Resolution commending Idaho on winning the bid to host the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2798) to reauthorize the programs of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill now under consideration, and on the next three resolutions that the House will consider, H. Res. 521, H. Res. 380, and H. Con. Res. 139.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to thank the many colleagues who have been involved in crafting this legislation, including Chairman Lantos, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member Royce, Mr. Manzullo, Ambassador Watson and others. Their assistance was critical in the bipartisan effort of making the Overseas Private Investment Corporation even more effective.

As I proceed, I will point out that the Overseas Private Investment Corporation is saddled with the most unfortunate acronym in Washington, OPIC. Let us hope it is not confused with that other, nefarious organization, OPEC.

OPIC's mission is ``to mobilize and facilitate the participation of United States private capital and skills in the economic and social development of less developed countries and areas.''

Since its creation in 1971, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation has generated $71 billion in U.S. exports, supported over 271,000 U.S. jobs, and supported projects in over 150 developing countries.

OPIC uses a nimble, private-sector model to accomplish its important public-sector goals, to further development in poor countries, including unstable countries, and to support the goals of American foreign policy. It supports targeted investments in some of the world's poorest countries, many of which would otherwise not benefit from American private-sector projects because the private sector would be otherwise unwilling to take the risks involved.

OPIC, being part of the Federal Government, is uniquely qualified to carry out this mission. There are private sector organizations which will sell on rare occasions expropriation insurance, but they often refuse to sell such insurance or refuse to finance projects in difficult and problematic countries because if expropriation did occur, they would only have their private-sector contacts to persuade the foreign government to relent. In the case of OPIC, it is able to rely on the United States State Department to convince foreign countries not to expropriate projects and assets funded by or guaranteed by the United States agency.

OPIC has a sophisticated system that reviews applications and funds projects in some of the places where companies are least likely to get the very kind of insurance they are most likely to need; namely, insurance for political risk. In fact, OPIC requires applicants for assistance to seek insurance in the private market and certify that it was unavailable before OPIC will offer its services.

OPIC operates at no net cost to the United States taxpayer. Amazingly, it has turned a profit in every single year of its operations and now has reserves of $5.3 billion on deposit in the U.S. Treasury. Despite working in some of the least developed countries of the world, it has amassed this $5.3 billion in reserves. If all of our government agencies ran this way, perhaps even those on the other side of the aisle would be more favorably disposed to Federal programs.

Today's bill not only reauthorizes OPIC but improves both its strategy and oversight to make it the most responsible investor it can be.

With this bill, the new and improved OPIC will work in countries and with companies, private sector companies, in a manner which provides greater protection for international worker rights.

The new and improved OPIC will take additional steps to guarantee that its projects do not damage the environment and, in fact, move toward a greener economy.

The new and improved OPIC will be as transparent as possible and more transparent than any Federal agency I am aware of.

I want to especially focus on section 10 of the bill because it contains a provision that is unique as to bills that have come to this floor, but which is being talked about in a wide variety of our other bills, designed to focus on using the economic power of the United States to deal with terrorist countries, particularly those who are committing genocide, such as Sudan, or developing nuclear weapons, such as Iran and North Korea.

If this bill is enacted, this provision would be the only statute requiring a screen for companies doing business with a U.S. government agency that requires the private sector companies to certify that neither they nor any entity, as part of their affiliated group of corporations, is engaging in an enterprise which is helping terrorist states as defined in the bill.

Now, one of the toughest issues for anyone trying to use the economic power of the United States to achieve our foreign policy objectives must ask is, what types of investments are we trying to discourage? The broader the definition of what we're trying to discourage, the less focused the pressure that we put on private sector entities.

In this bill, and this is a bill that I hope will form a template for the divestiture movement in the United States, for procurement laws that come before this Congress, et cetera, we focus rather narrowly the economic pressure of the United States. We tell these multinational corporations that we're not going to bar you from dealing with OPIC if you sell a candy bar to a private store in Tehran or you sell paper clips to a stationery store in Khartoum.

Rather, you must certify that your corporation and all its affiliates have abstained from two very important actions: first, that you have made no loan to the terrorist government; and, second, that you are not investing significant assets in the oil and energy sector of a terrorist State, particularly no more than $20 million.

This builds on what used to be called the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, now the Iran Sanctions Act, which draws the line and finds the pressure point for both Iran and Sudan, and probably Syria as well, in stating that our goal is to prevent investments of more than $20 million in the terrorist states' oil sector.

