-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/a5fdcb21d531546b5ebdd359a3b25976.pdf
16e556c29019e041d368ea95c832cca2
PDF Text
Text
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 14, 1993
PRESS BRIEFING
BY
ROBERT RUBIN, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR ECONOMIC POLICY,
LAURA TYSON, CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS,
SANDY BERGER, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER,
B W A CUTTER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR ECONOMIC POLICY,
OMN
AND
ROBERT KYLE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR ECONOMIC POLICY
The Briefing Room
3:15 P.M. EST
MR. RUBIN: Hi. I'm Bob Rubin, Assistant to the
President for Economic Policy. I'm going to make a few introductory
remarks, and then we w i l l get into the s p e c i f i c s of the GATT
agreement, Uruguay Round now being negotiated.
We are, as you know, on the verge of an agreement, but
we are not yet there. There are s t i l l issues that are being worked
through i n Europe as we speak. These need to be worked through with
the EC. And then, as you know, once we f i n i s h with EC, we have to
work through a l l the remaining issues with something l i k e 100 other
countries.
Having said that, we do believe we are on the verge —
on the verge of an agreement, but not there yet. I f we do get a
Uruguay Round agreement, i t w i l l be the largest trade agreement i n
history, and t h i s w i l l be the largest trade year i n history, counting
both the Uruguay Round and NAFTA.
Let me make a comment, i f I may, on context. I t ' s our
view that whenever you look at something the President i s doing i n
the economic arena, i t i s good to step back, at l e a s t for a second,
and get h i s broad contextual framework.
From the very beginning of t h i s administration, and even
from the beginning of the transition, the President has been acting
pursuant to a comprehensive economic strategy. He started by saying
that he had to get our f i s c a l house i n order, that was d e f i c i t
reduction; at the same time we had the beginnings of our investment
program. He i s now going further with the investment program. He
also f e l t that there was a l o t of opportunity i n regulatory review.
L i f t i n g export controls was the f i r s t step i n that; there are other
measures now pending. Health care i s obviously the dominant economic
i n i t i a t i v e . I t ' s a s o c i a l i n i t i a t i v e as well — but economic
i n i t i a t i v e for t h i s year. And, f i n a l l y , i s there opening markets, so
that as we are competitive, we have the opportunity to compete.
We accomplished NAFTA, as you know; we have the Japanese
framework negotiations underway; and f i n a l l y we get to the issue of
today's press conference, which i s GATT, the largest trade agreement
of a l l time, and the one that w i l l now be addressed by Laura Tyson
and the rest of the members of the economic team who were involved
with GATT.
Thank you.
MORE
�- 2 -
DR. TYSON: Thank you. Well, as Bob said, the Uruguay
Round agreement that i s within our grasp i s the largest, most
comprehensive trade agreement in the nation's history, in the world's
history, for that matter. The agreement w i l l cut t a r i f f s and nont a r i f f b a r r i e r s by at least one-third. For the f i r s t time i t w i l l
create e f f e c t i v e m u l t i l a t e r a l rules for the protection of our
i n t e l l e c t u a l property rights. For the f i r s t time i t w i l l bring
agricultural trade under m u l t i l a t e r a l GATT rules. I t w i l l cut
foreign subsidies that have hurt our a g r i c u l t u r a l exports. I t w i l l
also provide new, more effective and more expeditious m u l t i l a t e r a l
dispute settlement procedures. Those w i l l help us address and reduce
foreign trading practices that have closed our markets — closed
foreign markets to our exporters.
At the same time, the agreement w i l l allow us to
continue to use our own national trading laws, including Section 301,
to address those unfair foreign trading practices that are not going
to be covered by GATT rules. We worked very hard to reserve the
right to use our national trading laws in those circumstances in
which GATT rules w i l l not apply.
Now, what does a l l t h i s mean for the U.S. economy?
F i r s t of a l l , l e t me say the U.S. economy i s very well poised to take
advantage of the trade opportunities that w i l l be created by this
agreement. We have the most productive workers in the world. Our
unit labor costs right now are 30 percent lower than our trading
partners. There have been many efforts made to quantify what might
be the e f f e c t s of the Uruguay Round on the U.S. economy. A l l of
these e f f o r t s have been made without f u l l knowledge of the what the
f i n a l agreement would include. A l l of them are, therefore, p a r t i a l
in t h e i r estimates of the benefits to the U.S. economy. But I can
say a couple of things about the existing estimates.
F i r s t of a l l , a l l attempts to model the effects have
found positive numbers of the U.S. economy. There's unanimity among
economists who have looked at t h i s issue that t h i s w i l l be good for
the U.S. economy. B a s i c a l l y the existing studies out there — and
they don't capture a l l the benefits, only part of the benefits —
suggest a range of $100 to $2 00 b i l l i o n of extra output per year in
the U.S. economy after the agreement i s f u l l y phased in — that i s
after a decade — w i l l be getting an extra $100 to $200 b i l l i o n a
year of output.
And, again, that may be an underestimate because those
estimates do not take into account such things as the benefits to our
economy from improved enforcement of our i n t e l l e c t u a l property rights
around the world.
This kind of increase in output means both more job
opportunities in the United States and higher wages in the United
States. So t h i s i s an agreement which w i l l generate more output,
higher wages, and more high wage jobs for American workers, and i s
therefore a c r i t i c a l part of our economic strategy.
Let me j u s t conclude by emphasizing that at the
beginning of t h i s administration there were many concerns expressed
that perhaps t h i s would be an inward-looking administration on the
trade front. But as Bob Rubin has already indicated, t h i s w i l l end
up being, I think, the most important year for trade l i b e r a l i z a t i o n
in the United States' history. This i s a very important moment of
looking outward, of competing, not retreating. That i s what the
President committed to do back in February — we w i l l compete, we
w i l l not retreat. And that i s what t h i s agreement confirms as our
strategy.
Q
What happens next?
MORE
I mean, how do you proceed with
�- 3 -
DR. TYSON: We'll answer questions —
through a couple of more presentations.
we want to get
MR. BERGER: Hi. I'm Sandy Berger, Deputy National
Security Adviser to the President. Let me j u s t add a few words of
perspective and then Bo w i l l t a l k about some of the s p e c i f i c elements
of the agreement.
I f t h i s agreement, in fact, coalesces tomorrow, i t w i l l
r e f l e c t two fundamental principles that the President has both spoken
about and acted upon since becoming President. One was the need —
i s the need to elevate international economics to the top echelon of
American foreign policy; to put international economics on the front
burner of American foreign policy, which the President has done
through the year. And second, a point the President has made r e a l l y
since the campaign, and that i s the interconnection between what i s
happening on the domestic side and what i s happening on the foreign
policy side. He's talked often about the disappearing walls between
domestic and foreign policy.
I think i f you trace the year, those two principles are
quite c l e a r l y reflected. The President went to Tokyo to the G-7
summit on the heels of the House having passed the budget package.
The fact the House had done that gave the President the c r e d i b i l i t y
to energize the Uruguay Round and bring about a market access
agreement, which r e a l l y was what broke the logjam i n the round that
had been going on for seven years.
By the same token, the NAFTA agreement, followed by the
APEC summit in Seattle, not only was important in domestic economic
terms, but I also believe that i t helped to give momentum to the
conclusion — toward the conclusion of the Uruguay Round. And that's
not because I think the Europeans were threatened by NAFTA or
threatened by APEC — I think as they listened to the argument that
the President made in the United States that trade expansion i s
important for economic growth, I think that's an argument that
resonated in Europe, where, of course, growth i s nonexistent in most
places. And I think most European leaders who the President has
spoken with in the l a s t several days, I think have reached — had
reached a conclusion that t h i s was extremely important to getting
t h e i r own domestic economies r e v i t a l i z e d .
