[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 113 (Wednesday, August 4, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H7222-H7233]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KOSOVO AND SOUTHWEST ASIA EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1999
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House
of August 3, 1999, I call up from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
1664) making emergency supplemental appropriations for military
operations, refugee relief, and humanitarian assistance relating to the
conflict in Kosovo, and for military operations in Southwest Asia for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, with
Senate amendments thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Motion Offered by Mr. Regula
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House
of August 3, 1999, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
The text of the motion and the Senate amendments is as follows:
Mr. Regula moves that the House concur in the Senate
amendments.
Senate amendments:
Page 2, strike out all after line 7 over to and including
line 21 on page 3 and insert:
Sec. 101. Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program. (a) Short
Title.--This chapter may be cited as the ``Emergency Steel
Loan Guarantee Act of 1999''.
(b) Congressional Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the United States steel industry has been severely
harmed by a record surge of more than 40,000,000 tons of
steel imports into the United States in 1998, caused by the
world financial crisis;
(2) this surge in imports resulted in the loss of more than
10,000 steel worker jobs in 1998, and was the imminent cause
of 3 bankruptcies by medium-sized steel companies, Acme
Steel, Laclede Steel, and Geneva Steel;
(3) the crisis also forced almost all United States steel
companies into--
(A) reduced volume, lower prices, and financial losses; and
(B) an inability to obtain credit for continued operations
and reinvestment in facilities;
(4) the crisis also has affected the willingness of private
banks and investment institutions to make loans to the United
States steel industry for continued operation and
reinvestment in facilities;
(5) these steel bankruptcies, job losses, and financial
losses are also having serious negative effects on the tax
base of cities, counties, and States, and on the essential
health, education, and municipal services that these
government entities provide to their citizens; and
(6) a strong steel industry is necessary to the adequate
defense preparedness of the United States in order to have
sufficient steel available to build the ships, tanks, planes,
and armaments necessary for the national defense.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Loan Guarantee
Board established under subsection (e).
(2) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the Emergency
Steel Guarantee Loan Program established under subsection
(d).
(3) Qualified steel company.--The term ``qualified steel
company'' means any company that--
(A) is incorporated under the laws of any State;
(B) is engaged in the production and manufacture of a
product defined by the American Iron and Steel Institute as a
basic steel mill product, including ingots, slab and billets,
plates, flat-rolled steel, sections and structural products,
bars, rail type products, pipe and tube, and wire rod; and
(C) has experienced layoffs, production losses, or
financial losses since the beginning of the steel import
crisis, in January 1998 or that operates substantial assets
of a company that meets these qualifications.
(d) Establishment of Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan
Program.--There is established the Emergency Steel Guarantee
Loan Program, to be administered by the Board, the purpose of
which is to provide loan guarantees to qualified steel
companies in accordance with this section.
(e) Loan Guarantee Board Membership.--There is established
a Loan Guarantee Board, which shall be composed of--
(1) the Secretary of Commerce;
(2) the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, who shall serve as Chairman of the Board; and
(3) the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
(f) Loan Guarantee Program.--
(1) Authority.--The Program may guarantee loans provided to
qualified steel companies by private banking and investment
institutions in accordance with the procedures, rules, and
regulations established by the Board.
(2) Total guarantee limit.--The aggregate amount of loans
guaranteed and outstanding at any one time under this section
may not exceed $1,000,000,000.
(3) Individual guarantee limit.--The aggregate amount of
loans guaranteed under this section with respect to a single
qualified steel company may not exceed $250,000,000.
(4) Timelines.--The Board shall approve or deny each
application for a guarantee under this section as soon as
possible after receipt of such application.
(5) Additional costs.--For the additional cost of the loans
guaranteed under this subsection, including the costs of
modifying the loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a), there is
appropriated $140,000,000 to remain available until expended.
(g) Requirements for Loan Guarantees.--A loan guarantee may
be issued under this section upon application to the Board by
a qualified steel company pursuant to an agreement to provide
a loan to that qualified steel company by a private bank or
investment company, if the Board determines that--
(1) credit is not otherwise available to that company under
reasonable terms or conditions sufficient to meet its
financing needs, as reflected in the financial and business
plans of that company;
(2) the prospective earning power of that company, together
with the character and value of the security pledged, furnish
reasonable assurance of repayment of the loan to be
guaranteed in accordance with its terms;
(3) the loan to be guaranteed bears interest at a rate
determined by the Board to be reasonable, taking into account
the current average yield on outstanding obligations of the
United States with remaining periods of maturity comparable
to the maturity of such loan;
(4) the company has agreed to an audit by the General
Accounting Office prior to the issuance of the loan guarantee
and annually thereafter while any such guaranteed loan is
outstanding; and
(5) In the case of a purchaser of substantial assets of a
qualified steel company, the qualified steel company
establishes that it is unable to reorganize itself.
(h) Terms and Conditions of Loan Guarantees.--
(1) Loan duration.--All loans guaranteed under this section
shall be payable in full not later than December 31, 2005,
and the terms and conditions of each such loan shall provide
that the loan may not be amended, or any provision thereof
waived, without the consent of the Board.
(2) Loan security.--Any commitment to issue a loan
guarantee under this section shall contain such affirmative
and negative covenants and other protective provisions that
the Board determines are appropriate. The Board shall require
security for the loans to be guaranteed under this section at
the time at which the commitment is made.
(3) Fees.--A qualified steel company receiving a guarantee
under this section shall pay a fee to the Department of the
Treasury to cover costs of the program, but in no event shall
such fee exceed an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the
outstanding principal balance of the guaranteed loan.
(4) Guarantee level.--No loan guarantee may be provided
under this section if the guarantee exceeds 85 percent of the
amount of principal of the loan.
(i) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary of Commerce shall
submit to Congress a full report of the activities of the
Board under this section during each of fiscal years 1999 and
2000, and annually thereafter, during such period as any loan
guaranteed under this section is outstanding.
(j) Salaries and Administrative Expenses.--For necessary
expenses to administer the Program, $5,000,000 is
appropriated to the Department of Commerce, to remain
available until expended, which may be transferred to the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Trade Development of
the International Trade Administration.
(k) Termination of Guarantee Authority.--The authority of
the Board to make commitments to guarantee any loan under
this section shall terminate on December 31, 2001.
(l) Regulatory Action.--The Board shall issue such final
procedures, rules, and regulations as may be necessary to
carry out this section not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
(m) Iron Ore Companies.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the requirements of this
subsection, an iron ore company incorporated under the laws
of any State shall be treated as a qualified steel company
for purposes of the Program.
(2) Total guarantee limit for iron ore company.--Of the
aggregate amount of loans authorized to be guaranteed and
outstanding at any one time under subsection (f)(2), an
amount not to exceed $30,000,000 shall be loans with respect
to iron ore companies.
federal administrative and travel expenses
(rescissions)
Sec. 102. (a) Of the funds available in the nondefense
category to the agencies of the Federal Government,
$145,000,000 are hereby rescinded: Provided, That rescissions
pursuant to this subsection shall be taken only from
administrative and travel accounts: Provided further, That
rescissions shall be taken on a pro rata basis from funds
available to every Federal agency, department, and office in
the Executive Branch, including the Office of the President.
[[Page H7223]]
(b) Within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a listing of the amounts by
account of the reductions made pursuant to the provisions of
subsection (a) of this section.
Page 4, strike out all after line 1 over to and including
line 14 on page 22 and insert:
Sec. 201. Petroleum Development Management. (a) Short
Title.--This chapter may be cited as the ``Emergency Oil and
Gas Guaranteed Loan Program Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) consumption of foreign oil in the United States is
estimated to equal 56 percent of all oil consumed, and that
percentage could reach 68 percent by 2010 if current prices
prevail;
(2) the number of oil and gas rigs operating in the United
States is at its lowest since 1944, when records of this
tally began;
(3) if prices do not increase soon, the United States could
lose at least half its marginal wells, which in aggregate
produce as much oil as the United States imports from Saudi
Arabia;
(4) oil and gas prices are unlikely to increase for at
least several years;
(5) declining production, well abandonment, and greatly
reduced exploration and development are shrinking the
domestic oil and gas industry;
(6) the world's richest oil producing regions in the Middle
East are experiencing increasingly greater political
instability;
(7) United Nations policy may make Iraq the swing oil
producing nation, thereby granting Saddam Hussein tremendous
power;
(8) reliance on foreign oil for more than 60 percent of our
daily oil and gas consumption is a national security threat;
(9) the level of United States oil security is directly
related to the level of domestic production of oil, natural
gas liquids, and natural gas; and
(10) a national security policy should be developed that
ensures that adequate supplies of oil are available at all
times free of the threat of embargo or other foreign hostile
acts.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Loan Guarantee
Board established by subsection (e).
(2) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the Emergency Oil
and Gas Guaranteed Loan Program established by subsection
(d).
