Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is correct. If the critical habitat designation goes forward, the Congress expects the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the rights of private property owners. The service should seek to ameliorate adverse impacts on private property by actions such as using Federal lands and by complying with agreements negotiated with the States, including provisions for the use of other public lands in the State to the maximum extent possible before private lands are used. That includes the 1991 memorandum of understanding with California.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, just to correct some impressions, the moratorium on OCS drilling and the moratorium on the issuance of mining patents is still part of this omnibus bill. There has been some thought that these were removed, but they are very much a part of the bill. So I want anyone that is concerned to be aware of that.

Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. I rise to join my colleagues in opposing H.R. 842. While I commend the bill's proponents for trying to address the Nation's infrastructure needs, I do not believe that this bill will accomplish that objective. I have listened to many voices on this issue and the ones who have rung among the clearest have been national leaders such as Warren Rudman who has said that, ``Designating transportation trust funds as off-budget would further erode the integrity of the budget as a tool for fiscal accountability.'' Former OMB Director Jim Miller says, ``Off-budget status would * * * hide a major portion of federal spending from annual budget scrutiny.'' Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker says, ``* * * principles of administration and budgeting demand regular review and control of the full range of Government spending, balancing one priority against another. At the same time, effective fiscal policy forces consideration of the totality of spending in relation to revenues.'' Perhaps the voice that rings the clearest for me is that of the Ohio Department of Transportation that has been at the forefront of studying the current system of transportation funding and making recommendations for change. ODOT has concluded that it is not necessary to take the trust funds off budget in order to return more money to the States. The Ohio plan recognizes that since 1976 expenditures from the trust fund have exceeded revenues and that the balance in the fund resulted from interfund borrowing. The Ohio plan proposes that a major portion of fuel taxes each State pays into the trust fund be turned back to that State, including the fuel taxes now going toward deficit reduction. I urge my colleagues to take a closer look at the Ohio plan and that we use its concepts as a basis for devising a new system for highway funding--a system reached by consensus between authorizers, appropriators, and the Budget Committee.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join members of the President's Export Council today in paying tribute to Secretary Ron Brown. Ron Brown was a personable individual and a master of the art of politics. He served his country and his party with distinction. I worked with the Secretary during his tenure as Secretary of Commerce and was always impressed with his dedication to economic growth and jobs. We shared the goal of promoting U.S. exports, as Ohio has become a leader in the export of goods to other countries. The objective of his final mission was again to facilitate the movement of U.S. goods into overseas markets, thereby working to keep good jobs here in the U.S. I extend my sympathies to Secretary Brown's family and friends.

Mr. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, just a few comments on the interior portion of the omnibus bill that will be coming before us in the near future in the form of a conference report. Obviously, it was very difficult to meet all the needs with the allocation that we had. The final product that we put out was $1.7 billion under the President's request. Now, that is $1.7 billion that we are not loading on to future generations. What that means is that, when young people in the next century, soon to be upon us, want to borrow money to buy a house, it will be at a reasonable interest rate instead of an inflated rate. If we can reduce the deficit and ensure to the marketplace that we are going to achieve a balanced budget over the next 7 years, I think we would see a dramatic decrease in interest rates. Even now, of course, that translates into jobs, as people start businesses, as they expand businesses, as we gain a larger share of the export market because the cost of production is reduced by not having the high overhead of interest rates, and I remember the late 1970's when we were up at something like 21 percent. So the potential benefits are enormous. Mr. Speaker, in structuring the interior bill, we did all that we could to make our contribution. We divided our responsibilities into must-do's, need-to-do's and nice-to-do's. On the must-do's, we kept the funding for the parks flat, a little bit of increase but relatively flat, and said manage it better. They are doing that. We did the same thing with the forests. The cut of timber we allowed was at the President's number. So it was not a case of cutting below in that instance because we recognized that the availability of timber is very important, wood for housing. When we had the bill on initially, I had a piece of 2-by-4 to illustrate what has happened to prices for lumber, and this affects of course the price that young people need to pay when they build or buy a house. So I think what we tried to do was recognize that the agencies that dealt with people, the parks, the forests, fish and wildlife facilities, BLM, and they also have a lot of facilities that are used by people on a multiple use basis, we kept that funding level so they would have the people and the ability to respond. We eliminated the Bureau of Mines. I noticed in the President's 1997 budget he takes credit for eliminating Bureau of Mines, which we have done already in 1996. He has become a budget cutter. What we did is took care of the things that we had to do on the must- do's. We finished facilities that were under way because that was important. If there was a repairs, for example, we put--and this has just been recently--$2 million in the CR to take care of the C&O Canal because thousands of people enjoy that every week. Those sorts of things are must-do's. Now when we got the nice-to-do's, build new visitor centers, buy more land, we did not do it because let us take care of what we have. Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is that we are trying to be responsive and be reasonable and to get the job done but not do it at the expense of loading an enormous burden of debt on future generations. I think they will thank us for it when they go to buy that house and maybe get a mortgage at 5 percent instead of 8, 9, or 10 percent. They will thank us when they are not saddled with all the costs that go with the debt burden that this Government has.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out on the Tongass that the allowable cut with the money we put in is less than has been true in the fiscal year 1995 and fiscal 1994. We have actually reduced the cut, recognizing, of course, some of the differences of opinion. But I think that is an important fact that ought to be brought out here.

