[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 41 (Wednesday, April 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2876-S2879]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE OPIC ELIMINATION ACT

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, during my campaign for the U.S. Senate, I 
expressed the themes of balancing the budget, congressional reform, 
making Government smaller, and moving the power out of Washington and 
to the States and localities. This is why I am proud to introduce 
Senate bill 519, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation 
Termination Act, better known as the OPIC Termination Act.
  As a Member of the other body during the 104th Congress, I voted to 
reform the welfare system of this country. I voted to end the subsidies 
for farmers. And now I believe it is time to end this form of corporate 
welfare for large companies.
  I have never believed in give-away programs. Whether you are a farmer 
or a large corporate owner, you should play by the rules of the free 
market system. ``Less Government'' should be the motto of this 
Congress.
  OPIC is a Government agency which was established in 1969 and is now 
active in 144 countries. It finances investments for American Fortune 
500 companies through direct loans, subsidized loan programs, and 
insures them against political risk, expropriation and political 
violence. It entices companies to enter into risky transactions from 
which private lenders shy away.
  This private activity may seem to have a good end goal, but the 
problem is not the end but the means. Basically, this is an insurance 
program run by the Federal Government for corporations who want to 
invest in risky political situations. In short, we are running an 
insurance program for major corporations.
  What makes this even more problematic is that OPIC does not back this 
investment with their own finances, but with the full faith and credit 
of the U.S. Government--in its simplest terms, the U.S. taxpayer. Every 
loan and loan guarantee that OPIC finances puts the U.S. taxpayer at 
risk. Today, nearly $25 billion is being risked in the name of the 
taxpayers of these corporate OPIC loans.
  Compounding the situation is that these loans and loan guarantees are 
not safe investments. The Congressional Budget Office supplied a list 
of the quality of the portfolio at the end of the year, 1995. OPIC has 
consistently taken risks in operations that are defined with the D-
minus credit rating and even an F-double-negative credit rating.
  As a member of the Banking Committee, I can assure you that if the 
U.S. taxpayer goes into a bank to get a loan to buy a house and they 
have an F-double-negative credit rating, the bank will ask you to 
please leave the building. But the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation does it every year, and with the hard-working taxpayers' 
money, dollars backing these loans. So the same taxpayer who can never 
have a chance to secure a loan with this rating is securing loans for 
projects with the same kind of credit rating.
  The simple fact is subsidies have shown that this portfolio is so 
risky you cannot even privatize OPIC because no buyer could risk losing 
billions of dollars if these loans go bad. Proponents of OPIC state 
that no loan or loan guarantee has gone bad and this is not risky.
  If this scenario sounds familiar, it is because we have seen it 
before. In the late 1980's, the same claims were made by the Federal 
Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, at least until the crisis hit. 
One decade and $180 billion in taxpayer bailout dollars later, we found 
this was not the case. It has been said that if we do not learn from 
the past, we will ultimately repeat it. If we do repeat history, it 
will again be the

[[Page S2877]]

farmer in Sterling, the technician in Denver, and the accountant in 
Grand Junction who picks up the bill. I have learned from the past, and 
I do not want my children and grandchildren to suffer through another 
corporate bailout.

