Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 975. When I was running for Congress last year, not one of my constituents asked me to vote to raise the prices of the goods they buy. I doubt that any of my colleagues' constituents did either. Yet that is exactly what we are asked to do today with H.R. 975. Quotas have only one effect--higher prices for consumers, our constituents. What does H.R. 975 do, Mr. Chairman? Nominally, it imposes quotas on steel imports. But in truth, it does so much more. H.R. 975 solves a crisis that does not exist. Imports are down, way down. In January, steel imports fell to about 2.6 million tons, below the monthly average of imported steel from the last ``pre-crisis'' quarter of April to June 1997. Our anti-dumping laws have worked. H.R. 975 violates our international obligations under the World Trade Organization. Violations by the strongest proponent of the WTO will only lead to quid pro quo protectionism. H.R. 975 benefits a few, at the expense of many. There are 266,000 steel workers in America who might be helped by this bill. There are 8.3 million workers in steel consuming industries, such as the automobile industry and the construction industry, that will be hurt by this bill. And when our foreign trading partners retaliate with quotas of their own, all of our workers suffer. Mr. Speaker, our steel industry is not failing. In fact, it is the most efficient steel industry in the world. U.S. steel mills shipped 102 million tons in 1998, the second highest annual total ever, while increasing their share of global production from 12.3 percent to 12.6 percent. What is not well known is that U.S. steel producers--the very ones who are laying off steel workers and asking for quotas--are themselves purchasing imported steel. On average, our domestic steel producers purchase 20 to 25 percent of all steel imports to satisfy their own accounts. Our own steel industry benefits from the lower prices brought on by imports. Mr. Speaker, free trade is indispensable to our prosperity. We cannot allow ourselves to be turned from the path that has led to our remarkable economic success. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 975.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 437, the Presidential and Executive Office Financial Accountability Act. I commend the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), on this fair and open rule. I am pleased that Members have the opportunity to amend the bill at any point, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. As the Vice Chair of the Committee on Government Technology, I am committed to the sound management of our Nation's government. This year the subcommittee has an ambitious agenda of hearings and legislation designed to make government more efficient. As an original cosponsor of the Executive Office Financial Accountability Act, I am pleased that the House has affirmed the importance of the subcommittee's work and that it will consider this act as one of its first orders of business. Mr. Speaker, every CEO in corporate America, every director of a large non-for profit institution, even the leaders of our Nation's churches and synagogues, rely on one key individual within their organization, the chief financial officer. Why do all of these leaders rely upon the CFO? It is to protect the resources of their shareholders, their donors, their congregations. It is to guard against mismanagement and inefficiencies, waste, fraud and abuse. It is to ensure that there is in place the sound fiscal management and strict internal controls that allow their organizations to run smoothly and achieve their goals. Nine years ago this body voted to give the CEOs of our major Executive Branch agencies the same important resource that America's CEOs have enjoyed and relied upon for decades, the chief financial officer. In the nine years since our agencies created these offices, billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars have been saved through more efficient management practices and the ferreting out of waste, fraud and abuse. Yet, today, some of our Nation's most important government business is handled in offices that lack this key resource, the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Office of Drug Control Policy, OMB, the White House Office, National Security Council and seven others. Mr. Speaker, the nature of the work of these executive offices is no less deserving of these important financial safeguards and efficiencies than our other Executive Branch agencies. In fact, with a budget of more than $246 million this year, the Executive Office of the President would rank among the top 200 companies in the Chicago area. Let us give to the CEO of our Nation's highest office, the President, the same important resource enjoyed by all the other CEOs in America. Let us ensure that taxpayer dollars are guarded from waste, mismanagement and inefficiencies in all areas, in all offices of government. I urge my colleagues to support the bill sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), which will extend the CFO act to the Office of the President. In addition, I hope all Members will support this open rule.