[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 25178-25204]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     EXPORT ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 327 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 327

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1993) to reauthorize the Overseas Private 
     Investment Corporation and the Trade and Development Agency, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on International Relations. After general debate 
     the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     bill modified by the amendments recommended by the Committee 
     on International Relations now printed in the bill. Each 
     section of that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     be considered as read. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for 
     that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma 
     amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so 
     printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be 
     printed or his designee and shall be considered as read. The 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone 
     until a time during further consideration in the Committee of 
     the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and 
     (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic 
     voting on any postponed question that follows another 
     electronic vote without intervening business, provided that 
     the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 327 is a modified, open rule providing 
for the consideration of H.R. 1993, the Export Enhancement Act of 1999. 
The rule provides for one hour of general debate, equally divided 
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on International Relations.
  The rule makes in order the Committee on International Relations 
amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment.
  Further, the rule provides for the consideration of only pro forma 
amendments and those amendments preprinted in the Congressional Record 
prior to their consideration, which may be offered only by the Member 
who preprinted it or by his designee, and shall be considered as read.
  As has become standard practice, the rule allows the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the 
bill and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on postponed questions if 
the vote follows a 15 minute vote.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this is an appropriate rule for the 
consideration of this legislation. It is legislation to reauthorize 
several very important United States investment trade promotion 
programs, including the Overseas Private Investment Corporation known 
as OPIC, the Trade and Development Agency and the export functions of 
the International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce.
  OPIC's authority to operate lapsed on September 30, but it was 
extended by the continuing resolution on an emergency basis for only a 
few days more. This bill must pass the House and the Senate, as you 
know, in identical forms and be signed by the President in a very short 
time frame if these programs are to be able to continue uninterrupted. 
Therefore, I think that the preprinting requirement in this rule is an 
appropriate manner to allow interested Members to offer amendments

[[Page 25179]]

while expediting the bill's consideration.
  H.R. 1993, the underlying legislation, reauthorizes most commercial 
export promotion programs that involve the United States Government. 
OPIC is authorized for 4 years and continuing under this bill will be 
able to continue its self-sustaining operations without raising its 
liability ceiling, which is an improvement and a significant change 
over the bill that was considered in the 104th Congress.
  In addition, H.R. 1993, the underlying legislation, codifies the 
cost-sharing and success fees of the Trade and Development Agency and 
provides the Agency with $48 million, the amount requested by the 
President. It also provides funding for all and reauthorizes three 
programs of the International Trade Administration in the Commerce 
Department, $202 million for the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, 
$68 million for the Trade Development Program, and $4 million for the 
Market Access and Compliance Program.
  I am encouraged that the bill directs the Department of Commerce to 
create a special initiative to promote trade opportunities and remove 
market barriers in sub-Saharan Africa and in Latin America. Obviously, 
Latin America is a tremendous export market for the United States and 
very important to the United States economy.
  I believe that this is a fair rule and it brings forth a very good 
underlying bill. I commend my colleagues, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations; the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the others who have worked very hard on 
this legislation for advancing the bill. I certainly share their 
support for this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 327 is a fair rule. I would urge, and I 
do urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 
for yielding me this time.
  This rule will allow for consideration of H.R. 1993, which is the 
Export Enhancement Act of 1999.
  As my colleague from Florida has explained, this rule provides for 1 
hour of general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the 
Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International 
Relations. Under this rule, only amendments which have been preprinted 
in the Congressional Record will be in order.
  The bill reauthorizes the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. It 
also authorizes appropriations for the Trade and Development Agency and 
the International Trade Administration of the Commerce Department.
  Foreign trade is a critical element of our national economy. An 
estimated 12 million American jobs are directly tied to U.S. exports. 
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is an important part of our 
government's efforts to increase exports and create American jobs; and 
in the past 25 years, the corporation has generated about 237,000 jobs 
and $58 billion in exports. This is done through self-generating 
revenues, not with taxpayer-supported dollars.
  This bill contains important initiatives. The Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation is directed to increase support for small 
businesses. The Commercial Service is required to station employees in 
at least 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The International Trade 
Administration is required to develop an outreach program to increase 
exports for minority-owned businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bipartisan bill. It appears to have 
strong support on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, the rule does 
permit only amendments that have been preprinted in the Congressional 
Record. This restriction is unnecessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee 
on International Relations, and at the same time commend him once again 
for his hard work on this legislation.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule governs the 
consideration of the Export Enhancement Act of 1999, H.R. 1993. This 
bill reauthorizes several important U.S. investment trade promotion 
programs, including the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC; 
the Trade and Development Agency, the TDA; and the export functions of 
the International Trade Administration, ITA, of the Department of 
Commerce.
  OPIC's authority to operate lapsed on September 30, but it has been 
extended by the continuing resolution on an emergency basis. The stop-
gap funding measure will keep this important agency in operation only 
through the next 10 days. It is vitally important that we consider the 
Export Enhancement Act as soon as possible, and that we forward this 
bill to the President for his signature.
  Reconciling its provisions with the Senate counterpart OPIC 
authorization will take additional time, a commodity in increasingly 
short supply as we approach of the end of our legislative session.
  This rule, Mr. Speaker, would provide the best prospects for its 
prompt enactment, a goal which will boost our exports and level the 
competitive playing field for our companies that are facing stiff 
competition and exclusionary practices around the world.
  For exporters, OPIC, TDA, and the ITA programs all provide practical 
assistance in their fight to win export sales in highly competitive 
overseas markets.
  The act reauthorizes OPIC for 4 years, continuing its self-sustaining 
operations without raising OPIC's liability ceiling. OPIC provides our 
American companies political risk insurance and project financing for 
U.S. investments in developing nations and emerging economies. It has 
undertaken new initiatives in Africa, in Central America, in the 
Caribbean, and the Caspian Basin, and has stepped up efforts to help 
more small businesses enter the global economy.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past 2\1/2\ decades OPIC has generated some 
237,000 jobs and $58 billion in exports. Producing a net income of $139 
million just in fiscal year 1998 alone, its reserves reached a record 
level of $3.3 billion. It is anticipated that the OPIC agency will 
contribute $204 million in fiscal year 2000 to support all the other 
activities and programs in the international affairs budget.
  According to a September, 1997, GAO report to our committee, and I 
quote, ``Historically, OPIC's combined finance and insurance programs 
have been profitable and self-sustaining, including costs due to credit 
reform and administration.''
  With 12 million American jobs now directly tied to U.S. exports, 
there could be little doubt that the trade promotion agencies 
authorized in this legislation play a critically important role in our 
economy. Recently announced trade statistics showing declining U.S. 
exports underscores the urgency of promptly enacting this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, according to the most recent Commerce Department 
reports, in 1998 U.S. exports actually declined below their level from 
the preceding year for the first time in over a decade. That decline, 
together with steadily rising imports, has contributed to a 1998 U.S. 
trade deficit of $169 billion, nearly $60 billion higher than in 1997. 
In current trends, this deficit is expected to top $200 billion later 
on this year.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, Japan continues to violate market access 
commitments in the form of denying rice imports from American farmers. 
India denies market access to the United States motion picture 
industry. The European Union denies market access in so many areas it 
is now legend.

[[Page 25180]]

  The gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) talked about a $167 
trade deficit. Let me upgrade that for the projection for next year. 
The last quarter of 3 months was $87 billion. If that is annualized, we 
are talking about $340-some billion in trade deficits in 1 year, more 
than a third of a trillion dollars. It is unbelievable.
  I have an amendment for this bill that changes section 6(d). The bill 
calls for a report on violations on those trade agreements we have. The 
Traficant amendment maintains that, but requires that report to be made 
to Congress. But also it requires the International Trade 
Administration to also tell us what is the market access of every 
country, and it stipulates a set of criteria specifying those countries 
with trade surpluses with America, and telling us what products we 
could be selling there, what market access is being denied, and what 
would that impact be on American jobs.
  I know we have a lot of different trade reports, a lot of different 
legislation. I have talked with the respective chairmen. They may want 
to, at the proper time or in conference, move this into the reporting 
mechanism so it is not as duplicative, if it is.
  However, the market access information is most important. I want the 
Congress to know when this amendment comes up, it does not only deal 
with the report to Congress on those countries that are violating our 
trade agreements, but also for the International Trade Administration 
to tell us what is available in those countries if we opened up and got 
those free markets.
  With that, I am hoping that the committee will look favorably upon 
the amendment. I am willing to tailor any language necessary to conform 
it with the final goals.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that the rule is fair. The underlying 
legislation is obviously extraordinarily important. Mr. Speaker, I 
would urge support not only for the rule but for the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1993, the Export Enhancement 
Act, and specifically in support of the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation. Since 1971, OPIC has worked with U.S. investors who do 
business overseas by supporting projects where private financing and 
insurance are unavailable or insufficient.
  OPIC provides insurance against political risk, financing assistance 
through loans and loan guarantees, and financing for private investment 
funds that provide equity to businesses overseas.
  OPIC also acts as an important advocate for American businesses in 
foreign countries. The facilitation of private investments overseas 
provides benefits for the American economy. Since 1971, OPIC has paved 
the way for upwards of $58 billion in exports and the creation of over 
200,000 jobs.
  Today OPIC supports U.S. businesses in 140 countries. Perhaps, most 
importantly, this successful program is self-sustaining and operating 
at no cost to the American taxpayer. An important part of OPIC's work 
is focusing on and helping small businesses. I look forward to voting 
in favor of this legislation, not only the rule but the underlying 
bill, that will reauthorize the program through 2003. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  As one of the cosponsors with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Manzullo) on this legislation, I want to rise to support the rule and 
also support the legislation. This is one of those pieces of 
legislation that has been worked on in a bipartisan effort. It has many 
Democrat cosponsors on it. It is one that brings us together on the 
issue of trade because it is about creating American jobs at home and 
making sure that America is competitive abroad.
  I know that during the debate we will hear different views of that, 
but the fact of the matter is that this is an agency that gives money 
to the Federal Treasury, that ultimately promotes American interests 
abroad, that creates jobs at home, and at the end of the day, also 
serves America's national foreign policy interests by having our 
entrepreneurs abroad engage in those economies.
  So for all of those reasons, I urge adoption of the rule, and I urge 
adoption of the underlying legislation.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, again supporting the rule, supporting 
the underlying legislation, I also yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
327 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, (H.R. 1993).

                              {time}  1210


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1993) to reauthorize the Overseas Private Investment Corporation 
and the Trade and Development Agency, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Export Enhancement Act of 
1999, H.R. 1993, and I would like to commend the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the author of this important legislation, and 
the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) for their 
support.
  This bill reauthorizes several U.S. investment and trade promotion 
programs, including the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC; 
the Trade and Development Agency, TDA; and the export functions of the 
International Trade Administration, ITA, all of the Department of 
Commerce.
  OPIC's authority to operate lapsed September 30, but it has been 
extended by the continuing resolution on an emergency basis. That 
stopgap funding measure will keep this important measure in operation 
only through the next 10 days, until October 22. It is vitally 
important that we consider the Export Enhancement Act as expeditiously 
as possible and that we submit this bill to the President for his 
signature. Reconciling its provisions with the Senate counterpart OPIC 
authorization will take additional time, a commodity that is in 
increasingly short supply as we approach the end of our legislative 
session.
  For exporters, OPIC, TDA, and ITA programs all provide practical 
assistance in their fight to win export sales in highly competitive 
overseas markets. The administration fully supports enactment of this 
measure, and has just released a statement of administration position 
pointing out its substantial benefits for our American workers.
  The Act reauthorizes OPIC for 4 years, continuing its self-sustaining 
operations without raising OPIC's liability ceiling. OPIC provides 
American companies political risk insurance

[[Page 25181]]

and project financing for U.S. investments in developing nations and in 
an emerging economies. It has undertaken new initiatives in Africa, in 
Central America, and in the Caribbean and the Caspian Basin, and has 
stepped up our efforts to help more small businesses enter the global 
economy.
  Over the past 2\1/2\ decades, OPIC has generated some 237,000 jobs 
and $58 million in exports. Producing a net income of $139 million just 
in the last fiscal year of 1998, its reserves have now reached a record 
level of $3.3 billion. It is anticipated that the OPIC agency will 
contribute over $200 million in fiscal year 2000 to support all the 
other activities and programs in the international affairs budget.
  According to a September 1997 GAO report to our committee, 
``Historically, OPIC's combined finance and insurance programs have 
been profitable and self-sustaining, including cost due to credit 
reform and administration.''
  Over its 28-year history, the OPIC agency generated some $14 billion 
in U.S. exports generated by New York State companies.

                              {time}  1215

  It has supported more than 55,000 American jobs created by New York 
State projects alone. In the last 5 years, OPIC has identified $672 
million in foods and services that they will buy from New York State 
suppliers, 57 percent of which are small New York businesses.
  These alone will create more than 2,000 local jobs for New Yorkers. 
New York businesses are seeking possible OPIC support for some 151 
future projects, representing a potential $12 billion of investment, 
and all of these for just one State, not to mention all the other 
States that are being benefited by this program.
  For those Members concerned about how OPIC operates overseas, permit 
me to point out that OPIC operates a comprehensive program to monitor 
every project that it assists for impact on our U.S. economy, on our 
environment, on workers' rights and on host company development. Each 
year, each investor must complete detailed information about the actual 
financial flows associated with the project, information on financial 
issues and host country development aspects of the project.
  OPIC has criteria for detailed, on-site project monitoring for all 
projects that impact potentially sensitive U.S. economic sectors, all 
environmentally sensitive projects and a group selected through random 
sampling theory. Each project that receives an on-site visit is 
evaluated for impact on the United States and host country economies 
and employment, impact on the environment and conformance with 
internationally recognized workers' rights.
  With 12 million American jobs now directly tied to U.S. exports, 
there can be little doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the trade promotion 
agencies authorized in this legislation do play a critically important 
role in our Nation's economy. Recently announced trade statistics 
showing declining U.S. exports underscores the urgency of promptly 
enacting this kind of a measure. According to the most recent Commerce 
Department reports, in 1998 U.S. exports actually declined below their 
level from the preceding year for the first time in a decade. That 
decline, together with steadily rising imports, has contributed to a 
1998 U.S. trade deficit of $169 billion, nearly $60 billion higher than 
the deficit in 1997. At current trends, this trade deficit is expected 
to top $200 billion later this year.
  During the general debate, I will also ask the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) to offer a technical and perfecting amendment 
on my behalf. It takes into account the concerns of my committee 
colleagues about the provisions of the Urban Initiative of the 
International Trade Administration. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge 
my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today we are taking a very important step to help 
reverse the trade deficit and support American companies by 
reauthorizing the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Trade 
Development Agency, and the International Trade Administration 
programs. I want to take a moment to thank the distinguished chairman 
of the full committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), for 
his work and his support, as well as my ranking Democrat on the 
committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), for his 
encouragement and support in bringing us through the committee and to 
the floor today, and my coauthor of the legislation, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo). Working together, we have fashioned a 
bipartisan bill that promotes America's interests at home and abroad.
  With the U.S. trade deficit reaching record highs, $24.6 billion in 
June, America needs to take immediate steps to reverse the deficit by 
helping American companies to export American products. This bill 
begins that process by reauthorizing these agencies and by looking at 
new ways in which we can help American companies, small, medium and 
large, to harness the opportunities of emerging markets throughout the 
world, particularly in Africa and Latin America.
  At a time when the Congress is striving to adhere to the constraints 
of a balanced budget, when we talk about the reauthorization of OPIC, 
it stands apart as a revenue-earning program. OPIC's budgetary 
contributions are returned to the Function 150 or the International 
Affairs account and help offset the deep cuts that have been made to 
our foreign aid and development programs. That is a fitting 
relationship, as OPIC was created by President Nixon to complement our 
foreign aid programs. OPIC not only complements our foreign aid 
programs, it is helping to sustain them while simultaneously providing 
a much needed service and market opportunity to American businesses.
  Let me give an example. In my home State of New Jersey, OPIC has 
provided more than a billion dollars in financing and insurance, 
generating $3 billion in U.S. exports, items that were created here, 
manufactured here, and exporting them abroad, and created over 10,288 
jobs. From Newark to Camden to Princeton, OPIC has supported New Jersey 
companies and their suppliers, and that is only one small example of 
the many places across the country for which that is a reality as well.
  Turning to the International Trade Administration, among the branches 
of the International Trade Administration is the U.S. and foreign 
commercial services. These offices overseas and at home provide real 
hands-on assistance to small- and medium-sized companies that need help 
getting started in the export arena. We have to face it, we are living 
in a global trading economy. The fact of the matter is, we want to 
engage more of our companies in the opportunities to be able to export 
their products and services abroad. The U.S. foreign commercial service 
helps us do that.
  TDA is also an important complement to ITA and OPIC's efforts. TDA is 
often the crucial factor between a project going to an American company 
or to a foreign company. By funding feasibility studies, orientation 
visits, specialized training grants, business workshops and various 
forms of technical assistance, TDA enables American businesses to 
compete for infrastructure and industrial projects in middle income and 
developing countries.
  So when we are there creating the standard and helping to create that 
standard, the reality is we are creating an American standard and in 
creating an American standard we create the opportunity for American 
companies to succeed abroad.
  So as we seek to address our trade deficit and maintain our 
competitive edge in the global market, we need to look to programs like 
these which yield big benefits for small costs. We need to understand 
that American exports mean American jobs here at home, and that the 
U.S. exports of goods and services are estimated to support more than 
12 million domestic jobs. Each one billion in dollars in U.S.