Also, OPIC would not be able to approve an application if the applicant company has an outstanding loan or extension of credit to one of the state sponsors of terrorist governments. Sales of goods other than food and medicine on anything other than a cash basis would constitute U.N. extension of credit for these purposes.

Now, section 10 of the bill would apply these prohibitions, as I've pointed out, to foreign subsidiaries of the applicant. In order to benefit from partnering with OPIC, the entire group of affiliated corporations would have to make the certification.

Section 10 of the bill would require the CEOs of any applicant and the CEO of the applicant's ultimate parent corporation to certify that none of the affiliated groups have engaged in the prohibited activities.

Section 10 is also narrowly targeted with regard to the geography of the Sudan in that it does not prohibit activities in those regions of Sudan not under the power of the Khartoum government.

For 35 years, OPIC has funded and ensured the type of infrastructure- building that no one else would do in some countries where no private corporation would otherwise go. OPIC has paved the way for roads and bridges, buildings and energy facilities in countries marked by conflict and war.

For these reasons, we should reauthorize OPIC.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time. Let me yield myself just a couple of minutes and reemphasize, this is an agency that has conducted its activities at no cost to the Federal Treasury and, in fact, made a profit. It is appropriate that we reauthorize OPIC.

Second, this bill is, I believe, the first to come before this House which defines what precisely it is that we want international corporations to stop doing, and that is, investing in the oil sector of terrorist states, and, second, making loans to terrorist states. That is why I think that this bill may be an important template for other legislation, and I hope it will become a guide for what we expect of companies in procurement legislation, Ex-Im Bank, et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that we adopt the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2798, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation Act of 2007. I would like to thank my colleague Mr. Sherman for introducing this important bipartisan legislation.

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) has led by example in improving the social and economic conditions in some of the world's poorest countries. Today's bill not only reauthorizes OPIC but it improves upon both its strategy and oversight to make it the most responsible investor it can be.

OPIC has, since its inception in 1971, applied a private-sector model to a number of

important public-sector goals. By supporting targeted investments in a number of the world's poorest countries, OPIC extends the benefits of American projects to areas where a high level of risk might preclude investment by private companies. In this way, OPIC fills an important void left by the private financial sector. OPIC is essential and vital to the development of many countries, providing political risk insurance against the risks of inconvertibility, political violence, and expropriation allowing business to invest overseas and promote economic development in new and emerging markets.

For the past 35 years, OPIC has funded and insured the type of infrastructure building that no private company would do in some of the countries in which no company would otherwise go. OPIC has paved the way for roads, bridges, buildings, and energy facilities in war-torn and impoverished developing nations, and has accomplished all this while turning a profit and building billions in reserves.

Remarkably, OPIC has itself turned a profit in every single year of its operations. It currently has reserves of over $5.3 billion, despite working in many of the world's least developed nations.

OPIC's sophisticated system involves reviewing applications and funding projects in countries where companies are least likely to get insurance coverage for the risk they are taking. In addition OPIC also provides financing through direct loans and loan guaranties.

With H.R. 2798, OPIC will become a new and improved agency. We live in a world that requires all of us to work together to fight terrorism, hunger and poverty, and for fundamental freedom and rights of every individual. This bill will allow OPIC to work in countries and with companies that provide greater protection for international workers rights.

This legislation has a number of vital safeguards, preventing funds from being used for destructive purposes. It strictly prevents funding for any project that damages the environment, and it ensures that it is not funding projects in nations with the most dangerous regimes in the world, including Iran. This bill prohibits investment in any state sponsor of terrorism, and charges OPIC with researching the subsidiaries of every company it funds to enforce that prohibition. Under the provisions of this bill, OPIC will be as transparent as possible.

I was happy to work with Congressman Sherman to include language in the Committee Report to ensure that Iraq is not given a blank check. Given the violent and chaotic situation in Iraq, and due to difficulties in dealing with an unstable Iraqi government, it is necessary to waive certain requirements normally mandatory for OPIC involvement in a country. While I believe that OPIC investment has the potential to be extremely valuable and beneficial for Iraqi reconstruction, I also believe it to be necessary for Iraq to demonstrate that it is making definitive and substantial steps toward the benchmarks set by the United States, including achieving political and national reconciliation.

For 35 years, OPIC has funded and insured infrastructure-building activities that would not otherwise be undertaken by the private sector. This legislation ensures that OPIC can continue its valuable work, building on its legacy of constructive involvement and further refining its strategies and oversight. I believe that OPIC deserves our support, and I strongly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Subcommittee Chairman Sherman for his work on this legislation. He worked this bill thoroughly, and while we disagree on OPIC's merits, he supported my text to reform its investment funds.