(3) Qualified oil and gas company.--The term ``qualified
oil and gas company'' means a company that--
(A) is--
(i) an independent oil and gas company (within the meaning
of section 57(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986); or
(ii) a small business concern under section 3 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) (or a company based in Alaska,
including an Alaska Native Corporation created pursuant to
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.)) that is an oil field service company whose main
business is providing tools, products, personnel, and
technical solutions on a contractual basis to exploration and
production operators that drill, complete wells, and produce,
transport, refine, and sell hydrocarbons and their byproducts
as the main commercial business of the concern or company;
and
(B) has experienced layoffs, production losses, or
financial losses since the beginning of the oil import
crisis, after January 1, 1997.
(d) Emergency Oil and Gas Guaranteed Loan Program.--
(1) In general.--There is established the Emergency Oil and
Gas Guaranteed Loan Program, the purpose of which shall be to
provide loan guarantees to qualified oil and gas companies in
accordance with this section.
(2) Loan guarantee board.--There is established to
administer the Program a Loan Guarantee Board, to be composed
of--
(A) the Secretary of Commerce;
(B) the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, who shall serve as Chairman of the Board; and
(C) the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
(e) Authority.--
(1) In general.--The Program may guarantee loans provided
to qualified oil and gas companies by private banking and
investment institutions in accordance with procedures, rules,
and regulations established by the Board.
(2) Total guarantee limit.--The aggregate amount of loans
guaranteed and outstanding at any 1 time under this section
shall not exceed $500,000,000.
(3) Individual guarantee limit.--The aggregate amount of
loans guaranteed under this section with respect to a single
qualified oil and gas company shall not exceed $10,000,000.
(4) Expeditious action on applications.--The Board shall
approve or deny an application for a guarantee under this
section as soon as practicable after receipt of an
application.
(5) Additional costs.--For the additional cost of the loans
guaranteed under this subsection, including the costs of
modifying the loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a), there is
appropriated $122,500,000 to remain available until expended.
(f) Requirements for Loan Guarantees.--The Board may issue
a loan guarantee on application by a qualified oil and gas
company under an agreement by a private bank or investment
company to provide a loan to the qualified oil and gas
company, if the Board determines that--
(1) credit is not otherwise available to the company under
reasonable terms or conditions sufficient to meet its
financing needs, as reflected in the financial and business
plans of the company;
(2) the prospective earning power of the company, together
with the character and value of the security pledged, provide
a reasonable assurance of repayment of the loan to be
guaranteed in accordance with its terms;
(3) the loan to be guaranteed bears interest at a rate
determined by the Board to be reasonable, taking into account
the current average yield on outstanding obligations of the
United States with remaining periods of maturity comparable
to the maturity of the loan; and
(4) the company has agreed to an audit by the General
Accounting Office before issuance of the loan guarantee and
annually while the guaranteed loan is outstanding.
(g) Terms and Conditions of Loan Guarantees.--
(1) Loan duration.--All loans guaranteed under this section
shall be repayable in full not later than December 31, 2010,
and the terms and conditions of each such loan shall provide
that the loan agreement may not be amended, or any provision
of the loan agreement waived, without the consent of the
Board.
(2) Loan security.--A commitment to issue a loan guarantee
under this section shall contain such affirmative and
negative covenants and other protective provisions as the
Board determines are appropriate. The Board shall require
security for the loans to be guaranteed under this section at
the time at which the commitment is made.
(3) Fees.--A qualified oil and gas company receiving a loan
guarantee under this section shall pay a fee to the
Department of the Treasury to cover costs of the program, but
in no event shall such fee exceed an amount equal to 0.5
percent of the outstanding principal balance of the
guaranteed loan.
(4) Guarantee level.--No loan guarantee may be provided
under this section if the guarantee exceeds 85 percent of the
amount of principal of the loan.
(h) Reports.--During fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year
thereafter until each guaranteed loan has been repaid in
full, the Secretary of Commerce shall submit to Congress a
report on the activities of the Board.
(i) Salaries and Administrative Expenses.--For necessary
expenses to administer the Program, $2,500,000 is
appropriated to the Department of Commerce, to remain
available until expended, which may be transferred to the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Trade Development of
the International Trade Administration.
(j) Termination of Guarantee Authority.--The authority of
the Board to make commitments to guarantee any loan under
this section shall terminate on December 31, 2001.
(k) Regulatory Action.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Board shall issue such
final procedures, rules, and regulations as are necessary to
carry out this section.
federal administrative and travel expenses
(rescissions)
Sec. 202. (a) Of the funds available in the nondefense
category to the agencies of the Federal Government,
$125,000,000 are hereby rescinded: Provided, That rescissions
pursuant to this subsection shall be taken only from
administrative and travel accounts: Provided further, That
rescissions shall be taken on a pro rata basis from funds
available to every Federal agency, department, and office in
the Executive Branch, including the Office of the President.
(b) Within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a listing of the amounts by
account of the reductions made pursuant to the provisions of
subsection (a) of this section.
Page 22, strike out all after line 15 over to and including
line 4 on page 32 and insert:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. No part of any appropriation contained in the Act
shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Steel Loan
Guarantee and Emergency Oil and Gas Guaranteed Loan Act of
1999''.
Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act providing emergency authority
for guarantees of loans to qualified steel and iron ore companies and
to qualified oil and gas companies, and for other purposes.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Tuesday, August 3, 1999, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Leach), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) each will
control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
General Leave
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
H.R. 1664, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of agreeing to a Senate amendment to
the bill, H.R. 1664. It provides for steel, oil, and
[[Page H7224]]
gas loan guarantee programs. These two sectors of the economy need a
helping hand because they have not enjoyed the benefits of our robust
economy recently because of unfair foreign trading practices and
depressed prices.
Independent oil and natural gas producers have lost about 56,000 jobs
over the past 18 months because of depressed oil and gas prices. The
U.S. steel industry has lost over 10,000 jobs due to the record level
of low priced steel imports that came into the United States in 1998.
Steel imports continue at above average rates in 1999. In addition to
the jobs lost in the steel industry and the surrounding communities,
these unfair imports have driven companies into bankruptcy.
Both of these industries have and are seeking relief through our
anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws. The Commerce Department has
found dumping in numerous steel cases and the International Trade
Commission has found injury, so that dumping duties are now being
collected on many steel imports. But this process has been a long and
costly process for the companies and their workers. The results of
slightly lower imports are just now beginning to show.
But many of the affected companies and their workers need the self-
help, and I emphasize ``self-help,'' loan guarantee that is provided in
this legislation. They are having trouble gaining access to private
capital in order to deal with the cash flow problems and to restructure
in order to weather the steel import crisis. The loan program is not,
and I emphasize again, is not a Federal giveaway. It is a tough, self-
help program which does have protections for the U.S. taxpayer. Let me
list those:
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, will serve as
the chairman of the board that will review all loan guarantee
applications. The Secretary of Commerce and the Chairman of the
Securities and Exchange Commission are also members of the board. So
obviously this is a tough board that these companies would have to go
to for a guarantee.
The loan guarantee amount for each company is limited to $250 million
and must be paid back by December 31, 2005. Companies must provide
security for all loan guarantees and shall pay a fee to cover the cost
of the program. Only 85 percent of the principal loan amount can be
guaranteed by this program.
Furthermore, any company that receives a loan guarantee is subject to
a GAO audit. So there are tough conditions in this, I want to
emphasize.
The board's authority, the board headed by Chairman Greenspan, to
make loan guarantees terminates on December 31, 2001. In other words,
it is essentially a 17-month program. So this is not an open-ended new
program.
I should also add that the credit subsidy cost of this bill, $267
million, and that is the charge we would have to appropriate just to
cover it, not that there would be any Federal money involved, this is a
guarantee, all the loans would come from the private sector, with the
government guaranteeing 85 percent of the loan. But it is completely
offset by a rescission of Federal administrative and travel expenses.
As we prepare to give a helping hand to our farmers, and most of
those are grants, in some cases loans, but we are saying billions we
are talking about to help our farm economy, agriculture, as we should,
but as we prepare to give them a helping hand, and they are affected by
the current drought, I ask that we also give the steel and oil and gas
industries a helping hand to overcome the import crisis that they have
had no control over.
We cannot allow foreign nations to export their unemployment to the
United States. I urge support of this legislation and, in effect, the
support of American jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, first I want to express appreciation to our senior
Senator from West Virginia for his interest and efforts in regard to
the steel industry, which have been tremendous and consistent and
effective, as this legislation which he is responsible for getting
through the Senate evidences.
Mr. Speaker, our steel industry and steelworkers are in trouble.
Foreign steel imports are up dramatically across the board, from 30 to
41 million tons in 1998. Hot rolled steel imports, for example, are up
a staggering 66 percent. Three countries, Korea, Russia and Japan,
account for 78 percent of this increase, and much of it is illegal
dumping, selling in this country at a price less than the cost of
actually producing it. That is a violation of international trade law.
