[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3409-S3410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         INTERNATIONAL BRIBERY

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, export promotion is a critical component 
of both domestic economic growth in this country and of our foreign 
policy. One of the barriers to more trade for U.S. companies has been a 
virtual subsidy by the governments of many of our trade competitors for 
offering bribes to win foreign contracts. Of course, U.S. business is 
prohibited from engaging in bribery by the Foreign Corrupt Practices 
Act. While there have been calls to repeal the FCPA, for almost 2 
years, I have been working to promote universal acceptance of the 
principles of the FCPA. I introduced legislation and a sense of the 
Senate resolution last year to move forward in that direction. A 
version of the proposals were included in the Senate State 
authorization bill, but not included in the conference agreement.
  For a problem that no one seems to want to talk about publicly, there 
has been some important movement to help eradicate this practice in 
Europe. Two years ago the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development a group of 26 major industrialized countries, passed a 
resolution to ``deter, prevent, and combat bribery.'' Now it has 
expanded on that by recommending that members terminate the tax-
deductibility of bribes, such as allowed in Germany and elsewhere.
  This is a significant step toward leveling the playing field for U.S. 
exports. It is also important that major newspapers, such as the New 
York Times and the Washington Post, have carried opinion pieces in the 
past couple of days on this issue. I ask that the articles be printed 
in the Record and commend them to my colleagues for their review. 
Bribery and corruption are serious impediments to our exports, and 
promote bad business practice. We should be supportive of efforts, such 
as the recent initiatives by the OECD to help protect American 
business.
  The articles follow:

               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 16, 1996]

                          An End to Corruption

                         (By Robert S. Leiken)

       If a German bribes a German, he gets thrown in jail; if he 
     bribes a foreign official he gets a tax deduction. Only 
     American businessmen can be prosecuted at home for bribing 
     foreigners.
       But the day when U.S. business was a solitary straight 
     arrow seems to be ending. This is not because the Foreign 
     Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) has become a dead letter. IBM-
     Argentina, now under federal investigation, can testify to 
     that. What may be opening a new chapter in commercial 
     diplomacy is a revolution in public opinion, the repudiation 
     of bribery and kickbacks by societies that once tolerated 
     them.
       Last week the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
     Development (OECD), the league of wealthy industrial nations, 
     recommended that is members stop allowing tax write-offs for 
     bribes. Sources close to those protracted negotiations said 
     that the public reaction to recent bribery scandals helped 
     overcome resistance to the measure led by France, Germany and 
     Japan.
       The end of the Cold War, the spread of democracy, the rise 
     of civil societies have sparked disclosure of corruption East 
     and West. This is the case not only in the former Soviet bloc 
     but also among Western allies where military regimes or 
     ruling-party dominance has given way to competitive politics.
       An intriguing community of interests is forming between 
     U.S. corporations and democracy. For the solution to 
     translational bribery lies not in a futile attempt to repeal 
     the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act but in universalizing it 
     and supporting reforms in emerging countries.
       Corruption is being challenged by opposition parties, and 
     unmuzzled press, religious groups and other nongovernment 
     organizations, as well as prosecutors, magistrates and other 
     civil servants. Anti-corruption movements have emerged in 
     countries as diverse as Argentina, Cambodia, Italy, Hungary, 
     Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, El Salvador, South Korea, 
     Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, New Zealand and 
     Zimbabwe. Citizens who have silently endured corruption for 
     generations now take to the streets to protest corrupt 
     practices, to elect anticorruption candidates and to impeach 
     corrupt presidents, vice presidents, premiers, cabinet 
     ministers and party leaders.
       Many countries have appointed national commissions to 
     recommend reforms and have established government agencies to 
     prosecute abuses. Small countries are beginning to make known 
     their anticorruption sentiments. Recently, for example, 
     Malaysia and Singapore each declared several foreign firms 
     caught bribing officials ineligible for bidding on future 
     contracts.
       The stakes are enormous for U.S. companies and workers. As 
     emerging nations drop trade barriers and privatize state 
     monopolies, more than $200 billion of export and investment 
     contracts will be open to international bidding. Our trade 
     rivals understand that these contracts will determine who 
     builds tomorrow's economies. The U.S. Department of Commerce 
     has calculated that from April 1994 to May 1995 nearly 100 
     foreign contracts worth $45 billion were lost to foreign 
     competitors through graft. The most egregious bribers, 
     according to U.S. government and business officials, include 
     companies from Japan, France, Germany, Spain, Britain, Taiwan 
     and South Korea.
       These bribes cost Americans jobs, and since less 
     competitive firms must bribe to win contracts, they cost 
     emerging countries efficiency--which is what they need most. 
     Studies show corrupt procurement practices deter foreign 
     investment while as much as doubling the price that emerging 
     countries pay for goods and services.
       As globalization offers corporations more options, 
     corruption has come to be a factor in choosing where to 
     invest. Meanwhile, emerging nations wishing to shed bad 
     reputations have begun to court firms with ``squeaky clean'' 
     images. In some emerging markets, U.S. firms now advertise 
     their liability to the FCPA as surety of their integrity. 
     Several governments have engaged the ``credibility services'' 
     of reputable Western