[[Page 25182]]

goods and services exports supports some 13,000 U.S. jobs. We want to 
increase those. We want to create more jobs at home. We want to improve 
the profitability of American companies. We ultimately receive revenues 
from that and everybody prospers.
  So I urge Members to support the bill. These programs are not 
corporate welfare. They are opportunities for American firms to compete 
on a level playing field with our global competitors, and their success 
means a lower American trade deficit and more American jobs. That is 
ultimately what this bill is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Export Enhancement Act. We are 
reaching the point where we are at an all-time historic high of a trade 
deficit, and even the free trade economists such as Alan Greenspan are 
concerned about the implications of such massive trade deficits.
  The trade deficit is extremely important to narrow in order to assure 
a robust American economy. U.S. exports are barely keeping even with 
last year's level. It is encouraging that the number of small companies 
that have entered the export area have grown dramatically from 1987 to 
1997, as shown by this chart.
  In addition, nearly two-thirds of all U.S. exporters had less than 20 
employees, as is evidenced on this chart here, so we can see that more 
and more small businesses are becoming involved in exporting. Most 
small businesses are only casual exporters, that is, they export to 
just a handful of countries as opposed to several countries, and thus 
broaden the base of the small business exporting community. Nearly two-
thirds of small exporters sold just to one foreign market and posted 
total exports of less than $1 million. If more casual small business 
exporters became active exporters, our exports could go up by $40 
billion, according to the Commerce Department estimates.
  Yes, any large reductions in the trade deficit will come from 
macroeconomic forces. Yet our government's export promotion programs 
and services should reinforce these larger trends in order to increase 
exports and reduce the trade deficit. The Export Enhancement Act before 
us today takes this direction.
  The legislation is comprised of four main elements: reauthorization 
of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, for 4 years, 
without exposing taxpayers to further risk by not changing the ceiling 
on OPIC's maximum contingent reliability; two, reauthorization of the 
Training Development Agency; three, reauthorization and reforming of 
the export promotion functions of the International Trade 
Administration at the Department of Commerce; and, four, refection in 
the most efficient ways possible the efforts of the trade promotion 
coordinating committee.
  Let me talk just about OPIC. OPIC sells political risk insurance and 
project finance for U.S. overseas investments. Where U.S. overseas 
investments go, U.S. exports usually follow. Between one-fourth and 
one-third of our exports go to overseas subsidiaries of U.S. companies.
  OPIC makes money for our Government. $204 million is expected for 
1999 from the premiums and fees it charges U.S. companies for the use 
of its services. This is unique. This is a Government agency that 
actually makes money for the taxpayers.
  OPIC projects contributed $58 billion in U.S. exports and 237,000 
jobs since its creation in 1971.
  OPIC competes, and this is very important, OPIC competes against 37 
other foreign equivalents to the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation. OPIC contributes to our foreign policy goals by helping 
countries move up the development ladder. OPIC is not perfect. There 
are some areas in need of improvement, particularly in the area of 
helping more small businesses.
  OPIC is making progress towards this goal, and H.R. 1993 will make 
sure that OPIC keeps on target.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the distinguished ranking Democrat of the 
full committee.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, let me first commend the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez) for the fine work they have done on this and so many other 
pieces of legislation in their committee. So often there seems to be a 
partisan divide that is solely political in its nature in the debate 
here; and it is clear that in this instance there are differences, but 
they are not based on a political orientation. It is a philosophical 
orientation. I think that is the way the debate actually ought to run 
here, and particularly in this case the work is hard and we have two 
excellent people leading the effort here, my good friend, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Manzullo).
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) has done an excellent 
job on this subcommittee working with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Manzullo), and I have a particular affinity for this subcommittee in 
that I used to chair it at an earlier time.
  It is easy often to get caught up in the rhetoric and forget about 
our goal here. Our goals here are very simple. Our goal is to make sure 
that American economic and foreign policy interests are met and that 
American workers are not disadvantaged. We have seen that in so many 
places, where competing with the French, the Japanese, the Germans, 
that their corporate and government cooperation puts Americans at a 
great disadvantage. Time and time again, we see their regulatory 
authorities coming in trying to choke out American business.
  I think we have just had a great success where the European Union 
tried to block American jet engines, not based on the decibel level. 
They said it was a noise issue, and if they were really concerned about 
noise, of course, they would set a decibel standard, but what they did 
was they talked about the manufacturing process, trying to give 
European-made engines an advantage.

                              {time}  1130

  To that end, I offered, and we were able to pass in committee an 
amendment that adds additional personnel in the EU to make sure we 
watch the regulatory process.
  The Trade and Development Agency that is also authorized in this 
legislation is critical. The Europeans are starting to beat us 
worldwide because they now have over 300 million of the wealthiest 
people on the planet, and they have got a single standard.
  Now, they established that standard trying to give European industry 
an advantage. Whether it is telecommunications or electricity or almost 
any field, they try to use the European standard to, not just provide 
health and safety or efficiency or confidence in the equipment, but 
really to block American products.
  What does TDA do? TDA provides the funding that takes a look at the 
needs of the project and really gives Americans a fair shot at that 
project.
  Now, OPIC has made money, billions of dollars for the American 
Treasury. It is really a cash cow in many ways. But that is not its 
primary goal. Its primary goal, and it has been successful at this, is 
to make sure that American industry can compete successfully.
  Now, we think a private insurance program would threaten the private 
insurers. To the contrary, the program has been so effectively designed 
that it is complementary to the private insurance that companies can 
get.
  I will give my colleagues some of the examples where we have used 
OPIC, especially as emerging democracies have come out of years of 
oppression. We have used OPIC, instead of taxpayer money, we have used 
this fund generated from the fees paid by private corporations to help 
American products be sold into these countries.
  It does several things. If an American company is building a 
facility, they tend to buy American generators, American parts. That 
means long-term

[[Page 25183]]

American products are sent there. Replacement parts are American. That 
gives us the edge.
  Oftentimes, as these countries are developing, the first companies in 
end up controlling the technology. So if we were even to shut OPIC down 
for a short period of time, we might lose entire countries to European 
competition. Now, we have the strongest economy in the world. But we 
also have a massive trade deficit.
  I want to again commend both gentlemen for their focus on the fact 
that this is one of the tools we have to compete with our European 
competitors and our Asian competitors. These people are allies, but 
they are very tough competitors.
  I had a company in my district come in and tell me that the Japanese, 
in a number of instances, had come in and offered an outright cash 
grant in order to secure a contract for one of the companies in their 
country. We do not use taxpayer money. We use the power of OPIC to make 
sure that we can be successful for American workers.
  Oftentimes, it is hard to separate the rhetoric from the reality. But 
when it comes to OPIC, not only can we take a look at its tremendous 
reserves in excess of $3 billion, but we can focus on the jobs it has 
created.
  It has $2.7 billion in reserves it has created as a result of its 
exports, and it has facilitated 225,000 jobs in the country. In my 
State alone, it has helped 15,000 jobs. People that go to work every 
day in each of our communities are working today because of the work 
that has been done by OPIC and TDA. With the passage of this bipartisan 
bill, it will make it even better.
  I plan to offer later today legislation to toughen the environmental 
standards to make sure that American policy furthers international 
environmental standards.
  I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for the 
great work we have done together. I understand there is an additional 
amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) which will 
seek the same goals. I think that it is important that we marry these 
issues together.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
authorization bill. We have heard over and over again repeated in this 
debate that OPIC is in some way responsible for these number of 
thousands of jobs being created and this amount of competitiveness for 
America in relationship to its competitors overseas. I have only three 
things to say about that analysis, and it is called baloney, baloney, 
baloney.
  There is no other institution that so blatantly is corporate welfare 
at the expense of the well-being and expense of the taxpayers than 
OPIC. The bottom line is that, if OPIC can operate as a private 
organization and is not costing the taxpayers any money, so be it. Let 
them operate in the private sector as a private operation.
  Why do we need to have congressional backing behind OPIC? Well, let 
me point out what OPIC does, and then my colleagues will see why it has 
to be part of the government. Because no one, no one in the private 
sector would be as screwball as this in order to undermine the well-
being of the people who were picking up the tab.
  Yes, we have heard it created this number of jobs here or this number 
of jobs there. What we have not heard is how many American jobs have 
disappeared by the fact that we are subsidizing the investment of 
American dollars overseas to create manufacturing units overseas that 
will then hire those foreigners to do jobs that could be done here in 
the United States of America.
  Now, I have an amendment. If people object to what I am saying here 
and say, well, that is not really true, we are not doing that, I would 
invite those who are objecting to that to support my amendment. My 
amendment which comes up with this authorization bill simply says that 
none of the money from OPIC will go to establish a manufacturing unit 
overseas.
  Now, what does it do when we use taxpayer dollars to guarantee a 
businessman who would rather set up a manufacturing unit, let us say in 
Communist Vietnam, rather than in Chicago or rather than in New Jersey 
or rather than in some other place in the United States? Well, if we 
are taking the risk, he is more likely to make that investment over 
there, so it is more likely he will invest money there rather than 
create jobs here.
  Number two what we have done is, once that manufacturing unit is set 
up overseas, what happens? Supposedly that manufacturing unit is 
helping our exports. Well, all too many times what we found out is, no, 
it is not helping American exports at all. It is taking the place of 
American exports.
  We have OPIC money being used to guarantee businessmen going 
overseas, they call it political insurance, in order to create jobs for 
these people which then, whoever they are overseas, they are 
manufacturing these projects, not to sell in their own country, but to 
re-export to the United States. This is adding insult to injury.
  First, we put our people out of work; we charge them money through 
their taxes to subsidize this investment; and now they are going to 
have those products exported to the United States so that what they are 
manufacturing in the United States is no longer necessary because this 
cheap foreign labor is being used.
  This is a ridiculous scenario. It is a betrayal of the people of the 
United States. The arguments that this in some way creates jobs in the 
United States is baloney. It makes jobs disappear in the United States. 
By the way, if that is not true, I would invite those people who 
disagree with me to vote for my amendment that ensures that we are not 
using taxpayer money to subsidize manufacturing units.
  I have another amendment dealing with the environment. I am glad that 
this coincides with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson). But 
the worst part about this is there is no restriction on where we are 
placing this money, where these businessmen will be able to set up the 
manufacturing units.
  So our manufacturers, these people, these businessmen are attracted 
to what? They are attracted to tyrannies. They are attracted to 
dictatorships like Vietnam and China. We have no provision in here at 
all that says, if one wants to have a government, a taxpayer guarantee, 
one is going to have to set up in a democratic country.
  Thus, we have businessmen who should be attracted to countries like 
the Philippines if they want to invest overseas and take advantage of 
labor that is cheaper overseas.
  They are attracted to the very worst pits of tyranny throughout the 
world in order to invest. Because now they have political protection 
provided by the taxpayers of the United States of America. That is a 
travesty.
  It is not true that it is creating jobs. It is making jobs disappear. 
Again, if my colleagues disagree with that, I would expect that they 
would be supporting my amendment to make sure that we are not setting 
up manufacturing units overseas. Because by definition, manufacturing 
units cost American jobs.
  I intend to vote against this reauthorization, and I ask for support 
of these two amendments.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the legislation and 
commend the authors of it for taking a positive approach in enhancing 
our ability to export goods and jobs overseas. I am also here to lend 
my strong support to an amendment that will be offered a bit later in 
the debate by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) to, I think, 
improve the legislation before us.
  Unfortunately, U.S. companies simply cannot compete in foreign 
markets if they are denied market access and forced to brave horrible 
conditions. There are a number of examples that we are all familiar 
with. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) earlier this year and I 
introduced legislation to try to improve these circumstances. An 
element of that bill is

[[Page 25184]]

going to be offered as an amendment to ensure that we have the 
necessary information to open markets for companies and workers in the 
United States.
  Priority will be given, as far as those investigations and studies to 
countries which have a trade deficit with the U.S., priority will be 
given to markets which will result in significant employment benefits 
for U.S. producers. Priority will be given to critical technology 
sectors.
  Too often, I think, we do focus on ensuring that people play fairly 
in the U.S. market. It is time we ensure they play fairly in their own 
home markets so we can enhance and increase our exports in job 
opportunities. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) 
in his initiative and join strongly in supporting his amendment as well 
as this legislation.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just tell my colleagues that, if 
they just look at the simple title of the agency we are talking about, 
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and if they look at the 
history of OPIC, they simply see that it is an organization that was 
formed in 1971, to do exactly what it is doing, to provide our American 
people the opportunity to sell products overseas.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) said we are exporting 
jobs. We are not. We are exporting projects. We are exporting products 
that are made in America for the most part, made in America, 137,000 
jobs that was created last year. Just because American business had the 
same opportunity as Japanese businesses, as French businesses, as every 
other country does.
  The Overseas Private Investment Corporation basically does one simple 
thing. It says that, if we go into a country, and we do support a 
facility there that is manned by Americans that is utilizing projects 
manufactured in the United States, if that project or any of the 
property is expropriated by that government, then OPIC underwrites the 
insurance program of that.
  They tell the investors in those countries, if that project is taken 
away from them by some unscrupulous dictator in some country, then 
simply the United States of America will collect their money for them. 
No private insurance company can do that. No private insurance company 
can go in and say to them we are an agency of the United States of 
America; they are not going to treat our citizens this way.
  To think that we have people in OPIC that are so unqualified as they 
would do things to discourage the very thing they were created to do, 
and that is to create American jobs, is ludicrous. That is not the 
case. OPIC makes money. They made $137 million last year.
  Next year they are projected to make $200 million. It costs about $50 
million to operate it. I do not know how anyone in their right mind 
could possibly say this is not good for American businesses because it 
is. It gives us the opportunity to play on a level playing field with 
countries that we are competing against in order to acquire the 
opportunity for foreign investment to that particular country.
  Now, my colleagues can talk about these Third World countries. They 
can talk about these bad countries. They can talk about all of these 
things they want. But they have to look at the history. They have to 
look at the millions of jobs it has created in the last 30 years.
  They have to look at the million units of dollars, hundreds of 
millions of dollars that they have generated. They have to, most 
importantly, look at the fact that, without this agency, our business 
people in the United States of America would have no opportunity to 
compete with the French, no opportunity to compete with the Japanese, 
no opportunity to compete with most countries because they are doing 
the same thing.
  So we do have a good agency that is doing a good job. They are making 
money. They are contributing to our problems of spending because they 
are contributing more than they are spending.

                              {time}  1245

  And at the same time they are creating these hundreds of thousands of 
jobs. So I am here today to encourage my colleague to reauthorize this. 
Let us not muddy it up by saying let us do it for 1 year. Let us not 
muck it up by saying let us restrict them; let us not let them do 
business in countries that we do not personally like. Let us let this 
professional group of OPIC people who are doing a great job continue to 
operate and continue to operate without the fear of being sunseted in 1 
year.
  It is a simple reauthorization of a good project that is doing a lot 
of good for American businesses. It is doing a lot of good to create 
exports. It is doing a lot of good to create jobs here in the United 
States.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I can understand the argument of the 
gentleman that this is good for American business because there is only 
a certain number of people in this country that own businesses.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me respond to 
that now.
  There may be a certain number of people that just own businesses, but 
those people that own businesses hire thousands of people to work for 
them and those are the people that I am concerned about. I do not want 
to abolish jobs. I want to create jobs.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. But the question is, 
these people that hire thousands of people, as my colleague is saying, 
how can it possibly be in the benefit of those thousands of people that 
we are giving a guarantee for businessmen to instead build a factory 
overseas where they will not be hiring those people?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, because the factory 
is going to be built overseas anyway; and, primarily, all we are doing 
is providing insurance. We are saying, if indeed a government 
expropriates that property that the United States of America is going 
to go after that country. A private insurance company, if it went in 
there, those dictators and those crazy people in some of those crazy 
countries would just say, drop dead. But if they walk in there saying, 
I am from the United States, they have taken this property away from an 
American investor and we are going to demand that they pay it.
  The very fact that their losses are about one percent ought to tell 
us about the success of this.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, but does that not encourage the investment and creation of those 
jobs overseas?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have the opportunity in this country 
to do the same thing. We have the Small Business Administration. We 
encourage it here, too. But we have got to recognize we are in a global 
economy now.
  If they want the Japanese and French and every other foreign country 
to take total control of exports, if they want to deny us the ability 
of exporting our products, exporting our ability to make a profit and 
create American jobs, yes. But just look at the very title, Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time I 
have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) has 1 
minute remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) has 8 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman 
Callahan), who is chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations, for the tremendous work that he has provided for 
OPIC.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I have never voted for a foreign aid 
bill

