[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4950, JOBS THROUGH TRADE EXPANSION ACT OF 
                                  1994

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the 
bill (H.R. 4950) to extend the authorities of the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report 
is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Tuesday, October 4, 1994, at page H10707.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Gejdenson] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].


                             general leave

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the conference report presently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this legislation would not be 
possible without the cooperation of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Roth] and other minority Members, particularly the gentleman from 
Nebraska, [Mr. Bereuter], on the other side with whom we have worked 
diligently on this bill.
  It is a noncontroversial measure that will substantially assist us in 
exports.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to my colleagues the conference 
agreement on the Jobs Through Trade Expansion Act of 1994 which will 
improve the effectiveness of U.S. export promotion programs and create 
jobs here at home.
  This is a bipartisan piece of legislation with wide support in the 
business community. Both the National Association of Manufacturers and 
the Coalition for Employment through Exports endorse the bill.
  The Jobs Through Exports Act will: Significantly enhance the ability 
of the United States Government to provide grants, loans, loan 
guarantees, and risk insurance for U.S. export projects and investments 
overseas; provide specific programs for the expansion of U.S. 
environmental exports; protect U.S. intellectual property overseas; and 
ensure the extension of all OPIC programs to Northern Ireland and the 
Republic of Ireland.
  In addition, the bill will create at least 80,000 U.S. jobs.
  Allow me to briefly explain the provisions of this bill. Title I 
extends the authority of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation 
for 2 years. OPIC offers U.S. investors assistance in finding overseas 
investment opportunities, insurance to protect those investments and 
loans, and loan guarantees to help finance projects. OPIC cannot insure 
or finance projects that would displace American workers. In fact, OPIC 
helped create over 24,000 U.S. jobs in 1993 alone.

  In title II, we extend the authorization for the Trade and 
Development Agency for another 2 years. This Agency simultaneously 
promotes economic development and the export of U.S. goods and services 
to developing countries. TDA has estimated that for every $1 it spends, 
it generates $25 in U.S. goods and services.
  Title III reauthorizes the funding for the export promotion programs 
within the International Trade Administration.
  Title IV promotes the export of U.S. environmental technologies and 
products.
  The last title involves intellectual property. Title V requires AID, 
in conjunction with Commerce's Patent and Trademark Office, to 
establish a program of training and technical assistance. The program 
is aimed at countries that have expressed a willingness to improve 
their record on intellectual property protection but lack the expertise 
or the resources to do so.
  Before we vote on this measure I would like to extend a sincere thank 
you to my fellow Democrats and the Republican Members of the House for 
their support of the agreement. In particular, I want to extend a 
special note of thanks to Chairman Hamilton, and Congressmen Roth, 
Gilman, and Bereuter.
  At this point in the Record I would like to include correspondence 
between the committee and the Committee on Ways and Means on this 
conference report.
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                 Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 1994.
     Hon. Sam Gibbons,
     Acting Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding H.R. 4950, the Jobs 
     Through Trade Expansion Act of 1994.
       As you may be aware, the Senate passed a one-year extension 
     of the current authorities of the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation on September 30, 1994 and requested a conference 
     on H.R. 4950. It is my intention to appoint conferees, 
     convene a meeting of the conference committee and file the 
     conference report today, in order that the conference report 
     will be eligible for House consideration before the end of 
     the Congress.
       Knowing of your interest in the section of the original 
     House bill relating to the use of bonded public debt, I have 
     attached the tentative conference agreement for your review. 
     As you can see from the attached, it is our intention to 
     adopt the Senate approach to this issue by simply extending 
     OPIC's authority for two years and making other necessary 
     technical adjustments to that authority.
       With that understanding, and given the expedited timetable 
     for this legislation, I would request that the Committee on 
     Ways and Means forego representation on the conference on 
     H.R. 4950.
       Thank you for your attention to this request.
       With best wishes, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                  Lee H. Hamilton,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Ways and Means,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 1994.
     Hon. Lee H. Hamilton,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to you in response to your 
     letter of earlier today regarding H.R. 4950, the Jobs Through 
     Trade Expansion Act of 1994.
       Thank you for informing me, in light of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means' jurisdictional interest in the bill, that the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs is about to begin conference 
     with the Senate on H.R. 4950. As our correspondence of 
     September 22, 1994, acknowledged, H.R. 4950 contains one 
     provision in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means concerning the issuance of public debt.
       Your letter describes the tentative conference agreement 
     with regard to the provision extending and changing OPIC's 
     borrowing authority and on that basis requests that the 
     Committee on Ways and Means not exercise its jurisdictional 
     right to be included in the House-Senate conference on H.R. 
     4950. Based on your assurance that the conference report will 
     adopt the Senate approach and include only a simple two-year 
     extension of the current-law authority for OPIC to borrow 
     from the Department of the Treasury, the Committee on Ways 
     and Means will not exercise its jurisdictional prerogative to 
     be conferees in this case, with the understanding that this 
     does not in any way prejudice its jurisdictional interests, 
     now and in the future.
       I wish to thank you for your cooperation in this matter and 
     for your attention to the jurisdictional concerns of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means. I look forward to working with 
     the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the future, should any 
     similar issues arise.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Sam M. Gibbons,
                                                  Acting Chairman.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on H.R. 4950, particularly title IV, the Environmental Export Promotion 
Act of 1994. Our Committee on Energy and Commerce shares jurisdiction 
with the Committee on Foreign Affairs on this title.
  I call attention to the provisions that provide that environmental 
technology specialists in the United States and in the foreign 
commercial service will, among other things, be promoting in foreign 
countries the equal treatment of United States' environmental, safety, 
and related requirements--that is regulations and standards--with those 
of other exporting countries in order to promote the export of U.S.-
made products. I also note that the provision includes participation of 
industries producing such products and of labor in the working group 
established by this title.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important change because the European Union 
and others are gaining an advantage over the United States by 
encouraging adoption of their regulations by the developing world. That 
serves their manufacturers very well, to the detriment of our 
industries.
  In this regard, I insert in the record the following correspondence 
with the Secretary of Commerce:

         House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and 
           Commerce,
                                     Washington, DC, July 1, 1994.
     Hon. Ronald H. Brown,
     Secretary, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: Enclosed is a May 26, 1994 letter I 
     sent to the Secretaries of State and Transportation and to 
     the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning a 
     proposal by the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration (NHTSA) to amend the U.N. Economic Commission 
     for Europe's (ECE) 1958 Agreement Concerning the Adoption of 
     Uniform Conditions of Approval and Reciprocal Recognition of 
     Approval of Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts.
       It is my understanding that the prime objective of these 
     efforts to amend the 1958 agreement is to help U.S. firms 
     export vehicles to the Pacific Basin, Asia, Latin America and 
     elsewhere. Some reportedly believe that the European Union 
     (EU) is gaining an advantage because other countries tend to 
     gravitate toward EU regulations and adopt them as their 
     regulations. That would purportedly provide an international 
     process for treating U.S. regulations on an equal footing 
     with those of the EU. However, the proposal is not limited to 
     safety regulations or to motor vehicle regulations. It is in 
     the clear economic interest of the U.S. to increase U.S.-made 
     vehicle exports. I certainly have no objection to the 
     purpose, particularly if it will, in fact, increase sales of 
     U.S. vehicles made by U.S. labor. However, it is not clear to 
     me that this proposal addresses the real issues hindering 
     U.S. exports to other countries or that your Department, in 
     particular, has participated in this matter or that your 
     Department has taken all the necessary measures to open up 
     markets in Asia, Latin America, and the African continent to 
     vehicle exports from the U.S. Thus, I would appreciate your 
     reply to the following:
       1. Do you agree that nothing in U.S. law precludes U.S. 
     auto firms from building vehicles according to the safety, 
     emission, noise, and other standards of other countries 
     and exporting them for sale in those countries? How and to 
     what extent are you encouraging U.S. auto firms to export 
     U.S. made vehicles to the Pacific Basin, Asia, Latin 
     America, and Russia? To what extent does your Department, 
     including its foreign embassy personnel, assist U.S. auto 
     firms in identifying and removing obstacles to exporting 
     U.S.-made vehicles to S. Korea, Malaysia, India, 
     Indonesia, New Zealand, Australia, China, the Philippines, 
     Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Latin America? Which 
     Commerce Department officials have this duty?
       In a September 8, 1992 letter, the Commerce Department said 
     it would ``continue to respond aggressively to grievances 
     raised by the U.S. industry including the automotive 
     industry.'' That, however, is not a very satisfactory 
     response because it suggests that the industry raise 
     grievances. The government should not have to wait for the 
     filing of grievances unless, of course, you are unaware of 
     the barriers. Please explain this grievance approach.
       2. Please provide an update on barriers to U.S. auto 
     exports for each of the above listed countries and Latin 
     America and explain what your Department is doing to remove 
     them. Are they an obstacle to U.S. firms developing a market 
     for U.S. exports?
       3. What safety standards have each of these countries 
     adopted? Do they recognize our safety standards as complying 
     with theirs and do they allow self-certification?
       4. What emission standards have each of these countries 
     adopted? Do they require unleaded gasoline? If not, can U.S. 
     built vehicles that meet U.S. emission standards with 
     catalysts be sold in such countries? Is that a disadvantage?
       5. Is the EU gaining an advantage through the 1958 
     agreement or otherwise by having uniform safety and other 
     regulations for motor vehicles that are often adopted or 
     followed by other non-EU countries in Europe and elsewhere? 
     Is this a significant problem? Is it proper under 
     international agreements? How is the U.S. dealing with it? To 
     what extent do countries tend to adopt or prefer European or 
     Japanese safety and emission standards over U.S. standards? 
     Are such U.S. standards an obstacle in such countries to U.S. 
     exports? Please explain.
       6. Has the EU adopted noise standards for motor vehicles in 
     Europe that require test procedures and test tracks that are 
     not used in the U.S.? What is the effect of such requirements 
     on U.S. auto firms? Has the U.S. protested? Are these 
     standards consistent with our trade agreements?
       7. Recent articles show significant smog in Thailand and 
     other developing countries. Those same articles show that 
     those countries receive significant exports of vehicles from 
     Europe and Japan. What is being done internationally, with or 
     without U.S. prodding, to encourage those countries to adopt 
     stricter emission standards like those in the U.S.? To what 
     extent are used vehicles from Japan exported by Japanese 
     interests to these countries?
       8. I understand that while the auto industry generally 
     supports the goals encompassed by the NHTSA-EPA proposal, 
     they also believe that becoming a Party to the ECE agreement 
     will be a hollow gain if it is not followed with a 
     fundamentally different approach in the preparation for, and 
     participation in, overseas technical and regulatory meetings 
     by the U.S. The auto industry and other industries are not 
     satisfied that the U.S. has an effective and 
     institutionalized policy and practice for regular 
     consultation with U.S. industry and commerce on technical, 
     economic, and marketing matters that arise in international 
     meetings to develop regulations, agreements, protocols, etc. 
     (I would add that all too often little effort is made to 
     consult with labor as well.) Other countries, including 
     Canada, conduct such consultants far more regularly. These 
     industries also think there is a need for a program to 
     objectively assess the functional equivalence of U.S. and EU 
     regulations. I would appreciate your response to these 
     criticisms--many of which I share--and an explanation of the 
     actions you can and will take, working within the 
     Administration, to address these concerns of many industries 
     and labor.
       At a recent briefing for our Committee about the next 
     international meeting in August regarding the adequacy of 
     commitments beyond the year 2000 under the Global Climate 
     Convention, the State Department, Energy Department, and the 
     EPA were represented. The Commerce and Treasury Departments 
     and the Office of the Trade Representative were conspicuously 
     absent. In short, the economic, trade, and commercial side of 
     the Administration went unrepresented. Yet such interests 
     concerned many of the congressional staff participating in 
     the meeting. That suggests either a lack of interest or a 
     failure on the part of these other agencies to actively 
     include this side in all aspects of the preparations for such 
     international meetings. There also is no evidence of such 
     participation by that side of the Administration in the 
     development of the NHTSA-EPA proposal for the 1958 agreement, 
     and I would like to know why.
       I request your response by July 15, 1994.
       With every good wish.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John D. Dingell,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____