  Who gets these loans? Coca-Cola, DuPont, Union Carbide, McDonald's, 
and even two banks, Chase Manhattan and Citicorp. These, and many other 
large companies with OPIC loans, are not cash-starved companies, but 
companies with strong bottom lines. I do not believe the Federal 
Government should be in the business of business, and I do believe 
these companies can stay strong and survive without OPIC. As in life, 
if the risk is too high, then maybe you should look elsewhere.
  What do OPIC loans buy? We, the taxpayers, have developed a soft 
drink bottling company in Poland and Ghana, a travel agency in Armenia, 
a magazine in Russia, a lumber mill in Lithuania, an art gallery in 
Haiti, cable television in Argentina, a hamburger bun bakery and phone 
book directories in Brazil.
  Now, there may be some worthwhile projects and successes funded by 
OPIC, but, again, I do not believe that we need to be risking hard-
working taxpayer money on these ventures. Plus, this is a subsidy that 
does not get built into the cost of a product which may compete against 
American products that are not subsidized.
  Also, proponents of OPIC believe that if OPIC does not provide this 
insurance, then companies will not enter these risky markets. There are 
certainly private alternatives to OPIC's activities and one is starting 
investment funds for developing countries. Today, there are hundreds of 
private developing country investment funds. Portfolio money is flowing 
into all parts of the developing world. If interested, they are listed 
on the New York Stock Exchange. Even the proponents cannot deny the 
existence of those private alternatives or that they may be available 
at lower cost. However, it seems they know a good deal when they see 
one. With OPIC selling the full faith and credit of the U.S. taxpayer, 
foreign governments would be less likely to stick them with the bill.
  Again, here lies the problem. These subsidized loans to promote trade 
and investment abroad distort the flow of capital and resources away 
from the most efficient uses, thus distorting trade and investment 
abroad. OPIC's impact on U.S. capital and resource markets may be 
negative due to these distortionary effects of subsidized loans. In 
layman's terms, OPIC distorts the marketplace, pushing out private 
investment, and does not allow it to grow.
  This leads to the question, ``Is this the appropriate role for 
Government?'' What we are doing with OPIC is investing money in 
countries involving risky business deals. We are trying to help other 
countries' government-run corporations make the transition to the 
private sector. To do that, we run a Government corporation. Thus, we 
are trying to end other countries' government subsidies by running 
Government subsidies right here in Washington. This is not moving the 
power away from Washington, but right into the heart of DC.
  I am not the only one saying that it is time for OPIC to go. In the 
other body, Representatives Andrews, Kasich, Sanders, Royce, Condit, 
DeFazio, Klug, Peterson, Shadegg, Jackson, Pascrell, and Dickey have 
introduced H.R. 387 eliminating OPIC.
  Also, the National Taxpayers Union says few other Federal programs 
combine such undesirable elements as corporate welfare, wasteful 
spending, unnecessary foreign aid, mismanagement and risk to the 
American taxpayers as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
  Milton Friedman, one of the leading experts of economics from the 
Chicago School of Economics, said he does not see any redeeming aspects 
in the existence of OPIC. It is special interest legislation of the 
worst kind.
  This leads me to another important reason why OPIC should be 
eliminated.
  It seems to me that OPIC may be used as a political slush fund. 
Whether this is a perception or truth, I believe it is time to end this 
perception of impropriety.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a story from the Boston Globe dated Sunday, March 30, 1997.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Boston Globe, Mar. 30, 1997]

    Trade Trip Firms Netted $5.5b in Aid Donated $2.3m to Democrats

                            (By Bob Hohler)