So I think t h i s i s a culmination of a year i n which the
United States has led, not only in the Uruguay Round i t s e l f but in
placing international economics at the core of our international
relations.
Let me ask Bo Cutter to now speak more s p e c i f i c a l l y to
the agreement that's taking shape.
MR. CUTTER: Let me make two opening comments, and then
I'm going to — then I ' l l focus on some of the s p e c i f i c s .
The f i r s t i s — on the fact that we are on the verge of
what w i l l be the biggest trade agreement in history and on what w i l l
have been the best year in history. But I want to emphasize on the
verge of, because there's s t i l l approximately 30 hours l e f t . There
i s lots that i s changing there now; that each time we t a l k with
Geneva and with Mickey and with Rufus, there have been some changes
so that — I don't want to suggest — none of us want to suggest that
t h i s i s finished yet.
What I'd l i k e to do i s underline b r i e f l y for you what
are the s i x key areas of the agreement and then say a l i t t l e b i t to
you about the nature of the end game over the l a s t week or so.
There are s i x key areas i n the agreement that represent
s i g n i f i c a n t changes, s i g n i f i c a n t improvements in the current world
MORE
�- 4 -
trading regime. Let me l i s t them for you and come back — go back
very b r i e f l y on them, but j u s t so that you can a rough sense of the
agreement. Those are the industrial t a r i f f cuts, the opening of
agricultural markets, the development of a m u l t i l a t e r a l regime for
enforcing i n t e l l e c t u a l property, the beginnings of a movement of
international trading agreements toward services, the d i s c i p l i n i n g of
subsidies, and the maintenance of our trade laws. I mean, when we
think of i t and when we brief i t for the President, when we — as
we've been thinking about i t , i t ' s those s i x areas that we focused
on.
And j u s t to give you one — a brief sense about each —
what the t a r i f f s represent i s e s s e n t i a l l y as Laura said on average
across the board a 30 percent reduction i n global t a r i f f s . I t i s
from that that stems the f i r s t of the p r i n c i p a l economic advantages
for our economy there.
In agriculture, what we'll see i n t h i s agreement i s the
movement to a broadly open market i n agriculture and a d i s c i p l i n i n g
of, i n particular, the extensive European subsidies on agriculture.
With respect to i n t e l l e c t u a l property, which i s in many
ways the sort of fuel of our economy now, i s what an information
economy depends on, there w i l l be i n place i f the deal i s finalized,
a global regime with respect to i n t e l l e c t u a l property that
d i s c i p l i n e s of efforts of piracy, efforts at the infringement of
copyright, and that provides a set of rules.
With respect to services, which was one of the original
intents of the Uruguay Round as i t started, the movements I think
everybody would acknowledge are beginnings. The biggest — far and
away the biggest success i n the services area i s the impending
f i n a n c i a l services agreement, which gives us a way to take advantage
of the openness of our market and the size and strength of our
f i n a n c i a l services markets to develop around the world satisfactory
reciprocal deals.
And f i n a l l y , that the deal enables us, as Laura said, to
maintain our own trade laws — both with respect to anti-dumping and
with respect to trade disputes and the use of our 3 01 l e g i s l a t i o n .
I'm sure there w i l l be many questions, so l e t me move
quickly from that to a comment about the end game. Approximately 10
days ago, i t looked as i f there were four big issues — or i t didn't
look as i f there were four big issues as well as l i t e r a l l y thousands
of the smaller ones. But the four that we were p a r t i c u l a r l y worried
about were the anti-dumping concerns, a i r c r a f t subsidies, financial
services, and audiovisual. And I j u s t want to underline with respect
to each what has happened.
With respect to anti-dumping, what occurred i n the l a s t
10 days was a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n what had been a regime which
we simple found unacceptable.
And what i t i s — as I said, and as
Laura has said, what i t created by virtue of the negotiations that
Mickey Kantor led was an anti-dumping regime which continues our
anti-dumping laws and our p o s s i b i l i t i e s to — at countervailing
duties and l e f t those capacities intact.
With respect to a i r c r a f t subsidies, what we now have in
place i s a regime that w i l l d i s c i p l i n e i n p a r t i c u l a r the kinds of
subsidies that have been used to subsidize the Airbus — i . e . , the
focus on manufacturing subsidies i n the industry.
t h i s morning
who has been
scale of one
for us to —
With respect to f i n a n c i a l services, I asked too early
Larry Summers, who i s the Under Secretary of Treasury
negotiating these, for him to characterize them on a
to 10, and he said i t ' s a nine — that i t ' s a capacity
what i t provides i s a capacity for us to get r i d of
MORE
�- 5 -
what's been called the free rider problem, the fact that other
companies won't open t h e i r markets and b a s i c a l l y ride on the openness
of the U.S. financial markets and gives us the capacity to carry
forward negotiations on a one-on-one basis.
And f i n a l l y , with respect to audiovisual, what we came
to a judgment very late l a s t night — and I should say s p e c i f i c a l l y
what the President, in a conversation with Mickey Kantor, came i s the
judgment late l a s t night, was that, as he said for some time, that i f
we can't — that he wanted a GATT, but he didn't want anything but a
good GATT. And we didn't see the European offer in that as
appropriate, so we pulled i t out.
And b a s i c a l l y what we've done i s to remove audiovisual
in terms of our negotiations with Europe from the GATT s p e c i f i c a l l y
so that we can maintain our — so that we can in those capacities
d i r e c t l y use 301 and not bind ourselves to a s p e c i f i c set of — not
bind ourselves to a s p e c i f i c set of European rules which we don't
accept.
That's the general rundown — the s i x areas and then the
four areas of the end game. I ' l l j u s t underline the two points I
started with, i s that we think that we are on the verge of what may
be a very good deal. But we would a l l caution you that there are 3 0
hours to go and there i s not a deal yet.
Q
What happens i f you do get a deal? I mean, you
have to go and negotiate now with the 114 countries, or what's the
MR. CUTTER: No, here's the way the process works,
because I think that we've a l l detected an understandable sort of
uncertainty about what t h i s process i s . The negotiations have been
proceeding with a l l 124 countries or whatever i t i s right along. But
in general i t i s always believed that the — as the two major trading
areas — the U.S. and the E.G. — have got to come to some kind of
agreement, which b a s i c a l l y represents a marker for the r e s t of the
world or there's chaos — there j u s t wouldn't be an agreement.
No, t h i s agreement, i f i t ' s completed, has to be
completed in t o t a l by midnight tomorrow night. So that while those
agreements have been going on in p a r a l l e l , what t h i s — what a
European-U.S. deal does i s e s s e n t i a l l y provide the basis for saying
"agree or don't agree" but t h i s , i s in i t s broad sense, what the
deal's going to be.
So there w i l l either be a deal or there won't be a deal
by midnight tomorrow night, but i t ' l l be a f u l l deal.
Q
When w i l l i t be effective, January or July of '95
MR. CUTTER: I t ' s s t i l l — that's s t i l l being considered
— and thank you for asking the question, because I think everyone
ought to know that t h i s i s not quite l i k e the NAFTA process; that the
way t h i s works i s the President has to indicate to the Congress by
midnight tomorrow night that he intends to sign the treaty. Then the
Congress has four months to consider the treaty and to consider
whether or not they would prefer to r e j e c t i t , i n essence. On the
15th of A p r i l , no e a r l i e r than the 15th of A p r i l , the President has
to sign i t or not sign i t . That i s to say, he can't sign i t e a r l i e r
than the 15th — he can sign i t obviously l a t e r than the 15th.