         U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and 
           Commerce,
                                     Washington, DC, May 26, 1994.
     Hon. Warren Christopher,
     Secretary, Department of State, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Federico Pena,
     Secretary, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Carol M. Browner,
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Secretaries Christopher and Pena, and Administrator 
     Browner: On May 9, 1994, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration's (NHTSA) Director of the Office of 
     International Harmonization wrote to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce to explain that NHTSA and the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) have been granted authority by the 
     Department of State to negotiate revisions to the U.N. 
     Economic Commission for Europe's (ECE) 1958 Agreement 
     Concerning the Adoption of Uniform Conditions of Approval and 
     Reciprocal Recognition of Approval of Motor Vehicle Equipment 
     and Parts. Last November the Working Party on the 
     Construction of Vehicles (WP-29), which is a subsidiary of 
     the ECE, circulated a proposal to revise the 1958 agreement. 
     Prior to that, WP-29 reportedly agreed to this approach to 
     encourage other countries, especially Japan, Canada, 
     Australia, and the U.S., to become Parties to the 1958 
     Agreement. It is unclear why the ECE seeks such 
     participation.
       Attached to the NHTSA letter is a ``draft Proposed Revised 
     1958 Agreement'' developed by NHTSA and the EPA. It differs 
     significantly from the WP-29 proposal of November 1993. The 
     letter indicates that the U.S. plans to propose it at the 
     103rd session of WP-29 in June, apparently in lieu of the ECE 
     proposal. The NHTSA letter does not explain why a substitute 
     is needed. Also, NHTSA does not explain the role of the 
     Secretaries of Energy, Commerce, Agriculture, and Treasury 
     and the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
     and the U.S. Trade Representative in developing the draft. 
     Further, there is no indication that these agencies have 
     sought the views of industry, labor, and others, although, 
     the draft is being made available to both industry and 
     consumer organizations to ``inform them.''
       After more than 30 years of not wanting to be a Party, I do 
     not understand why the U.S. is now rushing to become a Party. 
     While there may be good reasons, they are not readily 
     apparent.
       I also have concerns about the draft proposal, particularly 
     the broadening of the agreement to cover more than motor 
     vehicles, such as locomotives, off-highway vehicles, lawn and 
     garden equipment, bicycles, and trailers, and the impact on 
     federal and state standards and regulations. Additionally, I 
     question the need to expand the scope beyond safety to 
     include energy and environmental matters, particularly in 
     light of the existence of other international agreements, 
     such as the Global Climate Convention, the North American 
     Free Trade Agreement, and the General Agreement on Tariffs 
     and Trade of December 1993. The agreement now in effect only 
     deals with safety issues. I understand that in 1967 WP-29 
     established a subcommittee to develop regulations concerning 
     pollution and energy, but obviously that subcommittee has not 
     been effective.
       Pursuant to Rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, I therefore request your response to the 
     enclosed questions. I also request that NHTSA and the EPA not 
     submit any such draft to WP-29 until after your response has 
     been adequately reviewed by this Committee.
       With every good wish.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John D. Dingell,
                                                         Chairman.
       Enclosure.