[[Page 25185]]

since I have been in the Congress because I always felt that our 
country needed that support, but I came very close this last time under 
the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan). I 
believe many of the reforms being made in foreign aid are good for the 
world and good for our country, and I am going to have to give it 
serious thought.
  While the chairman is here, I have a twofold message. The only 
company in America to invest in a project with OPIC in the Gaza Strip 
was one of my companies; and they stole the money, stole their 
equipment, and forced my company to take them to court.
  Now, a Federal judge ruled that the bank in Gaza participated in a 
pattern of conspiracy and racketeering and stealing money and stealing 
the equipment and had a finding against them.
  But I want to say this to the chairman because I think he will feel 
good about this: OPIC was good and it changed my thinking a little bit 
and OPIC stood there with my company. And that matter now is being 
delineated at the highest levels after the finding from that court.
  If the court of last resort does not make any difference with the 
Palestinian activities so involved, I will be coming to the chairman 
for the ultimate relief of an American company, that is, Congress.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the very point and the rationale behind OPIC. 
OPIC does not have the authority to go in and threaten anyone on the 
Gaza Strip or any other country, but the very fact that we are saying, 
we are the United States of America, we demand that you treat our 
citizens fairly and that this property not be expropriated is the very 
reason we need OPIC.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I feel very 
comfortable with the remarks of the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman 
Callahan), and I am sure that what he says is heard also around the 
world.
  I hope I have enough time to finish my statement. I just want to make 
this statement to the Congress.
  The gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) says we have a $167 
billion trade deficit, another record. My colleagues, that is not the 
half of it. The new trade deficit reports for the first quarter of this 
year $87 billion for 3 months, close to $350 billion annualized if it 
maintains the way it is, that is 7 million jobs.
  Now, I have not voted for any of this legislation because, quite 
frankly, I do not think it is really doing what it is set out to do. 
But I am going to vote for the modest reforms that are attempted to be 
made in OPIC this year.
  I want to commend the chairman involved and the ranking member 
because it is, at least, a valid attempt. But my amendment says one 
other thing: do not just tell us who is violating trade agreements. 
Tell us what the status of the market access is in those countries. Do 
not just tell us they are denying or they are violating trade 
agreements.
  Under the Traficant amendment, it tells us what is the situation on 
market access and, if they are denying us market access, what are the 
products they are denying from America and what is the marketplace that 
exists there so we can export more of our product. This is absolutely 
necessary.
  I am for free trade. But, by God, if they are denying us access, we 
do not just need continuing reports telling us what they are denying us 
access about and what is the Trade Rep, what is the International Trade 
Administration, what is Department of Commerce going to do about it.
  I know the gentleman from California (Chairman Rohrabacher) has an 
amendment coming up, and I am probably going to support his amendment.
  I only have a little bit of time left, but let me say this: I want to 
know what they are denying to American producers. And I think we have 
to keep their feet to the fire.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I would just, Mr. Chairman, make a few observations. Number one, when 
we talk about a record-breaking trade deficit, that should suggest to 
every Member of this body that it is high time to make fundamental 
changes in our trade policy with regard to NAFTA, GATT, and Most 
Favored Nation status.
  There is something very, very wrong when major American corporations 
are investing tens of billions of dollars throughout the world, 
including countries like China, where workers are paid 20 cents an hour 
and have no democratic rights; and yet it is very, very hard to get 
these same companies to invest in Vermont or New England or any other 
State in this country.
  The second point that I would make is that we have heard some of our 
friends here say, let us have a level playing field. Let the United 
States do what countries in Europe are doing. I would suggest that if 
we follow that line of reasoning, the United States of America would 
institute a national health care system guaranteeing health care to all 
people. That is what they do in Europe.
  I would suggest that the United States Government would provide free 
college education to all of our kids. That is what they do in many 
countries in Europe. I would suggest that the United States Congress 
would mandate 4 or 5 weeks' paid vacation for all of our workers. That 
is what they do in Europe.
  So I find it strange that some of our friends here are saying let us 
have a level playing field in one area, but let us not have a level 
playing field in other areas.
  Lastly, I would commend my friend, the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Rohrabacher), who makes a very sensible point. Why are we 
encouraging American corporations to take manufacturing jobs out of 
this country, lay off American workers, and take those jobs abroad, 
often to countries where the environmental standards are limited, where 
workers do not have freedom to stand up for their rights, to form a 
union, and where they are paid very, very limited wages? So I think 
that amendment makes a lot of sense.
  I would also point out to those people who talk about the booming 
American economy to understand that American workers today are working 
160 hours a year more than they did 20 years ago. I would point out to 
those people who talk about the booming economy that the average 
American worker today in real inflation accounted for wages is making 
less than was the case 25 years ago.
  So I think, while OPIC is the tip of the iceberg, it makes no sense 
to me that we put taxpayers' money at risk in what clearly amounts to a 
corporate welfare situation.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the statements of several of our 
colleagues. I just want to put them in some context in this general 
debate.
  I want to address some of the arguments that have been made because 
they make good sound bytes, but I am not sure they hold up under 
scrutiny.
  We are not talking about, I say to our colleagues who are listening 
back at their offices and those that are here on the floor, it is not 
about trade agreements, it is not about Most Favored Nation trading 
status, it is not about other trading issues that are sometimes 
divisive in these chambers.
  This is not about that. So let us get that straight. I know many 
people will try to bring in those issues in this debate, but the 
legislation being considered today is not about that. It is about 
creating the opportunities in the context of the reality of the world 
today to have American companies that create American jobs here at home 
and that export American products to those manufacturing plants in 
other parts of the world to have opportunity.
  Now, there are those that have questioned, why does OPIC not become a

[[Page 25186]]

private entity? Why the hell do we need the United States Government to 
be engaged? Well, the full faith and credit of the United States is a 
powerful tool, and it is a tool that is not available to private 
insurers. For a job as big as this, this is a tool we need.
  It is not that these projects are not a good risk, because they are. 
But we, the United States, have an incentive to provide this insurance 
that private insurers do not. We are leveraging the full faith and 
credit of the United States to create American jobs, to improve 
American profitability. That is an American interest. That is a 
function that benefits all Americans, and it is a proper role of 
Government.
  Now, if a factory is going to be built overseas, it is going to be 
built overseas. OPIC already, in its law which we reauthorize here, is 
statutorily prohibited from supporting any project that is likely to 
have a significant negative effect on the U.S. economy. And a business 
which receives OPIC's support must agree not to transfer U.S. jobs 
overseas.
  The question is, if a factory that does not exist here is going to be 
built overseas, is it going to be a plant that requires American parts, 
American manufacturing skills, and creates demands for American 
products overseas; or is it going to be a French factory or a Japanese 
factory or a German factory that is not going to be buying any American 
parts made here at home and sold abroad but which American workers are 
making and gaining salaries from?
  So we should not advocate these jobs to other nations. We should not 
advocate these emerging markets to other nations. As I said, OPIC's 
charter prohibits any financing for projects that could cause Americans 
job loss here at home. Those projects actually mean more American jobs.
  It is in that context that I want our colleagues to think about this 
debate. This is not about overall trade issues. This is about helping 
American companies who find themselves competing with companies of 
other countries abroad whose countries are investing enormous amounts 
of money to make their contracts possible. The Germans, the French, the 
Japanese all over the world, they are helping their companies make it 
possible. How could we disarm American companies, which means American 
workers, from having the opportunity to compete in that global 
marketplace? That is what is at stake in this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, as vice chairman of the authorizing 
committee and a cosponsor of H.R. 1993, I rise in strong support of the 
Export Enhancement Act.
  I wish that one of our sage Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, were 
here today. He would find the discussion here interesting and 
reminiscent. He said over 200 years ago, ``No Nation was ever ruined by 
trade.'' Indeed, that is true. International trade is a significant 
part of American economic growth and prosperity today. The programs of 
OPIC, the Trade and Development Agency and the International Trade 
Administration are an integral part of our trade promotion system. We 
need to protect it. They have a proven record of strengthening trade 
and promoting American exports, and they certainly warrant 
reauthorization by this Congress.
  Since it was created in 1971, OPIC has backed projects worth $121 
billion and helped create approximately 230,000 new U.S. jobs and $56 
billion in exports. More than $2.8 billion in American exports were 
generated by OPIC-supported projects in 1998 alone. More than half of 
the identified suppliers to OPIC-backed projects around the world are 
U.S. small businesses. In this Member's State alone, OPIC projects have 
generated about $869 million in exports from the State generating 2,662 
jobs. Examples like that can be given from every State.
  OPIC is certainly cost beneficial to the American taxpayer. In 
addition to the American jobs OPIC projects create, 100 percent of 
OPIC's operating costs are covered by user fees to the individual 
clients, meaning these administrative costs are not a burden to the 
taxpayer. In fact, OPIC generates revenue and has generated over $3.3 
billion to deficit reduction and other international affairs accounts. 
It is anticipated that in this fiscal year, OPIC will generate an 
additional $200 million to deficit reduction.
  OPIC, then, is a win-win program that is successful in mobilizing the 
private sector investment in support of U.S. foreign policy objectives 
at no operating expense to the American taxpayer. OPIC promotes U.S. 
best practices, too, by requiring projects to adhere to international 
standards on the environment, workers rights and human rights. OPIC 
projects help improve the stability in developing countries and 
emerging economies by providing an economic boost to the efforts of 
reform-minded governments. For example, Hungary's opening to the West 
allowed OPIC to support U.S. investment there in 1990. These 
investments at this critical time of transition certainly helped 
accelerate the kind of positive economic and political reforms in 
Hungary that transformed that country from a captive Warsaw Pact 
satellite into a free NATO ally.
  To those who express concern about OPIC-supported investments abroad 
luring jobs from America to foreign countries, this Member recommends 
they examine closely what kind of investments OPIC is supporting and 
what kind of so-called foreign jobs are being created. For example, the 
United States cannot supply raw electrical power to Egypt. However, we 
can supply American-made power generating equipment and services. How 
can selling power generating equipment made in the U.S. by American 
workers and subsequently selling American-made spare parts and services 
for this equipment for many years to come be considered taking jobs 
away from Americans? If we do not sell the Egyptians these power 
plants, then the Europeans, Japanese, Canadians or other foreign 
competitors certainly will sell them and their economies will benefit 
at the expense of ours.
  The United States does not grow tea. Therefore, how does investing in 
a tea plantation in Rwanda steal American jobs? Indeed, it supports 
U.S. jobs insofar as that tea operation needs tools, machinery, trucks 
and other services. These are products and services provided by 
American firms and produced by American labor.
  The United States is not home to the African savannah, and giraffes, 
zebras and baboons are not our native wildlife. Therefore, how does 
supporting the eco-tourism industry in Botswana by investing in new 
hotels and tour operations take away American jobs? On the contrary, 
this tourism type of development requires all kinds of infrastructure, 
construction materials, furnishings, vehicles and a wide range of 
services, everything from financing to marketing. These are goods and 
services that Americans produce and can now sell to a new market in 
Botswana.
  All of America's economic competitors, including Japan, Germany and 
France, offer a comprehensive array of export and overseas investment 
support. They far outstrip what we offer. They certainly recognize the 
overwhelming benefit to their own economies of such assistance. Indeed, 
the U.S. spends less per capita as a percentage of GNP and in dollar 
terms on supporting private sector investment in developing countries 
than any other major competitor country.
  Mr. Chairman, the claims have been made that OPIC is corporate 
welfare and has eliminated American jobs. Opponents of OPIC, and the 
Chairman will like this one, have cited Caterpillar Corporation as one 
of those ``fat cats'' benefiting from OPIC. Caterpillar makes much of 
its tractors and heavy equipment in Peoria, Illinois, the epitome of an 
American city, and, of course, in other American cities. This Member 
suspects he would be very hard pressed to find among Caterpillar 
workers assembling tractors any of them who would believe that they are 
the fat cats that are benefiting from OPIC.

[[Page 25187]]

  These are hardworking Americans. At no cost to the taxpayer, OPIC 
helps to promote the sale of tractors and earth-moving equipment that 
they make. Given the significant support foreign competitors receive 
from their governments, without OPIC, America's Caterpillar Corporation 
and its employees are in many instances at a real disadvantage to 
Japan's Komatsu or Korea's Hyundai Corporation.
  To those who claim that OPIC is unnecessary or competes against 
private sector insurance providers, this Member would point out that 
OPIC does not insure against commercial risk or currency devaluation. 
While OPIC is run like a profitable private business, it still needs to 
provide long-term political risk insurance that is not fully available 
in the private sector. For example, with the assurance provided by $1.8 
million of OPIC political risk insurance, Agro Management, a minority-
owned small business from California, is now able to work with Ugandan 
farmers to produce African chrysanthemums from which oil is extracted 
and used as a natural nontoxic and environmentally-friendly 
insecticide. This is just one example of many investments that will 
contribute to the estimated $9 billion in increased trade with sub-
Saharan Africa that likely would not occur if it were not for OPIC 
insurance.
  Similarly, the Trade and Development Agency has a successful record 
of promoting American business involvement in infrastructure projects 
in developing and middle income countries. Since its inception, the TDA 
has generated over $12 billion in American exports. This equates to $32 
in U.S. goods and services exported for every $1 spent on TDA projects. 
And for every dollar that TDA invests, the agency receives another 50 
cents in cost-sharing.
  Last year alone, over $1.8 billion in U.S. exports were associated 
with TDA activities. Eighty percent of those exports were comprised of 
manufactured goods, illustrating the strong link between TDA projects 
and U.S. job creation.
  The International Trade Administration and Foreign Commercial Service 
is also re-authorized in this bill. This funding supports the actual 
personnel stationed at U.S. embassies and U.S. commercial offices 
around the globe who successfully promote American goods and services 
abroad and provide assistance to American businessmen seeking new 
international trade opportunities.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1993, the export enhancement legislation before 
us, re-authorizes a successful American export and trade promotion 
system. The economic benefits of this cost-effective system to American 
businessmen, workers and farmers have proven to be overwhelming.
  I urge my colleagues to give strong support to this legislation.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on behalf of my home state of 
Oregon, and in strong support of H.R. 1993, the Export Enhancement Act.
  Quite simply, trade is one of the critical drivers behind Oregon's 
current economic prosperity; and trade is expected to grow in 
importance in the years ahead. The Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation (OPIC), the Trade and Development Agency (TDA), and the 
International Trade Administration (ITA) have played a key role in the 
promotion of Oregon exports. I strongly urge my colleagues to support 
this important legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, OPIC, TDA, and ITA play an important part in the 
promotion of American exports. They are good for American workers, good 
for American businesses, and good for the American economy. Each of 
these very worth agencies requires a relatively small investment. But 
they certainly reap big results for Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support American 
exports and support this important bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the bill modified by the amendments printed in 
the bill shall be considered by section as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment, and each section is considered read.
  No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except those printed 
in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose 
and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Amendments printed 
in the Record may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be 
printed or his designee and shall be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill before us encompasses three agencies which 
are at the heart of the U.S. strategy to expand its export 
opportunities and to ensure greater access for American companies, big 
and small.
  As passed by the Committee on International Relations, it helps make 
the Trade and Development Agency more self-sufficient by requiring 
companies and entities benefiting from its programs to share in the 
costs and to reimburse for projects secured, even if the project is not 
the original one pursued.
  It establishes congressional guidelines and recommendations on the 
operations of these agencies to seek and use more private sector 
resources, and to place greater emphasis on the promotion of small 
businesses and make them more export competitive.
  This bill also provides for greater accountability and oversight as 
it calls for independent auditors to report annually on the level of 
OPIC's reserves and requires that greater emphasis and resources be 
dedicated to assisting small businesses compete in the global arena.
  Further, it establishes reporting requirements for ITA and focuses on 
the work of the Market Access and Compliance unit of the International 
Trade Administration which, along with the other units, monitors, 
investigates and evaluates foreign compliance with over 250 U.S. trade 
agreements; helps resolve company and industry-specific market access 
problems in country and regional markets; identifies market and 
nontrade barriers to better prepare and educate U.S. companies about 
developing markets.
  Their list of accomplishments is long, having succeeded in resolving 
serious compliance problems relating to discriminatory regulations and 
barriers faced by American industries.
  While not a perfect bill, it does provide certain safeguards for the 
American taxpayer and it does afford the opportunity for careful 
oversight by this committee and the Congress in general. I ask my 
colleagues to support this bill this afternoon.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Export Enhancement Act of 
     1999''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 1?
  The Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Since it began operations in 1971, the Overseas Private 
     Investment Corporation (in this Act referred to as ``OPIC'') 
     has sold investment services and mobilized private sector 
     resources to assist developing countries and emerging 
     democracies in the transition from nonmarket to market 
     economies.
       (2) In an era of declining Federal budgetary resources, 
     OPIC has consistently demonstrated an ability to operate on a 
     self-sustaining basis to support United States companies and 
     promote economic reform in emerging economies in Africa, the 
     newly independent states of the former Soviet Union, Latin 
     America, and the Caribbean.
       (3) OPIC has played an important role in reinforcing United 
     States foreign policy goals and in strengthening the United 
     States economy by creating jobs and promoting exports.
       (4) Over the past 28 years, projects supported by OPIC have 
     generated over $58,000,000,000 in United States exports, 
     mobilized $121,000,000,000 of United States private sector 
     investment, and created more than 237,000 United States jobs.
       (5) OPIC has been run on a sound financial basis with 
     reserves totaling approximately $3,300,000,000 and with an 
     estimated net budget contribution to the international 
     affairs

[[Page 25188]]

     account of some $204,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.
       (6) OPIC has maintained a claims recovery rate of 95 
     percent, settling 254 insurance claims for $541,000,000 and 
     recovering all but $29,000,000 since 1971.
       (7) OPIC programs have served to rectify market failures, 
     including limited market information in developing countries 
     and underdeveloped capital markets, by insuring United States 
     firms against economic and market uncertainties.
       (8) The Trade and Development Agency (in this Act referred 
     to as ``TDA'') promotes United States business involvement in 
     infrastructure projects in developing and middle income 
     countries.
       (9) TDA has generated $12,300,000,000 in exports since its 
     inception, with every $1 in spending for TDA projects leading 
     to the sale of $32 in United States goods and services 
     overseas.
       (10) The United States and Foreign Commercial Service (in 
     this Act referred to as the ``Commercial Service'') plays an 
     important role in helping United States businesses identify 
     export opportunities and develop reliable sources of 
     information on commercial prospects in foreign countries.
       (11) The Congress has, on several occasions, encouraged the 
     Commercial Service to focus its resources and efforts in 
     countries or regions in Europe and Asia to promote greater 
     United States export activity in those markets.
       (12) The Congress supports the expansion of the Rural 
     Export Initiative by the International Trade Administration 
     (in this Act referred to as the ``ITA'') of the Department of 
     Commerce, particularly those elements related to the use of 
     information technology and electronic commerce techniques.
       (13) The Congress is encouraged by the success of the 
     Market Access and Compliance Unit of the ITA and supports the 
     Unit's efforts to develop mobile teams to resolve market 
     access problems and ensure compliance by United States 
     trading partners with trade agreements and commitments.
       (14) The Congress acknowledges the demands upon the Market 
     Access and Compliance Unit of the ITA and recommends that 
     priority be given to funding for this unit to ensure that 
     adequate resources are available for it to fully implement 
     its mission.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 2?
  The Clerk will designate section 3.
  The text of section 3 is as follows:

     SEC. 3. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.