Upon signing i t , i f he decides to sign i t , we then have
to, as we did in NAFTA, submit implementing l e g i s l a t i o n . That i s
where the fast track actually works. I t ' s where the requirement for
90 l e g i s l a t i v e days comes into play.
MORE
�- 6 -
I f the treaty i s to go into effect, i f the whole round
i s to go into effect by, l e t us say, the 1st of July '95, then
obviously we have to submit the implementing l e g i s l a t i o n in such a
way that i t would meet that deadline.
I f i t ' s by the 1st of January
1995, we have to do i t considerably e a r l i e r in order to meet that
deadline. And I don't know, I don't think any of us know at t h i s
point what that date i s , but obviously we'll know within 30 hours.
Q
I s i t 90 l e g i s l a t i v e days or 90 calendar days?
MR. CUTTER:
l e g i s l a t i v e days.
I think i t ' s 90 l e g i s l a t i v e —
i t ' s 90
This i s Bob Kyle, who's a Special Assistant to the
President focusing on trade.
MR. KYLE: Once the agreement, once the l e g i s l a t i o n i s
formally submitted, i t ' s 90 l e g i s l a t i v e days. Now, i n the case of
NAFTA, that 90 l e g i s l a t i v e days was shortened because you reach an
agreement with the Congress that that t h e y ' l l expedite the time.
Q
So the President w i l l sign i t by the 15th, but
Congress necessarily may not vote on i t u n t i l the end of the year?
MR. CUTTER: That's right. That's why we've been saying
that i t ' s not exactly l i k e NAFTA, that eventually there w i l l be a
piece of implementing l e g i s l a t i o n on which there i s a vote. But the
process strings out longer, so that i t ' s not that we go immediately
into campaign mode.
Q
How
i s that different than NAFTA?
I'm
sorry.
MR. CUTTER: Well, i f you remember, the process i s n ' t
different, a l l I'm saying i s that there i s now t h i s long period —
we're not going to be submitting implementing l e g i s l a t i o n in January
and immediately have the campaign.
Q
U.S.
What does i t cost us to leave out audiovisual for
exports?
MR. CUTTER: Well, our sense i s , i s that given the
European deal, we benefit. I mean, we have a 70 percent share in
entertainment in Europe, and the l a s t thing on Earth we wanted to do
i s bind ourselves within the European context of that c u l t u r a l
restriction.
Q
conditions —
You're saying — but that's j u s t market the
70 percent i s , that's j u s t how i t i s .
MR. CUTTER:
to say anything e l s e .
No, that's how
i t i s , yes.
I didn't mean
Q
Without a deal on that, presumably the doors are
there, the French or whoever are free, then, to t r y to keep out such
entertainment products as they wish, are they not?
MR. CUTTER: Let me make two points about that. F i r s t
of a l l , an overall point i s that we've been working extremely closely
with the industry on t h i s issue. Now, the two points about your
comment or question, one i s that one of the reasons not to have i t in
terms of our relationship and our dealings with Europe on t h i s issue
in t h i s sector not to have i t within the GATT i s so that, in fact, we
can r e t a l i a t e .
The second point i s that the European consumers, acting
of t h e i r own free w i l l , seem to be not following the dictates of the
French c u l t u r a l managers since they buy t h i s at the rate of 70
percent of the market.
MORE
�- 7 -
Q
Has any progress been made on gaining access for
t e x t i l e s and apparel — to the t e x t i l e and apparel markets of India
and Pakistan? I s that s t i l l going on — lobbying for market access
amendments? And i f not, do you have any backup plans for getting
access to those markets?
MR. CUTTER: Two things. I mean, generally, what t h i s
does i s propose a 10-year phaseout of the multifiber agreement, and
then that would mean a phaseout of the quotas and the t a r i f f i c a t i o n
of t e x t i l e s . Then, what i t i s , i s a reduction in the t a r i f f s — I
think in t h i s case by 50 percent. So that access i s , in fact,
provided in the agreement.
MR. KYLE: I think with regard to access to other
markets there has been some progress made. I can't t e l l you
s p e c i f i c a l l y with regard to those two countries, but I know that they
think they've r e a l l y achieved a landmark package in terms of our
access abroad. And as you know, our t e x t i l e industry, in particular,
has become increasingly competitive in recent years and w i l l benefit
by a l o t of those market opening commitments we've got.
Q
So t h i s i s part of the s p e c i f i c market access
amendment negotiations where progress i s being made?
MR. KYLE: Yes, t h i s would be part of the market access
negotiations i s to break open those markets.
MR. CUTTER: I t ' s that f i r s t of the s i x points I named
i s the i n d u s t r i a l t a r i f f s and the market access agreement.
Q
Well, we heard you and your colleague stress how we
don't have a done deal yet and we're only on the verge of t h i s
agreement. But i s n ' t i t f a i r to say that the fact that you and your
colleagues have come out here and told us how great i t ' s going to be
i f GATT i s approved that i t ' s a l l but a done deal?
MR. CUTTER: Where, as you'd expect, we're kind of in a
bind, i s that the agreement, the deadline's tomorrow night at
midnight. The President, we believe, has to have the day to be able
to look at i t and to look at i t in d e t a i l and see how a l l the parts
relate. Things have, in fact, changed in the course of today. Most
of us were awakened f a i r l y early t h i s morning to begin to t a l k about
i t and issues have changed throughout the day. So the best answer to
— l e t us wait and see kind of where they a l l wind up. But the best
answer to your question i s that the achievement of a European-U.S.
agreement on t h i s i s very s i g n i f i c a n t . We haven't reached t h i s point
before on the Round. There can't be a deal without that. But, sort
of caution, prudence the fact that we've s t i l l got 30 hours of debate
to go says that we've r e a l l y got to be cautious i n the way we're
saying i t .
Q
Well, what are these thorny issues that the
President himself referred to t h i s morning that s t i l l remain in t h i s
30-hour period?
MR. CUTTER: There are s t i l l ongoing discussions with
respect to the degree with market — in each of the s i x areas that I
mentioned — l e t me step back and say what happens right now.
There
being an agreement on the basics between the United States and
Europe, there now follows a day in which countries decide what i s
going to be the nature of t h e i r offer, and i n which, obviously, we're
negotiating to make the market opening offers as broad and as
substantial as they can be, so that there are 100 mini negotiations
going on in every one of these areas.
Q
And who i s party to a l l —
w i l l participate in the —
MORE
a l l the signatories that
�- 8 -
MR.
CUTTER:
Yes.
Q
So you've got 100 negotiations participated in by
more than 100 countries?
MR.
CUTTER:
Right.
Q
You mentioned that
—
Q
And you're going to f i n i s h i t in 3 0 hours?
MR. KYLE: I t ' s not as i f those 100 negotiations just
started yesterday, they've been going on for a while and there have
been a l o t of discussions. But there i s s t i l l a l o t of work to be
done in a l o t of those areas; they're going to have to f i n i s h i t up.
MR. CUTTER: This i s
many of you are familiar with i t ,
a l l of the options out there. And
you going to decide on. I t ' s not
l i k e in any negotiation, I'm sure
you do reach a point where you know
the issue now i s which ones are
invention of new alternatives.
Q
You mentioned that you thought t h i s i s the trade
year and the negotiations have become very important. How would you
describe the importance of t h i s , or why do you think they've become
so much more important over the l a s t few years, compared to 10 or 15
years ago when these things were so obscure and arms negotiations
were the highly v i s i b l e trade talks — negotiations?
