Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

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. 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. 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 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. BEREUTER. Is it true that the procedures set fourth in this amendment are primarily or largely restricted to their environmental review?

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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. 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. 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. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to congratulate Pfizer, Inc., on its 150th anniversary. Pfizer is one of the world's premier pharmaceutical companies, recognized for its success in discovering and developing innovative drugs for humans and animals. In its Lincoln, Nebraska, animal health facility, that is located in Nebraska's 1st Congressional District which this Member represents, Pfizer employs 736 men and women who have helped the company in offering its worldwide livestock and companion animal customers one of the broadest product lines in the industry. German immigrant cousins Charles Pfizer and Charles Erhart founded Pfizer in 1849. From the start, the company sought to chart new courses. The company made many important breakthroughs and developed popular and effective drug treatments in its first 75 years. Pfizer medicines were heavily relied upon by Union Forces during the Civil War, and its ability to mass-produce penicillin in 1944 saved many lives on the front lines of Europe during World War II. During the era that followed World War II, Pfizer continued in its search for effective antibiotics. Soon, Pfizer began opening plants worldwide and was on its way to developing into an international powerhouse. Today, Pfizer products are available in 150 countries. In the 1970s, Pfizer began to devote much of its resources to research and development, making long-term investments that would pay off years later. Those investments not only benefited the company, but also the millions of people around the world who have relied on Pfizer drugs to treat a variety of conditions. From the first Pfizer innovation to the high-performance medicines of today, throughout its 150 years Pfizer has been driven by pioneers-- people who were willing to take risks to make the advances that made history. Today, the company spends close to $2.8 billion annually on Research and Development in a wide range of challenging medical fields. Pfizer employees, including the 736 men and women who work in this Member's District, go to work each day dedicated to improving our nation's health.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 57) expressing concern over interference with freedom of the press and the independence of judicial and electoral institutions in Peru, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this measure.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. Bereuter asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) of the Committee on International Relations joined in introducing this resolution to underscore Congress' concern about the harassment of journalists and over signs that the independence of Peru's judiciary is being substantially undermined. The Committee to Protect Journalists, CPJ, has documented ``attacks that confirm our suspicion of a coordinated government campaign to discredit and undermine the independent media in Peru.'' The continuing actions taken by the government of Peru against Baruch Ivcher, the Israeli-born owner of television station Channel 2, have become emblematic of government interference with freedom of expression in Peru. These acts of intimidation were precipitated by Channel 2's exposes of abuses, including alleged torture and murder, by Peru's intelligence service. The Committee to Protect Journalists asserts that the government of Peru ``has continued to hound Mr. Ivcher, initiating legal action against him, harassing his family, and mounting an orchestrated misinformation campaign to discredit him.'' Mr. Speaker, just today, a small opposition newspaper, ``Referendum,'' stopped publishing amid allegations that the government of Peru applied pressure to force the newspaper out of business. Several members of this newspaper's editorial board used to work for Channel 2. This resolution will put the House of Representatives on record expressing bipartisan concern over the erosion of the independence of the judicial and electoral branches of Peru's government and the intimidation of journalists in Peru. These concerns have also been heightened by Peru's effective withdrawal from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 57. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of H. Res. 57. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and a bipartisan group of cosponsors brought this important resolution before the House. In early March, three Americans were in Colombia trying to help an indigenous group when they were brutally murdered by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The FARC, designated by the State Department as a foreign-based terrorist group, killed these people in cold blood. These senseless deaths have brought the total of innocent American lives taken in Colombia by the FARC and the National Liberation Army to 15. This resolution will put the House of Representatives on record as condemning this heinous crime and calling for those responsible to be swiftly brought to justice. I urge my colleagues to unanimously support H. Res. 181. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), the author of the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge unanimous support for H. Res. 181. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 181) condemning the kidnapping and murder by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) of 3 United States citizens, Ingrid Washinawatok, Terence Freitas, and Lahe'ena'e Gay.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 181.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time in order to close.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of H.R. 1794, a resolution calling for Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization, WHO. This is a bipartisan resolution, Mr. Speaker, which was approved unanimously by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations on June 23, 1999. This Member congratulates the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for bringing this matter before this body, and I was pleased to join him as a cosponsor. The WHO is a nonpolitical United Nations affiliated agency with 191 participating entities. It seeks to provide the highest possible level of health for all people. There is strong support for the people of Taiwan being afforded the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way in the WHO and take advantage of the information and services that this international organization offers. Given the fact that international travel makes the transmission of communicable diseases much more prevalent, it is illogical to deny WHO services to Taiwan's population of more than 20 million people. The threat of communicable disease transmission has become much more apparent to Americans in the past week with the outbreak in New York of a rare and very deadly form of African encephalitis. It is speculated this disease was brought to the United States in an aircraft or on a cargo vessel. This outbreak demonstrates just how porous America's borders have become. In such a world of easy transit, it defies logic to exclude 20 million people from this international disease prevention organization. In addition, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Taiwan can offer much in terms of medical and pharmaceutical expertise. Their longevity rate is nearly the highest in Asia. Specialists from Taiwan have unique skills in a number of areas where we in the West lack the expertise. The potential for cooperation is obvious. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1794 speaks only of ``appropriate and meaningful participation in the WHO.'' No one, I think, can responsibly argue with that position. H.R. 1794 also requires that the executive branch report on its effort to promote such participation. There is no desire in this body to force the executive branch to telegraph its best strategies to those who seek to deny Taiwan's appropriate treatment, and reporting requirement need not make such revelation. However, given the strong views held by many in this body, it is entirely appropriate to ask that the administration report to the Congress on its activities. Mr. Speaker, this Member urges adoption of H.R. 1794. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1794.