       The Congress makes the following declarations:
       (1) OPIC should set its fees at levels sufficient to cover 
     all operating costs, repay any subsidy appropriations, and 
     set aside adequate reserves against future losses.
       (2) OPIC should maintain a conservative ratio of reserves 
     to contingent liabilities and limit its obligations in any 
     one country in its worldwide finance or insurance portfolio.
       (3) Projects supported by OPIC should not displace 
     commercial finance or insurance offerings and should 
     encourage private sector financing and insurance 
     participation.
       (4) Independent auditors should report annually to the 
     Congress on the level of OPIC's reserves in relation to its 
     liabilities and provide an analysis of the trends in the 
     levels of reserves and liabilities and the composition of its 
     insurance and finance portfolios, including OPIC's investment 
     funds.
       (5) OPIC should double the dollar value of its support for 
     small businesses over the next four years.
       (6) In administering the programs and activities of the 
     ITA, the Secretary of Commerce should give particular 
     emphasis to obtaining market access for United States firms 
     and to securing full compliance with bilateral and 
     multilateral trade agreements.
       (7) The ITA should facilitate the entrance of United States 
     businesses into the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and Latin 
     America.
       (8) The Commercial Service, within the ITA, should consider 
     expanding its presence in urban areas and in urban enterprise 
     areas.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Terry

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Terry:
       Page 6, insert the following after line 21:
       (9) OPIC must address concerns that it does not promptly 
     dispose of legitimate claims brought with respect to projects 
     insured or guaranteed by OPIC. The Congress understands the 
     desire of OPIC to explore all possible arrangements with 
     foreign parties. However, OPIC must be aware that private 
     parties with legitimate claims face financial obligations 
     that cannot be deferred indefinitely.

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment in 
hopes that I can bring much needed accountability to OPIC's operations. 
I believe that government should exercise a high degree of discretion 
in becoming involved in essentially private sector business functions. 
At the same time, I understand that OPIC exists to fill a void by 
providing political risk insurance in countries where private insurers 
may hesitate to go. The appropriate balance is for an agency such as 
OPIC to be scrupulous in maintaining a businesslike approach to its 
dealings, yet be constantly aware of its duty to maintain public 
confidence and trust.
  The House Foreign Operations Committee has noted, ``OPIC must be 
aware that private parties with legitimate claims face financial 
obligations that cannot be deferred indefinitely.'' Companies that have 
disputes before OPIC have the right to know where they stand. It is 
reasonable for businesses to have a full understanding of the status of 
their claims.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment adds a statement of policy that OPIC 
should be more sensitive about the impact of its delays on private 
businesses. I urge its approval.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise, I think, in support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), and I rise also to engage in a 
colloquy with him, to tell him that there are ways that we can get OPIC 
to respond, if indeed they are not responding as my colleague or some 
of his parties of interest may think they ought to respond. I would 
invite the gentleman, if he would like, to bring his concerns to me as 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing 
and Related Programs, the committee that funds OPIC, albeit we do not 
need to fund them; we take their 200 million, and we give them back 50, 
and that is sort of a plus for my committee.
  But the gentleman is absolutely right. If OPIC is not responding in a 
professional, timely manner, then this ought to be brought to my 
attention, and I will support the gentleman's amendment and at the same 
time encourage the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) to bring his 
concerns to me, and I will call the proper officials from OPIC to my 
office, and we will get a quick response to any problem he may have.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for that 
offer, and I should have offered him the courtesy. A member of the 
gentleman's committee has been participating in several discussions of 
which I have been involved with Mr. Munoz and OPIC concerning the 
status of several claims and their unwillingness to deal with them in a 
timely manner, and I will meet with the gentleman as soon as this 
colloquy and amendment are over, and I will give him the details of 
that, and I apologize for not doing that in advance.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
my colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Terry). Mr. Terry has been very much 
engaged in this issue as, in fact, his predecessor and the whole 
Nebraska delegation has been engaged for some period of time. There 
were an unfortunate series of things that happened with the collapse of 
the economy in Indonesia that affected many American firms, including 
an energy facility firm in our State. We have worked at length on this 
matter with OPIC, Treasury, and the Indonesian Government without much 
success. I believe that in all probability these kinds of things would 
not happen again, but with the support of the chairman of the Committee 
on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, and with 
the continued tenacity and diligence of my colleague from Omaha, I 
believe that this amendment should be adopted as a sense of the House. 
It is an important sense of the Congress to convey to OPIC so that in 
fact a very good OPIC program is improved and American businesses not 
disadvantaged.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, I think of course to some extent we can reform 
our agencies to the maximum extent, and they are doing excellent work, 
but

[[Page 25189]]

when we have a foreign government that basically collapsed with an 
involvement of the IMF as well, sometimes American business is 
disadvantaged.
  So I thank my colleague and commend him, and I urge support for his 
amendment.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would accept the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), Number 9.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  First of all, I rise in support of this amendment, and obviously 
there is a lot of fixing that we need to do on any government program 
and obviously sending a message out that we want the program officers 
to be efficient and effective and on time is certainly a good message. 
I would like to remind us, as we debate this particular amendment, that 
there is a question, of course, as to whether or not the very 
fundamentals of OPIC deserve even an amendment like this. While I 
support the amendment, let us again look at the validity of the 
organization itself.
  We have heard today, for example, a question, and unfortunately this 
type of debate we only get a couple chances to go back and forth, and I 
did not get a chance to ask my colleagues, but we heard the declaration 
that what harm does it do to have U.S. tourist dollars poured into a 
certain country? Mr. Chairman, I do not know what States these people 
come from, but tourism means a lot to the people of my area. I would 
like us to have, rather than having Americans, businessmen, investing 
and luring tourist dollars away from the United States, I would like 
those tourist dollars to come to Orange County, California, and to stay 
in the hotels and to use the facilities in my area, and if my 
colleagues do not want them in their areas, that is fine. But the fact 
is that building up the infrastructure to attract tourist dollars to a 
foreign country does impact on American jobs and, in fact, hurts the 
very lowest employees, the people who make the least in our society.
  I happen to have earned a living when I was younger scooping ice 
cream at Marineland Snack Bar, which was a tourist attraction. Yes, I 
would rather those tourists come there, provide me that work, than 
having American dollars being guaranteed to build tourist attractions 
overseas to create jobs overseas.
  I am sorry, those tourist dollars do take away from American jobs.
  And what about this great tractor factory in Illinois that we heard 
about? Well, okay. My amendment suggests that OPIC will never be able 
to guarantee the building of a tractor factory.
  I would suggest to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) who had this tractor factory in 
their district, they should support my amendment which will prohibit 
the building of tractor factories with taxpayer guarantees overseas. So 
I would ask the gentleman from Nebraska and the gentleman from Illinois 
and others who have such factories, or if my colleagues have any 
factories in their districts, let us make sure we do not guarantee the 
investment of building such factories overseas. We are not doing very 
good work for our constituents if we do.
  And what about that investment on the West Bank that we heard from 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) about? Do we really want the 
taxpayers to guarantee people who will invest in places like the West 
Bank, or should they have to take their own risk? Why is it that we let 
people have a guarantee of U.S. tax dollars for their investment in 
far-off countries where there are risky investments, but we will not 
give people investing in the United States those type of guarantees 
when they come into our areas that are a little bit risky or they are 
going into a risky-type business? Here we are giving them this perverse 
incentive to invest overseas rather than invest here.
  Now we could talk, and we have heard about this over and over, jobs, 
jobs, jobs. I hope people have gotten down to the next level rather 
than just this rhetoric. We are talking about the loss of jobs. We are 
talking about an organization whose very purpose, as we have heard time 
and again, to build tractor factories overseas, to build tourist 
attractions overseas, to let these American businessmen take risky 
investments and have the American Government stand right besides them. 
I do not want the American Government standing besides people who are 
investing capital and creating jobs overseas. I do not want the 
American Government to help them. I want the American Government either 
to stay neutral or to create the jobs here in the United States of 
America.
  Whose side are we on? Well, OPIC certainly is on the side of the 
American worker; but we have heard it over and over again that, yes, 
this helps business. Well, everything that helps business does not 
necessarily help the American working people, and I hope that by what I 
have said I have helped people understand how, yes, it does help a 
couple of investors make some big bucks by investing in risky ventures, 
sometimes in dictatorships overseas like Vietnam and Communist China; 
but it dramatically hurts the American working person.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) over there told us about how 
he was so concerned about this huge deficit that we have. How much of 
that deficit is due to the fact that OPIC has been encouraging people 
to invest overseas? And those factories are not necessarily selling 
overseas, but what they are doing is re-exporting to the United States. 
How much of that, I ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) comes 
from there?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am listening to the debate here today, and I hope 
that we have some degree of context as we are moving forward dealing 
with what I think is a very important program for America and for 
people in the State that I represent, Oregon.
  I have been trying to understand the gist behind the amendments from 
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry). I have talked to OPIC; I have 
tried to get a feeling for what it is, in fact, we should be doing.
  Along with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) I had the 
opportunity to spend some time earlier this year in Indonesia, and as 
we hear the two speakers that have addressed themselves to this 
amendment now and where it takes us, I feel that it is important to 
take a deep breath. I have no objection I guess per se to the language 
that has been offered, but there is the subtext here that somehow OPIC 
is not being responsive; that somehow that these things can simply be 
moved along very slick and easy; and that somehow someplace off in the 
bureaucracy there is somebody who is inappropriately holding things up.
  It seems to me that when we are dealing with OPIC's ability to 
process claims, which is the concern, I think, that has prompted the 
gentleman from Nebraska's amendment, or maybe there may be more here, 
that one has to appreciate what OPIC has to do in order to be fair to 
the businesses that are involved, to be fair to the taxpayer, because 
as has been pointed out by our other friend from Nebraska, this is an 
operation that, in fact, has not lost any taxpayer money at all, and in 
fact this year is going to be surplusing money.
  Mr. Chairman, part of what they have done in terms of hitting the 
balance has been careful processing of claims of this nature. They have 
got something like a 95 percent recovery rate. I think it is important 
that we not assume that the people in the organization are not, in 
fact, processing these in an orderly fashion, that dealing with a 
country like Indonesia where we have multiple interests and our friends 
at OPIC are not just dealing with one company, but they are dealing 
with fashioning a record in a country that is in turmoil, and I am sure 
they are being pushed on by people from other agencies, from the State 
Department or from Treasury. We have issues that people on this floor 
have been concerned with, and we have other national interests that we 
are trying to do in stabilizing the situation

[[Page 25190]]

in Indonesia to try and play that in a sophisticated and thoughtful 
fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just hope that, as we are dealing with this 
language that people are making assertions about the behavior of our 
friends at OPIC, that taking a step back, taking a deep breath, 
appreciating the difficult position they are in, caught between people 
on one hand who refuse to acknowledge the positive contributions that 
this makes to our economy and economies around the world and then 
interfering with an appreciation of what they have to do to try and be 
a loyal soldier and an arm of the United States Government and 
advancing others of our interests.
  I will be prepared to talk at greater length about that at another 
time. Mercifully, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to yield back the balance 
of my time at this point, but I do hope that we do not have sort of 
cardboard cut outs when we are considering amendments like this and 
appreciate the difficult task that they have been given and some 
appreciation for the balancing of the interests that they have to have.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) to answer one small question. He keeps referencing China, 
as I understand it. How much business has OPIC done in China?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I understand OPIC is not doing 
business in China.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Reclaiming my time, it is important that we recognize 
reality from what we would like reality to be. There is no investments 
in China. Even if they wanted to now as a result of, I think, a 
bipartisan effort, we have put in language because of Tiananmen Square; 
they rightly cannot do business in China.
  So, reclaiming my time, we are going to have plenty of time to go 
over this debate further.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to express my 
support of the work that OPIC is doing. It is always an emotional thing 
when we think that in dealing with foreigners, we are going to lose 
American jobs. And, coming from a community like mine who still suffers 
unemployment and underemployment, I would like to spend my time on the 
floor doing all that I can to encourage investments in my community and 
similar communities within the United States.
  But I think we all have come to understand that trade and commerce 
involves exports and that the exporting industry creates jobs, many in 
my district. I have had the opportunity to make several trips to sub-
Saharan Africa and to work with OPIC and the Ex-Im Bank and American 
businesses.
  And so often we hear that with these developing countries that we 
cannot give them fish, but we have to give them the tools to teach them 
how to fish. And so many times we see in these developing countries, 
well, it is not just a question of American businesses getting the 
protection of OPIC, but it is the question of American businesses being 
able to export to these American businesses that are located in these 
countries.
  I would hope that the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) 
will continue to have enlarged tourist activities in his district. But 
in order to do this, people have to have jobs, they have to have money, 
and many of them are able to enjoy tourism here because they have jobs 
that are here.
  So there are enough restrictions to show that the investment is not 
going to be a direct challenge to our manufacturing operation; that is 
written into the law. But it would seem to me that it would be a 
terrible thing to put such restrictions on OPIC that those people, and 
they are people who have the courage to take the risks, to go overseas, 
that America goes with them as partners and say that we want investment 
in this part of the world, we want people to be economically 
independent, we want to make certain that we preserve democracy, 
because democracy without economic support cannot last that long.
  So it just seems to me that we can take a deep breath about these 
things when it involves foreign countries. We say foreign and all of 
the vital juices fly up. But God knows, I believe that we ought to 
stamp out communism wherever we find it, yet we find the majority of 
people here think we should do business with China and with North 
Vietnam and North Korea, and then we have a little island right out 
there in the Caribbean. It seems as though we get so upset when we try 
just to remove the embargo, even though I do not know about Castro 
trying to do anything to overthrow our government; still, we are very 
selective when we start getting angry with Communists.
  But since there are so many other countries that do have democracies 
and these are the countries that certainly do not cause us political 
problems, I hope that my friends on this side and the other side of the 
aisle would find some worthwhile projects where we can say we want to 
encourage investments in these areas, we want that American flag to be 
waving with capitalism and investment, and that we want jobs on this 
side of the ocean as well, which will come as a result of forming these 
types of economic partnerships.
  So I just want to say that I want to thank people on both sides of 
the aisle for putting together a bill that we can say is bipartisan, 
and let us give OPIC a chance to do the job that they have been created 
to do. I will be opposing the Rohrabacher amendment, but I certainly 
will be giving my strong support for the bill.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I can empathize with the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). 
But he mentioned some of my comments and my company, and I just want to 
make a couple of points here.
  OPIC is worth about $200 million a year to us; and we give $50 
million to promote its activities, so that is about $150 million gain. 
One of the qualifications for an OPIC investment is there are stringent 
qualifications to the impact of jobs lost and not one job can be lost 
pursuant to an OPIC investment.
  Now, without OPIC, my company, at the request of this administration, 
made an investment in Gaza, trying to open up that whole opportunity 
and bring them in as a neighbor of the great world community. If it 
were not for OPIC and the insurance and protection of Uncle Sam and our 
government, my company would be laid out, washed out, could possibly be 
belly up. We provide an opportunity for America to make investments, 
reasonable investments to move us forward in the community of nations, 
and the return on our investment has been very good.
  So, I am going to support OPIC, but I am going to support OPIC with 
the types of reforms that are coming from the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Manzullo), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Gejdenson), and others. I think for once, it turns a reasonable 
profit.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that this debate in truth goes far 
beyond OPIC. It goes to whether or not we as Members of Congress feel 
positively about our current trade policies, and that, in truth, has to 
do with NAFTA, GATT, MFN, has to do with the International Monetary 
Fund, the World Bank, OPIC, Ex-Im Bank and so forth and so on. That is 
what it really has to do with. OPIC, in truth, is a small part of that 
whole picture.
  I would argue that any conscientious Member of the House who examined 
the facts would conclude that our current trade policy, OPIC and 
everything else, has not succeeded. By definition, it has not 
succeeded, because we are looking at a record-breaking trade deficit. 
And we hear our friends say, well,

[[Page 25191]]

this creates jobs and so forth and so on. But we have to look at both 
sides of the equation; and when we look at both sides of the equation, 
what we are looking at is a record-breaking trade deficit. Our current 
trade policy is failing.
  As I said earlier, and I want to touch upon this point, I find it 
interesting that there are Members here who are quite conservative who 
would turn pale at any mention that the United States Government should 
have a national health care program guaranteeing health care to all 
people, apparently think it is okay for the United States Government to 
have an insurance program to protect American corporate interests.
  Now, it seems to me that if a company wants to invest in China or in 
Africa, in Asia or in any other place on earth, they have the right to 
do that. No one is arguing that. But what some of us are suggesting is, 
should American taxpayer money be placed at risk to protect that 
investment. Day after day I find people come up who believe in laissez-
faire capitalism who say the government is terrible. Get the government 
out of our lives. Poor people, hey, they are going to have to stand up 
on their own two feet. Government cannot help everybody. And yet, we 
have a situation here where apparently these very same people are 
saying well, government cannot save the poor, cannot help the working 
people, cannot get involved in the environment, but government can get 
involved with the Enrine Oil and Gas Company who receive $400 million 
in U.S. Government-backed OPIC financing and insurance for natural gas 
processing and storage facilities in Venezuela. The U.S. Government can 
get involved in that. The U.S. Government can get involved with OPIC 
helping Texaco and its partners receive $139 million in government-
backed OPIC financing for a power generation project in the 
Philippines. Chase Manhattan Bank, oh, my goodness, the United States 
Government can have the stand with Chase Manhattan Bank who received 
$200 million in U.S. Government-backed OPIC insurance for a 
telecommunications project in Colombia.
  So I would suggest to my friends who support laissez-faire 
capitalism, you cannot do both things. You cannot say that the 
government cannot protect working people and low-income people in this 
country, terrible thing, but yes, the United States Government and OPIC 
can protect the interests of multinational corporations.
  Let me make another point, and I think I am echoing a point that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) made a moment ago. People 
say well, we are in a global economy, companies are going to invest 
abroad, and that is true. But it seems to me that given the fact that 
we have seen a decline in real wages for manufacturing workers in this 
country, given the fact that our working people are working longer 
hours and in many cases, for lower wages, because good-paying 
manufacturing jobs have gone to China and to other countries where 
workers are paid horrendous wages, then yes, I do have a problem.
  And I share the concern of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) about providing OPIC help to those companies who want to 
establish manufacturing plants abroad. I think it is very naive to say 
well, OPIC says that that is not going to result in the loss of any 
manufacturing jobs in this country. I do not believe that.
  I would argue, and maybe some of my friends who support OPIC might 
want to help me on this, that maybe instead of OPIC overseeing private 
investment corporations we want to have a domestic OPIC, a domestic 
OPIC. What about United States Government guaranteeing investments in 
the State of Vermont or in low-income communities around this country 
making it easier for companies to hire American workers and pay them a 
decent wage.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago my good friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) noted this company in his district 
again, which without OPIC standing by its side would have been laying 
there in the dust in the West Bank. That company should have invested 
in an opportunity in the United States; it would have not been lying 
there in the dust. Americans would have been working.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate section 4.
  The text of section 4 is as follows:

     SEC. 4. OPIC ISSUING AUTHORITY

       Section 235(a)(2) of the foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2195(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``1999'' and 
     inserting ``2003''.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gejdenson

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Gejdenson:
       Insert the following after section 4 and redesignate 
     succeeding sections, and references thereto, accordingly.