MR. CUTTER: I think there are two reasons. One has to
do with — I don't think any of us r e a l i z e the enormous degree to
which the world and the world economy changes because of the end of
the Cold War.
And so we've a l l said in l o t s of speeches that one of
the impacts of that i s the sort of glue disappeared from the system,
and there i s a l o t more potential for c o n f l i c t because people don't
trade economics off against security. And so i t makes these more of
a center stage.
But I think the much more important structural reason
for us i s that the international economy i s far more important to our
economy than i t was 15 years ago. Exports and imports as a
percentage of our GDP have grown enormously over the course of those
15 years. And, therefore, what t h i s represents i s the opening to our
economy which, as Laura said, i s now arguably the most competitive in
the i n d u s t r i a l world to a whole new area of growth.
Q
A question on agriculture. Assuming that the GATT
i s r a t i f i e d , w i l l we continue the high wheat subsidies we have
through the export enhancement program, or i s there any time in the
interim period between now and when the GATT actually goes into
effect, or would we actually consider reducing the subsidies we offer
on wheat, and also the agriculture community, as long as they've got
some other issues shaken out, do you see them as strong advocates for
GATT, l i k e they were in NAFTA, in terms of congressional debate?
MR. CUTTER: I ' l l answer the f i r s t question f i r s t . I t ' s
a l i t t l e hard yet to know what the p o l i t i c a l lay of the land i s .
M u l t i l a t e r a l agreements are different than b i l a t e r a l agreements, and
t h i s one i s different than NAFTA in a couple of ways. One i s , you
can c r a f t a b i l a t e r a l agreement so that they're l i k e l y to be much
sort of a much higher level of intensity of support. But that
p a r t i c u l a r agreement also had some obvious — some r e a l obvious
points of attack, that there were people who were concerned, unhappy
about the nature of the relationship with Mexico or with low-wage,
what they perceived of as a low-wage economy.
This i s much broader than that and, in a way, somewhat
more diffuse, so that the support i s going to be, I'd suspect in
MORE
�- 9-
general, l e s s intense, and the opposition i s going to be l o t s less
intense, j u s t as a general rule.
And i n terms of your f i r s t question about how does i t
affect our own domestic p o l i c i e s at t h i s point, the short answer to
that i s , I r e a l l y don't know. I know the interplay.
Bob, do you have a view?
MR. KYLE: I can give you a l i t t l e sense — I'm not sure
how i t — on the s p e c i f i c programs you mentioned, but for example, in
subsidies, i n 1991 the EC spent about 12 times more on export
subsidies than we did. So we're starting from a very unequal playing
f i e l d . And even percentage reductions means t h e y ' l l reduce — I'm
not sure what i t means exactly —
Q
Would be wise to begin phasing those kinds of
subsidies out, or not?
MR. KYLE: Well, for example, i n our domestic supports,
we've already made a number of cuts already as part of our budget
packages. And the base to be ruled from i s a base i n the past, and
therefore, i n that area, for example, there's not that much of a —
there i s n ' t any — I don't think we're going to have to make any
cuts, because we've already made a number of cuts i n our programs.
MR. CUTTER: We've achieved the l e v e l of reductions.
Q
What about other kind of agriculture subsidies i n
our economy?
MR. KYLE: I don't know about the programs you
mentioned, for example. Those are the main — of course, these
domestic support programs are the largest ones, I believe.
MR. CUTTER: That's where we have spent our money.
Q
I t ' s been mentioned that the U.S. s t i l l maintains
the capability to use the U.S. trade laws. Does that mean the U.S.
in the future can't apply 3 01 or any kind of sector, any case, or
what i s the U.S. actually giving? You must have made some
concessions.
MR. CUTTER: Draw a d i s t i n c t i o n — for issues that are
part of GATT that are d i r e c t l y included i n the GATT agreements, we
are required to go through the multilateral processes. For issues
that are not, we are not so required. And 301 i s most relevant i n
the second area. I t remains as a sort of l a s t resort i n the f i r s t
area.
MS. MYERS:
Let's take one more question.
Q
What are your estimates of revenue loss at t h i s
point, and how are you going to handle the budgetary implications?
MR. CUTTER: Everyone's looking at Laura.
DR. TYSON: We w i l l — look, I would say right now we
are not going to come up with an o f f i c i a l estimate of revenue loss.
We w i l l work on that. And, of course, as you know, because of the
pay-go rules, any revenue l o s t w i l l have to be onset by something
else.
I t i s important to say, i n answer to that export — the
export enhancement question before, that we do anticipate that one
way we w i l l make some savings to offset some of the revenue losses,
indeed, the fact that we w i l l be able to, as we wanted to from t h i s
agreement, to cut back on export subsidies that were motivated simply
MORE
�- 10 -
by the need to meet and match the export subsidies offered by our
trading partners. So as those come down, we w i l l have budgetary room
to bring our own down, and those w i l l offset some of the revenue
loss. But our preliminary estimates suggest that they w i l l not
offset a l l of the revenue loss, and indeed, we w i l l therefore have to
make —
Q
A minute ago you didn't have to do anything. Now
you're going to do lots because i t ' s going to generate revenue?
DR. TYSON:
What do you mean —
Q
Well, I mean, I was asking about what we're going
to do i n terms of phasing out subsidies, and you said, well, we're
already golden on that. And now —
DR. TYSON: No, wait. I'm giving you — what I'm saying
i s that there are certain kinds of subsidies that we have, some of
our export enhancement subsidies, which e x i s t primarily to meet the
subsidies of foreign countries. As those countries bring down their
subsidies, we w i l l be able to bring down ours. And that w i l l be —
Q
Because we can, not because we're required to?
DR. TYSON: Because we can. When we went into these
negotiations i n 1986, i f you go and look at what we wanted to do, one
of the things we wanted to do was to free ourselves and the world
from r e a l l y excessive amounts of subsidies which were benefiting no
one, but spending a l o t of global resources. So the world i s better
off i f you bring some of these subsidies down. We w i l l have room to
bring our own subsidies down; that i s one way we w i l l offset the
revenue loss, but i t ' s not a complete offset. So we w i l l obviously
have to find other ways to make up for some of the t a r i f f revenues.
Q
You're not allowed to use increased growth
projections as a source of revenue under those rules, right?
DR. TYSON: You are not allowed, i n pay-go rules, to use
— i f you're allowed to, you could show that any of these models that
I have suggested, give you t h i s range, would generate more than
enough additional revenue from growth to offset the loss revenue from
reduced t a r i f f s . But that i s not a calculation allowable i n the paygo.
Q
We won't cut the EEP before '95 then, the EEP
subsidies?
DR. TYSON: A l l I know i s that what I was talking about
was the room for cutting EEP subsidies that w i l l be allowed once the
agreement goes into effect, once the agreement goes into e f f e c t .
Q
So a f t e r i t goes into effect, not before?
DR. TYSON: I f there i s any cuts before, I r e a l l y don't
know about them. So I'm r e a l l y talking about once the agreement goes
into e f f e c t .
THE PRESS:
Thank you.
END
3:43 P.M. EST
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Iminediate Release
December 14, 1993
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
HONORING WINNERS OF THE MALCOLM BALDRIGE AWARD
Mellon Auditorium
Washington, D.C.
10:35 A.M.
EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Secretary Brown
and former Secretaries of Commerce, members of Congress, members of
the Baldrige family, and the honorees and a l l t h e i r supporters waving
the flags and the signs in the back. I t ' s kind of nice, after a l l of
the speeches I've given and a l l the crowds I have to see, those kinds
of signs waved at me when I speak.