Dumping has resulted in five of our steel companies in this country
going bankrupt and 10,000 of our steelworkers losing their job, 800 of
these jobs at Weirton Steel in my district. Five companies, Mr.
Speaker, 10,000 steel jobs, all lost because of illegal dumping.
The legislation before us today addresses the short- to medium-term
financial problems created for steel companies by this illegal dumping.
It establishes a program whereby the government will guarantee up to
$1.5 billion in conventional loans, $1 billion for the steel industry
and $500 million for the ailing oil and gas industry.
The amount actually appropriated in the bill is $270 million, which
represents the subsidy rate, and that is the amount of money actually
estimated to be at risk should there be defaults.
Loan guarantees are a tried and true approach to helping backbone
industries get through troubled financial times. Remember when the
Congress passed the Chrysler Loan Guarantee Act of 1980 which supported
a loan guarantee program of up to $1.5 billion? Chrysler borrowed $1.3
billion, and successfully completed the program in 1983.
Likewise, in 1981 Lockheed was the object of a federally backed $250
million guarantee program. Also New York City benefitted from a
successful $1 billion loan guarantee program. Some refer to these
programs as the Lockheed or the New York or Chrysler bailout. In fact,
none of these programs were bailouts. All were guarantee programs,
which allowed Lockheed, Chrysler, and New York to work through their
financial crisis and, at the conclusion, pay off their debts. The
government did not have to pay off one penny of those guaranteed loans.
Steel manufacturing and oil and gas production industries are vital
interests to our broad economic well-being, not to mention to our
national security interests. It is perfectly appropriate for us to act
reasonably to assist these industries using the loan guarantee model.
I urge adoption of the legislation, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, let me first begin by saying I regret I am
rising in strong opposition to this bill because I have such enormous
respect for the two gentlemen that have just spoken, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
But I rise in opposition on the grounds of process, the grounds of
substance, and the grounds of precedent.
In terms of process, Members will be asked to vote on the creation of
a massive new $1.5 billion Federal credit program designed to benefit
certain steel as well as oil and gas companies that has never been
considered by the House or any of its committees.
I have grave doubts about the appropriateness of a new contingent
liability of this nature in the Federal Government for a number of
reasons, including the fact that the proposal coming from the other
body lacks adequate taxpayer safeguards. Not only are there no warrants
to reward taxpayers for risks undertaken, as was in the case of the
Chrysler program, this legislation does not even comply with OMB
guidelines establishing core policies for Federal credit programs.
To cite just one, financial standards for risk taking require that
private lenders who extend government guaranteed credit must bear at
least 20 percent of the loss from any default. This standard OMB policy
is not included in this loan guarantee program, thus making the program
a bailout for poor lending policies of banks, as well as poor
management practices of steel and oil and gas companies.
[[Page H7225]]
For a country with the most sophisticated market economy in the
world, the approach advocated today represents an astonishingly
slippery slope. Loan guarantee proposals and circumstances of this
nature have a tendency to create stilted markets and unfair
competition. They implicitly disadvantage competitors and may not be as
protective of ordinary workers as they may be for investors and a few
companies and lending institutions that may have troubled loans in
place.
Let me be clear: Nothing in this bill expands demand for steel or
creates a single job. It may protect a particular worker's job in a
particular company, but it is not a jobs protection bill. At the very
most, it allocates jobs by protecting the least efficient producers and
jeopardizing more efficient ones.
For example, I represent an industrial river district with four steel
plants. None can be expected to receive any of the resources made
available under this act. But this bill authorizes assistance to steel
producers in competition with these efficient plants.
For every job that may be protected in West Virginia, one will be
lost in Iowa, and for every dollar diverted in this market intervention
program, one will be deprived from HUD, the USDA and an assortment of
other government agencies. There is no free lunch for loan guarantees
of this nature.
To be sure, last year steel import crisis was real and caused harm to
our industry and its workers. In reaction, the United States Government
responded aggressively to anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases
against a variety of countries. At the same time, the executive branch
exerted bilateral pressure on key trading partners, including Japan and
Korea, to reduce their steel imports to the United States.
According to Commerce Secretary Daley, these efforts are beginning to
have an effect. While our steel industry still faces a number of
economic difficulties, we have reversed last year's historic import
surge. Total steel imports have returned to pre-crisis levels. April
1999 imports of all steel products were 22 percent below April 1998
levels and 6 percent below April 1997.
{time} 2115
Indeed, this April's import levels were more than 42 percent below
last August's peak. Ironically, just today it was reported the domestic
steel companies are raising spot market prices of large volume flat
rolled products by as much as 9 percent.
According to the Chicago Tribune, these price increases have been
made possible by sharp economic rebounds in key parts of Asia's Pacific
Rim which is soaking up steel that otherwise might have been shipped to
the United States.
As for the oil and gas dimension of this bill, it should be
understood that this provision was added in the other body when crude
oil prices were at an inflation-adjusted post World War II low. But
from a bottom of $10.27 cents per barrel in February of this year, oil
prices have rallied over 100 percent, to $20.62 today. The recovery of
crude oil prices makes this bill not only philosophically dubious, but
untimely.
Let me turn now to precedent. Here two issues stand out. First, the
fact that this legislation is being considered on the House floor in
this way is a testament to the disproportionate power individual
Members of the other body have attained through precedents and rules
not shared by this body.
The principal reason this bill is before us is that one powerful
member of the other body refused to allow a national defense and
humanitarian spending measure to go forward until he received a pledge
from House leaders that this legislation would receive expedited
consideration in this body, in disregard of regular House processes.
To allow this kind of process to be subjected in the House is
precedential folly. The procedures of the other body demand reform for
a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they disadvantage
the people's body. But under no circumstances should House Members be a
party to power plays in the other House that dictate how this House
should proceed, especially if such commitments have the effect of
bypassing the committee system, which is designed to protect the House
and the public interest.
Further complicating this bill are constitutional and administrative
law questions. In an effort to make the loan guaranty program less
expensive, the bill was amended to require the chairman of the Federal
Reserve to serve as the chairman of a three-member board to administer
the program.
But it should be remembered, the Federal Reserve is an independent
agency, not part of the executive branch. It is responsible for
conducting the Nation's monetary policy, as well as supervising and
regulating banking institutions. This bill would entangle the Federal
Reserve in inappropriate executive branch functions and compromising
political judgments.
The program the bill establishes is more political than economic in
character. It is designed by politicians to benefit certain companies
in selected industries. In its present form, it entwines the Federal
Reserve Board, which both parties on a bipartisan basis have a vested
interest in keeping above politics, into the hurly-burly of
congressional politics.
Extraordinarily, the bill causes the chairman of the Fed to become,
in effect, a loan officer who also may be regulating financial
institutions with which the Federal Reserve may, under this bill,
become a party in lending judgments.
The only thing more foolish than the economic and political judgments
in play are the process considerations for Congress, the executive
branch, and the Fed.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that the interventionist
policy under consideration represents a procedural, substantive, and
precedent-setting umbrage. Loan guaranty approaches should only be
considered after extensive review and only under the most exigent of
circumstances. This particular congressional intrusion into the
American free market should be viewed with the utmost skepticism.
Mr. Speaker, I urge its defeat, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say how much respect I have for
the authors of this bill, both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
With respect to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), I
want to express my deepest condolences upon the death of his father,
with whom I had the tremendous pleasure of serving for 8 years, from
1975, his retirement, to 1982. He was a great person. He was a great
Congressman.
But I think, in all candor, his greatest achievement was his son. I
do not think any father could have been more proud of his son than Bob
Mollohan was, and rightly should have been, of the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). I am proud to serve with him. That makes
opposing the bill even more difficult.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaFALCE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished
gentleman from New York, for those very kind remarks. They are
certainly appreciated. God bless.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I must oppose this bill, in
large part for the reasons articulated by the chairman of the Committee
on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
I find myself in 100 percent agreement with each and every remark of
his.
First of all, with respect to process, there was not one minute worth
of hearing on this bill in the House of Representatives; not a day, not
an hour, not a minute. I believe that is true in the Senate, too, but I
cannot swear to that.
As a matter of fact, the oil and gas provisions of this bill were
never even introduced in the House. The bill number is the Kosovo
appropriations that was substituted. I do not believe there ever was a
bill creating a loan guaranty program for the oil and gas industry.
Now, I think it is a terrible precedent. I really think this is a
terrible precedent, because what we are doing is we are saying to the
authorizing committees, whatever they are, the Committee on
Transportation, the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Armed
Services, we are going to eliminate the necessity for them, on minor
matters. What is a
[[Page H7226]]
minor matter? For $1.5 billion, we will just eliminate the need for
their consideration of any legislation dealing with approximately $1.5
billion. That is a terrible precedent.
Secondly, some individuals say, well, speaking of precedents, we have
some precedents when we have given guaranties in the past. To be sure,
Chrysler has been mentioned as one example; Lockheed.
