[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5742-H5743]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                                  OPIC

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, at a time when this country has a $4.5 
trillion national debt, and at a time when there are Members here who 
are talking about cutting back on Medicare and Medicaid and veterans 
programs, student loans, school lunch programs, and other programs of 
tremendous need for the vast majority of our people, it seems to me 
that we can no longer tolerate spending billions and billions of 
taxpayers' dollars on corporate welfare. That is money that goes to the 
largest corporations in America and to the wealthiest people.
  I want to say a few words today about one particular program which I 
think is a very good example of corporate welfare. That is OPIC, the 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation. What OPIC does is receive 
about $5 million a year of taxpayers' money. And what they do with that 
money is something that is very interesting. What they do is help some 
of the largest corporations in America invest abroad. They provide 
insurance for those companies who are investing in politically unstable 
countries such as Russia, Eastern Europe, former Communist bloc and 
certain Latin American countries. What they are saying is, if there is 
political unrest in those countries, if your assets are nationalized, 
we will provide insurance to cover your loss.
  Also, OPIC provides generous financing to the large multinationals 
who wish to invest abroad.
  Now, it seems to me that, if the largest corporations in America wish 
to invest in Russia, wish to invest in Croatia, wish to invest in Peru 
or Latin America, they have every right in the world to do so. But it 
also seems to me to be absolutely wrong to say to the middle class of 
America, people who are working longer hours for lower 
[[Page H5743]] wages, that we are going to subsidize your investment 
abroad.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the things that particularly outrages me is that 
many of the companies who we are providing incentives to invest abroad 
are precisely those companies who are laying off hundreds of thousands 
of American workers.
  Now, it seems to me that it is a little bit absurd that we are 
helping the Ford Motor Company invest abroad, after they have laid off 
337,000 workers here in the United States in the last 15 years. And I 
would ask my colleagues to take a good look at this chart, which is 
right here by my side.
  What this chart shows is that Ford is getting help from OPIC to 
invest abroad; interesting, after laying off 337,000 American workers 
in the last 15 years. So we are saying to Ford and the other companies, 
thank you very much for throwing American workers out on the street. 
Thank you very much for lowering the standard of living of American 
workers. And here is your reward, the taxpayers of America will help 
you invest in other countries. And we say thank you to the Exxon 
company. You have only laid off 86,000 American workers in the last 15 
years. Here some help. Maybe you want to go abroad and hire people 
there for low wages. Thank you very much. Thank you AT&T, you have only 
laid off over 200,000 American workers. General Electric, 221,000 
American workers, and so forth and so on.
  Now, it seems to me that rather than having the taxpayers of America 
providing incentives for these huge corporations to go abroad, and I 
might say, Mr. Speaker, and this is a fact not very often talked about, 
that these American corporations, the large multinationals who are 
laying off millions of American workers, they have invested this last 
year $750 billion abroad. Now, in every city in America, in every State 
in America, mayors and governors are getting down on their hands and 
knees and they are saying to these companies, invest in the State of 
Vermont, my state, invest in Texas, invest in California. But these 
corporations do not. They are laying off American workers and they are 
going abroad.
  So it seems to me that instead of encouraging them to go abroad, 
maybe we may want to say to them, hey, stay back here in the United 
States and provide jobs for our workers; pay your taxes here.
  At a time when this country has a $4.5 trillion national debt it 
seems to me that we can no longer afford to maintain various forms of 
corporate welfare, at great expense and risk to the taxpayers.
  I rise today to call for the end of Government funding for OPIC, the 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and for the elimination of 
this agency which receives about $50 million a year in funding but, 
more importantly, has placed at risk some $6.3 billion of taxpayer 
money through Government insured assets.
  It is important to acknowledge that concern about Government funding 
for OPIC extends across the political spectrum--progressives, moderates 
and conservatives increasingly see no sense to the public funding of 
this agency.
  I am also delighted to say that Budget Chairman John Kasich, in the 
recently passed Republican budget, quite appropriately called for 
eliminating the appropriations for OPIC, and I want to credit Mr. 
Kasich for doing so.