(Laughter.)
Before I present the Baldrige Award today I would l i k e
to t a l k j u s t a moment about the progress of the GATT negotiations
which Secretary Brown mentioned. Today, the United States
negotiators have achieved a breakthrough in the t a l k s to conclude a
new round in the General Agreements on T a r i f f s and Trade. We are now
on the verge of an h i s t o r i c victory in our efforts to open foreign
markets to American products.
I do want to make i t clear, however, that the
negotiations are not concluded yet. Thorny issues remain, and I have
instructed our negotiators to push very hard for our objectives as
they conclude the remaining d e t a i l s .
I've made i t clear that I w i l l not accept a bad GATT,
but that we w i l l not spare any effort to fight for a good one.
Now
the United States and the European Community are in a position to
work shoulder to shoulder to push for concessions from other nations
in the f i n a l hours.
The stakes are immense. This would be the single,
largest trade agreement ever. I t writes new rules of the road for
world trade well into the next century. I t would cut other
countries' t a r i f f s for our goods, on average, by more than onethird. When f u l l y phased i n , i t could add as much as $100 b i l l i o n to
$2 00 b i l l i o n to the United States economy ever year. I t opens
foreign markets to our manufacturing and a g r i c u l t u r a l products, and
for the f i r s t time, covers services. I t does a l l of t h i s while
preserving our sovereignty, and especially our a b i l i t y to r e t a l i a t e
against unfair foreign trade practices.
With NAFTA our nation chose to take the new world
economy head on, to compete and win and not retreat. Our willingness
to lead set the pace for other nations of the world. Americans have
reason to be proud; we're on the way to making t h i s world change in a
way that works for us. I know that a l l of you j o i n me in wishing our
negotiators well and hoping that we can conclude a successful
agreement. We have another day.
I'm delighted to be here in t h i s wonderful auditorium
again, the same place where we signed the h i s t o r i c NAFTA l e g i s l a t i o n
j u s t a few days ago. A l o t of people thought that that fight would
end up in defeat. But I f e l t i f we stuck by i t , i f we j u s t kept
arguing that a wealthy country can only create jobs and r a i s e incomes
MORE
�- 2 -
by increasing the number of i t s customers for goods and services, in
the end we would prevail. And we did, thanks in large measure to an
enormous bipartisan coalition of people from a l l over America, and to
the efforts of Secretary Ron Brown who worked very hard on i t , as
well as Mickey Kantor and so many others.
I'm honored to be with you again for t h i s happy occasion
because, l i k e NAFTA, the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award i s an
important part of our effort to change the way America thinks about
doing i t s business.
In the months since I have been in office, we've been
taking a l l the s p e c i f i c actions we can to try to help our nation
adapt to the changing world we find — working to create a climate in
which private enterprise can grow and prosper and put Americans back
to work. From the d e f i c i t reduction program to NAFTA, to addressing
the credit crunch, to the deregulation of high-tech exports, to the
successful meetings with the G-7 nations and the Asian P a c i f i c
nations, the goal i s the same: to make our people more secure in the
s h i f t i n g economic environment at home and abroad by allowing us to
compete and to win.
With the reduction in the d e f i c i t and the other actions,
we see i n f l a t i o n down, interest rates down, job creation up, personal
income up. We see things moving in the right direction. Consumer
confidence rose 18 percent in November. We've had seven months of
increased r e t a i l sales. Last month, people who were delinquent in
t h e i r home mortgages were at t h e i r lowest level in 19 years. Over
five m i l l i o n Americans have refinanced t h e i r homes. Millions of
others have refinanced other debt. Manufacturing i s expanding.
We are trying, in other words, to take care of our
business in the government so you can take care of your business —
increasing productivity, creating jobs and incomes for the American
people. When both of us do our part, the government and the private
sector, we're on our way to long-lasting economic growth.
Six years ago, the United States government in a
previous administration exercise the wisdom of establishing the
Baldrige Award. In no time, because of the astounding success of i t s
winners in taking care of t h e i r business, the award became a symbol
of excellence and an inspiration for the rebirth of American
competitiveness. For that, we owe a good deal to the legacy of the
award's namesake. Until h i s untimely and tragic death in 1987,
Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige was a voice in urging Americans
to focus on quality. His cause l i v e s on through t h i s award named for
him. And we are honored very much to have h i s family here with us
today.
The idea of quality took hold as American companies
became more and more aware of the intense and growing competition
from overseas, and more and more clear in t h i s country of ours we
could never hope to compete in America by lowering our cost of doing
business, and p a r t i c u l a r l y our labor costs, to the level of the
poorest nations of the world.
The challenge i s clear: How do we learn from our
competitors? How do we meet them head on? How do we learn from each
other i n every workplace in America? A l l these success stories have
a common theme: Companies that l i s t e n to the needs of t h e i r
customers and the ideas of t h e i r workers; companies that streamline
t h e i r operations and adopt the idea of continuous improvement in
products and services. I t ' s management from the top down and from
the bottom up, better known now as quality management.
Through the Baldrige Award and the principles of quality
management i t embraces, countless businesses have found new and
stronger l i f e . Beyond manufacturing, these principles are now
MORE
�- 3-
beginning to be applied i n f i e l d s l i k e health care, education, and,
yes, believe i t or not, even government.
By giving both employees and customers a say i n how
businesses are run, these businesses have b u i l t pride and
productivity while improving management and product and services.
Quality management i s c l e a r l y a win-win formula. I t helps businesses
to do well, i t beefs up our competitiveness around the world, and i t
helps to create jobs and to s t a b i l i z e and increase incomes for our
working people.
This year's winners are outstanding examples of that.
I got my schooling i n t o t a l quality management and what
i t can do when I was the Governor of my home state of Arkansas.
That's when I got to know the people at Eastman Chemical Company. On
several occasions I v i s i t e d t h e i r plant i n B a t e s v i l l e , Arkansas, and
I used to t e l l a story on the campaign t r a i l at home, walking into a
room, seeing a guy — t h i s plant i s sort of out i n the country — and
seeing a guy working a computer wearing cowboy boots and one of those
big rodeo championship belt buckles. I f you're not from the rodeo
country you've never seen one, but i f you've never seen one, the
f i r s t time you see one, i t looks l i k e a s i l v e r dish you might give as
a wedding present to someone. (Laughter.)
Anyway, I walked into t h i s room, and t h i s guy had h i s
jeans and h i s boots on and h i s big rodeo belt buckle on, l i s t e n i n g to
country music, working a computer. And he launched into a much more
eloquent speech than I had ever given about the importance of raising
the s k i l l s of American workers so we could provide for our families
and our children and their future.
I also traveled to the headquarters of Eastman Chemical
in Kingsport, Tennessee, for a close-up look at the progress they
were making there. They were always a big help to me i n implementing
what I was trying to do at home. Indeed, Eastman Chemical loaned me
one of t h e i r executives, Asa Whitaker, who worked to set up the
Arkansas quality management program, which was the f i r s t state
government-wide program of i t s kind i n the entire United States of
America. Today that company i s j u s t i f i a b l y the large manufacturing
winner of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award for 1993.
I t ' s a $4-billion company with almost 18,000 employees
in the manufacture of chemicals, fibers, and p l a s t i c s for customers
around the world. Under Ernest Davenport's leadership, the company
has concentrated on teamwork aimed at quality management, and a
r e l e n t l e s s effort to exceed customers' expectations.
