Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask for unanimous consent to add the word ``net'' in my amendment.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the Rohrabacher amendment would not allow that.

Mr. MANZULLO. Yes.

Mr. MANZULLO. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

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. 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 Manzullo amendment as a perfecting amendment to the Rohrabacher amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman form Alabama (Mr. Callahan).

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield further to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

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. 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. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

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 6 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection based upon the fact that this is a technical error, and I would agree to accept the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. MANZULLO. Sure. Obviously overriding the openness of this material would be any national security interests. Those statutes already exist on the books.

Mr. MANZULLO. I would say in answer to that that the CIA has its own statute that would protect the distribution of that material. That could happen in appropriation cases. There is no question about that.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I have a response. I agree to the amendment. The problem is that there is an error in the manner in which the amendment is being inserted into the base bill.