A few things. First of all, those were company-specific, not
industry-wide; not oil and gas industry, iron ore industry, but
company-specific. There were days and weeks of hearings and markup and
conferences, et cetera.
Most importantly, I remember when I wrote a dissenting opinion
against the Chrysler loan guaranty bill because we did not attach
adequate conditionality to the loan, because we did not attach the
necessity for shared sacrifices on the part of all the stakeholders.
The Senate did a better job on that bill, thanks to a good Republican
and a good Democrat, Senator Richard Lugar and Senator Paul Tsongas.
They attached those conditions. They attached, for example, the ability
of the United States to have warrants. They attached the necessity for
shared sacrifices, et cetera.
There is nothing in this bill remotely close to that at all, nothing
whatsoever. There certainly has not been the months and months of
hearing and public dialogue and discussion; not even a minute, not even
a minute.
There are other reasons, too. The steel industry is very important
and the iron ore industry is very important and the oil and gas
industry is very important. But there are countless other important
industries in the United States of America, too. Why just steel, why
not the materials industry? Why not the textile industry? Why not the
computer industry, the machine tool industry? We could go on endlessly.
If we are going to intervene and allocate credit, ought we not at
least to have some hearings to discuss where we would best allocate
credit? The House tonight is saying no.
But let us think of something else, now. We are coming in with a $1.5
billion program. The program had just run for a couple of years, but
the loan guaranties will go for decades, or I have forgotten the exact
date, but considerably beyond that. But we cannot do it for nothing. We
can only do it if we rescind monies in fiscal year 1999. That is what
we are going to be voting on. We are going to be voting to rescind
monies for fiscal year 1999.
How much will we have to rescind? Two hundred seventy million
dollars, or $267 million, to be exact, according to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Regula). We have to rescind that much. Where do we take it
from? The bill says, not from defense but from the non-defense
programs.
So what do we do if we vote for this bill? If Members are interested
in agriculture, we rescind $45 million from agriculture. If Members are
interested in commerce, we rescind $12 million from commerce. If
Members are interested in health and human services, we rescind $20
million from health and human services. If Members are interested in
housing for the poor and the elderly, we rescind $17 million from HUD.
If we are interested in the Department of the interior, we rescind $9
million; from Justice, $23 million; the Department of State, $11
million; Transportation, almost $14 million; Treasury, over $20
million; and Veterans Affairs, approximately $36 million. The list goes
on and on.
The total is, according to OMB, a rescission of approximately $270
million. I ask Members to ask themselves if this bill, that has not had
a day's worth of hearing, in order to help the oil and gas industry, et
cetera, is worth rescinding $270 million.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaFALCE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman agree that those are
travel budgets for those various agencies, just travel for members of
the executive branch?
Mr. LaFALCE. No, those are administrative and travel. Administrative
includes salaries for people.
So what we are doing is for veterans affairs, we would be eliminating
doctors, these are administrative; nurses, these are administrative.
But can our hospitals in Buffalo and Batavia, wherever they are, afford
their pro rata share of a budget cut in veterans affairs of $36
million, et cetera, et cetera? Is it that important?
Of course, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) pointed out, it is so
wrong to have the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and
unconstitutional, he argued, and I would agree with him fully, in
there. I hate saying vote no on this bill, but logic and the order of
the House and the integrity of the House, the integrity of the
legislative process, demands it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, a number of Members have asked the
question, what does this have to do with national defense and Kosovo?
Because when the Clerk read out the title of the bill, it did refer to
national defense, to the Kosovo supplemental.
I wanted to advise the Members that there is nothing left in this
bill that has anything to do with Kosovo and national defense or
anything of that nature. That was all stripped out. This vehicle was an
empty vehicle, and the other body used it as a vehicle then for this
loan guaranty program. I just wanted Members to know that, especially
because several have asked that question.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation, which will establish an emergency loan guaranty program
for the independent oil and gas industry and the steel industry.
Much like America's agriculture, the oil and gas industry and steel
industries have recently experienced a price crisis which has caused
hundreds of thousands of job losses and severe economic hardships for
the communities in which they serve.
In November of 1997, the oil and gas exploration and production
industry began experiencing critically low prices, which included the
lowest inflation-adjusted oil price in history. These low prices were
well below the cost of finding and producing crude, and they threatened
the ability of many independent producers to continue operation. The
effects of hard times on producers have a significant impact in all
areas of our economy, as many of our Texas schools and hospitals
receive significant tax revenues from oil and gas properties.
{time} 2130
While prices have improved in the past few months, the industry
continues to face economic hardship and infrastructure loss. The
Independent Petroleum Association of America estimates that 56,400 jobs
of oil and gas have been lost since October of 1997. Twenty-five
percent of the United States' total oil wells and 57,000 natural gas
wells shut down. Many of these wells will never operate again.
With oil imports currently accounting for 56 percent of America's
supply, it is of vital importance to our national security that we
provide assistance to oil and gas producers so that we can preserve
what is left of our domestic oil and gas industry. Since 1986, the
United States has lost 2 million barrels per day of oil production.
With programs such as these loan guarantees in place, we might not
have lost the domestic production. But we now have the opportunity to
do something to maintain what is left. These loan guarantees will
provide struggling independent producers with the capital necessary to
save jobs, businesses, and the viability of the domestic industry. If
the relevant committees of jurisdiction had taken action since 1997, we
would not be in this position now.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding
me this time.
Coming from Houston, Texas, the energy capital of the world, I
certainly have sympathy for the plight of the oil and gas industry, and
I am concerned
[[Page H7227]]
about the plight of the steel industry also.
But I was taught early in life that the end never justifies the
means, and this means is one of the most inappropriate efforts that I
have seen in the 28\1/2\ years that I have been in the House of
Representatives.
It opens its way to boondoggles, because there is no restriction for
a steel company with a loan to a bank. The bank is concerned about the
steel company's capabilities to shift that off to the responsibility of
the taxpayers. There is no protection against the president of one of
these industries making a personal loan to that industry and then
applying for the government to take that president personally off the
hook. No protection at all against that in this bill.
I associate myself with the eloquent remarks of the gentleman from
New York. I could not say them better than he did. But I would add that
it also sends the worst of signals to our trading partners.
We complain over and over again about their government subsidies to
their basic industries, like their steel industry; and here we are in
the back doorway having a government subsidy for a basic industry that
we decry over and over again.
Importantly, it is so precedential, as the gentleman from New York
said. Where do we draw the line when the government begins to embark on
this course? There are better ways. We should find a better way.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I do not like this bill, but I am going
to vote for it. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman
LaFalce) for being a gentleman and allowing me the time.
Pretty tough for me to vote against the bill that has come to the
floor offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), two great Members.
I also offer my sympathies to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan).
But I want to pick up on something that the gentleman from Texas
(Chairman Archer) said. No matter how one cuts this bill, the reason
for it being on the floor is illegal trade. The steel industry is in
desperate straits because of illegal trade.
What Congress has chosen to do is, no matter how we cut it, we
subsidize and accommodate illegal trade tonight in the House of
Representatives, with the only vehicle to help our industries.
This is unbelievable to me. We act like a bank and guarantee with
taxpayers dollars industries that are impacted upon by illegal trade,
but Congress does not have the courage to take a stand and reconcile
these great negative balance of payments in a trade deficit approaching
a quarter of a trillion dollars.
Good God almighty. Now we are going to accommodate illegal trade. We
are telling our trading partners, go ahead. The doors are open. If
worst comes to worst, we will take care of our industry for you.
A Nation that allows predators to violate their marketplace is a
Nation that will bankrupt and collapse. We have no sound trade policy
in America. I do not see any difference now between either party. I do
not see any resolution. I do not see any progress being made. I see a
sigh of surrender.
Let us use our largess. Let us put a Band-Aid on it and hope they
treat us better. I think it is time for a reciprocal trade agreement.
It is time to tell our trading partners, ``If you want access, give us
yours, or we will close the door on you, just like you have done to
us.''
If they are beating us because they are better, I can accept it. But
I cannot give them an advantage and go home and tell my people we are
going to use their tax dollars now to guarantee our failing policies.
This is bad policy, Congress.
Now I want my colleagues to take a look at some of the suggestions,
Mr. Speaker, that are coming from both sides of the aisle now on the
illegal trade. I am not talking about free trade tonight. I am not
talking about trade. I am talking about illegal trade, and we sponsored
it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair announces that the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 10 minutes remaining, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has 10\1/2\ minutes
remaining, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) has 5 minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1664, a
bill to provide loan guarantees to help U.S. steel companies and oil
and gas companies. I would like to comment for just a minute on the
steel portion of the bill.
American workers are the most productive in the world. As my
colleagues and I are pointing out here on the House floor and have been
for about a year, American steelworkers and steel company managers have
worked together to achieve remarkably efficient steel production here
in the U.S.