I t ' s a strategy that works. For the l a s t four years,
more than 70 percent of i t s 7,000 customers have ranked Eastman as
t h e i r number one supplier.
I say, also, that my experience with t h i s company and
the quality management work we did i s one of the reasons that we
decided to undertake the national performance review of the federal
government, under the Vice President's leadership. And i n that
connection, I ask a l l of you to help us to achieve some of the
systematic reforms that we are searching for that require some
approval from the Congress, especially the reform of the personnel,
the budgeting, and most importantly, the procurement systems of the
government. We could save a l o t more money and increase our
productivity i f we were free to do that.
Chuck Roberts, the Vice President of Ames Rubber
Corporation of Hamburg, New Jersey, said there are probably more
people i n t h i s auditorium today than a l l the people who work at Ames.
(Laughter.) Now, when I read t h i s , I found myself up here when Ron
Brown was speaking trying to count the number of people i n the
MORE
�- 4 -
auditorium. (Laughter.) Four hundred and f i f t y people work at Ames,
and I think there are at least 100 more than that here today.
But i t ' s quality and not quantity that's being measured.
S t i l l , even with 450 employees, Ames i s the largest manufacturer in
the world of r o l l e r s for mid- to large-size copiers. I t ' s the small
business winner of t h i s year's Baldrige Award. At Ames, i t ' s not
unusual to find second- and third-generation employees with the
company. The atmosphere i s l i k e family and l i k e a team. Workers
even c a l l each other teammates. Every worker belongs to at least one
of 40 company groups dedicated to quality improvement. The impact of
these groups c o l l e c t i v e l y has been dramatic. Since 1989, i t ' s
increased productivity by 48 percent. And in the l a s t five years,
teammate ideas have saved the company and i t s customers more than $3
million. As a small producer and a large industry, Ames President
and Chief Executive Officer, Joel Marvil, has made h i s company a
model in applying quality management.
One thing that distinguishes these two companies i s that
both have expanded the idea of partnership between companies and
suppliers, between workers and managers, even partnership with the
environment. Both these companies have been industry leaders in
environmental safety, and t h e i r success has further proved that the
choice between growth and the environment i s a false one. In the
end, we must find a way to have both.
In our nation, we know we have the brightest managers,
the best workers and the most advanced technologies. But we also
have to prove that we can a l l put i t together in ways that lead to
increasing productivity, increasing jobs and increasing incomes.
I couldn't help thinking as I was reviewing the history
of those of you who are winning t h i s award today that i f more
American companies operated l i k e you do, there would be much l e s s
anxiety when we have to make changes l i k e we did when we had to
decide what to do about NAFTA, because a l o t of opposition to NAFTA
r e a l l y had nothing to do with the terms of the agreement, but instead
had to do with the incredible anxiety that working people f e l t that
t h e i r jobs and t h e i r incomes and t h e i r families weren't r e a l l y a l l
that important to t h e i r employers; and that i f there was some sort of
short-term advantage to be gained by a company, even i f i t led to the
long-term damage to t h e i r families, that the advantage would be
chosen over the family.
When you look at the long-term productivity of the kinds
of companies that are r e a l l y proving that you can make good money in
America by using new partnerships with your workers, you see a level
of security and t r u s t and almost fanatic devotion to the cause of the
enterprise — that i f we had i t everywhere, i t would be much easier
for America to take the steps we need to broaden our horizons, to
reach out to other countries, to increase trade.
So I thank you for that, and I hope other companies w i l l
follow your example because we need more people at work happy, secure
and supporting the objectives that you have supported. (Applause.)
Make no mistake about i t , the winners of the Baldrige
Award have done a great service for America, and they have done a
service that only the private sector can provide in t h i s great
c a p i t a l economy. This i s a free enterprise system. Government has
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to set a framework, to promote growth policy, to do
those things which cannot be done in the private sector. But in the
end we r i s e or f a l l economically, based on whether our system i s
working for the benefit of the people that labor in i t day in and day
out. And given the fact that so much of our security today and in
the future i s a question of our economic security and our a b i l i t y to
compete and win, I think i t i s nowhere near an overstatement to say
that these two companies, Ames Rubber and Eastman Chemical, have done
MORE
�- 5 -
a great service not j u s t to themselves, t h e i r employees and t h e i r
customers, but to the United States. And we congratulate them today.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
(The awards are presented.)
END
10:52 A.M. EST
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For
Iimediate Release
November 30, 1993
PRESS BRIEFING
BY
U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE AMBASSADOR MICKEY KANTOR
The Briefing Room
1:52 P.M.
EST
MS. MYERS: Without further ado, Ambassador Kantor.
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: Good afternoon. I have no formal
opening statement, but obviously t h i s i s a l l ON THE RECORD. I leave
for Brussels t h i s evening for two days of negotiations with the
European Community, headed by t h e i r Trade Commissioner S i r Leon
Brittan. We hope to make progress i n the Uruguay Round i n order to
f i n i s h t a l k s that began i n 1986.
When we came into office, the President made i t clear
that he wanted the Uruguay Round finished by the end of the year. We
asked for a fast track extension, the Congress gave i t to us. I t ' s
the f i r s t trade b i l l , by the way, to ever pass i n American history
that was not amended.
In order to reinvigorate the round, the President called
for a market access agreement by the G-7 meeting i n Tokyo. That was
successful. The Round was reinvigorated, and we reengaged at that
point. Obviously, there have been some concerns along the way,
including the French concerns, over the B l a i r House Agreement in
Agriculture.
As you know, what the Round i s attempting to do i s very
simple, i s , lower barriers to trade around the world, which i s much
in the interest of the United States and our workers, because we have
the most productive workers i n the world today. To lower these
barriers around the world, t a r i f f and non-tariff, and to protect
services as well as i n t e l l e c t u a l property means we've taken advantage
of the most productive workers i n the world with growing jobs here at
home.
I t ' s estimated that i f and when the Round becomes a
r e a l i t y , that we'll grow about 2 million jobs, net, over the next 13
years, we'll increase, cumulative, the U.S. gross product over 10
years by $1 t r i l l i o n . The world gross product, over that term, by
the way, w i l l increase $6 t r i l l i o n , and of course, t h i s w i l l lead to
global growth, which i s also i n our i n t e r e s t .
I ' l l be delighted to take questions.
Q
Regarding some of the reports the Japanese are
getting ready to open the r i c e market i n time for the December 15th
deadline, what do you think of those reports? Are they encouraging,
or have you had the time to look at them?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: I've seen the same reports. I'm not
going to have any s p e c i f i c comment on those. But we are obviously
interested i n market access i n agriculture throughout the world.
I t ' s important that we get what they c a l l "current access," that
means a current level — we s t a r t at that base — or a minimum max as
in certain products that haven't been opened, as well as we begin to
�- 2 -
lower t a r i f f b a r r i e r s in agriculture, which i s one of our biggest
export products — i t ' s 10 percent of our exports to the world.
And so, as the reports coming out of Japan and other
places, that's encouraging; but, of course, we have no agreement.
Q
Ambassador Kantor, i s B l a i r House open or closed at
t h i s point? And i f i t ' s open, i s that going to jeopardize s p e c i f i c
agreements that would be harmful to s p e c i f i c sectors of American
agriculture — namely soybeans, corn —
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: Yes. We w i l l not renegotiate or
reopen the B l a i r House Agreement i t s e l f . However, within the market
access discussions, there's plenty of f l e x i b i l i t y in order to be
hopeful to everyone in order to open trade in agriculture, not only
the European Community, but around the world. And I think within
that, we have f l e x i b i l i t y .