     SEC. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF OPIC PROGRAMS.

       (a) Additional Requirements.--Section 231A of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2191a) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) Environmental Impact.--
       ``(1) Environmental assessment or audit.--The Board of 
     Directors of the Corporation shall not vote in favor of any 
     action proposed to be taken by the Corporation that is likely 
     to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are 
     sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented, unless for at least 60 
     days before the date of the vote--
       ``(A) an environmental impact assessment or initial 
     environmental audit, analyzing the environmental impacts of 
     the proposed action and of alternatives to the proposed 
     action has been completed by the project applicant and made 
     available to the Board of Directors; and
       ``(B) such assessment or audit has been made available to 
     the public of the United States, locally affected groups in 
     the host country, and host country nongovernmental 
     organizations.
       ``(2) Discussions with board members.--Prior to any 
     decision by the Corporation regarding insurance, reinsurance, 
     guarantees, or financing for any project, the President of 
     the Corporation or the President's designee shall meet with 
     at least one member of the public who is representative of 
     individuals who have concerns regarding any significant 
     adverse environmental impact of that project.
       ``(3) Consideration at board meetings.--In making its 
     decisions regarding insurance, reinsurance, guarantees, or 
     financing for any project, the Board of Directors shall fully 
     take into account any recommendations made by other 
     interested Federal agencies, interested members of the 
     public, locally affected groups in the host country, and host 
     country nongovernmental organizations with respect to the 
     assessment or audit described in paragraph (1) or any other 
     matter related to the environmental effects of the proposed 
     support to be provided by the Corporation for the project.''; 
     and
       (3) in subsection (c), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``each year'' and inserting ``every 6 months''.
       (b) Study on Process for OPIC Assistance.--The Inspector 
     General of the Agency for International Development shall 
     review OPIC's procedures for undertaking to conduct 
     financing, insurance, and reinsurance operations in order to 
     determine whether OPIC receives sufficient information from 
     project applicants, agencies of the United States Government, 
     and members of the public of the United States and other 
     countries on the environmental impact of investments insured, 
     reinsured, or financed by OPIC. Not later than 120 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General 
     shall report to the Committee on International Relations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate on the results of its review. The 
     report shall include--
       (1) recommendations for ways in which the views of the 
     public could be better reflected in OPIC's procedures;
       (2) recommendations for what additional information should 
     be required of project applicants; and
       (3) recommendations for environmental standards that should 
     be used by OPIC in conducting its financing, insurance, and 
     reinsurance operations.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to compliment the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee)

[[Page 25192]]

for a great effort on this issue and the strong work she has done here 
and on so many other issues in the committee.
  This is a very direct amendment, Mr. Chairman. This amendment ensures 
that environmental concerns are taken into account when OPIC is 
considering assistance for projects that are likely to have a 
significant adverse environmental impact. The amendment ensures that no 
decision is taken by the board of directors on such a project until the 
60-day waiting period for public comment is passed and ensures that 
environmental assessment will be available to the public during that 
time.
  It further requires the president of OPIC or his designee to meet 
with concerned groups on these projects, and the amendment further 
requires the board of directors to have discussion on these 
environmental matters every six months, in public.
  Finally, it requires an independent study to review whether OPIC's 
environmental procedures should be approved.
  One of the things we have to do as a Nation is to make sure that we 
add the environment and the rights of working men and women around the 
globe into every discussion. Because if we simply move forward and 
clean up our environment, give American families a better living and 
the rest of the world deteriorates, it will damage our environment, it 
will damage our economy. We have to make sure that America leads the 
environmental standards upwards and does not finance them downwards.
  This amendment is important because I think it provides a reasonable 
amount of time, it makes sure that it clearly stipulates the need for 
public involvement here, public access in providing the public the 
information and to make sure that American activities further America's 
goals, which do include bringing those jobs home to America, but also 
include that we are not involved in projects that degrade the 
environment in other countries. I want to again thank the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee) for the excellent work she has done here and 
in so many other areas.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I support the Gejdenson amendment. I have a similar amendment, but my 
amendment is a bit tougher than the one the gentleman has proposed, but 
I believe we both have the same goal in mind.
  The fact is that nobody should be receiving taxpayer money in order 
to go overseas to involve themselves in economic activity that despoils 
the environment overseas and destroys the natural heritage of other 
peoples. I would say especially this is true in countries that are not 
run by the people themselves. In countries that are run by little 
cliques, by dictators, by tyrants of left and right, it is imperative 
that we go on record that none of this OPIC money that guarantees these 
investments overseas will go to those countries in a way that does 
serious damage to their environment.

                              {time}  1345

  As I say, the amendment that I have in mind goes a bit further than 
the amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson). It 
requires that these loans not be made, and that not just the 
environmental impact report but all environmental studies dealing with 
the guaranty in question be made public, and that they be made public 
60 days prior to the transfer of any funds, which will give everyone 
the chance to have their say and for organizations that hold the 
environment dear to come and try to protect what they consider to be an 
important human resource.
  Let me note that this amendment and my amendment are very close to a 
piece of legislation that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has 
submitted as a separate piece of legislation on which I am a cosponsor. 
I would invite the gentleman from Connecticut and others to join me in 
cosponsoring the Cox bill.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank our ranking member, the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), for all the work he has put 
forth in strengthening the implementation of OPIC's environmental 
standards, and also for his support and guidance on this issue.
  Being a new member of the Committee on International Relations, this 
is the first year that I have reviewed in-depth the purpose and 
function of OPIC. I have been very careful and very deliberate in my 
support of OPIC.
  For the last two decades, and particularly during my time in the 
California State legislature, I have strongly encouraged the Bay area 
and the State of California and members of the business community to 
forge fair trade partnerships, particularly with countries in Africa, 
Asia, and Latin America. In that vein, the mission and work of OPIC is 
very much in line with initiatives that I have been encouraging for 
nearly two decades.
  I understand from some of my colleagues that they believe that OPIC 
sends American jobs overseas. Quite to the contrary, OPIC does not 
support projects that would create any job loss in America.
  Additionally, California OPIC projects have created almost 40,000 
American jobs, and in the last 5 years, OPIC projects identified $1.5 
billion in goods and services that they will buy from California 
suppliers, 70 percent of which are from small businesses.
  Additionally, as I researched OPIC's standards for the approval of 
projects, I became acutely aware of the concerns and criticisms from 
the environmental community. The adherence to strong environmental 
standards in business is fundamental to my support of export policy, 
and a necessary standard for my constituents in an area of our country 
that is the birthplace of the environmental movement.
  It is for this reason that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) and I engaged in a process of dialogue and exchange with 
OPIC and the environmental community. The result of that exchange is 
the amendment that we are offering today.
  OPIC has played a leading role among bilateral international 
investment agencies in developing reasoned standards that take into 
consideration the concerns of their business clients and those of 
environmental groups and the United States taxpayer.
  Working with a broad range of stakeholders ranging from U.S. 
exporters to international environmental organizations, OPIC has 
developed a sound environmental policy handbook over the past 2 years.
  However, many remain concerned with implementation of these standards 
in a meaningful and transparent manner. The Gejdenson-Lee amendment 
balances those concerns by codifying existing practices and increasing 
the transparency in a manner that will not affect U.S. competitiveness.
  This amendment will play a key role in promoting strong environmental 
and social standards for all projects supported by OPIC. Specifically, 
the amendment will strengthen the process of the 60-day public comment 
period on OPIC's environmental impact assessments by prohibiting the 
OPIC board of directors from voting on any proposed action that may 
have a significant adverse environmental impact until the 60 days of 
the public comment period.
  Secondly, it allows for a representative of the NGO community to meet 
with the President of OPIC or his designee to directly discuss concerns 
regarding possible adverse environmental impacts of proposed projects.
  Thirdly, it mandates semiannual public hearings of OPIC's board of 
directors to allow, once again, direct discussion of a wide range of 
environmental and labor concerns regarding both past and future 
projects.
  Fourth, it requires that the IG of USAID conduct an assessment of 
OPIC's procedures for reviewing a project and report the results to the 
Committee on International Relations and the Senate foreign relations 
committee. We should be promoting the highest environmental standards 
possible, certainly when public funds are at issue.
  I have followed OPIC's progress and am convinced that what is now on 
the books should be implemented in a meaningful manner. In the writing 
of

[[Page 25193]]

this amendment, we worked closely with OPIC and several environmental 
groups. The amendment is endorsed by the Friends of the Earth, the 
Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, Rainforest Action Network, 
and others.
  I urge my colleagues to support this environmental accountability 
amend-
ment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I of course agree with the positions 
the gentlewoman has taken today and the statement she has just made.
  The amendment that I am considering offering goes just a little bit 
further. It is not at all at cross-purposes with the goals that the 
gentlewoman has stated.
  I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), as well, 
if the gentlewoman would consider an amendment to her amendment that 
would bring the two amendments together, and which just beefs up a 
little bit the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I would just tell the gentleman, we are probably better off trying to 
work this out in conference. Under the rule before us, the amendments 
are not amendable.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, the 
amendments are amendable. I think this would save us some time. I do 
believe that we have precisely the same goals.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, if we can work this out before the 
gentleman's amendment comes up, we will do it.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a question with regard to Gejdenson No. 35. That 
is, under the present practice of OPIC, OPIC will take a look at the 
general impact on the environment as part of its normal practices. My 
concern about this amendment is that it sets up something that is a lot 
more informal by calling it an environmental impact assessment, or 
initial environmental audit.
  Some of these impact assessments and audits could actually take 
years. That really could end up putting the end to any type of American 
company wishing to use OPIC.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. My understanding is that that is already part of the 
present law. The assessment is in the law. They make that assessment.
  What this primarily does is several things. It provides for a certain 
time that they cannot bring the measure to the board. What happened, at 
least in one instance, maybe in others, is that while there was a 60-
day review period, while the review was going on, the board voted on it 
prior to the 60 days. That leaves a lot of people concerned about the 
environmental problems.
  The gentleman and I share support for this. I understand that he may 
have some differences on the amendment. I think what this amendment 
does, it takes a number of groups that are committed to environmental 
policy and takes away their opposition from what is a very solid 
program.
  I think if we can show sensitivity to those environmental concerns, 
which I think the gentleman shares, it will not hamper OPIC's 
operations. It will provide that we will not end up in an embarrassing 
situation where we are doing some environmental damage in some 
developing country, and that both the gentleman's desires and mine will 
be met. We will have an OPIC that has broader support, that does the 
right things, and achieves the economic and policy goals the United 
States is interested in.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am having great difficulty. Normally the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and I agree on so many things. I think 
our mission is probably the same, because the gentleman, as I, wants to 
protect the businesses in our respective districts, and give them the 
opportunity to have a vehicle in order to compete with all these 
foreign countries.
  However, I am afraid, in reading the amendment, and there are about 
six amendments that are addressing this floating around here, so I am 
having very much difficulty. I have to apologize in advance to the 
gentleman for not knowing the full content.
  However, what I fear in reading this amendment is that the gentleman 
is putting such a hamstring on OPIC, such a requirement on OPIC with 
respect to notification, that we are probably getting into a situation 
where we are going to prohibit them from participating in projects 
because they are going to have to disclose confidential information.
  Then when we have the Inspector General, and as I understand the 
amendment, and I do not apologize for not having a law degree, but I do 
have an honorary law degree from Spring Hill College in Mobile, but I 
am not learned in the law. But my reading in this from a layman's point 
of view is what the gentleman is saying, number one, before OPIC can do 
anything they have to have the Inspector General's approval to do it. 
That is how I read it.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, my great admiration and 
respect for the gentleman has just been increased to find out he only 
has an honorary degree in law, rather than actually having a law 
degree, no offense to any attorneys here.
  I would say that is simply a study with the Inspector General to make 
sure the process is a good process. That builds confidence in a part of 
American society that has often had some questions about it.
  I think if the gentleman reads this carefully, and maybe the 
gentleman might want to reserve his final decision until later because 
there are other amendments coming, he will find that what we basically 
do is codify the existing practice of OPIC, which has been apparently, 
on occasion, violated, to make sure they cannot have a vote before the 
60 days. The review by the Inspector General is to make sure the 
procedures meet our environmental concerns.
  I think if the gentleman takes some time and reads this, and the 
votes are going to be postponed, he will see that this is not going to 
do damage to OPIC. I will commit to the gentleman that I will work with 
him between now and conference to make sure that his concerns are 
addressed.
  We want to make sure we are not doing bad things environmentally. We 
do not want the United States caught in causing major environmental 
damage in some country. I agree with the gentleman, we also do not want 
to end up with OPIC going through so many different hoops and jumps 
that it cannot operate in the real world.
  That is why the difference between the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) and myself is that I fear, frankly, the 120 days may go 
too long. That is why we picked the 60 days, which we think is a 
reasonable period of time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, Mr. 
Chairman, I would say that I apologize for not having a law degree. I 
do not mean to inflict any criticism on the law profession. My son-in-
law is an outstanding lawyer, Dan Cushing, in Mobile, Alabama. Because 
of his profession, he supports my two granddaughters in a very, I 
think, well-to-do fashion.
  But my concern is here, and if the gentleman says that we will work 
it out in conference, I will be happy to work with the gentleman. But 
what he is saying is adopt my amendment, which admittedly could cause 
great problems to the ability of OPIC to work with American companies, 
and then the gentleman says that we will work it out in conference.

[[Page 25194]]

  Why do we not just withdraw the amendment, and then we will work it 
out in conference to make sure the environmental concerns are met?
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say, I would respectfully ask the 
gentleman to withdraw his amendment because of the nebulousness of the 
fact that we have all of these concerns: whether or not the Inspector 
General is going to be the agency determining which loans are going to 
be processed, whether or not they have the ability of some 
organization, some environmental organization or individual who writes 
a letter, and then it kicks in or triggers the opportunity for delay of 
any project.
  Then we are noncompetitive, because the Japanese do not have this 
restriction, the French do not have this restriction. No other country 
has these types of restrictions, yet we have an agency which is 
complying with most every environmental concern that we have.
  I think we might be jumping into waters filled with alligators. We do 
not want to do that. I know my good friend, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) does not want to do that, either. Yet, I am 
afraid, without having the opportunity to review this with the lawyers, 
that to force OPIC to obey our environmental concerns, we may be 
jumping into that pond of alligators.

                              {time}  1400


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman will 
state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, is this the time that if I had an 
amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) that I would submit that amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Yes, it could be offered at this time.


Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher as a Substitute for Amendment No. 
                       1 Offered by Mr. Gejdenson

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute 
for the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment offered 
as a substitute for the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher as a substitute for 
     amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Gejdenson:
       Strike the text of the amendment and insert the following:

     SEC. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR OPIC.

       Section 239(g) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (21 
     U.S.C. 2199(g)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(g)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The Corporation shall not issue any contract of 
     insurance or reinsurance, or any guaranty, or enter into any 
     agreement to provide financing for any Category A investment 
     fund project as defined by the Corporation's environmental 
     handbook, or comparable project, unless all relevant 
     environmental impact statements and assessments and initial 
     environmental audits with respect to the project are made 
     available for a public comment period of not less than 60 
     days.''.