  Furthermore, a Wall Street Journal editorial of April 12, 1995, also 
called for the defunding of OPIC. The Wall Street Journal is deeply 
concerned, as I am, about OPIC's risky financial guarantees in Russia 
and Eastern Europe.
  A very conservative think tank--the Center for Security Policy--is 
also sounding the alarm regarding the growing danger of OPIC continuing 
to use taxpayer dollars to insure risky investments in Russia and other 
former Communist countries.
  But it is not only conservative groups who are calling for the 
elimination of OPIC funding. Progressive groups are also raising the 
same cry. For example, here in Congress the 46-member progressive 
caucus was the first congressional organization to call for OPIC's 
elimination. Furthermore, two organization affiliated with Ralph 
Nader--Congress Watch and Essential Information--have called for the 
elimination of OPIC.
  Mr. Speaker, if huge Fortune-500 corporations like Ford, Exxon, AT&T, 
General Electric, IT&T, and Coca-Cola want to make investments in 
politically unstable countries, they have every right in the world to 
do so. That is not what we are debating today.
  These multi-billion-dollar corporations have every right in the world 
to invest in Russia and Eastern Europe--in Albania, Croatia, El 
Salvador, Somalia, Peru, or anyplace else they want to invest. But, Mr. 
Speaker, they do not have the right to ask the American taxpayers to 
underwrite the insurance on those investments. And they do not have the 
right to get advantageous financing from the Government.
  If these corporations invest and make a lot of money--the 
stockholders get the profits. If, on the other hand, they invest in 
Russia or any other country and because of political instability they 
lose their assets through nationalization or expropriation--the 
American taxpayer picks up the bill. That is wrong. If you take a risk, 
you can sometimes make a lot of money. But sometimes you lose. And it 
is not the function of the U.S. Government to place our taxpayers at 
risk for $6.3 billion to protect the investments of huge, multinational 
corporations.
  Now, who are some of the corporations who are receiving this help? 
Here are some recent examples: OPIC is providing $105,057,000 in 
insurance in Russia for the Coca-Cola Export Corp.; $200,000,000 in 
insurance for Du Pont in Russia; $200,000,000 in insurance for Mars, 
Inc., in Russia, which I believe is owned by one of the wealthiest 
families in America; and $200,000,000 in financing for GTE and AT&T for 
a joint cellular telephone project in Argentina.
  Other major corporations that are being provided insurance by OPIC 
are: First National Bank of Boston, the Enron Corp., Bechtel, Cargil, 
Duracell, American Express, International Paper, Levi Strauss, and 
Citibank.
  Mr. Speaker, another aspect of this whole situation which bothers me 
very much is that the U.S. Government is providing financial incentives 
to the largest corporations in America to invest abroad--when, on the 
contrary, we should be demanding that these companies invest in the 
United States, hire workers in the United States, and pay taxes in the 
United States. Corporate America already invests $750 billion a year 
abroad--and the number is increasing every year. They do not need 
Government subsidies to increase that investment.
  It is especially outrageous that we are using taxpayers dollars to 
help finance companies who, in the last 15 years, have thrown millions 
of American workers out on the street. My colleagues, take a good look 
at this chart, and note how many workers have been fired by some of the 
very same companies that OPIC is now providing financial assistance to.
  Should we really be helping Ford Motor Co. invest abroad after they 
have laid off 337,000 workers in the last 15 years. Thank you, Ford, 
for laying off these workers. Now here is your Federal subsidy to 
invest abroad so that you can hire foreign workers. Exxon--86,000 
workers laid off, AT&T--233,000 laid off, General Electric--221,000 
workers laid off or downsized as they occasionally say. And on and on 
it goes. This is a list of only 10 companies--and they have laid off 
over 1 million workers. Helping companies go abroad after they have 
laid off 1 million American workers does not make a lot of sense to me.
  I wonder what the laid off workers of these companies must think when 
they learn that their tax dollars are rewarding those companies who 
have caused so much suffering and, to a large degree, are responsible 
for the terrible decline in the standard of living for working people 
all over this country. Yes, cut-backs in Medicare, Medicaid, student 
loans and veterans programs, but $50 million a year, and a $6.3 billion 
insurance risk for the largest corporations in America. A very sensible 
policy.


                          ____________________