Q
in B l a i r House?
Does that change the subsidy numbers, for instance,
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: We've not discussed changing the
subsidy numbers. I t ' s the cut in subsidies, j u s t to make sure,
because I'm not over here much. The cut in subsidy numbers have not
been discussed, and w i l l not be discussed. That number w i l l remain
the same.
Q
Ambassador Kantor, December 15th i s the date for
the expiration of fast track, there's only 15 days l e f t . You're
going to Europe. I s President Clinton also personally involved,
speaking to European leaders?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: President Clinton spoke to President
Kohl yesterday. He's been f u l l y engaged since the beginning of t h i s
administration in trade, whether i t ' s been the market access
agreement or the framework agreement with Japan, or obviously with
the North American Free Trade Agreement and the side agreements, and
of course, the congressional approval of the NAFTA, and he's much
involved i n these discussions as well.
Q
Ambassador Kantor, as B l a i r House does not cover
the whole of U.S.-European agricultural trade, and after French Prime
Minister Balladur made a most conciliatory statement, do you see any
room for a compromise i f not d i r e c t l y i n B l a i r House, but in global
terms, on agriculture?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: Prime Minister Balladur's statement,
which I read in our local newspaper t h i s morning, were very helpful.
They show a f l e x i b i l i t y , I think, that i s welcome at t h i s point. But
l e t me make i t clear, we want a good agreement, not j u s t any
agreement. We've had that position from the very f i r s t . A good
Uruguay Round agreement means more jobs for American workers, growing
c a p i t a l base, lower costs for American consumers, and more
productivity for our workers.
That i s i n the U.S. interest as well as i n the interest
of global growth. And so we want to make sure that what we come out
with protects our trade laws, opens up market access in goods, that
i s , lowering trade b a r r i e r s to goods around the world — the socalled zero for zero categories, as we go to zero in many areas as
we've already agreed on nine areas, that we open up agriculture, that
we open up trade and services especially f i n a n c i a l services, and that
we, as I said before, protect our trade laws and, as they say,
d i s c i p l i n e subsidies, make sure that we both put a cap on as well as
l i m i t the number of subsidies for production marketing and other
areas which d i s t o r t trade around the world.
MORE
�- 3 -
Q
From a budget standpoint, assuming that GATT i s
successful, what w i l l be the cost, a ballpark cost, of the l o s t
t a r i f f s , and how i s the administration proposing to pay i t to GATT?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: Well, frankly, i f you're talking
about pay-go, that's one thing. I f you're talking t h e r e ' l l be in
fact, we'll get more revenues from i t than i t costs i n l o s t t a r i f f s
by multiples. I t i s , i n fact, an economic winner in terms of
revenues into the federal treasury. In terms of the so-called s t a t i c
budget concept of pay-go system, i t ' s estimated, I think, over 10
years — $20 b i l l i o n over 10 years i n lowering t a r i f f s . But, of
course, that i s — a t a r i f f i s only a tax on consumers, i t ' s r e a l l y a
tax break for consumers, we'll get more money than that into the
federal treasury and we'll do what we did i n the NAFTA under the paygo system, we'll find a way to pay for i t .
Q
What are the p o s s i b i l i t i e s ?
What are the options
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: Well, you'll have to ask Mr. Panetta
for that.
Q
In terms of what's at stake for the American
economy, could you compare the gains with the passage of NAFTA with
those that s t i l l l i e ahead with the — of GATT? And explain the
discrepancy between the intensive effort that the President devoted
to the NAFTA fight and the r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e attention he's given to
t h i s one?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: Well, I wouldn't — that's your
characterization, not my characterization. We've been talking about
the Uruguay Round since the — January 21 was when I was sworn i n .
In fact, we talked about i t during the t r a n s i t i o n period. The
Uruguay Round had been going on seven years — the President was
ambitious and I think for good reason — to get t h i s done t h i s year
because we're running out of, r e a l l y , p o l i t i c a l momentum i n getting a
Uruguay Round done. The President has paid a tremendous amount of
attention to the Round. Obviously, the NAFTA was more prominent i n
the media because there was a fight in Congress over the NAFTA. That
doesn't mean we haven't spent a tremendous amount of time on the
Round i t s e l f .
Q
What about the stake for the U.S. economy —
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: The stakes — obviously, when you're
talking about lowering barriers to trade i n over 110 countries, i t
has enormous potential economic impact. I t has psychological — a
positive psychological impact at f i r s t , even i f i t passes, with
stagnant economies i n Europe and Japan. I t would be helpful even in
that regard. I t certainly w i l l be helpful, as I indicated, adding
about $6 t r i l l i o n over 10 years to global growth.
The NAFTA, of course, begins i n North America as i t
extends into the second fastest-growing region i n the world, which i s
Latin America, where 4 00 million people l i v e south of the Rio Grande.
I t w i l l have more and more economic impact. But, obviously,
immediately, the Uruguay Round w i l l have more economic impact than
NAFTA would have.
Q
Ambassador Kantor, regarding Japanese r i c e markets,
Secretary Espy was saying t h i s morning that the reported Japanese
proposal to increase the minimum market access from 3 percent to 5
percent to 4 percent to 8 percent over a six-year period would be the
kind of meaningful market access as a meaningful quid pro quo for the
d i f f i c u l t y of — do you think that — for the Japanese — to be able
to accept immediate c l a r i f i c a t i o n — what i s your comment to that?
MORE
�- 4-
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: My comment i s , minimum access i s
c r i t i c a l i n t h i s area, whether i t ' s opening up the Japanese r i c e
market or the r i c e market i n Korea, or opening up other agricultural
markets around the world. That's why the minimum access concept
comes into the Round i t s e l f . I don't want to comment on the s p e c i f i c
figures, I ' l l l e t Secretary Espy comment on those.
Q
S i r , i s the United States prepared to make any
concessions whatsoever at t h i s point to get an agreement that you're
s a t i s f i e d with, given the suggestions i n both Asia and Europe that
some concessions from the United States w i l l have to come forward?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: W want a good agreement, not j u s t
e
any agreement, in that there i s a l o t of f l e x i b i l i t y . This i s the
largest lowering of trade, t a r i f f and non-tariff barriers, trade
b a r r i e r s i n history. Within that, there i s f l e x i b i l i t y , I believe,
on a l l sides. However, there's certain principles that we're going
to adhere of — once, there has to be an enhancement of the market
access package in goods. Second, there has to be a market access
opening i n agriculture. Third, we cannot have the kind of
r e s t r i c t i o n s on audio-visual that are currently contemplated in what
i s called the draft f i n a l act. That i s a draft text that has been on
the table for three or four years now. We need the completion of a
government procurement package. W need active assistance in order
e
to open up financial services, especially in Japan. We want to make
sure that some basic changes are made with regard to the environment,
and we want the protection of our trade laws.
Much of that has been accomplished, some hasn't. That's
what's going to be required as an outline for a good agreement.
However, l e t me make i t clear that there's a l o t of f l e x i b i l i t y
within that.
Q
Mr. Kantor, President Clinton made several promises
to Texas state members before the NAFTA vote related to provisions he
would seek for t e x t i l e s i n GATT — s p e c i f i c a l l y a 15-year phaseout on
MFA. Have you had any sort of indication from the European Community
on how they're feeling about those promises, or whether they are
receptive?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: That proposal has been tabled. Not
tabled i n the sense of Congress, i t ' s been put on the table.
Q
Have you had any kind of reaction from the
Europeans?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: W did not discuss i t at our
e
meetings l a s t week, we have j u s t put i t — I assume i t w i l l be —
something that w i l l be discussed in the next 48 or 72 hours.