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering to 
the amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), again 
reinforcing the fact that the two pieces of a legislation or two 
amendments that we have both introduced have precisely the same goal, 
my amendment, the one objection that the gentleman seemed to speak 
about a few moments ago was that we elongated the process up to 120 
days. That has been crossed out. It is no longer part of my amendment.
  What the difference between our amendments seem to be is that the 
gentleman is offering an amendment that requires only the environmental 
impact report to be made available by OPIC for the loan to go forward, 
and we are talking about 60 days prior to the transaction. My amendment 
agrees with all of the points that the gentleman has made in his 
amendment, but it also says not just the environmental impact report 
but all environmental statements, all environmental analyses, all of 
the studies that have been done that deal with the environmental issues 
on these proposals overseas should be made available.
  I do not see any reason why we should just make one thing available. 
What we are asking for otherwise is the possibility of hiding from the 
public information that might suggest, for example, that the project 
being funded could result in horrendous environmental problems in 
Brazil or Indonesia but that that report, which is not included in the 
environmental impact report, remains stuck in the safe at OPIC.
  I do not think that that is good business on our part, and I would 
say to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) to the degree that 
businesses are worried about their own secrets and doing business 
overseas, they should only worry about that if they are doing it at 
their own risk. When they come to the taxpayers, asking us to pick up 
their risk, they then have no right to keep from the taxpayers the 
information as to whether or not that guarantee, whether or not it is 
consistent with the values of the American people. The American people 
do not want their dollars going to these huge corporations that have 
major projects overseas that would rape the environment of these 
foreign countries.
  Yes, we would like to have the minerals and have those minerals 
available, but sometimes what we have done in the past is destroy the 
historical legacy of countries. Whether like Burma, which is a 
dictatorship, or Indonesia, which was a semi-dictatorship, or Brazil, 
which is somewhat of a democracy, we do not want any information that 
would help us determine the economic viability of these projects to be 
kept from the American people. I think it is very reasonable, and I 
would hope that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), whereas 
we have the same goal in mind we simply are saying that all the 
information should be available, would accept my amendment.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to accept the 
amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), but we 
still have some problems with the language in that it is not as simple 
as the gentleman presents it. The situation that the gentleman presents 
would involve, indeed, proprietary information beyond simply 
environmental assessments that are mandated under the procedures of 
OPIC. I think the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) was right. 
There were so many amendments flowing around we have had a little of 
this today, but I think the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and I 
both have a concern here that what the gentleman does creates a couple 
of hurdles.
  The reason I would oppose the gentleman's amendment in the present 
form is that what I think it would do is, if the gentleman's amendment 
prevails, it would increase the likelihood that we would make no 
environmental progress in this legislation.
  I think if the gentleman can work with us, we may be able to address 
some of his concerns, but I do not want to leave here, and that is what 
I was trying to tell the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) earlier, 
I do not want to leave here with a bill that leaves a cloud over the 
process.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would be willing to withdraw my amendment under 
the agreement with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) that they would work with me 
in trying to develop appropriate language that would be agreeable to 
all parties.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I certainly would do that because I think the 
gentleman's goals are laudatory. We are all in the same place. We just 
do not want the process to tie OPIC up in knots so they cannot move 
forward.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, all too often 
American tax dollars are used for things that are very horrendous to 
the

[[Page 25195]]

values of the American people. They deserve that information, and 
people who go to the Government and ask for guarantees should not be 
asking for secrecy and proprietary rights on the information of their 
investments; and I think that all of us agree on those points, but we 
still want to move forward.
  This is not an obstructionist amendment, and I agree to work with my 
colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment 
offered as a substitute for the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the distinguished gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) if he could respond to a few questions with 
respect to the underlying amendment which is the Gejdenson amendment 
and which is also offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  What I am concerned about is that with every good intention, we may 
be creating such a delay in the process that OPIC cannot act in a 
timely fashion to meet the competition from the export assistance or 
promotion agencies of other countries. Could the gentleman tell me, by 
walking through once, how he expects that the processing of an 
application would work if the gentleman's amendment were adopted? I 
yield to him for that purpose if he wishes to respond.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, as far as the time line goes, it would 
be consistent with OPIC's present rules, which have been on occasion 
short circuited, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Under the 
present rules that OPIC operates under, OPIC has to provide 60 days for 
commentary on environmental statements.
  What has happened in the past, and has caused great concern, 
particularly with people who are concerned about the environment, is 
that while they left the 60 days open, the board voted on it 45 or 50 
days into the project. OPIC supports this provision. They recognize 
that this strengthens their position with the American public and it is 
a good amendment. They do not have a problem with the 60-day provision 
part of it.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is the gentleman 
saying OPIC supports his amendment?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Not the entirety of the amendment, because I think 
they are probably not crazy about having the IG review their 
procedures, as none of us are when we ask an outside independent agency 
to come in and review. They do not have a problem with the 60 days.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman if he 
would expect that the IG review would take place at the earliest 
possible occasion and that it is his expectation that such an audit 
would be a one-time only event until some changes would precipitate the 
need for another IG audit?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. It is a one-time review, just a simple review by the 
IG for their procedures to make sure they work.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Is it true that the procedures set fourth in this 
amendment are primarily or largely restricted to their environmental 
review?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Exactly prescribed to be simply the environmental 
areas.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there further debate on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson)?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 6.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
       Page 6, add the following after line 25 and redesignate 
     succeeding sections, and references thereto, accordingly.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON OPIC FUNDING FOR FOREIGN MANUFACTURING 
                   ENTERPRISES.

       Section 231 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (21 
     U.S.C. 2191) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     flush sentence: ``In addition, the Corporation shall decline 
     to issue any contract of insurance or reinsurance, or any 
     guaranty, or to enter into any agreement to provide financing 
     for an eligible investor's investment if the investment is to 
     be made in any manufacturing enterprises in a foreign 
     country.'',

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple and 
represents basic common sense. It also goes to the heart of the debate 
here today. All it says is that OPIC may not provide taxpayer backing 
for manufacturing plants overseas. We have heard time and time and time 
again in this debate that OPIC creates jobs overseas. Everyone who is 
supporting the OPIC authorization comes up with jobs overseas.
  Well, it is my contention that one cannot build factories overseas 
without having a negative impact on jobs in the United States. That 
makes all the sense in the world. Those who are listening to this 
debate need to listen very carefully. This is the center, the core of 
the debate on OPIC. What my amendment does is say that none of this 
money that is used by OPIC will be used to subsidize and to guarantee 
an investment that creates a manufacturing unit overseas.
  Again, by definition, that manufacturing unit will do one of two 
things. Opening up a manufacturing unit overseas will either reduce the 
number of jobs in the United States by either exporting the goods 
produced in those factories to the United States, or they will reduce 
the jobs in the United States by producing over there goods that should 
be produced in the United States and exported to that country, or 
number two, what will happen by building a factory overseas it will 
prevent the creation of new jobs in the United States. Either way, we 
do not want to have taxpayer money being used to reduce the number of 
jobs, to create competition for our products overseas, or to prevent, 
because the jobs are now being exported over there, the creation of new 
jobs in the United States because they are all going to another 
country.
  By the way, although we have no guarantees here, that is especially 
true of nondemocratic countries. Again, OPIC is offering a perverse 
incentive for American businessmen to go overseas to build 
manufacturing plants, to use slave labor or cheap labor, depending on 
if it is a democratic or undemocratic country, and then to reexport 
those goods to the United States of America.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) was right when he was 
concerned about this incredible trade deficit that we have. Well, this 
has something to do with it. We are subsidizing people creating 
businesses overseas that create employment in Vietnam.
  Well, I have nothing against Vietnam except for the fact that it is a 
dictatorship and also the fact that I think we should watch out for the 
American people and our constituents before we watch out for creating 
jobs in Vietnam or any other Third World country.
  This is the essence of the debate on OPIC, my amendment. I understand 
there may be another amendment offered to my amendment, which will 
simply say that OPIC can move forward if it does not determine that the 
number of jobs will be reduced. Well, I am sorry, that is not good 
enough because that type of approach means that there will be no new 
jobs created in the United States. That means that jobs would have been 
created in the United States; but by saying if it does not result in a 
reduction then we can just see to it that no new jobs are created in 
the district of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), or 
wherever.
  I do not think it is good for us to build tractor factories with 
taxpayer subsidies in Vietnam or anywhere else. I do not think it is 
good for us to even build hotels necessarily, but this

[[Page 25196]]

amendment specifically says manufacturing units.

                              {time}  1415

  It says it shall not be the policy of OPIC to provide taxpayer 
support and subsidies for businessmen going overseas. Again, why are we 
giving people an investment to invest in risky situations? Do we want 
the taxpayers to risk hundreds of millions of dollars in a risky 
situation when, instead, they could come to the United States.
  Do my colleagues know why it is not risky in the United States? It is 
not risky in the United States because the American people, the 
American working people support free enterprise, support democracy, 
recognize the rule of law. Now we are punishing them because they have 
been so good and so true and faithful to American principles and have 
made this a good place so we do not need to provide risk insurance for 
the United States.
  We are going to take their dollars out of their pockets, these 
decent, hard-working Americans, and guarantee the building of factories 
overseas that will compete with their jobs. This is ridiculous.
  Again, how this amendment is voted on and how the people will vote on 
the amendment that is a gutting amendment that could be offered to this 
is the essential part of the debate today. I hope people pay attention.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Rohrabacher 
amendment. I understand his passion, and I certainly share his concern 
about American jobs. But the fact is I believe that this amendment, 
which is well-intentioned, is unnecessary and actually penalizes those 
that it is intended to protect, which is U.S. workers.
  OPIC is already committed in the law not to export jobs. It is 
statutorily prohibited from supporting any project that is likely to 
have a significant negative effect on the U.S. economy. A business that 
receives OPIC's support must agree not to transfer U.S. jobs overseas. 
OPIC monitors projects and terminates assistance if a company deviates 
from its commitment to protect U.S. jobs.
  Now, OPIC's economists already screen each prospect project for its 
impact on U.S. jobs and exports. As mandated by its authorizing 
statute, OPIC does not support any projects that might harm the U.S. 
economy or that will result in a loss of a single U.S. job. It operates 
a comprehensive program to monitor each and every project it assists 
for its impact on the U.S. economy.
  After it approves a project, OPIC monitors such a project from the 
beginning to the end of the agency's contractual commitments to it. It 
monitors, and its monitoring enables the agency to check the accuracy 
of its own methodologies, ensuring the project investors live up to its 
original representation.
  Now, there is a ban on manufacturing projects which would hurt U.S. 
companies and the U.S. economy. Manufacturing projects help create new 
markets for U.S. goods and services, which would be lost if the 
Rohrabacher amendment were adopted.
  Restricting the type of projects OPIC supports would put U.S. 
companies at a competitive disadvantage with their heavily subsidized 
foreign counterparts. For example, if one has an auto manufacturer who 
is both foreign and domestic, having manufacturing plants all over the 
world to be closer to their consumer market, the absence of OPIC 
support may have the intended effect of keeping an auto maker from 
having a plant in Argentina. But it will also mean that the company 
will sell considerably fewer cars in Argentina because they would have 
used U.S. manufactured parts, inputs that would have generated exports 
and create American jobs here at home. That is an example of what, in 
fact, we would do.
  This is not about taking some plant that exists in the United States 
and, as a result of OPIC's efforts, transferring it to some other 
country abroad. I think, generally, we would be opposing that. That is 
not the issue here.
  The issue here is whether or not we allow OPIC to make such an 
investment in a plant that does not exist now, that will not detract 
from American jobs, and that, by doing so, will create American design 
and American parts that will be used in that plant that ultimately will 
create jobs here at home.
  So I understand the gentleman's concern. But the fact of the matter 
is the very concern he has is undermined by his amendment. It is 
important that we look at the whole picture. It may not be a choice 
between manufacturing in the United States or overseas, but, rather, 
whether or not to manufacture at all if a company cannot get sufficient 
financing or insurance to make the investment.
  It is a lot better to make sure that, when we create the opportunity 
abroad, that it is an American product and American design using 
American imports with American workers and American ingenuity to, in 
essence, influence that market and to create the jobs here at home that 
will go towards that manufacturing plant in that regard that did not 
exist here and would not exist here under the set of circumstances that 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) envisions.
  I think we need to defeat his amendment. I know we need to defeat his 
amendment to protect the very goal that he seeks to preserve.


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to apprise Members that the Chair 
is alternating recognition across the aisle, and giving preference to 
Members of the Committee on International Relations and on the basis of 
seniority on the Committee on International Relations.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Manzullo to Amendment No. 6 Offered By Mr. 
                              Rohrabacher

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Manzullo to Amendment No. 6 
     offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
       In the amendment strike: ``in any manufacturing enterprise 
     in a foreign country'' and insert: ``in a manufacturing 
     enterprise in a foreign country, if such investment would 
     cause a reduction in manufacturing in the United States.''

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and I always admire his spirited 
debate. The problem with the Rohrabacher amendment is that it would 
prohibit an American firm from setting up an American enterprise 
overseas that does even the most modest of manufacturing.
  For example, one could set up something overseas that would be 
similar to a warehouse that does minor assembly. The American 
manufacturer would send his products to the overseas facility for minor 
assembly for the purposes of thereafter storing and then reselling to 
the local market. It is not uncommon to ship components from different 
parts of the country for final assembly in a foreign country. The 
Rohrabacher amendment would prohibit that, even if that is an American-
owned company.
  What our amendment does to his is says, look, we will restrict an 
OPIC guarantee in a manufactured enterprise in a foreign country only 
if such an investment would cause a reduction in manufacturing in the 
United States. It is all about jobs. So we are saying OPIC cannot get 
involved if it results in the loss of American jobs.
  That is already present in American law. Take the case of Monique 
Maddy. Monique was born in Liberia. She is a United States citizen. She 
got an OPIC guarantee to set up operations in Tanzania and Ghana. She 
sends U.S. manufactured communication components to two facilities in 
Africa where they are assembled and used for African consumption, 
thereby having 400 to 500 jobs in Africa.
  Now, under those circumstances, that is not displacing American jobs 
because the Americans would not be manufacturing here and shipping over 
there. But what it is doing is it is increasing American exports of 
those American made products.
  I would ask that the Members of Congress, the Chair entertain using 
the

[[Page 25197]]

Manzullo amendment as a perfecting amendment to the Rohrabacher 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman form Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
I think he is right on target. As bad as the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) despises OPIC, his intent is to destroy OPIC. 
Essentially what he is saying is, let us get rid of OPIC through this 
obnoxious amendment. What his amendment does is does exactly what he 
says he wants to do, protect American jobs. So what he is saying is 
exactly right, that, yes, we can create opportunities in foreign 
countries, but not at the expense of one American job.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) corrects 
it to the extent that it should be and still gives us opportunities to 
compete with the French and the Japanese and other countries.
  So I know that the mission of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) is to totally eliminate OPIC. I think that there are a 
couple of Members of the House that would like to do away with OPIC. 
But their rationale is ill-founded and should not be considered.
  But the Manzullo amendment does exactly what he is saying he wants to 
do, that we will not go into any foreign countries and make any 
guarantee of investment if, indeed, it is going to cost us one American 
job.
  I get that as the mission of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher), but his amendment, the way it is written, would 
completely eliminate the ability of OPIC to assist any American who 
wants to go into a foreign country to create an opportunity there to 
compete with the Japanese and the French.
  We are saying we will accept the amendment if the gentleman from 
California will allow us to perfect it to the extent that it protects 
American jobs. That is his mission according to his statement, and that 
is the mission of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo). So I 
would support the gentleman's perfecting amendment to the gentleman 
from California.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, essentially, if my 
colleagues support the mission of OPIC, then the Members should support 
the Manzullo perfecting amendment to Rohrabacher.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to understand the impact in 
terms of the loss of a single job. May I give an example and ask how it 
would apply.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Yes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, there is a small lumber company in my 
State, Ochoco Lumber, that has used OPIC to set up a mill in the former 
Soviet Union; Lithuania, I believe, is the country. As a result of this 
manufacturing process, they have been able to get product that they 
cannot get in Oregon because of some of the environmental and supply 
problems.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the Rohrabacher amendment would not allow 
that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Manzullo was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield further to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, what I was trying to clarify is that 
this has created hundreds of jobs in depressed central Oregon. It may 
theoretically have displaced one job someplace in the United States.
  I understand the Rohrabacher amendment would kill what we have done 
in this small mill.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. But what about the gentleman's perfecting amendment?
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, our amendment will allow the present 
operation of the gentleman's constituent's firm in Lithuania. That is 
correct.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people recently learned that more of the 
goods sold here are manufactured in foreign countries than in the U.S. 
That trend is getting worse. The trade deficit is at a record high. For 
that reason, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  It is well known that global trade agreements like NAFTA have 
worsened the trade deficit by making it easier for companies to close 
their American plants and re-open them in developing countries where 
they do not have to pay a decent wage, where they do not have to 
prevent work place injuries, where they do not have to curb pollution.
  The Overseas Private Investment Corporation does the same thing and 
adds to the same problem when it subsidized companies to open factories 
in foreign countries.
  Now, the example was given of an auto company. Let us say an American 
manufacturer would want to open up an auto company in another country. 
Well, I am opposed to using U.S. taxpayers' money to help do that 
because that takes away jobs of auto workers in this country, pure and 
simple. It does not get much more complicated.
  So if we use that example, it totally validates the reason why the 
amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) ought to 
pass this House. U.S. tax dollars should not be used to undermine 
markets here in the United States and to cost the people who pay our 
salaries their jobs.
  Why should any agency of the United States Government subsidize the 
trade deficit and the loss of U.S. jobs? Congress should not tolerate 
it.
  The Rohrabacher amendment simply prohibits any OPIC support for 
worsening the trade deficit, worsening the trend of plant closings in 
the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher), who I think could help elucidate this subject.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I think that we have heard some very 
good examples, and they keep coming from those people who are opposing 
my position here. For example, do we really want to have OPIC giving, 
providing hundreds or tens of millions or hundreds of millions of 
dollars to build a saw mill in gangster-ridden Russia? I do not know 
what the environmental impact of that is going to be. I think we ought 
to know about that.
  Why do they not just go to Burma with that sawmill where they have 
got a vicious dictatorship that they can pay off and chop down all the 
teak wood. That is going to create a lot of jobs here, is not it? No, 
it is not. It is going to spoil the environment, and we need to know 
about that.
  The fact is this is not a perfecting amendment. As much as I like the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), he is a wonderful colleague, we 
are good friends, this is not a perfecting amendment. This is a gutting 
amendment.
  Already we have been told it is already policy of OPIC not to do 
things where there are loss of jobs. Well, if that is the case, accept 
my amendment. But the central issue here is not that, and the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) understands that.
  The central issue is whether or not building factories overseas in 
and of itself, prima facie evidence, determines whether or not jobs 
will be created overseas rather than here.
  The Manzullo amendment, which I think just basically is weasel words 
in action here, because it permits OPIC to subsidize the building of 
manufacturing units overseas that they determine, OPIC determines, will 
not reduce employment here.