[[Page S3410]]

     firms in such tasks as procurement, accounting and auditing.
       Bribery and corruption are no longer unmentionables in 
     international diplomacy. A Convention Against Corruption will 
     soon criminalize ``transnational bribery'' throughout the 
     Western Hemisphere. The treaty provides for extradition of 
     corrupt officials and urges transparency in hiring and 
     procurement as well as laws against the ``illicit 
     enrichment'' of government officials. When the United States 
     goes to international forums to demand a level playing field 
     it can take Canada and the developing nations of the 
     hemisphere with it. Along with its success at the OECD, 
     Washington is also making headway in getting the new World 
     Trade Organization to universalize transparent procurement 
     practices. Top administration officials want the United 
     States to press for a recommendation at the next G-7 meeting 
     to criminalize transnational bribery--in other words, to 
     universalize the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
       The way impatience with corruption is crossing frontiers 
     recalls the human rights campaigns of past decades. 
     Transparency International, modeled on the human rights 
     organization Amnesty International, was formed in Germany in 
     1993.
       Yesterday the guilty's first line of defense was that human 
     rights was ``an internal matter.'' But dissidents welcomed 
     and were emboldened by international attention. Human rights 
     subsequently became a universal watchword. Today opponents of 
     corruption insist that ``sunlight is the best disinfectant.'' 
     During this crucial stage when democracy and must 
     institutionalize or perish, ``transparency'' may emerge as a 
     banner.
       For the first time in 60 years, there is no international 
     danger of tyranny. Our national interest is more immediately 
     menaced today by such ``unconventional'' dangers as 
     international crime cartels, the smuggling of weapons of mass 
     destruction, drug trafficking, the spread of pestilent 
     viruses--all of which entail corrupt government officials. 
     Corruption has been provided the pretext for tyrants to 
     topple fledgling democracies. Already, pervasive corruption 
     has paved the way for reaction in and around Russia. Today's 
     decisive battles for democracy and development may be fought 
     on the terrain of corrupt practices.
                                                                    ____


                [From the New York Times, Apr. 16, 1996]

                  A Defeat for Business Bribery Abroad

       The United States has successfully pressured its allies to 
     stop subsidizing corruption. Western European governments 
     routinely allow companies that pay bribes to win business 
     contracts from foreign officials to deduct those kickbacks 
     from their taxable income. Last week the Organization for 
     Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 26 major 
     industrialized countries, agreed to end tax-deductible 
     bribes. That does not go nearly as far as America, which 
     outlaws foreign bribery altogether, would like, but it is a 
     big first step.
       Industrial countries outlaw bribes within their borders, 
     but only the United States bars companies from paying bribes 
     to foreign officials. That noble stance puts American 
     business at a disadvantage when competing for a foreign 
     contract against businesses that operate under no such 
     constraints. The United States has labeled the payment of 
     bribes a trade barrier and is fighting to get its trade 
     partners to end the practice completely. The Administration 
     says it has identified about 100 cases between April 1994 and 
     May 1995 in which American companies lost business to those 
     that paid bribes to foreign officials in order to win 
     contracts in the construction, telecommunications and other 
     lucrative industries.
       So far, the United States has acted unilaterally--losing 
     business but having a limited impact on corruption. By 
     bringing the other major industrialized countries along, the 
     anti-corruption campaign will pack more wallop and remove 
     American companies as a special target of retaliation. The 
     best way to fight corruption is to present a united front. 
     That way the pressure on offending governments to clean up 
     their act is maximized and the businesses of no one country 
     are victimized. The Administration's lobbying may not end 
     foreign bribes. But its multilateral approach is 
     smart.

                          ____________________