 Questions by Hon. John D. Dingell, Chairman, Committee on Energy and 
    Commerce Regarding NHTSA-EPA Proposal for Amending the 1958 ECE 
  Agreement Concerning Adoption of Uniform Conditions of Approval for 
                Motor Equipment and Parts--May 26, 1994

       1. Please provide a list of Parties to the ECE's 1958 
     agreement. In your opinion, why have Japan, Canada, and 
     Australia not become Parties? In your opinion, what is the 
     likelihood of each of these countries becoming a Party? Why 
     does the ECE want these countries and the U.S. to join as 
     Parties?
       2. For some time, the U.S. has been engaged in extensive 
     negotiations regarding the opening of Japan's markets. One 
     area of continued controversy has been self-certification of 
     automobiles to Japanese safety standards (see enclosed 
     Commerce Department letter). How would this agreement help 
     those negotiations, particularly if Japan fails to become a 
     Party?
       3. On several occasions, I have questioned the advantages 
     to the U.S. of being a Party to the ECE Convention on 
     Longrange Transboundary Pollution and subsequent protocols. 
     The benefits to the U.S. have been minimal because our laws 
     and regulations are generally more stringent. In fact, the 
     U.S. recently declined to sign an ECE sulfur dioxide protocol 
     because it was inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
       As I have noted, for more than 30 years the U.S. has 
     declined to become a Party to the 1958 ECE agreement. One 
     reason is that the 1958 agreement requires type approval for 
     conformity with safety regulations, while the U.S. uses self-
     certification. According to an undated State Department 
     Circular 175 memorandum from Daniel K. Tarullo to another 
     official in the Department, another reason is that the U.S. 
     did not want to ``engage in a European common regulatory 
     development forum nor incur reciprocal recognition 
     obligations,'' although the U.S. has participated in WP-29 in 
     a technical advisory capacity. Other than the self-
     certification issue, what has changed to cause the U.S. to 
     now believe that becoming a Party is advantageous? In the 
     past, WP-29 has not been an effective forum to harmonize 
     safety standards. Please explain why and provide the basis 
     for Mr. Tarulllo's comment that it is now becoming an 
     ``increasingly important forum.'' What influence are we 
     trying to exert through this forum?
       4. Mr. Tarullo adds that this agreement ``could facilitate 
     efforts to reduce barriers to trade in motor vehicles, and 
     thereby improve the international competitiveness of the U.S. 
     motor vehicle industry.'' The NHTSA-EPA draft, however, is 
     not limited to that industry. Moreover, I understand that 
     U.S. exports of vehicles to the European Union (EU) were less 
     than one percent in 1993. I presume that this is because the 
     Big Three auto companies already have manufacturing 
     operations in Europe.
       I also understand from a February 23, 1994 research paper 
     by the Commission of the European Community that EU car 
     exports to the U.S., Japan, and South Korea are decreasing. 
     The document says it is ``essential that the EU industry 
     develops a world-wide sales basis which allows production 
     cycles to be smoothed.'' The EU sees growth potential in 
     Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia, but local industry 
     in those countries continues to be protected through high 
     import duties, local content sales, or restrictive licenses. 
     These are also problems for U.S. exports (see enclosed 
     September 8, 1992 letter from the Commerce Department). The 
     1958 agreement and the draft do not address these other 
     barriers. The lack of uniform standards and regulations is 
     not cited as a barrier.
       What trade advantages does the U.S. gain by becoming a 
     Party to the 1958 agreement, particularly in light of the 
     GATT agreement pending approval by the U.S.? How will this 
     action improve international competitiveness of the U.S. 
     motor vehicle industry, particularly if Japan, South Korea, 
     Malaysia, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and China are 
     not Parties? How does it help the U.S. in Europe?
       5. An EPA-NHTSA concept paper states: A potential benefit 
     attendant to the adoption of common standards on a wider 
     international basis would be improved global levels of motor 
     vehicle safety and environmental protection. This is because 
     mobile product rules are difficult for a country to develop, 
     if that country has no such rules or is not a member of a 
     body that supplies the country with mobile product rules. 
     Further, the adoption of common standards on a wider 
     international basis would significantly aid mobile product 
     exports by reducing the potential of technical barriers to 
     trade and thus would improve the competitiveness of these 
     industries. It is costly for industry to certify a product to 
     different standards, but it is even more costly to develop 
     different versions of the same product for markets that 
     have different, but very similar, standards.
       I again note that the draft is not limited to motor 
     vehicles.
       What is being proposed by any country, including the U.S., 
     that will result in the adoption of ``common standards''? 
     What is the likelihood of that occurring? Are U.S. 
     manufacturers urging such action for Europe and elsewhere? 
     Does this agreement provide greater benefits to the imports 
     of other countries by giving them even easier access to our 
     regulatory system than they now enjoy? Is that in our 
     economic and employment interest?
       6. The Circular 175 memorandum by Mr. Tarullo states that 
     NHTSA and the EPA have ``engaged in communications'' with the 
     Committee staff about the proposed agreement. That comment is 
     misleading. The Committee staff was informed by letter a few 
     days prior to the last WP-29 meeting that NHTSA and the EPA 
     were going to that meeting to negotiate. The draft was only 
     provided to us with NHTSA's May 9 letter. Please provide a 
     copy of the signed Circular 175 memorandum and a copy of all 
     internal and interagency memoranda, letters, and related 
     documents in your files since November 1, 1993 regarding the 
     Circular 175 authorization to negotiate and the development 
     of the draft substitute.
       7. The 1958 agreement requires that the Parties establish 
     ``uniform conditions for the approval of motor vehicle 
     equipment and parts and for approval markings'' and that they 
     ``recognize one another's approvals.'' A November 5, 1993 
     proposed ECE revision requires that the Parties establish 
     regulations for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts. The 
     NHTSA-EPA draft states that it has been decided ``to expand 
     the mandate and scope of the existing forum that administers 
     the 1958 Agreement to that of a world forum for the 
     cooperative development of common or compatible standards and 
     regulations governing the safety, environmental pollution and 
     energy efficiency of vehicles and engines.'' Article 5 of the 
     draft creates a ``global registry of standards and 
     regulations'' comprised of national and regional standards 
     and regulations of the Parties and standards and regulations 
     developed with the forum as generally representing agreement 
     among Parties that they are considered to be ``common or 
     compatible'' with existing national or regional regulations. 
     It establishes an ``Administrative Committee'' with each 
     Party having one vote. Global regulations are established by 
     vote of the Committee. The Committee ``may evaluate 