                              {time}  1430

  But OPIC does not believe building factories overseas reduces 
employment here. Let me point this out. Even if the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) is correct and it does not have

[[Page 25198]]

a reduction of employment here, what we are doing is subsidizing the 
building of manufacturing units that will prevent the creation of new 
jobs here, and there is no doubt about that.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) because I think this debate is 
healthy for the House.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, we have a U.S. company building a lumber 
mill in Lithuania using Lithuanian lumber. Under no circumstances is 
that going to result in the loss of American jobs.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if we have unemployed 
lumberjacks in this country or not. I do not know whether or not there 
is unemployment in the part of the country of my colleague. I think 
there might be some unemployed lumberjacks in this country that would 
prefer creating the jobs here in the United States of America.
  Of course, then we have to have some environmental controls so that 
some of these big companies could not rape the environment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The time of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Kucinich was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the notion that somehow because there 
are people that are lumberjacks that are unemployed because there is 
not access to timber supply means that mill workers should not be 
allowed to process timber and use materials to build that mill from 
Oregon escapes me.
  It seems to me that we are better off having those people using 
Oregon products, Oregon companies thriving, and that it does not do 
anything to affect the timber supply or lack thereof in the Northwest.
  Maybe I am missing something.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, obviously, this lumber mill example is 
a very tiny, minuscule, one-half of 1 percent example of what OPIC 
does.
  When we are talking about manufacturing units, we are talking about 
tractor factories; we are talking about other kinds of manufacturing 
that are heavy, heavy manufacturing. We are also talking about other 
exploitation of natural resources.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to just 
say that it is a great debate, but the thing that we have to be 
concerned about is the impact of OPIC on our heavy manufacturing, the 
export of U.S. jobs, and a widening of the trade deficit.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Manzullo amendment to the 
Rohrabacher amendment.
  If my colleagues and the American public are somewhat perplexed about 
what is happening here, it is understandable because the arguments that 
are being raised, I think, are turning rationality on its head.
  What the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) is attempting to do 
by his perfecting amendment would say that there must not be a net loss 
of manufacturing jobs in the United States under OPIC activity. And 
that should be the objective. That is what the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) says he wants to accomplish.
  The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) indicated a few minutes ago 
that the Manzullo amendment accomplishes just what the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) says he wants to do, but that perhaps he 
has a different motive.
  Now, I do not know whether that is the case or not about the 
gentleman from California, but my colleagues should not be confused by 
this issue.
  Let us suppose an American firm wants to create a canning factory for 
mangos in India. Now, we do not can mangos in this country, no, not 
even in Hawaii. The Rohrabacher amendment would prevent OPIC assistance 
to an American firm which wanted to build or help build a plant in 
India to can mangos. That would be, a net gain in manufacturing jobs 
for the United States because the products to produce the canning 
factory are likely to come from the United States. But there are jobs 
in manufacturing being created in India, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) would prevent that by his amendment just 
as he would prevent a tea operation in Sri Lanka.
  The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) was trying to indicate 
that in this case the OPIC guarantee for a firm in Oregon actually 
resulted in net manufacturing jobs being created in the United States, 
not a loss. So the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) ought to be in 
favor of the Manzullo perfecting amendment and opposed to the 
Rohrabacher amendment because the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) kills, inadvertently perhaps, unintentionally perhaps, he 
kills American manufacturing jobs that are created by OPIC.
  What we need to be concerned about, already addressed in law, is that 
OPIC activities do not result in a net reduction in manufacturing jobs 
in America. The Manzullo perfecting amendment will do just that. His 
amendment indicates that, in effect, if there is a net reduction in 
manufacturing jobs in the United States, then there would be no OPIC 
activity, but only if there is a net reduction, not just if there is 
one manufacturing job created abroad. It is not a zero-sum game on job 
creation under OPIC activities, my colleagues.
  Support the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), a perfecting amendment to the Rohrabacher 
amendment. Vote ``yes'' on Manzullo.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to support the Manzullo amendment, as 
well, because it does go to the very core of what the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) says he wants to accomplish and, in 
essence, accomplishes that. It clearly says, if any such investment 
would cause a reduction in manufacturing in the United States, then 
clearly OPIC would not be able to pursue such an investment. And so 
that ultimately goes to the question of do we lose any American jobs.
  But if we do not adopt the Manzullo amendment and we were to adopt 
the Rohrabacher amendment, then, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer) has suggested just a few minutes ago, the reality is that 
we would lose those American jobs that would not exist but for the 
opportunities created by that company in Lithuania. The reality is that 
we would lose opportunity here at home to create products that would be 
used abroad in the development of the products being made in these 
manufacturing plants abroad. The fact of the matter is that, in 
essence, we would lose American jobs here at home.
  But I think our colleagues in their passion, and I understand their 
passion, not to lose American jobs are blinded by the fact that, in 
fact, what they seek to do, in essence, will make us lose American jobs 
here at home.
  We are much better off to ensure that opportunities of manufacturing 
here, at home, parts or other supplies that will be used abroad in an 
investment make eminent sense. And we are much better off to ensure 
that, in fact, that the last 5 fiscal years where OPIC has supported 43 
manufacturing plants have generated $3.1 billion in United States 
exports and over 10,000 U.S. jobs.
  Now, if we adopt the Rohrabacher amendment, we will lose the $3 
billion in potential U.S. exports in the future, these are real exports 
that have taken place; we will lose those in the future and whatever 
else we can enhance; we will lose the 10,000 jobs created here in the 
good ol' U.S.A. That is not what our intention is.

[[Page 25199]]

  Our intention is to create jobs here at home, to promote American 
interests here at home. And we are also promoting it abroad, because 
often what we are doing is creating new markets abroad when we make 
these investments, which not only are investments that are repaid but 
end up generating revenue for the Treasury of the United States.
  So I want to support the Manzullo amendment very strongly. It will 
accomplish what the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) wants 
to do, but it will not strike the blow to American jobs here at home 
that the Rohrabacher amendment would.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to inject a small note of what I think is 
reality in the discussion in terms of what difference it will make for 
hundreds and thousands of small businesses around the country.
  The gentleman offers an amendment, and people think it is well 
intended. I do not know that it is necessarily well intended because I 
think we have already had a perfecting amendment that has been offered 
that clearly states how existing policy can be reaffirmed.
  We already know that OPIC is constrained by its statutory framework 
and by its own internal operations from the result that the gentleman 
is talking about.
  He dismissed the example, a real-life example, of a struggling timber 
company in eastern Oregon as that is just 1 percent or half a percent, 
while arguing that, well, why do not we just go ahead and give money to 
the Burmese Junta to cut down teak forests?
  Well, what is lacking in this discussion is any concrete example of 
where there is, in fact, a specific area of abuse, where the existing 
law and the protections thereof are not being followed, where there is 
a massive loss, where we are giving money for the leveling of teak 
forests by the brutal dictatorship in Burma. It is thrown off. I am not 
aware of any example. Nothing specific has been brought forward.
  But he dismisses something that results in American jobs, American 
products in an area that is hard hit in my community. And I just think 
that that is what is fundamentally wrong with the debate that we have 
before us today, Mr. Chairman, that we do not have specifics in areas 
of real abuse; and we take the hundreds and thousands of a tenth of a 
percent here or 1 percent there that are real successes for American 
companies and for countries overseas like in Latvia, where they are 
struggling to recover from the yoke of Soviet oppression, where they 
are trying to modernize and refine their economies, where they are 
trying to enter the world stage, and we have a classic win-win. And 
that is just dismissed out of hand as that is just 1 percent or 2 
percent.
  I could stand here and give example after example in my State where 
not billions but tens of millions of dollars have generated Oregon 
products that have created hundreds of jobs in our State and where the 
subcontractors of little tiny companies that nobody has heard of 
outside the boundaries of our communities that has made a difference.
  I think it is time for us to not use hyperbole and hypotheticals that 
are not proven, that, in fact, are contrary to practice and statute of 
OPIC and dismiss the good that is done by allowing American companies 
to be able to work in difficult situations, help emerging democracies, 
strengthen these economies. I think this is precisely what we should be 
doing.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, again I remind my colleagues who are following this in 
the Congressional Record or on C-SPAN that this is the essential part 
of the debate, this is the central issue, and what I think that they 
ought to try, whoever is listening or reading this in the Congressional 
Record to determine what makes sense and what does not make sense.
  The other side is saying, having our Federal tax dollars being used 
to subsidize the building of factories overseas is not doing anything 
to hurt American working people. Building factories, manufacturing 
units overseas does not hurt American working people. That is what they 
are saying.
  Now, if that makes no sense to my colleagues, I would invite them to 
try to look and see what is happening here. We have got some huge 
American corporate interests, huge, companies that are worth billions 
of dollars. They have got hundreds of millions of dollars invested 
overseas that they would like to make where they do not have to pay the 
salaries to American workers and they want that guaranteed by the 
taxpayers. That is what this is all about.
  They do not want to invest here. They do not want to take that money 
that they would invest in that lumber company in Lithuania. They do not 
want to set up some kind of factory in the United States that creates 
prefabricated walls or invests in something that deals with 
construction that could give jobs to the American people. They want to 
go to Lithuania.
  No, but that has no impact. Just giving them the guarantee to produce 
that in Lithuania has no impact on the American unemployment. Gobble-
dygook. Nonsense. The Manzullo amendment is not a perfecting amendment. 
It is a gutting amendment.

                              {time}  1445

  I might add the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) who 
unfortunately is not here with us today, I mean right now, he was with 
us earlier, made the point that the Manzullo amendment said that there 
will be no reduction of jobs, no net reduction of jobs. The gentleman 
from Nebraska said over and over again, no net reduction.
  I am sorry, but that is not what the Manzullo amendment does. It is 
not what it says. The word ``net'' is not in there. The word ``net'' is 
not in there because the Manzullo amendment is what we call a gutting 
amendment.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask for unanimous consent 
to add the word ``net'' in my amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I wish the gentleman would do that on his own time. 
I thank the gentleman for using my time.
  If the gentleman wants to have good relations in this body, we do not 
waste each other's time. The gentleman has plenty of time to do that 
later on.
  The Manzullo amendment does not say ``net reduction.'' It just says 
``reduction.'' Whether it says net reduction is irrelevant because of 
this point: It is all based on the analysis of OPIC, and OPIC believes 
in this gobbledygook that we have been hearing today that if you create 
jobs, or if you build factories overseas, that it will not hurt 
American workers because if you analyze things out to the nth degree 
100 years from now, their consumers are going to have more money to buy 
American products because they will have good-paying jobs there to buy 
American products. This sort of nonsense, this sort of just pie-in-the-
sky economics, liberal economics, if you will, is bringing down the 
standard of living of the average American working person that works in 
manufacturing jobs in the United States. All the examples we have heard 
of today hurt American workers.
  Again, the gentleman from Nebraska talked about, what is wrong with 
building a canning factory for mangos in some other country? Well, how 
about it? Do we not have farmers and agricultural workers that provide 
some sort of competition for mangos? In California, I think they 
actually can oranges and grapefruits. They can pineapples in Hawaii. 
No, I do not want to establish a factory with taxpayer-guaranteed money 
that will manufacture canned mangos overseas in competition with 
American agricultural products. It might be a little bit hard to see, 
but I think the American people fully understand that what this 
amendment does is it guts my amendment and it leaves open the subsidy 
of building factories and manufacturing units overseas that will 
destroy American jobs, either

[[Page 25200]]

American jobs that exist, or it will destroy the possibility of 
creating new jobs. In fact, the gentleman from Illinois' language 
specifically permits there to be a subsidy for an American company if 
the only impact is the elimination of the creation of new jobs, as long 
as it does not reduce current jobs. I am sorry, but we have had an 
expanding population in the United States. If someone wants to invest 
overseas, they should be doing so at their own risk. That is all we are 
saying. It is unfair and a betrayal to our taxpayers to set up 
factories overseas guaranteed by their money that competes with their 
own job.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for the Manzullo gutting amendment to be defeated 
and support for my amendment.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support of the Rohrabacher 
amendment and oppose the gentleman from Illinois' attempt to, I 
believe, either circumvent, undermine, use whatever word you wish. I 
think in the area of trade that the jig is up, and that the American 
people will no longer tolerate trade agreements where we wind up, and 
this is not a trade agreement, I understand that, where we wind up as 
the monitors of the world.
  It does not work that way. WTO has not worked, our trade agreements 
to the South and to the West have not worked for the simple reason that 
there is no teeth, and we are depending on good will. Yet we read in 
the paper just a few days ago, ``Five Clothing Makers Agree on a 
Settlement, Sweatshops on Saipan Bring Class Action Suit,'' and the 
likes of Ralph Lauren, Donna Karan, the Gap, Tommy Hilfiger, Wal-Mart, 
go down the list, have to be reminded of the obligations and the 
undermining of the American ethic of work in our own country. Enough is 
enough is enough. If it takes the government to remind these great 
corporations, where our wives and our loved ones shop day in and day 
out, to even see on those labels, ``Made in the USA,'' tags which now 
consumers understand have nothing to do with where the product is made. 
That product, with that label, ``Made in the USA,'' once made sense, 
once had power. It meant that the product was made within our borders. 
It no longer means that, does it? We are opening up windows and doors 
and sides of buildings every day. These trade agreements, and OPIC is 
part of that scene, simply give credibility to those who want to 
isolate America. That is not the gentleman from California's intent. It 
is not my intent.
  The Rohrabacher amendment is very simple. It seeks to prohibit OPIC 
guarantees from being used for investments in manufacturing facilities 
abroad. Our Nation has suffered enough job loss in manufacturing. We do 
not need to subsidize the creation of jobs abroad. We need to end 
exporting jobs from America. We need to do it today. OPIC will be fine 
for another time, not now. The jig, as I said, is up. It has been 
exposed. We protect the very businesses who put labels on products, be 
it textiles or machinery, all the same, that have nothing to do with 
the location, the geography where the product is made. How can we stand 
here and defend that and support opening our doors to that kind of 
lunacy? For those of us who are concerned about job loss, concerned 
about the working conditions at all of the plants in the article that I 
referred to, we have another example to point to with this settlement, 
quote-unquote, as if we needed one more.
  The amendment would in no uncertain terms end an opportunity, Mr. 
Chairman, for OPIC to fund overseas industries that might compete with 
domestic American industry. We need to stop exporting our jobs. We need 
to go back and strengthen manufacturing within our own shores. On one 
side of our mouth, we talk about we are a Nation of immigrants. Yet 
this is how immigrants earned their identity in America, by working 
with their hands and making the products from their own sweat and their 
labor. We do not honor the commitment we made to immigrants in this 
great American society of ours by undermining the tenet to strengthen 
American jobs.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 327, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Manzullo) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Sanford

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Sanford:
       Page 6, line 25, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2000''.

