisis is having a dramatic effect on the families that are directly affected by these job losses, but the story does not end there. Many more jobs are being lost as suppliers cut back and businesses in the affected communities must cut back on employment because demand for their products and services is no longer there. We are told by the administration, and I quote from the January 7 report: ``Free and fair rules-based trade is essential for both global economic recovery and for U.S. prosperity.'' I emphasize ``fair rule- based trade.'' But what have we seen since July 1997 when the Asian financial crisis began and the Russian economic crisis flared up has certainly not been ``fair rules-based trade.'' At that time we already had worldwide over- capacity in steel production because many nations had subsidized the building of new steel plants that had no economic basis. Then demand in these nations collapsed as their currencies and the economy collapsed. In order to obtain hard currency, foreign companies began shipping to the world's most open market, the United States. The oversupply of steel products on the world market flowed into the United States, often at prices that had no relation to actual production costs. For example, steel mill imports into the United States jumped almost 33 percent in 1998 over imports in 1997, and it should be noted that 1997 was already a record year for imports. Steel mill product from Japan surged 163 percent in 1998 over 1997, with hot rolled steel products from Japan increasing an astronomical 386 percent in 1998 over 1997. Steel mill product imports from Russia were up 58 percent and on and on. These figures do not paint a picture of ``fair rules-based trade,'' as the President called it, with regard to steel imports. It is time that the administration truly enforce fair trade in this Nation with regard to steel imports. It is also time that we examine our overall trade policy. As we provide nations in financial and economic turmoil with international monetary fund aid, should these nations be allowed to export their way out of their troubles, thereby threatening a basic industry in the United States? Why should an industry, such as the steel industry, which has modernized and downsized to become world competitive, now be put at risk because of outside factors over which it has no control? Do we want to become a nation without any basic manufacturing capability, totally dependent on foreign supply of things such as steel? These are questions that we must address and which have been brought to the forefront by the steel import crisis. I continue to urge the administration to take immediate action under existing authority. I refer to Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows the President to respond to injurious import surges. He now has the authority to impose tariffs or quotas if the International Trade Commission finds injury. Section 201 is the appropriate current law remedy accepted under our international obligations to stop import surges that injure. One problem that exists with Section 201 is that the injury standard is high, higher than required by the World Trade Organization rules. Because the injury standard under current law is so high, Section 201 has not been the remedy of choice. I have proposed legislation that would lower the injury standard that now exists in Section 201 to bring it into compliance with World Trade Organization rules. This would restore the effectiveness of Section 201 and make it a viable remedy against import surges. With this change to Section 201, the administration could join with the Congress, industry and labor to rekindle the partnership that was so effective during the 1980's in rebuilding this vital industry, and come up with a solution to stop up fair imports. Such a solution to the import crisis could be agreed to by all parties under a U.S. law that is in accordance with our international obligations. We could work together to ensure that no more jobs are lost and that we maintain a vital and strong domestic steel industry here in the United States.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, steel imports continues to pour into the United States at very low prices and are threatening steel worker jobs and the health of the U.S. steel industry. As was acknowledged in the President's recent steel report, this is a severe crisis that has resulted in a 30 percent surge in steel imports during the first 10 months of 1998 and has resulted in the loss of 10,000 steel worker jobs. Surprisingly, the President's steel report does not contain any significant measures that will provide immediate relief to the industry and protect steel worker jobs. The report only rehashes discussions he and administration officials have had with offending country officials asking them to cut back on their steel exports to the U.S., and revises measures that have been taken to expedite recent trade cases. The only new proposals in the President's report are $300 million in tax relief for steel companies allowing them to carry back losses for 5 years, and a high level administration coordinator to assist communities once they have already suffered job losses. Since the administration does not appear ready to take decisive and immediate action to solve the steel import crisis, it is up to the Congress to look at various options. I am introducing today the Trade Fairness Act of 1999 which is but one option in trying to solve the steel import crisis. It may not be the most expeditious option, but the bill contains two provisions that would significantly improve current law to better respond to import surges. The bill lowers the threshold for establishing injury in safeguard actions under section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act to bring the standard in line with World Trade Organization rules. Section 201 allows the President to provide appropriate relief, including duties and quotas, when an industry is injured by import surges. The injury standard in this type of action should not remain unjustifiably high, thereby precluding the use of section 201 to respond to import surges. Second, the bill establishes a steel import permit and monitoring program, similar to programs in Canada and Mexico. This monitoring program will provide the Administration and industry with timely import data to determine more quickly if the marketplace is being disrupted by unfair imports. This bill represents only one option. You will see other bills introduced in the near future responding to the steel import crisis, including a bill I am drafting to require the President to negotiate Voluntary Restraint Agreements with offending nations. This program was extremely effective in the 1980's in allowing the industry to restructure and become world