       Washington.--Businesses that gave Democratic Party 
     committees more than $2.3 million and won coveted seats on US 
     trade missions during President Clinton's first term secured 
     nearly $5.5 billion to support their foreign business 
     operations from a federal investment agency.
       In all, 27 corporations that sent executives on trade trips 
     with the late Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown obtained 
     part of a multibillion-dollar commitment in federally 
     guaranteed assistance from the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corp., according to a Globe analysis of fund-raising records, 
     trip manifests, and OPIC documents.
       All but three of the 27 OPIC recipients donated to 
     Democratic Party committees, and most of them gave between 
     $50,000 and $358,000 during Clinton's first term.
       While the Globe reported last month that Brown's trade 
     trips were a fund-raising bonanza for the Democratic Party, 
     what has previously gone unnoticed is the massive amount of 
     OPIC support given to companies that traveled with Brown and 
     donated money to the Democrats.
       OPIC provides financing and political risk insurance that 
     many US businesses consider essential to expanding into 
     unstable or developing democracies. The Clinton 
     administration, with Brown coordinating much of the effort, 
     relied heavily on the federally funded corporation to boost 
     US exports and to create jobs through private investment 
     abroad.
       No one has alleged that government officials arranged the 
     OPIC support in exchange for political donations, which would 
     violate federal law. But federal and congressional 
     investigators are examining whether Democratic Party leaders 
     pursued a reelection plan based in part on providing perks 
     such as seats on Brown's missions to major business donors, 
     many of whom stood to gain from government actions.
       Many of the businesses that sent executives on Brown's 
     missions gave to the Republican Party, though generally less 
     than they donated to the Democrats. And several advocates for 
     campaign finance reform said regardless of the Democrats' 
     campaign strategy, the OPIC support that went to major donors 
     on Brown's missions created the perception that corporate 
     givers got what they wanted.
       The average company contribution to Democratic committees 
     from OPIC recipients on Brown's trips was nearly $95,000. The 
     average support from the agency for the 27 recipients was 
     about $200 million per company.
       Bill Hogan, director of investigative projects for the 
     Center for Public Integrity, said there were three ways to 
     look at the Brown trips, agency assistance, and donations to 
     Democratic committees.
       ``One is that it was a happy accident,'' Hogan said. 
     ``Another is that the donations were an unbelievable 
     investment. And the third is that the companies would have 
     gotten the assistance anyway, and they just made nice, 
     spontaneous thank-you gifts to the party.''
       OPIC spokeswoman Allison May Rosen said agency officials 
     ``may not have known'' that companies applying for assistance 
     had contributed to Democratic committees or sent executives 
     on missions with Brown.
       Rosen said Brown and other administration officials may 
     also have discussed particular projects with OPIC staff, 
     including the agency's president, Ruth R. Harkin, the wife of 
     Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa.
       During much of Clinton's first term, one of Brown's top 
     associates, Jeffrey E. Garten, then undersecretary for 
     international trade, served on OPIC's board of directors.
       In addition, Brown attended several signing ceremonies for 
     OPIC-supported projects, including a 1995 event with 
     Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for a bottled-water 
     operation in the West Bank and Gaza involving Culligan Water 
     Technologies Inc. of Illinois.
       Rosen said OPIC awards corporate support solely on the 
     basis of a professional review process geared to ``using our 
     limited resources in a careful and prudent manner.''
       Much of the OPIC support for participants on Brown's 
     missions was granted while the agency experienced what Harkin 
     described to a House panel last year as ``an unprecedented 
     demand for services.'' But even in such a competitive 
     climate, partisan political considerations have never 
     affected a decision on granting OPIC support, according to 
     Rosen.
       ``It's not in our world,'' she said.
       Brown, widely regarded to have been the Clinton 
     administration's most aggressive advocate for US businesses 
     abroad, died with 34 other people when the Air Force plane 
     carrying them on a trade mission to Bosnia crashed into a 
     mountainside in Croatia on April 3, 1996. Four of the victims 
     were executives with companies that had received OPIC 
     support: AT&T, Bechtel Corp., Foster Wheeler Corp., and Harza 
     Engineering Co.
       Commerce spokesman Jim Dessler said it was ``natural that 
     there is a correlation between Commerce trade missions, which 
     focus

[[Page S2878]]