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I walked in here about an hour and a half 
ago hoping to very quickly offer an amendment and walk out. Yet we 
found ourselves in the middle of a very heated debate because people 
have very strong feelings on both sides of the OPIC debate. My hope is 
that this, however, will be something accepted by voice because I see 
it as completely noncontroversial. I see this simply as an amendment 
about good government, having nothing to do with the merits on one side 
or the other of the OPIC debate itself.
  Specifically, when we think about the Federal Government, we do not 
like it, it is painful as we go through the process, but with the 
Federal Government we go through the authorizing and appropriating 
process every single year. The reason we do that is because we want to 
be accountable to the American taxpayer on a yearly basis for any of 
the money we spend here in Washington.
  So we see this model at the Federal Government level. We see the 
model of annual statement and annual review in the corporate world. How 
many of my colleagues have ever seen a 5-year report? We do not see 5-
year reports, we see an annual report. We see an annual budget and an 
annual income statement. In fact, if you think about it in your own 
homes, what you would see there, at least in our home, when my wife and 
I sit down to look at our family budget, if you think about setting 
your family budget, which we do on a yearly basis in our house, my wife 
and I sit down, we look at the numbers and we say, what could we set 
for our expenditures based on a given level of income over this year.
  So in all of life, whether at the Federal Government level, whether 
at the corporate level or whether in one's home life, we see annual 
budgeting. Nobody sets spending on remote control except in Washington 
on a few different things.
  All this bill does is say, rather than looking at a 4-year 
authorization for OPIC, let us simply look at authorizing it for 1 
year. The merits behind doing that I think are severalfold. First of 
all, though we might disagree about the merits of OPIC, one side versus 
the other, one thing that I do not think we would disagree with is the 
idea that the world changes. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office 
in a report showed that the United States taxpayer is liable for a full 
90 percent of the loans, the contingent liabilities that go with OPIC 
funding. So if the world is constantly changing, would you not want to 
review those loans on an annual basis?
  The second point would be that, and again there has been a lot of 
disagreement about this, does OPIC cost money, does OPIC not cost 
money? If we actually look at the numbers, the revenue that came into 
OPIC last year was $193 million. That was based on interest income 
based on U.S. treasuries that had been given to OPIC at their

[[Page 25201]]

origin. Their actual net income was $139 million, for a net loss in 
terms of normal accounting of $54 million. Admittedly, $54 million is 
not a lot of money in Washington, but it is an expenditure of taxpayer 
money, and since it is an expenditure of taxpayer money, all this 
amendment does is say, ``Well, let's make sure that we authorize that, 
let's make sure that we look at that on a regular basis,'' because we 
look at every other area of spending basically on an annual basis here 
in this Chamber and there on the Senate side.
  Finally, I would say, and again there was much controversy over this, 
and, that is, the idea of whether or not investment moves offshore as a 
result of OPIC. One thing, though, that we could probably agree on is 
if you change the risk of investment, you probably change where it 
goes. That is certainly the case with OPIC funding right now, because 
due to the insurance, due to the change in risk, there is probably an 
increase of investment overseas. We can debate whether that is a good 
or a bad thing, but that is a certain thing that skews investment 
toward overseas. Therefore, I would think, given the fact that trade 
numbers go up, trade numbers go down, that we too would want to review 
that on an annual basis.
  I would urge the adoption of this amendment. I think it is an 
amendment having more to do with simple good government and 
accountability than the merits underlying OPIC. I would urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. I think the case for OPIC's longer term reauthorization is 
very strong. A 4-year extension does not increase OPIC's program 
ceilings. It continues OPIC's self-sustaining operations. It brings 
OPIC in line with its sister agency, the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which 
has a 4-year reauthorization. The notion that, in fact, we have only 1-
year reauthorizations for all pieces of legislation is obviously not 
the case.
  I am sure that gentleman, just as I, has voted for reauthorizations 
that have far extended beyond 1 year, and in fact there is good reason 
for giving reauthorizations for beyond 1 year. It is because we provide 
the wherewithal for that agency and/or that program to plan long term. 
Just as the private sector would plan long term in terms of making its 
investments and business decisions, just as we, as a government, hope 
to plan not just from year to year, but also long term as we make 
budgetary calculations and projections and do programmatic work, OPIC 
needs to be able to have the opportunity to plan long term, and such a 
reauthorization would not be unique.
  Its business cycle, OPIC's business cycle, is long term. Many OPIC 
projects extend over a period of years. A 1-year authorization could 
threaten projects mid-term. If for some reason there is a delay in the 
authorization process, a 1-year authorization, I would submit, is 
really not in the best interests of an agency that in essence is self-
sustaining. It needlessly burdens the legislative process with the sole 
intent of obstructing OPIC's operations.
  A 4-year authorization provides American companies with security that 
their overseas investments will not be subject to congressional delays. 
A 4-year authorization does not impede the Congress from rescinding 
OPIC's operating authority at any time if the majority of this House 
wants to do that and it can get a majority in the other body and get 
the President to sign it. It can do that at any time if the Congress so 
chooses to do so.
  So the fact of the matter is that we should not jeopardize the 
ongoing investment of American companies overseas who depend upon OPIC 
to protect their investments and to whom they pay substantial fees for 
that service. We should have some long-range planning here, 
particularly of an agency that, in fact, has shown itself worthy, is 
self-sustaining, produces revenues, creates jobs at home. And that, I 
think, makes eminent business sense; it makes good sense for the 
Congress to pursue. And so respectfully I oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my 
good friend and colleague from the State of South Carolina. We cannot 
plan to do anything financially in a 1-year period of time. The loans 
are for a lot more than 1 year, and we are asking that it be for 4 
years, which is more reasonable.
  Let me take this opportunity to tell my colleagues some of the things 
that OPIC does that many Members of Congress do not understand. OPIC 
got involved in helping to build a power plant in Guatemala. There was 
$100 million and OPIC insurance to build a plant that produces 
electricity to be sold in Guatemala. Now that is an American investment 
to a company there, and in turn American manufactured goods that go 
into the power plant are exported from the United States to Guatemala.
  This is generally the nature of what OPIC does, and that does not 
displace American jobs because it is pretty difficult to export 
electricity to Guatemala, but what it does is it insures that loan from 
which the investor pays a premium and which has returned traditionally 
150 to $200 million each year as a surplus to the United States 
Treasury.
  Now without OPIC what company is going to invest in manufacturing 
electricity in Guatemala? Well, that is what OPIC does. That actually 
creates American jobs because Americans are employed in the 
manufacturing process of a material that is exported to Guatemala. So 
the whole purpose here is to show that an investment like that, we 
cannot have a 1-year authorization. It has to be a 4-year authorization 
at the minimum so as to have some continuity to the Federal investments 
that are made.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the Members oppose the 
Sanford amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in opposition to this amendment. I have 
listened carefully. I do not think by any stretch of the imagination we 
should confuse long-term program stability with something that is 
operating on remote control.
  I think one can look at the analogy to the family operating around 
the kitchen table, and it is true that sometimes there are some 
expenses that that family is going to look at over the course of the 
next year or maybe the next week or month if we are talking about 
grocery bills or entertainment. But that family rarely in a functional 
sense every week discusses whether or not they are going to move in 
front of the children, whether or not they are going to divorce, 
whether they are going to undermine the whole fabric of what that 
family is about. And I would respectfully suggest that that is what we 
are talking about here, moving from a longer term, 4-year operation to 
a shorter period of 1 year.
  We are not talking about the kitchen table issues; we are not talking 
about next week's grocery bill. We are talking, as the gentleman from 
Illinois mentioned in great detail very eloquently, we are talking 
about fundamental business decisions involving investments of ten, 
sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars in areas that are potentially 
risky and difficult. People need stability in order to be able to make 
business-oriented long-term decisions.
  As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) pointed out, we 
routinely on the floor of this assembly vote for authorization for a 
program that is 3, 4, 5 years. The Surface Transportation Act is a 6-
year authorization routinely because we are looking at long-term 
infrastructure investments, and communities need that stability in 
order to make those decisions. If anything, a decision of this 
magnitude might require more, rather than less, time because it 
combines the entrepreneurial activities along with the organizational 
governmental restraints.
  The way that this has been able to be successful not using taxpayer 
dollars, has not lost a dime in terms of taxpayer dollars since 1971, 
and has surplused money in fact, is because it

[[Page 25202]]

has been able to plan for the long term, been able to operate like a 
business, been able to even these things out. I would strongly suggest 
that we would be better off with a longer time frame than a shorter to 
keep that entrepreneurial long-term approach.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would just make the point that in OPIC 
doing all of the things that the gentleman points out that in the last 
time it was authorized for 2 years, and it did not seem to cripple it 
then in its ability to produce those results; and, therefore, I just 
humbly suggest that if it was able to do it in 2 years then, why go to 
4 years now? Why not keep it at that shorter span?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is 
inappropriate, but I was not happy at the time that we were shortening 
the time frame, and I think the events in the last couple years have 
shown that there are problems in order for them to be able to operate 
in a changing environment in an entrepreneurial sense. In fact, our 
colleague from Nebraska is concerned about a situation in the troubled 
state of Indonesia and suggesting recommendations here on the floor to 
change that.
  I feel that that is not something that is made easier by the shorter 
time frame. I think the longer time frame enabled people to solve 
problems that arise processing claims. Trying to move forward rather 
than having a shorter and shorter time frame here, going from 4 to 2 
did not help make that problem go away any faster in Indonesia. Going 
from 2 years to 1 is not going to make it any easier in the future, and 
I personally have great difficulty thinking that I would be back here 
trying to explain to our colleague from Southern California how getting 
a milled product to an Oregon company to manufacture things in Oregon 
is good for the Oregon economy. The prospect of doing that every year 
drives me to the point of distraction.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Then following that logic out, the gentleman would 
suggest we ought to go to a 4-year authorizing process in Congress as 
we authorize or appropriate?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would make a distinction between an 
entrepreneurial, quasi-public business-oriented activity that is 
involved with long-term investments and what we do here, everything 
ranging from paper clips to annual salaries to infrastructure 
investment. I would support a multiyear capital budget for the United 
States Congress, and I would consider a 2-year fiscal reauthorization, 
for instance, but I certainly would not shorten this.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I looked at OPIC every year 
since I have been here, and I can honestly say, although its goals may 
be worthy, it is pure corporate welfare.
  We just heard it said that it did not lose any. It actually lost 
almost $50 million last year. It showed money on Treasury bonds of 
money that we have given them showing interest, but the actual losses, 
true losses were $54 million; $54 million of people's money in this 
country OPIC lost last year.
  Okay, that is the truth about what they actually did.
  Did they earn money on bonds, on money that we gave them? Yes, they 
did, but their net cash difference was $54 million.
  Now I understand, if we work in a family, we are going to operate on 
the cash, and I understand we play all sorts of games in Washington, 
but the real fact is it is $54 million of the taxpayers' money went out 
the door last year with OPIC.
  Let me explain also where some of it went. Coca-Cola, their profits 
in 1995, the last year we have all the numbers, was $2.9 billion; but 
they get $246 million from OPIC. Coca-Cola? We should be funding that 
when we hear time after time that we are not funding education well 
enough, that we are not funding the social needs of our country well 
enough; but we are going to stand up and say we are going to justify 
giving $246 million worth of insured assets to Coca-Cola?
  How about Anheuser Busch? We gave them $49 million. They just made 
$642 million last year, and yet we are saying that we have a vested 
vital interest in building a beer factory outside of this country? Come 
on, give me a break. This is corporate welfare. We should not have 
welfare for the richest in our society, and to see the other side of 
the aisle defending sending this kind of money?
  ITT Corporation, $160 million. They only made 147 million last year. 
Had they not had this money, they would have lost money.
  So now what we are doing, we complain about the European Common 
Market, and I will be happy to yield when I finish my point. We 
complain about the EU and how they subsidize their farmers and that our 
farmers cannot compete with them. There is no difference in what we are 
doing, and we know it.
  Let us talk about Levi Strauss. We are paying tons of money in the 
Northwest for displaced workers, and we give $47 million to build a 
factory to build jeans to come into this country and Turkey. That is 
what OPIC does. OPIC takes jobs from America and puts them somewhere 
else.
  So the fact is that OPIC as an arm of our foreign policy is well 
intended, but like so many of the programs that the Government creates, 
it gets gamed, and it is gamed. If we are going to use it as a foreign 
policy tool, let us do it in a way that does not copy what the Soviet 
Union used to do. The right hand does not know what the left hand is 
doing when it comes to OPIC, and in terms of foreign policy there is no 
question this is absolute corporate welfare.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. 
He mentioned $160 million that went to one company that was a 
difference between whether they made a profit or a loss?
  Mr. COBURN. ITT.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Is the gentleman assuming that this is money?
  Mr. COBURN. No, no. I understand very well that this is a guaranteed 
loan or an insurance against a loan.
  The fact is if they made $147 million on their own, why should we be 
guaranteeing their risk when they are in a return and they are going to 
get the benefit?
  As my colleagues know, the world is global today, and we should not 
be giving the richest of our corporations a free ride when they go to 
take a risk. That is what the whole purpose of their investment 
strategy is.
  I know we are going to do that to the American farmer. Not very many 
other businesses in this country do we guarantee them that they are 
going to have their loans paid off, do we guarantee them that they are 
going to make a profit. There is a reason why we do it for farmers, 
because we have an investment in the infrastructure that the farmer in 
this country supplies us and the quality of life. There is not a good 
reason for us to do it for the largest, the wealthiest, and the most 
profitable companies.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman clarifying 
that this was a loan and it would not have made the difference between 
whether or not they made a profit or not.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is a loan guarantee 
that one cannot get, the taxpayer cannot get; only if they lost 
everything in their life like the people in North Carolina, they are 
going to get some taxpayer-funded loan guarantees and some grants, but 
to give it to the wealthiest corporations in this country, absolutely 
not.
  This is a sham as far as protecting big business. If big business 
wants to invest in a foreign country and they

[[Page 25203]]

think it is a good return, have them do it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House rule 327, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford) will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Terry

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Terry: Page 6, add the 
     following after line 25, and redesignate succeeding sections, 
     and references thereto, accordingly:

     SEC. 5. CLAIMS SETTLEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR OPIC.

       (a) Time Periods for Resolving Claims.--Section 237(i) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2197(i)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(i)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The Corporation shall resolve each claim arising as a 
     result of insurance, reinsurance, or guaranty operations 
     under this title or under predecessor guaranty authority 
     within 90 days after the claim is filed, except that the 
     Corporation may request specific supplemental information on 
     the claim before the expiration of that 90-day period, and in 
     that case may extend the 90-day period for an additional 60 
     days after receipt of such information.
       ``(3) The Corporation shall pay interest at the prime rate 
     on any claim for each day after the end of the applicable 
     time period specified in paragraph (2) for settlement of the 
     claim.''.


             Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Terry

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify Amendment 
No. 10.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to Amendment No. 10, offered by Mr. Terry: in 
     the text of the matter proposed to be inserted, on line 7, 
     strike ``shall'' and insert ``should'', and on line 16, after 
     ``any'', insert ``valid''.

  Mr. TERRY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the modification to the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Nebraska?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry)?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would apply some 
reasonable time limits to OPIC's claim settlement procedures. Private 
parties that have paid substantial premiums to OPIC, in some cases 
millions of dollars, are finding that they are literally at OPIC's 
mercy which it comes to the resolution of their claim. They lose real 
dollars every day OPIC delays settling these claims. Yet, under current 
law, OPIC does not even have to pay interest on its claims' obligations 
no matter how long it is delayed.
  Moments ago we passed a policy that said that they have to expedite 
their claims or treat them expeditiously. Now, this is the 
implementation of that policy. This amendment proposes a 90-day initial 
period in which they can review the claim. If additional information is 
required, they can have 60 additional days for a total of 150 days to 
review the claim to make their decision.
  If they are unable to make their decision within that time frame, 
then at the beginning of the 150 days, in essence, interest starts 
running if the claim is found to be valid.
  I know that the Chairman of OPIC has some concerns with the mechanics 
of the operation of this amendment. I have talked to Mr. Munoz about 
those, and I think some of them are valid concerns. It does place a 
burden on the applicant. The applicant, because of a shortened time 
frame, has to get their ducks in a row before submitting a claim. One 
cannot simply write the letter submitting the claim without then having 
their documentation to back it up. So it does place that burden on the 
applicant.
  But, on the other hand, there is nothing in the system right now that 
prevents OPIC once that information is submitted to act on it 
expeditiously. This puts the policy into action with specific time 
periods and a remedy when they fail to adhere to those time periods.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge approval of this amendment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern, and that is why I 
went along with his first amendment. But this amendment actually I 
think creates harm, and I want to call the gentleman's attention to why 
I have to oppose it and hopefully, we can work something out, but if 
not, I will have to oppose his amendment at the end of the process.
  Imposing a fixed timetable on OPIC creates a series of problems. It 
disadvantages the small business investor who cannot make his best case 
early. I understand the gentleman's concern is about a small business, 
but one cannot at the end of the day create a process that 
disadvantages them because they cannot make their best case early. It 
pressures OPIC to deny a claim that might, with both parties' 
cooperation, be satisfactorily documented in the long run. It 
frustrates joint efforts at overall settlement of the investor's total 
claims, both the insured and the uninsured, because settlement efforts 
with a foreign government takes time, making the fair and flexible OPIC 
claim process formalistic and confrontational, and lastly, it impairs 
OPIC's historical claims record of paying over 90 percent of claims and 
realizing a 94 percent recovery rate as a successor to the investors' 
valid claims against a foreign government. So even when OPIC comes to 
the conclusion that it is a valid claim and that it has to be paid, by 
being the successor in interest to that insured party, it still goes 
after and tries to pursue and ensure that we are not left holding the 
bag. And it has a 94 percent success rate in that regard.
  This process, by confining OPIC, actually works to the detriment of 
the small business investor who might be seeking a claim, works to the 
detriment of OPIC. And then there is a second provision in the 
gentleman's amendment that actually hurts the taxpayers of the United 
States, which is that, in fact, in this compacted time period, in 
situations in which OPIC will be forced to deny the claim in order to 
be able to best create the circumstances to ensure itself and 
ultimately the taxpayers, we are going to force it to pay interest, 
which interest ultimately as a governmental agency would come from the 
taxpayers.
  Now, we have an agency that has not cost the taxpayers money, the 
previous speaker mentioned something about an OPIC loss, and that they 
only have interest based upon government bonds. Well, that is from 
proceeds that they have achieved from the revenues that they generate 
from the insurance that they offer and for which they are paid for, and 
that they have invested, so they have not operated as a loss; and we do 
not want them to operate as a loss. Therefore, we cannot constrain them 
in such a way.
  OPIC's bottom line result on claims payment is excellent and its 
process is flexible and fair. Rigid timetables would create pressure to 
deny claims that are not at first convincingly supported where OPIC's 
practice has been to work with the investor, to make the best case for 
compensation in the amount claimed. This can take time, but it is 
fairest to the investor and to the taxpayer.
  So, we need to make sure that this process is one that works, as it 
has, with an excellent percentage of payment of claims, and an 
excellent percentage of restoring those claims paid by going after the 
entity with OPIC standing in the interest of the investor. That is what 
we want to achieve. And

[[Page 25204]]

yes, we want it to be as fast as possible; but we do not want to hurt 
the small businessperson in the process that is going to have to make 
their case early. And we do not want to hurt the taxpayers by imposing 
upon the agency payments that will ultimately be costly to both the 
agency and, therefore, to the taxpayers in a premature manner.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gentleman would try to work with 
us in a conference and withdraw his amendment, but in view of the fact 
that I assume the gentleman wants to proceed, then I will offer an 
amendment to the gentleman's amendment at the appropriate time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Florida) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________