U.S. steel is the highest quality in the world, and producers adhere
to the highest safety and environmental standards. The bottom line is
we can compete with any steel producers in the world as long as we are
not flooded with artificially low-priced steel.
Due to the illegal dumping by foreign countries, scheduled
maintenance and modernization improvements at U.S. steel companies have
been impossible for much of the past 2 years. So these loan guarantees
will allow our companies to remain competitive.
As has already been pointed out here tonight, the terms of the plan
are tough. The Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, chairs the
board that oversees the plan. All loans must be paid back by December
1, 2005. The plan is fully paid for with offsets.
I represent one of the mid-sized U.S. steel companies that has
suffered because of this illegal steel dumping. Gulf States Steel, in
Gadsden, Alabama, which is in the Fourth Congressional District,
employs about 1,800 people. Without a program like this one, the future
of these workers is not optimistic.
This bill has been scrutinized, it has been amended, and it reflects
the hard work of Members both here in the House and of the Senate,
Republicans and Democrats.
I ask for my colleagues to support H.R. 1664 and support our steel
and oil and gas industries.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
(Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Emergency
Steel, Oil, and Gas Guarantee Act of 1999.
Mr. Speaker, I'm here tonight to offer my support for the men and
women in Texas, as well as throughout all of what we know as the ``Oil
Patch.'' These people have built an industry that has brought us a way
of life. Inherent in this industry has been the willingness to take
risks by the investors, and an abundance of hard work. The oil and gas
industry in this country owes it's past successes to the classic hard
work, family business, the American way.
Without the risks and hard work we would not currently enjoy so many
of the conveniences that make our way of life the envy of the world.
Yet, these family businesses, otherwise known as Independent Producers,
have hit upon very serious hard times, and while the rest of our
economy appears to be booming, these hard working people have been
forced to cap wells, lay off their employees, and compete with very
strong foreign markets. The stacked oil riggs give mute testimony to
their plight.
We must vote YES, and pass this bill, for at least two important
reasons. (1) Our National Security rests upon our ability to rely on
domestic energy resources in case of emergency, * * *. We cannot afford
to sit back and watch this industry fail. (2) It is the right thing to
do, * * *, these men and women, have been there for us in tough times,
all they are asking of us, is that we be there for them in what most of
the rest of us are experiencing as good times. This industry is
deserving of these loan guarantees, and as a matter of national
security, we must respond to their call for assistance.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
[[Page H7228]]
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I would add my comments and wishes to the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) as everyone else has. I
think it is a mark of the gentleman that, this evening, he is here
protecting the interest of, not only the people of his congressional
district, his State, but all of those in the United States of America
who want a good paying decent job for themselves and their families. I
think we all owe the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) a debt
of gratitude on that.
One of the earlier speakers, in his comments said this is not going
to create one new job. I would remind all of our colleagues that we are
here tonight because we have lost 11,000 jobs since July 1, 1997. There
is no end in sight. Those jobs were lost, not because of inefficiency,
but because of illegally traded steel that we as a government, the
executive branch and legislative branch, did not stop.
Those 11,000 individuals with spouses and children do not have a job
tonight. We owe them this loan guarantee.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding
me this time. I, too, would like to join my colleagues in paying
tribute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for the work
that he has done and for being here this evening.
But I do also rise in very strong opposition to this bill. It is a
target-rich environment of arguments against it. I do not know which
one to start with.
Let me start with this one. This bill is being brought to this floor
for the first time without the benefits of any hearings in the House or
any kind of public input.
This bill provides an almost open-ended $1 billion in loan guarantees
for the steel industry and as much as $500 million in guarantees for
the oil and gas industry. To cover potential defaults of administrative
cost, $270 million are appropriated.
Now, we have an offset for that, we have been told, an offset of an
unspecified pro rata recessions from the nondefense travel and
administrative accounts in all Federal agencies' fiscal 1999 budgets
which have 2 months to run.
Now, there are many of these budgets which do not have anything in
those accounts, and OMB has acknowledged they have not the slightest
idea of how they are going to handle it in those particular budgets.
So, in short, it puts millions of dollars of taxpayers' funds at risk,
rescinds millions of dollars in Federal administrative accounts, in the
Veterans Administration, in the Energy Department, in the Agriculture
Department where we have a real problem with agriculture in this
country. It takes the money out of those accounts and sets up an
elaborate loan guarantee board to administer the program.
Yet no one, not a single Member of the House, has had an opportunity
to review this proposal in committee nor hear from those who are
affected. This is not the way this institution is supposed to function.
Now, I also object to this on a substantive ground. The loan
guarantees being considered would not go to the benefit of any workers.
Instead they go to investors of a few companies, many of whom may have
had troubled loans in the first place.
The effect of these loan guarantees would be to reward inefficient
producers and skew market capital away from efficient industries toward
inefficient companies and inefficient industries.
Rather than save jobs, this bill would simply reallocate jobs in our
country. This is nothing but a special interest bailout for specific
industries, and I urge the defeat of this particular bill.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, since I only have about 3 minutes
remaining, I reserve the balance of my time for closing.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Ney).
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, also, as neighbors of the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), I know my constituency sends their deepest
sympathies.
Tonight a lot of right things I guess have been said, no matter which
side one is at on this issue. Politics. There are some politics
involved. I think it is politics to help good people that deserve help
from their government.
As far as breaking precedent procedure, I think that has been done
here over the course of a couple hundred years. I really do not think
it is being done tonight, though, in a way of breaking precedent
procedure, because there has been a type of hearing. There has been a
one-year nonhearing on this issue for the steelworkers and their
families.
Oil and gas is included obviously in this, too. They are having some
troubled times.
I would also like to point out that the monitoring bill of Visclosky,
Regula, et al. of this body, the White House put its hand into the
Senate and killed it. That chance seems to be gone, so something has to
be done. Tonight is the urgent need to do it.
This is not about free trade. It is not about fair trade. It is about
illegal dumping. Give the steelworkers a chance.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
{time} 2145
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished and able gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), who is really fully admired by
Members of this House for being here this evening, and our dear
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) as well.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure to put some steel back
into the spine of America and to help our beleaguered independent
energy sector. Earlier this year, the House passed this legislation. It
has been stalled over in the other body all this time. Unforgivable.
Now six more steel companies in our country, American jobs, have
filed for bankruptcy. Over 6,000 jobs at stake in Alabama, Ohio,
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Utah, coast to coast, and more on the chopping
block.
I think we are obligated to do what we can to provide help to this
beleaguered set of industries in the United States of America,
especially when they are so adversely impacted by imports from Japan,
which has never opened its markets to us; Indonesia, not exactly the
most Democratic place on the face of the earth.
So I rise in support of this bill, as I would have on the Chrysler
loan bailout, in which every penny was paid back with interest.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I too want to offer my sympathies to the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the Mollohan family. I
know the loss of a father leaves a very deep hole, and we all feel very
sympathetic to the gentleman and his family.
Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill. I understand why this bill
comes, but my colleagues, I was raised in the oil fields. My daddy was
a drilling contractor. We went through many ups and downs in the
economy in the oil and gas industry. I come from Houston, Texas, the
capital of the oil and gas industry in the world, and I am telling my
colleagues this is a horrible policy. This is a horrible policy.
We just went through a depression in the oil and gas industry in the
late 1970s and early 1980s, and we got through it. Sure, there were a
lot of people that lost their jobs, but I have to tell my colleagues
that the oil and gas industry got through that deep depression and they
are stronger for it today. They are stronger for it today.
When this bill was first conceived, oil was at $8, $10 a barrel, West
Texas crude is up to $20 to $21 a barrel. The oil and gas industry does
not need the government fooling around with their market by suggesting
that loan guarantees will somehow save all the jobs and save the oil
and gas industry. They do not need this.
My daddy would be turning over in his grave today, because I can
remember my entire life, every night at 6 o'clock around the dinner
table how much he would gripe about how the government was constantly
interfering in the oil and gas industry and stopping us from developing
the kind of industry that we needed for our national security.
They do not want this, they do not need this, and I hope that my
colleagues will defeat it.
[[Page H7229]]
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend my
colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), for his fine work
on this bill, and I want to introduce for the Record a letter that he
wrote to the Members of this Congress on June 16 where he talked about
the cost of not acting on this legislation. It is 108,000 jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I read an interesting article in a paper. I pulled it
off the internet, and it is called the Hindustan Times. It is one of
the leading papers in India. They said that imports from Japan, Korea,
Brazil, and the Communist block were ruining the Indian steel industry.
They said they were importing steel into India at less than what India
could produce it.
The average steelworker in India makes 20 cents an hour. India said
they are moving to block this. In that article, it said there are only
two countries in the world that are allowing its steel industries to be
destroyed, us and the United States, and they are acting to stop this.
The European nations and Japan have a reciprocal agreement which says
they will not dump on each other. We will not do that. These things are
not coming into Europe. Europe will not stand for it. We will.