     on emerging markets, and OPIC financing, which deals with 
     investments in developing markets.''
       But Dessler said Commerce officials exerted no influence on 
     the OPIC staff on behalf of trade mission participants or 
     Democratic donors. ``Absolutely none,'' he said.
       OPIC, whose federal funding is under fire from some 
     lawmakers who consider it ``corporate welfare,'' provides 
     insurance and loan guarantees generally not available in the 
     commercial market because of risks involved. Corporate 
     recipients pay high insurance premiums and substantial loan 
     interest, which has helped OPIC turn a profit every year 
     since it was founded in 1971.
       The agency received $104 million in federal funds last year 
     and returned $209 million to the Treasury.
       Companies that went on Brown's trade missions received 
     nearly 14 percent of OPIC's total financial commitment of 
     $40.6 billion from 1993 to 1996, which included $34.5 billion 
     in political risk insurance and $6.1 billion in financing.
       The businesses on Brown's missions received about $3.5 
     billion in risk insurance and $2 billion in financing.
       Among the companies that traveled with Brown, OPIC 
     supported projects ranging from Pepsi Cola bottling in Poland 
     to rocket engine development in Russia to cellular phone 
     systems in Argentina, Hungary, India, and Nicaragua.
       The only Massachusetts company among the OPIC recipients 
     was State Street Bank and Trust Co., which sent an executive 
     to a trade summit with Brown in Amman, Jordan, in 1995. State 
     Street gave $20,500 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign 
     Committee in 1995 and 1996, and $10,000 to the Democratic 
     National Committee in 1996.
       OPIC, in fiscal 1996, provided State Street a $54 million 
     insurance policy on the company's investment in a Brazil 
     manufacturing project.
       Kari Murphy, a spokeswoman for State Street, said the 
     company has complied with its policy of taking ``an active 
     role in the governmental process as a good corporate 
     citizen.'' She said that includes obeying ``the letter and 
     spirit of all campaign finance and contribution laws.''
       As for the Brown mission, which preceded State Street's 
     OPIC assistance, Murphy said, ``Neither then nor later did 
     State Street or any of our officers seek favorable treatment 
     from public officials or government agencies or make any 
     political contributions in connection with the trip.''
       Of the other companies represented on Brown's missions, 
     OPIC gave the bulk of its support--$1.62 billion--to Citicorp 
     of New York and its subsidiaries, Citicorp received financing 
     or political risk insurance for projects in 23 countries 
     during Clinton's first term.
       Citicorp was among 15 of the 27 OPIC recipients on Brown's 
     trips that had received support from the agency before 
     Clinton took office. And not all were major Democratic 
     supporters.
       Among them was Anderman/Smith Overseas Inc., a Denver-based 
     oil company that received $40 million in political risk 
     insurance from OPIC in 1992 to develop a giant oil field in 
     Russia's western Siberia.
       In 1994, when an Anderman/Smith executive joined Brown on a 
     prized trade mission to Russia, OPIC also provided the 
     company with a $40 million loan guarantee.
       Yet Anderman/Smith was a small player in Democratic fund-
     raising, with total contributions of $5,250 coming from an 
     executive's family. ``We wanted to succeed on our own 
     merits,'' said James Webb, the company's chief financial 
     officer.
       Webb praised OPIC as competent and professional, saying the 
     agency ``looked into every nook and cranny'' of his company's 
     finances. ``We certainly didn't get any special treatment,'' 
     Webb said.
       The biggest giver to the Democrats among the companies on 
     Brown's missions was Entergy Power Development Co. of New 
     Orleans. After donating only $20,000 to Democratic national 
     committees in 1991 and 1992, Entergy's giving soared to 
     $337,613 during Clinton's first term.
       Entergy's chairman, Edwin Lupberger, traveled with Brown to 
     China in 1994 to close a deal to build a $1 billion power 
     plant there with the Lippo Group of Indonesia. Lippo's ties 
     to former members of the Clinton administration are under 
     investigation by the FBI.
       The Entergy-Lippo deal fell through. OPIC, which does not 
     do business in China, was not involved in the project.
       However, Entergy received $165 million of insurance 
     coverage from OPIC in 1996 for a hydroelectric power project 
     in Peru.
       An Entergy spokesman did not return a phone call.
       Several other federal agencies, including the Export-Import 
     Bank, the US Agency for International Development, and the US 
     Trade and Development Agency, also provided assistance to 
     businesses that gave to the Democratic Party and sent 
     executives on trade missions.
       Administration officials said politics played no role in 
     any funding decision. But campaign reform advocates were 
     skeptical.
       ``In too many cases,'' said Ellen Miller of the advocacy 
     group Public Campaign, ``it looks as if those who had the 
     opportunity to reap those kinds of rewards were those who 
     invested first in the Democratic Party.''