competitive. But, even the most competitive industry cannot compete against unfair imports. We must look for an effective solution to stop these unfair steel imports. Below is a more detailed explanation of the Trade Fairness Act of 1999. Explanation of the Trade Fairness Act of 1999 (Introduced by Congressman Ralph Regula) The Emergency Steel Relief Act of 1999 is one option to enhance U.S. law to better respond to surges of foreign imports that injure U.S. industries and their workers. This legislation makes prospective changes in U.S. trade laws to bring these laws in line with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and establishes an import monitoring program for steel. The Trade Fairness Act of 1999 consists of the following two sections: first, the legislation lowers the threshold for establishing injury in safeguard actions under Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act; and second, it establishes an import monitoring program to monitor the amount of foreign steel coming into the U.S. on a more timely basis. 1. Safeguard Actions: The legislation amends Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows the President to provide appropriate relief to a U.S. industry if the International Trade Commission (ITC) finds that the industry has been seriously injured and that injury has been substantially caused by imports. Current law requires that imports are a substantial cause of injury to U.S. industry. Our WTO obligation requires only that imports be a cause of injury (i.e. it need not be a `substantial' cause). The bill deletes the term `substantial' from the causation standard. Current law requires that imports are ``not less than any other cause'' of injury. This is an unnecessarily high standard. The bill clarifies that in order to gain relief there only needs to be a causal link between imports and the injury. The bill also includes in U.S. law the factors to be considered by the ITC, as established by the WTO, to determine whether the U.S. industry has suffered serious injury. These factors include: the rate and amount of the increase in imports of the product concerned in absolute and relative terms; the share of the domestic market taken by increased imports; changes in the levels of sales; production; productivity; capacity utilization; profits and losses; and, employment. 2. Steel Import Monitoring Program: The bill establishes a steel import permit and monitoring program. In order to gain relief under U.S. trade laws, domestic industries must demonstrate that unfairly traded imports have caused injury. This requires complex factual and economic analysis of import data. Currently, such data has not been available on a timely basis. This data has become public several months after the imports have arrived in the U.S., thus allowing unfairly traded imports to cause significant damage in many cases before the data is available for even a preliminary analysis. The steel import permit and monitoring system, which is modeled on similar systems currently in use in Canada and Mexico, would allow the U.S. government to receive and analyze critical import data in a more timely manner and allow industry to determine more quickly whether unfair imports are disrupting the market.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, since 1983, the U.S. Congress and the German legislature have conducted an annual exchange program for staff members from both countries. The program gives professional staff the opportunity to observe and learn about each other's political institutions and convey Members' views on issues of mutual concern. A staff delegation from the United States Congress will be selected to visit Germany May 22 to June 5 of this year. During the 2-week exchange, the delegation will attend meetings with Bundestag members, Bundestag party staff members, and representatives of numerous political, business, academic, and media agencies. Cultural activities and a weekend visit in a Bundestag Member's district will complete the schedule. A comparable delegation of German staff members will visit the United States for 3 weeks this summer. They will attend similar meetings here in Washington and visit the districts of Congressional Members. The Congress-Bundestag exchange is highly regarded in Germany and is one of several exchange programs sponsored by public and private institutions in the United States and Germany to foster better understanding of the politics and policies of both countries. The ongoing situation in the Persian Gulf, the expansion of NATO, the proposed expansion of the European Union, and the introduction of the Euro will make this year's exchange particularly relevant. The U.S. delegation should consist of experienced and accomplished Hill staff members who can contribute to the success of the exchange on both sides of the Atlantic. The Bundestag sends senior staff professionals to the United States. Applicants should have a demonstrable interest in events in Europe. Applicants need not be working in the field of foreign affairs, although such a background can be helpful. The composite U.S. delegation should exhibit a range of expertise in issues of mutual concern in Germany and the United States such as, but not limited to, trade, security, the environment, immigration, economic development, health care, and other social policy issues. In addition, U.S. participants are expected to help plan and implement the program for the Bundestag staff members when they visit the United States. Participants are expected to assist in planning topical meetings in Washington, and are encouraged to host one or two Bundestag staffers in their Member's district in July, or to arrange for such a visit to another Member's district. Participants will be selected by a committee composed of U.S. Information Agency personnel and past participants of the exchange. Senators and Representatives who would like a member of their staff to apply for participation in this year's program should direct them to submit a resume and cover letter in which they state why they believe they are qualified and some assurances of their ability to participate during the time stated. Applications may be sent to Connie Veillette at 2309 Rayburn Building by noon on Friday, March 12.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, it is with great disappointment in the President that I rise in support of the impeachment. Mr. Speaker, no one here today is happy about our undertaking. It is a sad occasion, one filled with sincere dismay and concern for the future of our country. And I believe this concern is shared by Members on both sides of the aisle. After listening to my constituents, considering the Judiciary Committee proceedings, and the responses from the Administration, one thought remained constant. That is the inscription on the mantel of the State Dining Room of the White House. It is the words written by John Adams, the first President to live in the White House, in a letter to his wife Abigail. I pray Heaven to Bestow The Best of Blessings on