     comparability among regulations and issue comparability 
     assessments'' by vote. Votes under Article 5 must be 
     unanimous.
       As noted, WP-29 circulated draft amendments to the 1958 
     agreement in November 1993 which were adopted in principle by 
     WP-29. What is the status of that draft and why is the U.S. 
     offering at this late date a completely different draft 
     rather than seeking to amend that draft?
       The draft appears to permit self-certification. The WP-29 
     proposal does not appear to permit it. Has the WP-29 agreed 
     to self-certification? If not, why not? What other countries 
     approve vehicles through this method? Is self-certification 
     an issue for locomotives and other vehicles and engines?
       Please explain why it is in the interest of the U.S. and 
     U.S. manufacturers and workers to provide for the development 
     of safety, environmental and energy standards and regulations 
     by an international group that is comprised of diplomats, 
     politicians, and civil servants, and that decides by 
     negotiation and the vote of Parties. Is the requirement for 
     unanimous voting consistent with the United Nations' rules 
     and procedures? (The ECE's November 1993 draft provides for a 
     two-thirds majority.) Must the Parties always vote or can 
     they decide by consensus?
       While I have no objection to registering U.S. standards and 
     regulations with this forum, I would like to understand the 
     benefits to the U.S. of such registration. The NHTSA-EPA 
     concept paper suggests that such registration would make them 
     ``available for adoption by countries that wish to regulate'' 
     their mobile sources. That seems quite speculative. Also, 
     what is the need for comparability assessments and what is 
     the effect of such assessments on competition and the U.S.?
       In the case of emissions, U.S. standards result in the use 
     of catalysts that require unleaded gasolines. To what extend 
     do countries in Europe, Asia, and Latin America rely solely 
     on unleaded gasoline and thus could adopt U.S. standards and 
     technology? Which U.S. standards would be registered, the 
     federal emissions standards or California emission standards 
     from the standpoint of increasing exports of U.S. made 
     vehicles?
       8. The draft states that each regulation in the registry 
     must be a ``performance'' rule. I believe that some U.S. 
     rules, like the air bag rule established by Congress, are not 
     performance rules. They are design rules. Is that correct?
       Please explain the purpose of the provision in the draft 
     that provides that regulations ``may include optional levels 
     of stringency.''
       The draft provides for binding arbitration in the case of 
     disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the 
     Agreement. Why does the U.S. want to submit to such 
     arbitration?
       9. The draft does not mention the word ``new.'' Does it 
     apply to both new and existing vehicle and engines? If yes, 
     please explain why. Does it apply only to the manufacturers 
     of vehicles or engines or does it apply also to the use and 
     operation of such vehicles and engines under federal and 
     state laws?
       10. The draft defines ``vehicles and engines'' to mean: ``* 
     * * any vehicles, mobile equipment and parts whose 
     characteristics have a bearing on road safety, environmental 
     pollution and energy efficiency, including, but not limited 
     to, automobiles, motorcycles, mopeds, on-highway trucks and 
     truck engines, agricultural and forestry tractors and their 
     engines, off-highway mobile engines (such as commercial, 
     industrial, construction, utility, lawn and garden, inland 
     and recreational marine, locomotives and movable power 
     sources), bicycles and trailers.''
       Please explain why NHTSA and EPA want to expand the 1958 
     agreement to cover such a broad and unlimited spectrum of 
     ``vehicles and engines.'' What are examples of commercial, 
     industrial, construction, utility, and marine power sources? 
     Why are locomotives and off-road vehicles included? Why does 
     the draft exclude airplanes?
       11. European countries have lagged far behind the U.S. in 
     adopting U.S. mobile sources safety and pollution standards. 
     How does this agreement change that? Please explain why the 
     draft agreement is proposed to cover energy and environmental 
     standards and regulations, particularly since 1967 the ECE 
     has not covered them.
       One federal standard or rule applicable in the U.S. to 
     foreign and domestic motor vehicles relates to fuel economy. 
     Yet the EU is challenging that requirement in GATT. What is 
     the status of that challenge? Why should the U.S. engage in 
     negotiating to participate in the 1958 agreement when the EU 
     is challenging one of our basic energy and environmental laws 
     and when they have never adopted such an equivalent energy 
     savings requirements for Europe?
       12. A November 18, 1993 ``Memorandum of Law'' by the 
     Assistant Legal Advisor for Economic, Business and 
     Communications Affairs at the State Department lists some 
     federal laws with regulations and standards that could be 
     covered by the draft. It also states: ``While U.S. states are 
     generally preempted from establishing emissions standards for 
     new motor vehicle or non-road engines or vehicles, section 
     209 of the Clean Air Act permits states to enact standards 
     that are in the aggregate more stringent than the federal 
     standards in this area. Thus, legislation may be required to 
     overcome more stringent state law standards (if any) in order 
     to permit the sale of vehicles meeting ECE regulations in all 
     states.''
       The Circular 175 memorandum states: ``The proposed 
     agreement would not result in a reduction of the level of 
     safety and environmental protection that U.S. law provides. 
     The United States will maintain its right to opt out of any 
     ECE adopted regulation if it fails to meet the level of U.S. 
     standards. The United States will endeavor to include as one 
     of the agreement's specific goals the raising of global 
     levels of safety and environmental standards in addition to 
     the current stated goal of eliminating technical barriers to 
     trade.''
       These two statements appear inconsistent, although one 
     refers to state rules and the other refers to federal rules. 
     While some federal laws occupy the field, that is not the 
     case for the Clean Air Act. Please explain why the states 
     should weaken their requirements in order to permit EU 
     vehicles entry to U.S. commerce. Where does the draft ensure 
     that U.S. requirements would not be weakened? What would be 
     the process for deciding which states' rules and standards 
     should be registered and for registering them? Please also 
     list the federal laws under which regulations and standards 
     are promulgated that are likely to be subject to this draft.
       13. What agency would implement the agreement? What would 
     be the annual cost and source of funds?
       14. The memorandum says the draft has been ``discussed'' 
     with the Industry Sector and Functional Advisory Committees. 
     The NHTSA letter said the draft was being made available to 
     both industry and consumer organizations ``to inform them.'' 
     Please provide a list of such organizations, as well as the 
     membership of the two Committees. Is NHTSA and EPA also 
     seeking the comments of such organizations, a well as of 
     those of labor, environmentalists, the states and the users 
     of these vehicles and engines? If yes, when is the deadline 
     for comments? If not, why not?
                                  ____



