Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference committee report, and I would just like to suggest that the people who are doing the work on VA-HUD appropriations have a very tough job. It is, perhaps, one of the toughest assignments in Washington to try to handle the appropriations for VA-HUD, because it includes such a broad range of issues that we have to deal with and a broad range of concerns and interest groups. I oversee the NASA budget in terms of the authorization side of the House, and I work very closely with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). And I want my colleagues to know that just the authorizing process is hard, and I know that the appropriations side of it has to be twice as hard with people putting pressure on us from all directions. Those involved with this VA-HUD conference actually have had to deal not just with the authorizers versus the appropriators and NASA, but they have had to deal with pressures from interest groups from as wide a variety as any group in this Congress. So I appreciate the job that they have done. I might have a few disagreements, but the fact is that they have done a good job with what they could do and especially in a time like this when there has been such maximum pressure on them from not only the different groups that need to be taken care of, but also the overall country's need to balance the budget and how to proceed with the budget restrictions that we have. So I will be supporting this measure today, and I am very happy that we have established a good working relationship between the authorizers and the appropriators, and we will continue to try to do that in the time ahead. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this conference report.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, 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. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

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?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

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

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. 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. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, all too often American tax dollars are used for things that are very horrendous to the 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.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I understand OPIC is not doing business in China.

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

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.

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. 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. 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.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

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. 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 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. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 6.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, 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?