Mr. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, yes, I believe the language is clear. It states that, ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to consider questions regarding the factual and legal sufficiency of the environmental impact statement.'' This language shielding the EIS from judicial review continues to be in effect and would similarly shield any supplemental EIS, or environmental assessment.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 25th anniversary of the Ferroalloy Association representing U.S. producers of Ferroalloy products. It is an industry that has supported America's economic engine through wars, depression, and into the information age. You have seen its products in the shiny metal surface of a new car, or the armor plating of an M1A1 tank patrolling the streets of Bosnia. It is a product critical to the production of steel, iron, aluminum, and silicon, as well as newer applications in chemicals, semiconductors, solar cells, coatings and catalysts. As a collection, the over 50 different alloys and metals ferroalloys are critical to the economic well being of the United States. Apart from its pivotal position within our commercial economy the ferroalloy industry has long been a strategic asset in the defense of our Nation. Begun just over 100 years ago with the introduction of the electric-arc furnace in 1892, the industry expanded rapidly 7 years later when it was called on to meet the needs for projectiles and armor plate during the Spanish American War. Since that time, domestic producers have seen major expansions during every war period up to the last expansion during the Vietnam war. Each time the industry met the challenges placed upon it as part of the defense industrial base. However, in recent years, U.S. manufacturers have watched capacity and jobs sharply decline, due primarily to increased foreign imports and increased regulatory requirements. During the 1970's there were 15 companies with 26 plants operating 97 furnances. By 1990 there were only 12 companies with 16 plants operating 42 furnaces. In a matter of two decades, a more vibrant domestic industry had lost 60 percent of its work force and was expected to cease to exist completely by the end of the century. But, in response to these difficulties, management and workers joined together to meet the challenge once again. Through the use of U.S. trade remedies against illegal predatory pricing, the industry has recovered market share and increased profits. The industry has invested in new technology and has improved the capital infrastructure of existing facilities. Management and workers have continued to work together to increase competitiveness by improving productivity and improving the manufacturing process. The result has been the resurrection of the industry. Quality, productivity, and world-class technology are the watchwords for the U.S. ferroalloy industry as it continues to provide our Nation with the tools it needs to grow and defend itself.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], a distinguished member of our subcommittee. (Mr. SKEEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn], a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler]. (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the gentleman is referring to. We had one instance, just as he had one instance when he was chairman, of sufficiency language being included and that was on a sale in the Tongass that has already gone through all the environmental steps. It is just that the people that were going to purchase it are out of business so it is a moving of that sale to another purchaser. But the environmental requirements had all been met. That is the reason we put sufficiency on that one item. I agree we had it in originally on the Tongass generally, but we took that out. That was one of the things that was negotiated on the recommittals.

Mr. REGULA. The marbled murrelet is in the bill that went to the White House.

Mr. REGULA. No, that is not. That is a different issue, and we only had the one sufficiency, similar to what the gentleman had in the bill for Oregon some years ago. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a member of our subcommittee. (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]. (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)