                                    The Secretary of Commerce,

                                  Washington, DC, August 12, 1994.
     Hon. John D. Dingell,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the 
     U.S. amendment to the U.N. Economic Commission for Europe's 
     1958 agreement for establishing uniform regulations regarding 
     motor vehicle equipment and parts, including those affecting 
     road safety.
       In addition to the questions you provided us on the 1958 
     agreement, you also asked a number of questions concerning 
     foreign barriers and the role of the U.S. Department of 
     Commerce in facilitating U.S. automotive industry exports. We 
     agree that the real issues concern all barriers to full 
     participation in foreign motor vehicle markets. I appreciate 
     your including us, along with the Departments of State and 
     Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, in 
     your inquiry process.
       We are making every effort to prepare thorough replies to 
     your questions and will be back in touch with you soon.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ronald H. Brown.

  Mr. Speaker, I again urge support for this legislation and express 
appreciation to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and their staff for 
their cooperative help in regard to this title.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation, Jobs Through Export Expansion Act of 
1994, will create 100,000 jobs for American workers. It is a bipartisan 
bill. I ask all Members to vote for this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, as the ranking Republican member of the Foreign Affairs 
Trade Subcommittee, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote for this 
conference report. This legislation--the Jobs Through Trade Expansion 
Act--will create 100,000 jobs for American workers.
  This is a bipartisan bill. I worked with our chairman, the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] to craft a bill that every Member of 
this House can vote for. We passed our bill on September 19, on a voice 
vote.
  A similar version was passed by the other body on September 30. Today 
we bring to the House a conference report that reflects the goals of 
our original bill.
  We expand the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which finances 
and insures American companies in their efforts to expand into overseas 
markets.
  Last year alone, OPIC generated 1.6 billion dollars in American 
exports.
  Our bill increases OPIC's operating ceiling so they provide even more 
assistance to American companies.
  Our bill expands the Trade and Development Agency, which helps 
finance engineering and feasibility studies for large construction 
projects overseas.
  TDA assistance gives American companies a leg up in winning the 
ultimate construction contracts on these projects. Evidence presented 
to our subcommittee confirms that TDA returns $25 in American exports 
for every dollar we invest in this program.
  Our bill nearly doubles TDA's authorization, which will provide even 
more job-creating assistance.
  This legislation extends the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, our 
front-line agency that helps American companies find export 
opportunities and beat the competition.
  We also have included the provisions of H.R. 3818, our environmental 
export promotion bill.
  This provision puts a priority on promoting environmental technology 
exports to the five biggest potential markets for environmental 
equipment.
  We are the world leader in this field, which is a $300 billion annual 
world market. It will double over the next 6 years, providing enormous 
export opportunities.
  This bill will improve our competitive position in this rapidly 
growing market.
  Finally, we have authorized the use of foreign aid funds to help 
protect American intellectual property rights.
  This will reduce the theft of patents, trademarks and other protected 
property of American entertainment, computer, engineering and related 
knowledge-based industries.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, today we bring the House a good bill--a bill 
that creates jobs for American workers.
  This legislation is supported by the National Association of 
Manufacturers and the National Coalition for Employment Through 
Exports.
  I ask all my colleagues to join with me in voting for the jobs 
through Trade Expansion Act.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4950, 
the Environmental Export Promotion Act of 1994. This conference report 
is a landmark achievement for environmental businesses across the 
nation, and is the result of a 2 year effort to expand exports of 
environmental technologies. I must thank my Chairman, Mr. Studds, for 
his work on this legislation and his friendship. Thanks are also due to 
my friend from Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson. As chair of the Foreign 
Affairs Subcommittee on Trade, the Export Promotion Act is the result 
of his collaboration with Chairman Studds and myself. Today would not 
be possible without his leadership and tireless efforts to craft a bill 
that will create thousands of jobs in America.
  In Oregon, environmental technologies means jobs--good jobs. 
Environmental technologies, goods, and services are produced in my home 
state by 400 envirotech companies. These companies employ 14,000 
Oregonians and the number increases every year. Importantly, the 
average salary in the environmental technology industry is about 
$31,000--a remarkable $9,000 higher than the next closest industry. 
These are truly the family wage jobs of the future. In fact, by the 
year 2000, it is estimated that the global environmental technology 
marketplace will triple to an estimated $600 billion. Environmental 
technologies are key to Oregon's and the Pacific Northwest's future 
economy.
  It is important to point out that, due to our Nation's environmental 
protection laws, hundreds of American companies currently enjoy a huge 
comparative advantage in the production of environmental goods and 
services. The challenge facing the envirotech industry is linking all 
businesses that produce export-ready goods--from large corporations to 
small, entrepreneurial startups--with opportunities for success in the 
global marketplace. Direct access to world markets within a private-
sector drive, clearly defined public/private partnership is the 
backbone of the Environmental Export Promotion Act.
  Briefly, let me explain how the Environmental Export Promotion At 
works. The Export Promotion Act helps promote a true public-private 
partnership in five key ways. First, it creates an Environmental 
Technologies Trade Advisory Committee to ensure that the private sector 
is at the table in designing export promotion strategies. Second, 
regional alliances are created to draw upon the expertise of existing 
envirotch business, and will build upon regional strengths. Third, 
environmental technology specialists in the U.S. Foreign and Commercial 
Service will be continuously identifying potential markets and 
customers for U.S. environmental technology companies, acting as a 
liaison for American business with foreign governments, and providing 
information on local business practices. Fourth, the newly created U.S. 
Export Assistance Centers will include information on environmental 
technologies and market possibilities. Fifth, international regional 
environmental initiatives, including trade missions, are also 
encouraged. For example, Oregon environmental technology firms have 
established key relationships in the Pacific Rim and Latin America; 
this legislation helps build these partnerships. An Environmental 