                         foreign trade, US aid

       Twenty-seven companies that obtained coveted slots on trade 
     missions with the late Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown 
     during President Clinton's first term received support for 
     foreign projects from the Overseas Private Investment Corp., 
     a federal agency. All but three of the companies donated to 
     the Democratic Party in the same period.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Donations to Domocratic Party                                 OPIC aid 1993-96               
                 Company                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Brown trip                       1993-96             Amount                 Country          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Power Development...............  China......................................           $337,613              $165m  Peru.                      
AT&T....................................  G-7 Summit--China; Middle East; Russia.....            351,400               100m  India.                     
US West.................................  India; Russia..............................            243,500                20m  India.                     
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                11m  Poland.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              24.5m  Brazil.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                50m  Indonesia.                 
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                75m  Russia.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                25m  Hungary.                   
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                45m  Hungary.                   
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................               135m  Russia.                    
Bechtel Group...........................  Middle East................................            189,650              54.5m  Algeria                    
General Electric........................  Middle East, Mexico........................            186,275              45.2m  Costa Rica.                
Fluor Corp..............................  China......................................            147.500               200m  Indonesia.                 
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................               200m  Indonesia.                 
Enron Corp..............................  India......................................            142,400               200m  India.                     
    Do..................................  Middle East................................  .................                10m  Turkey.                    
    Do..................................  Kuwait.....................................  .................               200m  Turkey.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................               100m  Colombia.                  
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................               300m  India.                     
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              69.2m  Philippines.               
Edison Mission Energy...................  China......................................             91,700                50m  Thailand.                  
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................               200m  Indonesia.                 
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                80m  Turkey.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................               200m  Indonesia.                 
Akin Gump...............................  MIddle East................................             91,300             65,250  Bolivia.                   
Tenneco.................................  Middle East................................             75,450              20.8m  Indonesia.                 
    Do..................................  Spain; India; Latin America................  .................                70m  Romania.                   
Pratt & Whitney.........................  Russia; South Africa; Saudi Arabia.........             75,000                50m  Russia.                    
Phibro Energy Production Inc............  Russia.....................................             70,450                20m  Russia.                    
General Motors..........................  Spain; Middle East.........................             61,500               5.8m  Argentina.                 
Citicorp/Citibank.......................  Middle East; Spain.........................             57,277               200m  Hungary.                   
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................               200m  Trinidad.                  
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................               200m  Brazil.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................             149.6m  Argentina.                 
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................               100m  Russia.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                70m  Brazil.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              49.8m  Poland.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              38.6m  Peru.                      
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              34.1m  Peru.                      
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              32.7m  Argentina.                 
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              32.5m  Peru.                      
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              31.8m  Jamaica.                   
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              31.4m  Brazil.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                30m  India.                     
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              27.4m  Argentina.                 
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                27m  Thailand.                  
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              26.3m  Turkey.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              26.1m  Brazil.                    

[[Page S2879]]

                                                                                                                                                        
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                25m  Haiti.                     
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                25m  Russia.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              23.4m  Brazil.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              20.1m  Philippines.               
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              18.7m  Peru.                      
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              17.7m  El Salvador.               
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              17.1m  South Africa.              
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                17m  Slovakia.                  
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                15m  Colombia.                  
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                14m  Czech Rep.                 
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                13m  Brazil.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              12.8m  Bolivia.                   
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              12.8m  Bolivia.                   
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              12.4m  Jamaica.                   
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              11.5m  Russia.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              11.5m  Colombia.                  
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                10m  Indonesia.                 
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................               9.5m  Jamaica.                   
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................               8.6m  Costa Rica.                
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                 6m  Tanzania.                  
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................               5.9m  Honduras.                  
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................               2.3m  Peru.                      
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................               2.1m  Philippines.               
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................                 1m  Lebanon.                   
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................            800,000  Jamaica.                   
Lockheed Martin.........................  MIddle East................................             50.950              33.5m  Russia.                    
Pepsi Cola..............................  Middle East................................             35,000                80m  Poland.                    
State Street Bank & Trust...............  Middle East................................             30,500                54m  Brazil.                    
Du Pont de Nemours......................  Middle East................................             30,000               200m  Russia.                    
Harza Engineering.......................  Middle East................................             21,500              47.8m  Nepal.                     
Motorola................................  Russia; India..............................             11,700              42.2m  Russia.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              36.3m  Lithuania.                 
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              43.7m  Brazil.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              46.7m  Brazil.                    
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................              36.7m  India.                     
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................            600,000  India.                     
Anderman Smith..........................  Russia.....................................              5,250                40m  Russia.                    
Foster Wheeler..........................  Spain; Middle East; Poland; China..........              3,000              25.8m  Venezuela.                 
Turner International....................  Middle East................................              2,000               3.7m  Kuwait.                    
GTE Corp................................  Argentina..................................               502m               175m  Argentina.                 
    Do..................................  ......do...................................  .................               200m  Argentina.                 
Duracell................................  Russia.....................................  .................              12.7m  South Africa.              
Cullingan Water Technologies............  Jordan; Israel.............................  .................               1.6m  West Banks.                
K&M Engineering.........................  Middle East................................  .................             87,256  Tunisia.                   
                                                                                      --------------------------------------                            
    Total...............................  ...........................................          2,338,917      5,458,952,506                             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Commerce Department, Federal Election Commission, Overseas Private Investment Corp., Campaign Study Group, Center for Responsive Politics, Globe
  staff.                                                                                                                                                

