[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 139 (Thursday, October 14, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     EXPORT ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 13, 1999

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1993) to 
     reauthorize the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and 
     the Trade and Development Agency, and for other purposes:

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment to 
require the public disclosure of environmental impact statements for 
all OPIC projects designated ``Category A''. It requires information 
disclosure for environmentally sensitive OPIC Investment Fund projects 
such as oil refineries, chemical plants, oil and gas pipelines, large-
scale logging projects and projects near wetlands or other protected 
areas. Current OPIC Investment Funds are not subject to any 
transparency requirements. Furthermore, no specific information on 
these projects is contained in OPIC's annual reports.
  As a consequence, Congress, the public and the residents living near 
OPIC have no knowledge of the potential environmental and related 
financial and political risks. What is the taxpayer's interest in these 
projects?
  Taxpayers are liable for OPIC investments overseas if they fail. 
Private corporations and investors make investments in OPIC Investment 
Funds. OPIC-supported funds, in turn, make direct equity and equity-
related investments in new, expanding and privatizing companies in 
``emerging market'' economies. While taxpayer money is not actually 
invested in these funds, taxpayers are liable for the investments 
should they fail. These funds have invested in more than 240 business 
projects in over 40 countries. Recent estimates show that the total 
amount in Investment Fund programs will soon reach $4 billion.
  Since taxpayers are exposed to millions of dollars of potential 
liabilities, I believe OPIC has a responsibility to Congress and the 
public to operate in an open and transparent manner. The lack of 
environmental transparency conceals environmentally destructive 
investments of these funds not only from Congress and the American 
public, but also to locally-affected people in the countries where OPIC 
projects are run.
  For example, a 1996 FOIA lawsuit focusing on OPIC activity in Russia 
revealed that an Investment Fund project was involved in clear cutting 
of primary ancient forests in Northwest Russia. Russian citizens, 
expecting democracy building assistance from the U.S. Government, had 
not been provided with any environmental documentation. In fact, 
according to documents obtained in the lawsuit, an OPIC consultant had 
falsely documented the Russian citizens' support for the harmful, 
irreversible logging of pristine forests.
  OPIC Investment Funds have also been involved in a gold mine in the 
Cote d'Ivoire in the area of a primary tropical forest which is opposed 
by local citizens. Reports of other troubling projects are also being 
circulated. Conservation groups have filed FOIA requests to obtain the 
names, nature, location and environmental impact assessments for all 
OPIC investment fund projects. OPIC, however, continues to conceal the 
environmental consequences of these questionable investments from the 
public.
  What little information that has been uncovered about these funds 
reveals a checkered environmental record. With environmentally and 
socially sensitive projects being a main focus of the funds, public 
disclosure of environmental impact assessments is even more crucial.
  Organizations such as the National Wildlife Federation, Friends of 
the Earth, Institute for Policy Studies, Environmental Defense Fund, 
Sierra Club, Center for International Environmental Law and Pacific 
Environment and Resources Center have long advocated for increased 
transparency in OPIC Investment Fund projects.
  Representatives of these organizations met with the new OPIC 
President in February where he agreed with their assertion that these 
funds should be transparent when it comes to the environment. OPIC 
recently launched a $350 million equity fund for investment in Sub-
Saharan Africa which will include transparency and public disclosure 
provisions. But there are still 26 other funds which remain shrouded in 
secrecy.
  With almost $4 billion dollars invested in these programs, and OPIC's 
sketchy environmental record, it is ever more important that OPIC be 
held accountable to the public regarding its investments in 
environmentally sensitive projects.
  The ideal legislation to correct the lack of transparency in 
Investment Fund projects would require the public disclosure of 
Environmental Impact Assessments conducted on all new investment 
projects. It would also allow for a public comment period where 
citizens, especially those living in the affected area of the project, 
could voice their opinions of the project. In the case of projects 
already underway, a renegotiation of contracts to allow for public 
disclosure would be required to avoid breech of contract concerns.
  If we can't have full transparency in all Investment fund projects, 
then OPIC should not be involved in projects that are environmentally 
sensitive.
  While projects like oil refineries, gas and oil pipelines, chemical 
plants that produce hazardous or toxic materials, and large-scale 
logging projects may be necessary for the industrial development of 
developing countries, holding the US taxpayers liable for investments 
in projects that could pose serious environmental or health risks to 
local populations with no public oversight or disclosure is 
unacceptable.
  It is OPIC's policy, as outlined in the Environmental Handbook to 
conduct rigorous internal Environmental Impact Assessments on all 
environmentally sensitive projects. Environmental impact assessments 
are also required by law as found in Executive Order 12114 and Public 
Law 99-204. However, while the assessments for insurance and finance 
projects are publicly disclosed, assessments on Investment Fund 
projects are not. Accountable government demands that these assessments 
be disclosed.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and shed some light on 
OPIC's environmentally sensitive Investment Fund projects.

                          ____________________