Technologies Project Advocacy Calendar is also created to assist in the 
dissemination of this information.
  Think for a moment about the economic effects of a remediation 
project on a piece of community land. When you use environmental 
technologies to help restore land which has been rendered useless from 
contamination, for example, you pay the salaries of the envirotech 
firms which develop effective environmental products or services, you 
pay the salaries of the people who work and use that technology to 
clean up that land, and the entire community regains a previously lost 
asset. There are significant, tangible economic benefits at every 
stage.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Export Promotion Act is 
about creating win-win situations. This act is important because it 
proves that protecting and enhancing our environment works hand-in-hand 
with job creation. Because of this bill, countries all across the globe 
will no longer be forced to look the other way when faced with serious 
environmental problems; they will have American envirotch businesses 
knocking on their door with solutions. As I've said before, this 
legislation is about cleaning up in the job market by cleaning up the 
globe.
  Again, my thanks to Chairman Studds and Mr. Gejdenson. I am proud 
that one of my top initiatives this Congress is on the verge of 
becoming a reality. I urge all my colleagues to give their strong 
support to the conference report on H.R. 4950, which includes the 
Environmental Export Promotion Act.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of the 
conference report for H.R. 4950, the ``Jobs Through Trade Expansion Act 
of 1994.'' This legislation reauthorizes the legislative charter of the 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation [OPIC], the Trade and 
Development Agency [TDA], and the International Trade Administration 
[ITA] of the Department of Commerce. Additionally, it promotes the 
export of environmental technologies and services and directs the 
Agency for International Development [AID] to assist developing 
countries in improving their protection of intellectual property 
rights.
  Mr. Speaker, these export promotion agencies and these initiatives 
are absolutely critical to ensure the competitiveness of U.S. 
manufacturing and service industries. For example, the Trade and 
Development Agency helps U.S. exporters compete against foreign 
competitors for lucrative infrastructure projects in developing 
countries by providing grants which hire U.S. consultants and engineers 
for the planning and design of large multilateral development bank 
[MDB] projects. Therefore, I am especially pleased that this conference 
report reauthorizes the Trade and Development Agency for fiscal year 
1995 at $77 million. This amount represents a substantial increase from 
former and current authorizations ($45 million) and therefore 
appropriately reflects the contribution this agency makes in promoting 
the export of U.S. goods and services.
  Because U.S. consultants and engineers are more likely to design, for 
example, a multi-million dollar power generation plant in China with 
United States goods and services in mind, TDA grants ultimately ensure 
that United States goods and services are more likely to receive the 
detailed design, construction, equipment, and maintenance and resupply 
business for such MDB/financed projects over the long term.
  Currently, Mr. Speaker, our European competitors and Japan greatly 
outspend the United States in this trust fund game to the detriment of 
U.S. exporters. The General Accounting Office recently reported that 
Japan, for example, currently outspends the United States by 
approximately $5 for every $1 we devote to this important purpose, and 
the United Kingdom just announced a $78 million tied-aid commitment to 
Vietnam.
  Mr. Speaker, in the power generation market alone, investors and 
energy market analysts predict a whopping $1.8 trillion investment 
demand by the year 2010. Agencies such as the Overseas Private 
Insurance Company and the Trade and Development Agency help to ensure 
that small and medium-sized U.S. businesses can compete for the 
billions of dollars in service and manufactured goods which will 
design, construct, and operate massive infrastructure projects in the 
developing world.
  Mr. Speaker, the State of Nebraska boasts of one of the lowest 
unemployment rates in the country. This may be due in large part to the 
fact that Nebraska led all but one State in dramatically increasing its 
exports 429 percent in the last 6 years. However, Nebraska's economy 
depends on small and medium-sized businesses to maintain its rapid 
growth and high standard of living. Agencies like the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation and the Trade and Development Agency mostly 
benefit these small and medium-sized investors and exporters who would 
not be able to compete against foreign-subsidized competition without 
U.S. assistance.
  In closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support the 
conference report for the Jobs through Trade Expansion Act of 1994. 
This legislation is necessary to ensure the competitiveness of United 
States goods and services through the promotion of exports and the 
protection of intellectual property rights worldwide.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on H.R. 4950, The Jobs Through Trade Expansion Act of 1994, a bill 
reauthorizing the Overseas Private Investment Corporation [OPIC] and 
the Trade and Development Agency [TDA].
  I am pleased that a provision in this legislation will permit OPIC to 
operate all of its programs in Ireland and Northern Ireland and thereby 
assist the peace process in that troubled part of the world.
  I would like to thank the chairman of the International Economic 
Policy Subcommittee, Mr. Gejdenson, and the ranking member of this 
subcommittee, Mr. Roth, for their leadership in enacting this 
legislation.
  The incorporation of an amendment will for the first time permit OPIC 
to operate all of its programs in Ireland and Northern Ireland. With 
its proven ability to attract private sector funding, OPIC programs can 
help to promote economic development and the prospects for a lasting 
peace in Northern Ireland. At this critical moment, I believe that 
OPIC, can play a key role in building a public and private partnership 
in support of the peace process.
  In its report on this legislation, the Foreign Affairs Committee 
urges OPIC to undertake a feasibility study of an equity fund of up to 
$60 million for Ireland and Northern Ireland. A recently passed House 
resolution also urged the adoption of an OPIC equity fund effort for 
Ireland.
  The report asks that the study be completed no later than 120 days 
after the date of enactment of this conference report. While it does 
not spell out the precise objectives of an equity fund for Ireland, I 
can only assume that if and when OPIC establishes such a fund, it will 
help to change the present inequalities, where unemployment among 
Catholics is roughly twice that for Protestants in many areas in 
Northern Ireland.
  I would also note that the president of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, in 
his recent visit here, urged that any assistance to Northern Ireland 
should not be used to perpetuate the unsatisfactory economic status 
quo, and any such aid should follow the McBride principles, which the 
administration also supports, promoting human rights and equality among 
all citizens of Northern Ireland. These principles are also supported 
by States like New York and many cities, such as Chicago, New York, and 
New Haven.
  A list of the MacBride principles and the cities and States that 
support them follows:

       1. Increasing the representation of individuals from 
     underrepresented religious groups in the work force, 
     including managerial, supervisory, administrative, clerical 
     and technical jobs.
       2. Adequate security for the protection of minority 
     employees both at the workplace and while traveling to and 
     from work.
       3. The banning of provocative religious or political 
     emblems from the workplace.
       4. All job openings should be publicly advertised and 
     special recruitment efforts should be made to attract 
     applicants from underrepresented religious groups.
       5. Layoff, recall and termination procedures should not, in 
     practice, favor particular religious groupings.
       6. The abolition of job reservations, apprenticeship 
     restrictions and differential employment criteria, which 
     discriminate on the basis of religion or ethnic origin.
       7. The development of training programs that will prepare 
     substantial numbers of current minority employees for skilled 
     jobs, including the expansion of existing programs and the 
     creation of new programs to train, upgrade and improve the 
     skills of minority employees.
       8. The establishment of procedures to assess, identify and 
     actively recruit minority employees with potential for 
     further advancement.
       9. The appointment of a senior management staff member to 
     oversee the company's affirmative action efforts and the 
     setting up of timetables to carry out affirmative action 
     principles.


                states and cities that support macbride

     Connecticut
     Florida
     Illinois
     Kentucky
     Maine
     Massachusetts
     Michigan
     Minnesota
     Montana
     New Hampshire
     New Jersey
     New York
     Pennsylvania
     Rhode Island
     Vermont
     Virginia
     Binghamton, NY
     Boston, MA
     Bridgeport, CT
     Bucks City, PA
     Burlington, UT
     Cambridge, MA
     Carbondale, PA
     Chicago, IL
     Cleveland, OH
     Detroit, MI
     Hartford, CT
     Honolulu, HI
     Kansas City, MO
     Lackawanna County, PA
     Lawrence, MA
     Monroe, NY
     Minneapolis, MN
     Nashua, NH
     New Haven, CT
     New York, NY
     Orangetown, NY
     Philadelphia, PA
     Pittsburgh, PA
     Providence, RI
     Rochester, NY
     Rockland County, NY
     San Francisco, CA
     Saint Louis, MO
     Saint Paul, MN
     Scranton, PA
     Springfield, MA
     Tucson, AZ
     Union City, NJ
     Washington, DC
     West Caldwell, NJ
     Westchester County, NY
     Wilmington, DE
     Worcester, MA
     Yonkers, NY

  We must help end the discriminatory employment practices where the 
Catholic minority is more than two times likely to face discrimination, 
especially in the area of unemployment. Any OPIC projects should keep 
that goal in mind in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the remainder of my time and I move the previous question on 
the conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________