OPIC's investment funds, as some may remember, have a troubled history. In the 1990s, then-OPIC president Ruth Harkin said, ``If you're an investor in an OPIC-supported fund, the worst you can do is get your money back at the need of 10 years.'' That's not the free market OPIC professes to support and not surprisingly, these funds were subject to political cronyism.

There have been reforms to the funds of late, including competitively selecting fund managers, but we should mandate them. My language does this.

Fundamentally though, I remain unconvinced that OPIC is doing something worthwhile that the private sector wouldn't do. The burden of proof should be on OPIC, especially in times of accelerating change in financial markets. Several companies have jumped into the political risk insurance business, for example, offering increasingly sophisticated products, . . . so why are we reauthorizing government- backed OPIC to continue competing against them?

We have heard much on the floor trumpeting OPIC's supposed benefits. However, most economists believe that subsidizing investment--which is what OPIC does--merely shifts it around, often to lesser productive locations and uses. The Congressional Research Service has reported, ``From the point of view of the U.S. economy as a whole, there is little theoretical support or empirical evidence that supports claims that subsidizing exports or overseas investment offers a positive net gain in jobs to the U.S. economy.'' That's persuasive evidence against OPIC's claims, and its case for reauthorization.

OPIC makes much of the fact that it returns money to the U.S. Treasury. OK. But let's consider that this money is held against potential liabilities stemming from OPIC's activities. And give most anybody U.S. government-backing to trade on, and they'd turn a profit in financial markets.

One OPIC critic gave a useful description. Investment is like a rope. Less developed countries can only pull it in with good policies; efforts to push in investment, which is OPIC's mandate, are bound to be inefficient.

Mr. Speaker, these are some of the reasons I oppose this legislation reauthorizing OPIC.

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

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I'd like to express my admiration to our distinguished chairman; our ranking member, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, as well as Mr. Sherman, for crafting this important legislation and for bringing it to the careful thought and consideration that colleagues and those looking on today would see easily in evidence in the gentleman from California's remarks, and I am grateful for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, we all understand that from time to time the Overseas Private Investment Corporation has been the subject of controversy. On the other hand, it is accurate to say that it is significant that every President since 1971 has believed that OPIC is an important tool for advancing international development in U.S. foreign policy by stimulating private capital investment.

In recent years, OPIC appears to have better focused its resources and efforts, bringing economic development to underserved markets in Central America, Africa, Afghanistan, and now in Iraq.

OPIC has also reached out to U.S. small businesses and minority- and women-owned enterprises. For example, more than 80 percent of all OPIC projects approved in fiscal year 2006 involved U.S. small- and medium- sized enterprises.

OPIC has also sought to enhance transparency and fight corruption, thereby leveling the playing field for U.S. businesses as they compete in international markets.

It's also worth noting that OPIC is embarking on new efforts to encourage investments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote the use of clean energy; and by charging market-based fees for its products, OPIC continues to operate as a self-sustaining agency, which I applaud, effectively operating at no net cost to taxpayers and returning net income every year of operation, with reserves now totaling more than $5 billion.

On balance, then, despite controversy, I believe OPIC continues to serve foreign policy interests of the United States, and I urge support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate Idaho on its successful bid, as well, to host the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games and express strong support for H. Res. 380.

The Special Olympics program has benefited countless people with disabilities nationwide and around the globe, raising awareness, fostering support for a great cause while enabling the participants to enhance their self-confidence and gain a sense of well-deserved personal accomplishment through sports and competition. It is, in every sense, a blessing to the participants.

The millions of volunteers, coaches and athletes involved with the Special Olympics do a great service for their community and their country and, of course, to those with intellectual disabilities. I would also say, though, having been involved and been in attendance at Special Olympics programs, I haven't met a volunteer yet, Mr. Speaker, who didn't think that they were richer as a result of their participation in this extraordinary program, to see the courage of those who compete and the extraordinary sacrifice of the parents of those who bring them to such a wonderful opportunity.

Through the dedication of these volunteers, the Special Olympics have continued to grow and impact the lives of more and more people around the world.

The 2009 Winter Games in Idaho promise to be a great showcase for Special Olympics participants from around the world to compete at a high level and demonstrate that disabilities are no match for individuals who are driven to succeed.

Again, I congratulate Idaho for being selected as the host of an event of such magnitude. I extend my best wishes to their new Governor and my friend, and I am fully confident that it will be a resounding success.

I urge my colleagues to render their full support for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I again express support for H. Res. 380 and congratulate the State of Idaho for winning the opportunity to host the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games.

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