I heard the gentleman from Iowa say the crisis is almost over. Let me
state the latest statistics from the Census Bureau. Shipments of U.S.
steel down 10 percent; utilization down 10 percent from a month before.
Total imports up 30 percent in May over April. That does not sound like
it is almost over. U.S. steel prices down 27 percent.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the letter I referred to
earlier.
Washington, DC, June 16, 1999.
Re loan guarantees.
Dear Colleague: During conference consideration of H.R.
1141, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, loan guarantee
provisions for steel, oil, and gas companies were removed in
order to facilitate consideration of the Supplemental bill.
Recognizing the strong support for assisting steel, oil, and
gas companies, leadership offered to let the Senate
Appropriations Committee amend H.R. 1664 to make it a loan
bill (H.R. 1664 was the original House funding bill for
Kosovo operations; the final version of H.R. 1141 essentially
combined the Senate Kosovo funding bill and the House
Emergency bill, thus making H.R. 1664 no longer necessary to
the funding of Kosovo operations). We are hopeful that the
full Senate will soon pass this amended version and refer it
to the House, at which point conferees will be appointed.
There has been some debate about the possible costs of
providing these loan guarantees. Not as often considered as
the costs of doing nothing to help these companies. With
regard to steel, if the ten companies most likely to apply
for loan guarantee were to close, here is what we would lose:
Number of jobs: 107,167
Dollar amount of income: $4,879,443,110
Dollar amount of production: $9,227,000,000
These companies affect many others within their states. For
one company alone, the impact on that would be a loss of
$206,348,230 in statewide projected earnings.
Independent oil and natural gas producers around the
country have also been hit hard by the extended depressed oil
and gas prices. Beginning in November 1997, the oil
exploration and production industry began experiencing a
price crisis that included the lowest inflation-adjusted oil
prices in history. These prices have had far-reaching effects
on the lives of thousands in the industry. In the past 18
months, the industry has lost 56,400 jobs, and an additional
20,000 jobs are at risk. This is a natural result of the shut
down of 136,000 oil wells (25 percent of total U.S.) and
57,000 natural gas wells during the same period--a
substantial number which will never operate again. As a
result, the U.S. oil and natural gas production is nearly at
its fifty year low. As devastating as this crisis has been on
individuals in the industry, the impact on our Nation has
been equally severe--estimated at $25 billion in lost
economic impact.
When the House votes again on this bill, I hope you will
support it. These U.S. industries are competitive and the
loan guarantees will help them remain competitive. If you
have any questions, please contact Mark Dawson (Rep.
Aderholt, 225-4876) or Dawson Oslund (Rep. Watts, 225-6165).
Sincerely,
J.C. Watts,
Robert B. Aderhold,
Members of Congress.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot today about the new economy,
but there are some of us still trying to get by on the old economy, and
the old economy is not doing too well.
In my district and across this Nation, tens of thousands of steel and
oil and gas workers have lost their jobs, and many more fear that they
may lose theirs. Since October of 1997, oil prices have dropped
dramatically due to increases in imports. More than 50,000 workers have
lost their jobs, hundreds of production and service companies have
closed, and over 136,000 oil wells have shut down. That is 25 percent
of all the wells in the United States.
Providing Federal loan guarantees to significant strategic U.S.
businesses at risk is not without precedent. The SBA guarantees loans
every day in this country for small business. We do it for agriculture.
Congress has done it for New York City, for Lockheed Aircraft, for Penn
Central, for Conrail. It is a common practice.
Mr. Speaker, these industries need our help. They are critical to the
economic security and the national security of our country.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this bill is just as deadly serious for
the steel and iron ore mining industry as were loan guarantees Congress
approved for New York City in 1977 and Chrysler in 1980.
The steel import crisis is not over. American steel makers are still
cutting production and jobs because of unfairly traded steel dumped in
our markets at subsidized prices. Iron ore producers in Minnesota and
Michigan, whose only market is the domestic integrated steel industry,
are especially devastated by imports of semi-finished steel slab
subsidized in Russia and other countries and dumped on our shores
displacing our high quality taconite. Layoffs totaling 2,500 jobs were
announced just this week by mines in Minnesota and Michigan, on top of
hundreds of previous layoffs.
I would rather the unfair trade laws worked. I would rather we had
duties and countervailing duties and quotas. But they are not being
imposed, they are not working, and the loan guarantee initiative will
help taconite plants upgrade operations, reduce costs, improve
efficiency, and the loans will be repaid with interest.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins).
(Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, I have only 1 minute to make a point. We
have lost over 100,000 jobs to oil patch in this country. We have lost
equity. And I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Leach) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), that is the difference. We have
lost more equity ever in the history of the energy industry. I am not
talking about the majors, the multinationals, I am talking about the
mom and pops in the small oil service jobs.
We subsidized ethanol and we bailed out New York City. The Department
of Energy is doing nothing. In fact, the Department of Energy is
harming the oil and domestic energy industry. Why? Because they are
supporting a lot of foreign oil production, especially in Iraq. What
kind of policy do we have? We have sanctions. We are proposing to lift
the caps in Iraq. They are selling oil illegally to Jordan and we are
loaning money to Jordan. What kind of policy is that? It is crazy.
My colleagues, our people do not understand it. During the July 4
break I marveled at our senior citizens. A grandmother approached me
and said, ``Congressman, I know you are going to take care of my Social
Security, and I know that you are going to take care of my Medicare,
but, Congressman, when can my grandson go back to work in the oil
patch?''
It is serious out there in America, and I ask my colleagues for their
help.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink), who has worked so long and hard on steel
issues.
(Mr. KLINK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want my friend and colleague,
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), to know that his
courage and dedication tonight are the greatest tribute he could pay to
his father, and I am honored to be on the floor with him.
[[Page H7230]]
My colleagues, this Congress had an idea that we would pass a steel
quota bill and that would be our response, and we passed it with a
veto-proof measure. But the same people on both sides of the aisle who
had sold GATT to us back in 1994 in a lame duck session said it is not
GATT compliant, that we could not do it, and they killed it. Now some
of the same forces are coming out and saying we cannot do this either.
Well, Mr. Speaker, our steel companies are having to compete with
companies that are subsidized by foreign governments. So we want to tie
both hands behind the backs of our steel industry, and we say go out
and compete in the world.
This is not the first time, my colleagues, that we have done
subsidies. We have heard about it before. But the reality is that our
basic industry needs our help. And if we let the steel industry go
down, next it will be aerospace, then auto manufacturing, bridge
building, construction, and on and on. We have to stand up for these
workers and the 11,000 who have already lost their jobs.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Wise).
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I want the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan) to know that parents live through their children, and the
fact that the gentleman is standing here tonight speaks volumes about
him and his father, and we thank him for being here.
For over a year, Mr. Speaker, thousands of hard working steelworkers
have faced economic devastation due to illegal steel dumping. Ten
thousand have lost their jobs. Weirton Steel, an employee-owned company
which fought its way back from bankruptcy, suddenly had 800 workers
unemployed. They played by the rules when other nations broke them with
their illegal dumping.
Mr. Speaker, this is only a loan guarantee program for the steel
industry and some in the oil and gas industry to get back on their
feet. No handouts here, just loan guarantees with tight controls and
costs offset.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in a year, this bill provides the
first little bit of hope to the thousands of proud, hard-working
families in our area along the Ohio River, for instance in communities
named Weirton and Wheeling and Follansbee. Vote for them tonight.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Western Pennsylvania (Mr. Mascara), my neighbor.
(Mr. MASCARA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I extend my condolences to him and his family on the passing
of his father.
To both sides, those who oppose this bill, I would like to invite
them to come to southwestern Pennsylvania and see the economic carnage
that took place from the depression of the 1980s and the demise of the
steel and coal industry. We lost an entire generation of young people.
They told us to get our act together and be more productive. We
capitalized and we were more productive. Now our steel companies are
suffering from foreign imports that are illegally subsidized. We have
the hardest working and most efficient steel industry in the world. All
that we are asking for is a level playing field.
We neither break the trade laws nor subsidize our steel companies,
that is why it is imperative to provide loan guarantees and access to
capital, because it is crucial in upgrading our steel making
facilities. We cannot stand by and watch these illegal imports flood
our markets, which have cost steelworkers jobs all over this country.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
{time} 2200
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, let me just clarify something about the
procedure.
There are some who have indicated that this measure has not received
the proper attention of the Congress because it did not go through the
regular hearing process. But this is nothing different than any other
procedure that we have had. We pass a bill here, the Senate disagrees
or adds to it, and then the conferees correct it, and then they bring
it back to both Houses for the vote up or down.
Out of deference to Senator Byrd, he had this added on in the Senate
because it was a true emergency and the conference voted to include it
in the report back to the House. So it went through the proper
procedure. But out of deference to this House and out of deference to
the emergency needs of Kosovo and in Latin America, Senator Byrd, at my
insistence and at the insistence of the Speaker of the House,
voluntarily withdrew from that emergency appropriation bill provided we
would use the other vehicle that was already sitting there to allow
this to come before this body in a divided stance.