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the Congress' attention an individual who has over the past decade made innumerable contributions promoting a better understanding of our institution and the federal government to visitors from around the world. Jack Hechler, for the past ten years, has served as escort/ interpreter for the well-regarded annual Congress-Bundestag/Bundesrat Staff Exchange Program. Begun in 1983, this exchange program has greatly contributed to improving the working relationship between the legislatures of the United States and Germany. Since 1988, Mr. Hechler has been the escort/interpreter for the German delegation which arrives each summer for a three week program in Washington and Members' districts. Born and raised in Germany, Mr. Hechler graduated from American University in Washington, D.C., served in the U.S. Armed Forces, and for more than 37 years was an active Civil Service employee. Prior to his retirement, he served as Director of Policy, Plans, and Evaluation at the General Services Administration. Since his retirement, Mr. Hechler has provided escort and interpreting services for the Department of State and the U.S. Information Agency. Mr. Hechler has been invaluable to the success of the Congress- Bundestag/Bundesrate Staff Exchange by providing continuity to the program which relies heavily on alumni volunteers. The ten member German delegations and the network of American alumni have come to depend on his insights, his wide breadth of knowledge of American history, and his composure. It is no wonder that the Federal Republic of Germany awarded him the Order of Merit for his work with this program. Mr. Hechler has provided Congress with a great service for which I offer my appreciation and that of my colleagues.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would just point out in discussing the Interior section of this bill that it is very environmentally friendly, but it is also very fiscally sound. The total spending of the Interior bill is the same as 1998, no increase. That is because we developed some good management techniques in working with our public lands. At the same time, the spending for parks is up $99 billion. In terms of the forests, we eliminate purchaser credit, we emphasize forest health, recognizing that as we talk about global warming, one of the great ways to reduce CO2s is to increase our forestry sources, the best possible converters of CO2 to oxygen. We reduced the forest cut to $3.6 billion board feet, while at the same time we are growing 20 billion board-feet in our national forests. The bill includes $340 million for clean water programs to work with the States. Everglades restoration, $140 million to restore the treasures of the Everglades. The Appalachian Trail will be finished. The funds in this bill will allow the Appalachian Trail to be totally in public ownership for the first time in history. We fund the millennium program. This is new, and is in recognition of this important landmark time in our Nation's history. The money will be used to restore the Nation's treasures. Indian health, we were concerned. We put $141 million extra over the President's request for Indian health. The cultural treasures of this Nation, the Smithsonian, the National Gallery, the Kennedy Center, the Holocaust Museum, all with increased funding. Energy efficiency and conservation, about $1 billion, in recognition that as a Nation we are dependent on energy, but also a recognition that we have to develop ways to burn it more efficiently and in a cleaner way. The bill protects our wilderness areas. Lastly I would point out that over the past 4 years we have decreased spending by $2.2 billion less than requested by the President.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Do not we have a problem with these countries who are violating trade agreements and dumping into our markets? Should they not be enforced? Should they not be required to meet the law?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it says in the resolution that the countries are not abiding by the letter of international trade agreements. In the gentleman's opinion, should we allow these countries to violate, that is an operative word, violate, international trade agreements?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and first I would like to commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) for all of his work with the Congressional Steel Caucus to protect steel jobs in the United States. I understand that he will support H. Res. 598 today, and certainly I will, and I urge all my colleagues to do so. This resolution calls on the President to take all necessary measures. What are these? The tools are there. One, the most significant and far-reaching powers under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. Under this act, the President may block imports to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy or the economy of the United States if he declares a national emergency, and this is a threat to our economy. Two, under the anti-dumping laws the President may impose anti- dumping duties that equal the amount of dumping if injury to the United States industry is shown, and these duties may be imposed retroactively if the administration finds critical circumstances which they can do; and B, the President may accelerate the statutory deadlines for determining whether dumping exists so that duties may be imposed sooner. Three, under the countervailing duty law the President may impose countervailing duties that equal the amount of any subsidy provided by the foreign government if injury to the U.S. industry is shown, and this injury is not only to the U.S. industries' star people, people that will not have a paycheck between now and Christmas, people that will be suffering because of layoffs due to the dumping. Four, under section 201 the President may take action including imposing duties, a tariff rate quota or quantitative restrictions to respond to a surge of imports that is exactly what this bill calls for that is substantially causing serious injury to the United States industry. Lastly, under section 301 the President must take unilateral action, action on his part alone if he determines that a country is taking action in violation of trade agreements. The President has the tools. Mr. President, use them.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, maybe we should broaden this to take in some of the other illegal and dumped imports into our markets.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.