       Former Commerce Secretry Ron Brown's trade mission: Saudi 
     Arabia--5/2/93-5/6/93; Mexico--12/7/93-12/9/93; South 
     Africa--11/26/93-12/2/93; Israel--1/14/94-1/21/94; Russia--3/
     27/94-4/2/94; Poland--5/4/94-5/7/94; Latin America--6/25/94-
     7/2/94; China--8/26/94-9/3/94; India--1/13/95-1/20/95; Middle 
     East--2/4/95-2/11/95; G-7 Summit (Belgium, Spain)--2/23/95-2/
     28/95; China--10/15/95-10/19/95; Spain--11/9/95-11/12/95; 
     Middle East--10/27/95-10/31/95--Source: Commerce Department.

  Mr. ALLARD. The headline from above the fold says, ``Trade-trip firms 
netted $5.5 billion in aid, Donated $2.3 million to Democrats.'' It 
goes on to state that 27 corporations that sent executives on trade 
trips with late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown received part of a 
multibillion-dollar commitment in OPIC loans and guarantees. All but 3 
of the 27 OPIC recipients donated to Democratic Party committees, and 
most of them gave $50,000 to $385,000 during the President's first 
term.
  As mentioned in the story, it is very difficult to ascertain whether 
the OPIC loan influenced giving to the party, or if the donation 
influenced who received the OPIC assistance, or if there was any 
impropriety at all.
  To me, it does not matter. Since the awarding of OPIC assistance is 
entirely discretionary by the administration in power, it invites and 
welcomes possible abuse as described in the Boston Globe. OPIC should 
not exist in the first place, and even the perception that it could be 
used as a slush fund, whether Republican or Democrats, makes its 
elimination even more important.
  With this bill, some proponents of OPIC will describe me as 
antibusiness or antitrade. I guess to them, getting the Government out 
of the business of business is antibusiness. I must say that I believe 
this is a probusiness, anti big Government proposal.
  I am a free trader. I am a supporter of the GATT and NAFTA, and 
believe that free trade is the best way to raise the living standards 
for all Americans. We need to support policies that reduce trade 
barriers. OPIC does not reduce trade barriers for all companies to 
compete in the marketplace. It is an income transfer program from U.S. 
taxpayers to a selected group of businesses, who may have donated or 
will feel obligated to give to a political party. These subsidies may 
increase exports for a few selected companies that have the political 
influence to secure these loans, but it does little to expand the 
overall economic growth of this country. OPIC loans protect 
inefficiency and reduce total economic activity, shifting economic 
resources from taxpayers and unsubsidized businesses to politically 
connected businesses. Free trade is about getting the Government out of 
the private sector. The Federal Government can advocate U.S. business 
and trade without supporting politically connected businesses. Let us 
push for open markets, not for open political purses.
  Last, as we are attempting to balance the budget by the year 2002 and 
reduce Government spending, we must begin to eliminate giveaway 
programs and corporate welfare. Eliminating OPIC will save $107 million 
this year and $296 million over the next 5 years. This does not include 
the money saved if any of OPIC loans or guarantees go bad and have to 
be bailed out by the taxpayers. We must get all spending under control 
and all parts of the budget must sacrifice. Balancing our budget will 
do more to increase economic and job growth than any OPIC loan can 
offer.
  Mr. President, this effort is supported by individuals on both the 
left and the right of the political spectrum. With all the talk by 
liberals and conservatives about eliminating corporate welfare, I 
believe it is time we begin to do what we say and it ought to start 
here with OPIC. OPIC should not exist under a Republican or Democrat 
President or Congress.
  I thank you for this time and I ask all my colleagues to support S. 
519 and this effort to eliminate the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________