Had we not done this, we would have been forced to vote with the
emergency appropriation that we had for Central America and for Kosovo;
and this too, we would have had one vote.
Under the procedure that we finally arrived at, we get the
opportunity to vote on a divided question. I think that is a fair way
to do it. I applaud Senator Byrd for agreeing to do it because he did
not have to do it. We could have resolved this in that emergency
appropriation bill if indeed the senator had insisted.
So I appreciate the senator giving us the opportunity to bring this
to the floor as a single issue and vote it up or down, because it truly
is an emergency appropriation for the steel industry.
I will assure my colleagues that it is impacting my State of Alabama
very adversely at this point. If they do not get some relief
immediately, then there is going to be a true emergency in Alabama
because we are going to have about 1,500 people walking the streets.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, we are here because one senator for whom I have the
greatest respect said, I have got to have this money for the industry,
especially in my State, and another senator said, I do not like this
idea that if we are going to have money for your industry for his
State, we are going to have to have money for my industry for my State;
and all of a sudden we have $1\1/2\ billion, without any consideration
being given to it by this House of Representatives whatsoever. Again,
not one minute.
Now, $1\1/2\ billion. I was chairman of the Committee on Small
Business for 8 years. Every single year we had to limit the loan
guarantees we gave to the small businesses of America because we ran up
against the limit.
The greatest job creator in America is the small business community.
So when we vote for $1.5 billion, we are really depriving the Small
Business Administration of the ability to give loan guarantees to small
businesses.
The Rural Development Administration, the Economic Development
Administration, just think of the countless communities in our
districts where small businesses if they got a loan with a Government
guarantee could revitalize that neighborhood business district, could
revitalize that community, could revitalize the housing stock. But they
will not get it because we are giving it to the oil and gas industry.
My Democratic colleagues, I remember when we first came here and we
argued so strongly against the oil depletion allowance. This is
terrible. And now we want to give the oil and gas industry this
enormous, over $1\1/2\ billion, loan guarantee program without a
minute's worth of hearings.
If we have a specific business in our district, we do not know that
they will ever get one penny of a loan guarantee. There is that remote
possibility. We do know with absolute certainty, however, that in
fiscal year 1999 we are voting for cuts in Government services that
help our people. We are voting again to cut agriculture in fiscal 1999.
This is for certain, $45 million. Veterans' Affairs. If we have
veterans and they have difficulty getting assistance from their
veterans' hospital or the clinics, we are making it worse for them, we
are cutting the Veterans' Administration's budget by $36 million.
If they need housing assistance, if they need more section 8
vouchers, if they need more 202 programs, we are
[[Page H7231]]
cutting the Housing and Urban Development Program by $17 million in
fiscal year 1999.
I could go on and on and on. But do not vote to rescind $270 million
in fiscal year 1999 for this program that has not even had one minute's
worth of hearings in the House of Representatives to help out the oil
and gas industry, chaired by the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board,
who does not want this job, who would probably urge us to vote against
this program, who does not believe in the concept of credit allocation
whatsoever.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify for the gentleman from New York
(Mr. LaFalce) who just spoke. He has alluded a couple times to this
money coming out of salary accounts and programmatic accounts.
I can understand his mistake. This money comes out of the expense
side and it comes out of items like travel and on the administrative
side pencils, paper, office supplies. It does not come out of salaries,
any salaries, and will not result in any programmatic diminution.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) who represents steel
industries.
(Mr. DOYLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, first let me say to my good friend the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) that he is in our thoughts
and prayers, he and his family.
Mr. Speaker, I stand today to urge my colleagues to vote for H.R.
1664, the Byrd-Mollohan steel and oil loan guarantee bill.
My colleagues, the crisis in steel is not over. Jobs are still being
lost. Steel mills are still closing. And this problem will not go away
without some real solutions.
The Byrd-Mollohan loan guarantee proposal we are debating today will
take real action to save American jobs and two vital American
industries.
I heard the distinguished minority whip here say that in the oil and
gas industry they have gone through some hard times and they have
rebounded and come back stronger and they do not need any help.
Well, I do not know about the oil and gas industry, but I know about
the steel industry; and I want to make something perfectly clear. We
have not fallen on hard times. We have lost jobs because our foreign
competitors are cheating, they are breaking the rules, and this country
is doing nothing about it. That is why American steelworkers are on
hard times. That is why we need some help.
Let us vote for Byrd-Mollohan and save some American jobs.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of
the Senate amendments to this legislation, which offer assistance to
the steel and iron ore industries; most importantly, the workers, the
families, and communities who depend on these industries.
I do not have any steel manufacturers in my district. I have iron ore
mines. In 1920, we had over 4,500 people employed in the iron mines in
northern Michigan. Then came the illegal dumping in the 1980s.
Today we have less than 2,200. Just this week it was announced that
the last two mines will close, the two in northern Michigan and one in
Minnesota, and they will be closed for at least 10 weeks because of
depressed market conditions for iron ore pellets because of illegal
steel imports.
For at least 10 weeks, the United States will not produce one iron
ore pellet to make domestic steel. If we do not take action to prevent
steel dumping, encourage the use of our domestic steel products, while
offering some relief to our industries, there will be no more iron ore
mines, there will be no more domestic steel industry here in the United
States.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) to close the debate for our
side, who has worked long and hard for the steel industry and so
effectively.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) and I went down to meet with President Reagan and we convinced
him that the steel industry was absolutely essential to our national
security.
We had a hard time convincing the Committee on Ways and Means. But we
fashioned a program that did not go through the normal process that was
finally accepted and refined and restored the steel industry in this
country.
We have had hearings for the last 15 years on these steel problems.
We need help. Because when they start importing steel, subsidized
steel, it takes 6, 7, 8 months before we can get it before the court,
before the ITC, before we can get the results.
We need to be able to lend them money so they can get through this
period of time. It is absolutely essential. Oil and gas and steel are
essential to our national security. I would hope the Members would help
us in a time when we really need this help.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, this is not for big companies. This is for
people. This is for that steelworker or that oil worker that is
unemployed, 60,000. This is to help them pay the mortgage, to pay the
tuition for their son or daughter that wants to go on to college, to
perhaps help a child that is ill. This is to give them back self-
respect and self-confidence by giving them their jobs back.
Remember, this is a vote for people, not for companies. This is not
one taxpayer's dollar being given to these companies. We are simply
saying as we have done for agriculture as we have done for housing, as
we have done for small business, as we did for Chrysler, as we did for
Lockheed, as we did for New York City. We said we will help them by
guaranteeing their loan.
That is what we are talking about tonight. We are guaranteeing the
loan. Not all of it, 85 percent. And that loan has to be approved by
the chairman of the Federal Reserve, by the Secretary of Commerce, by
the Chairman of the Securities Exchange commission, three highly
respected individuals.
I think what it does is simply say that this Government, which
historically has provided a helping hand to the people of this Nation,
once again says we want to help, we want to help by ensuring that those
individuals can go back to work, that we can compete in the world
marketplace.
As the gentleman from Ohio said, we need revision of our State laws
to stop the dumping, to stop the unfair practices. But in the meantime,
that steelworker, that oil worker is out of a job.
A vote ``yes'' is a vote to give them a helping hand from their
Government so they can have their job back, so their family can enjoy
this great Nation and the opportunities it provides.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this.
It has been said that it is going to take it out of all these other
programs. Not so. It is travel, travel for the bureaucracy. It is
administrative. It is the bureaucracy. It is not programs. As the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) pointed out, it does not
affect any veterans, does not affect any individual, just Government
travel. And there is too much of that now.
So, in summation, this is a helping hand to the people of this
Nation. I urge support of the bill.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for H.R. 1664, the
Steel, Oil and Gas Loan Guarantee bill now before us.
The bill guarantees $1 billion in loans to companies already in, or
close to filing, for bankruptcy because of the surge of cheap steel
imports that have flooded our country.
This loan program has historical precedent, which began with
government assistance to the Chrysler Corporation in 1980, and similar
assistance since then that was provided to the City of New York,
Lockheed Aircraft, Penn Central Railroad and Conrail.
The steel industry has lost over 10,000 jobs in the past year, and
the oil and gas industry over 400,000 jobs over a four year period.
It is time for Congress to do for steel, oil and gas what it has done
for others in the past--and that is to lend a helping hand.
This plan is not a bailout.
It is not a direct loan program.
[[Page H7232]]
It is a tough, guaranteed loan program requiring companies to apply
to a board which includes the Secretary of the Treasury. It's costs are
fully offset and will be repaid.
Please consider the alternative costs of doing nothing. If just one
major company goes into bankruptcy, the government will likely spend
tens of millions on unemployment benefits alone.
Multiply that by several companies, and then add in the lost jobs at
suppliers, the lost tax revenue to local, state and federal government
coffers, and even possible environmental costs--and you will have
sealed the economic fates of States in which entire communities rely
upon these industries for jobs and their livelihoods.
To be candid, Congress and the Administration dragged its feet far
too long by refusing to acknowledge the damage that our trade policies
were inflicting upon companies and workers in the steel, oil and gas
industries.
Our hesitation to act has caused job loss and company bankruptcies
across this country.
Today, we must do the right thing--to quickly approve and send to the
President this loan guarantee for steel, oil and gas companies and
their employees.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 1664. It is the right thing
to do.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding
me time on this important legislation. H.R. 1664 will help combat a
crisis that is confronting American steelworkers and steel companies. A
flood of cheap imports abroad have left our nation's steel factories
facing stiff competition from illegally-subsidized products.
This legislation grants relief to the American oil and gas industry,
providing federal loan guarantees to companies that are at risk to
these imports. If we do not move quickly to support the backbone of our
country's commercial sector, we could see other parts of our economy--
including the construction, automobile and shipping industries--
affected as well. The steel industry in my district has also seen
losses as a result of these imports, and this legislation--which I have
cosponsored--will address their needs as well.
H.R. 1664 is modeled on the successful $1.5 billion Chrysler loan
guarantee program, enacted in 1980. Three years later, Chrysler repaid
the government seven years before their loans were due. Federal loan
guarantees are nothing new; they have been extended to Lockheed
Aircraft, Conrail and City of New York.
This legislation allows banks and financial institutions to provide
federally guaranteed loans to U.S. steel mills and small oil and gas
producers. OMB and CBO have indicted it is fully offset, and the bill's
$270 million price tag is modest when compared with the potential
losses in the nation's steel mills and factory lines.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for steel in America and support
H.R. 1664.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this emergency
loan legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. steel industry has been devastated by the
dumping of foreign steel in this country over the last year. Many U.S.
steel companies were hurt, three steel companies filed for bankruptcy,
and thousands of American steel workers lost their jobs.
The Commerce Department determined earlier this year that dumping
had, in fact, taken place, and the Department subsequently imposed
duties on steel imports from a number of countries.
Unfortunately, the procedures that were in place to address dumping
took a long time to respond to the surge of foreign steel imports. As a
result, this illegal dumping took a terrible toll on our domestic steel
industry. Congress needs to act to address the damage that has been
done.
Consequently, I support the legislation that the House is considering
today. H.R. 1664 would establish a $1 billion loan program for the
steel industry and a $500 million loan program for oil and gas
producers. These programs would allow loans to be made over the next
2\1/2\ years to qualified companies that have strong long term economic
prospects but which face short term financial difficulties. This
program would provide much-needed assistance to the steel companies
that have been imperiled by foreign dumping.
While this legislation is not perfect, I believe that it would
provide important relief for our domestic steel industry--an industry
whose health is essential for our national security. I urge my
colleagues to support this important anti-dumping legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1664, the Emergency
Steel, Oil and Gas Guarantee Loan Act of 1999. I want to address my
remarks in particular to the part of this bill that concerns the steel
industry.
The steel industry took a drubbing in 1998. Global overcapacity,
combined with a dramatic drop in world demand for steel due to the
Asian financial crisis, led to a surge of steel imports into the United
States. Prices dropped dramatically, 10,000 workers were laid off, and
three steel companies were forced into bankruptcy.
Earlier this year, we searched for a legislative solution to this
crisis. A majority of this body voted for the imposition of quotas on
steel imports into the United States. That solution would have violated
our WTO obligations and allowed retaliation by our trading partners.
For that reason, I opposed the quota bill. It has since been defeated
in the Senate.
I have urged a different solution, a more long-term solution that
would help not only the steel industry, but also other industries that
may be vulnerable to the shifts that are bound to occur in our
increasingly globalized economy. The proposal that I favor is reform of
the anti-surge provision of our trade laws that will make that
provision meaningful as a remedy to the harm or threat that may be
caused by suddenly increasing imports.
I will continue to work for reform of the anti-surge law. In the
short-to-medium term, I believe that the loan guarantees proposed by
this bill will help the U.S. steel industry to recover from the harm it
suffered over the past year.
By making guarantees available, this bill will enable companies to
obtain financing that might otherwise be out of reach. Obtaining
financing on reasonable terms will not fully compensate for the damage
done by the surges of 1998. But it will help these companies and their
workers a little bit towards getting back on their feet.
Further, this bill contains mechanisms to ensure that the cost to the
government will be minimal:
The guarantee program will be administered by a Board consisting of
the Secretary of Commerce, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the
Chairman of the SEC;
The total amount of outstanding guarantees is limited to $1 billion,
the guarantees to any single company are limited to $250 million, and
the amount of any guarantee is limited to 85 percent of the loan
principal;
The loans guaranteed by this program will have to be secured by
property providing reasonable assurance of repayment;
Participants in the program will have to agree to audit by the GAO;
All loans will have to be payable no later than December 31, 2005;
and
No guarantees may be extended after December 31, 2001.
As I said before, the long-term response to the steel surge of 1998
must be reform of our anti-surge law. There will be other surges in our
future, and we must be prepared. In the short term, loan guarantees are
a sound means of lending a hand to an industry that is at the
foundation of our economy and that has suffered from a massive surge of
low-priced imports.
Accordingly, I will vote ``yes'' on final passage of H.R. 1664, and I
urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to lend my support to H.R. 1664, as
amended by the United States Senate. I know this legislation as the
Emergency Oil and Gas/Steel Loan guarantee program of 1999. This
legislation is supported by the 7,000 domestic crude oil and natural
gas producers represented by some 32 national, regional and state
associations. Hundreds of New Mexico businesses support this
legislation. They are small producers, they are oil industry service
companies and they are the countless businesses that provide goods and
services to the people who work in this important industry.
The oil and gas producers that would benefit from this program are
small independents. They are not the big companies. They are the small
producers who have seen the loss of over $25 billion and over 50,000
jobs since 1997. Today, when adversity hits our citizens and our small
businesses, there are numerous ``disaster'' programs to help them
through the tough times. When a flood strikes, a hurricane hits or a
drought settles across a region the federal government moves quickly.
However, when an economic disaster hits ``Oil Patch,'' the nation turns
its back.
In many of the communities in my Congressional District, citizens
would have been better off if their businesses would have been hit by a
tornado. Then they would have been eligible for assistance. Some
businesses in foreign countries have better access to economic
assistance than our small independent oil industry. This legislation
starts correcting this deficiency. Our domestic industry has suffered
through a 19 month price crash. This legislation will provide them with
the cash flow that they need to get back on their feet.
The fact that oil prices are up today does not negate the losses that
our small producers have suffered nor does it delay the payments that
are past due at the financial institutions. This will lead to putting
Oil Patch back to work and let Carlsbad, Hobbs, Lovington, Roswell, and
several other communities in New Mexico join the prosperity that most
of the rest of America has enjoyed during this decade. Our country
needs a strong domestic oil industry to maintain our national security.
Congress has a
[[Page H7233]]
long record of creating working loan guaranteed programs which provided
needed support to key U.S. industries. I would remind people that this
legislation, as constructed, is fully offset.
The oil loan program would provide a two-year, $500 million
guaranteed loan program to back loans provided by financial
institutions to qualified oil and gas producers and service companies.
The maximum loan would be $10 million and the government would
guarantee no more than 85 percent of each loan. This is a good bill; it
is a fair bill; it is a bill that follows the rules; and it is a bill
that will ensure American energy continues to be provided at a fair
price.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, more than ten thousand American steel
workers have lost their jobs.
Steel workers are not losing their jobs because the American steel
industry is inefficient. In fact, the American steel industry is the
world's most efficient. The reason American steel workers are losing
their jobs is that the price of foreign steel, though more inefficient,
is so much cheaper due to the devaluation of the currencies of those
countries. Steel workers are not the only workers losing their jobs to
cheap imports.
This loan guarantee will help steel companies bridge the difficult
market conditions caused by the devaluation of foreign currencies.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1664.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, August 3, 1999, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246,
noes 176, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 375]
AYES--246
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barton
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Cannon
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frost
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaHood
Lampson
Larson
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shimkus
Shows
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOES--176
Archer
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Biggert
Bliley
Boehner
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Capps
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clayton
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Condit
Cox
Crane
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Doggett
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Eshoo
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gilchrest
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
McCollum
McKeon
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Packard
Paul
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reynolds
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thune
Tierney
Toomey
Upton
Vento
Walden
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Souder
NOT VOTING--11
Berman
Bilbray
Frank (MA)
Houghton
Lantos
McDermott
Oxley
Peterson (PA)
Reyes
Shuster
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1034
Messrs. METCALF, LUTHER, DOGGETT, NADLER, HILLEARY and MARKEY and
Mrs. MEEK of Florida and Ms. WATERS changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. ROTHMAN and Mr. BURTON of Indiana changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________