Q
That's one of the things you'll be talking about?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: Oh, yes.
not
Q
What are the administration's options should Canada
proclaim NAFTA —
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: W have f u l l confidence that NAFTA
e
w i l l be proclaimed by Canada.
Q
What are your options i f they don't?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: We have f u l l confidence i t ' l l be
proclaimed by Canada.
Q
What are you w i l l i n g to say the likelihood i s ?
MORE
�- 5-
Q
I've been observing the performance of the
President very closely. I saw h i s success on NAFTA, h i s t r i p to
Seattle with the Asian countries, now Central American countries have
come here. Secretary Brown i s in South Africa making a — I wonder
i f you believe that that that — in Africa w i l l be extended to the
whole continent, and that that w i l l produce by s e l l i n g our products
and service to that continent here for the American people — in that
way the labor movement w i l l be more — with the President before
NAFTA. How do you respond?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: Anytime we can, on a f a i r basis,
open up new markets and be able to s e l l our products on a
nondiscriminatory basis given the fact we're the most competitive
workers i n the world today, the United States i s put in a good
position; we'll grow jobs. I t also, frankly, i s good for the
countries you're dealing with.
Let me give you an example: We, of course, have a trade
surplus with a l l of Latin America from south of the Rio Grande. I n
spite of that trade surplus, Latin America has grown many jobs over
the l a s t five years, their economies are growing at a very impressive
rate. For instance, the Chilean economy l a s t year grew by 10
percent; they had only four percent unemployment; they had a trade
surplus and a budget surplus with the world, they had a trade surplus
with the world. But they had the trade d e f i c i t with us, yet
importing U.S. goods, building t h e i r industries, being able to
compete both within South America and with other countries has been
helpful to Latin America, as I think i t would be helpful to Africa.
So, opening markets, exporting goods i s not necessarily,
j u s t because you import goods doesn't mean i t ' s good, not does i t
necessarily mean, sometimes we exports goods — i t i s helpful.
Exports generally create higher paying jobs, about 17 percent on the
average, and create about 19,000 jobs for every b i l l i o n dollars more
in exports. So, i t ' s in our interest when you have the kind of
productive workers that we have.
Q
Ambassador Kantor, i f you're going to meet the
December 15th deadline, what do you need to achieve i n these next 48
hours? And do you agree with Prime Minister Balladur that you need
to get a draft agreement to the national governments by the end of
the week?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: I'm not quite sure what Prime
Minister Balladur meant by a draft agreement. We'd l i k e to make good
progress i n the next 72 hours. W believe i t ' s possible. What S i r
e
Leon Brittan i s able to put on the table for h i s GATT counsel meeting
on Thursday night i s a matter of, I guess, interpretation whether
i t ' s a draft, l e t ' s assume we make good progress — a draft agreement
or outlines of an agreement or whatever. I don't think we need to
deal in semantics here. Obviously we want to make progress, i t ' s
part of a process of then going back to Geneva and m u l t i l a t e r a l i z i n g
our agreement with over 110 countries.
Q
Leading up to the NAFTA week, two weeks out you a l l
were w i l l i n g to say that i t would pass. What w i l l you say the
probability or p o s s i b i l i t y of t h i s f i n a l agreement being reached i s ?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: I f we get to a good agreement, i t ' l l
be — we'll be successful. But i t has to be a good agreement in our
terms.
Q
What's the p o s s i b i l i t y of getting a good agreement?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: I am not very good at odds making.
Q
Are you optimistic, pessimistic?
MORE
�- 6-
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: I'm not pessimistic.
(Laughter.)
Q
I s there one particular area — you mentioned a
couple of sticking points between you and the EC. I s there one
p a r t i c u l a r area that you're especially hopeful for, that you think
that you and the EC are closest to resolving?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: I wouldn't pick out any particular
area. W made progress l a s t week i n a number of areas. Obviously
e
agriculture has hung up the Round year after year after year. I t ' s
the one people have paid the most attention to i n terms of a
p a r t i c u l a r problem area. W hope we can make progress i n that i n
e
order to open up other areas for discussion — not only for
discussion, but resolution — that are obviously c r i t i c a l .
Q
Prime Minister Balladur made no secret of his
desire to t r y and overcome the recession i n Europe by getting a GATT
agreement. How much p o l i t i c a l momentum do you think the recessionary
concerns are adding to the negotiating process? And could i t be the
force that gets t h i s thing over the top?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: I t ' s very d i f f i c u l t to answer.
You'd have to assume intent or motivation on the part of people
without being able to look into t h e i r minds. Obviously, the Prime
Minister Balladur has said, and so has President Kohl, that the
European economy needs a jumpstart.
We've always believed that the Uruguay Round, the NAFTA,
the market acts agreement i n Tokyo, a framework agreement with Japan,
a l l combined together are opening markets, expanding trade and giving
a psychological boost to the world's economy i f you put them a l l
together. The Round i s an important part of that. Can we s t i l l
accomplish global growth without the Round? Yes, we can. I s i t
easier with a Round? Yes, much easier. And i t would be helpful, I
think, both i n Europe and Japan and around the world for confidence
— for the sake of confidence. I t w i l l obviously be helpful
economically i n the short run as well as long run.
But I can't assess motivation on the part of the
European Community. You'd have to ask them.
Q
Do you think you can work out the outstanding
issues with Canada about NAFTA through side l e t t e r s , and w i l l Mexico
be asked to be part of that?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: F i r s t of a l l , t h i s i s a t r i - n a t i o n a l
agreement and Mexico i s asked to be part of everything we do i n t h i s ,
as well as the United States, as well as Canada. Number two, we're
f u l l y confident that we can reach a reasonable agreement with Canada
on the issues of subsidies and — reviewing those issues that they
have raised. And we look forward to t h e i r proclamation, or
proclaiming the NAFTA.
Thank you.
Q
How about the —
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: I think the form of i t i s r e a l l y
irrelevant at t h i s point.
Q
What about the energy aspects — the Canadian
concerns about energy?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: We've made i t very clear we're not
going to renegotiate the energy provisions.
END
2:12 P.M. EST
�THE WHITE HOUSE
O f f i c e o f the Press Secretary
For I i m e d i a t e Release
November 1, 1993
PRESS BRIEFING
BY DEE DEE MYERS
The B r i e f i n g Room
2:42
P.M. EDT
MS. MYERS: A couple o f quick announcements. F i r s t , t h e
President i s s i g n i n g l e g i s l a t i o n today t o a b o l i s h the wool and mohair
subsidy. This w i l l save $514 m i l l i o n between F i s c a l '94 and F i s c a l
'98. I t ' s a two-year phase-down, completely phases out the subsidies
by December 31, 1995.
Q
No p i c t u r e ?
MS. MYERS: We might have t o do a White House photo
release and video release o f t h i s momentous occasion. But we said we
were going t o e l i m i n a t e the wool and mohair s o c i e t i e s , and i t has
been — $514 m i l l i o n over four years, '94 t o '98.
Q
What's taken so long t o do i t ?
Q
Has he been sheepish about t h i s ?
Q
(Laughter.)
Oooh.
(Laughter.)
MS. MYERS: That was a l i n e worthy of K n o l l e r .
Okay, j u s t t o recap the NAFTA schedule f o r the r e s t o f
the week. As you know, the President spoke t o the Chamber today.
That was p u l l e d down a t approximately 1,000 s i t e s around the country.
Tomorrow a t 2:00 p.m. i n the East Room t h e r e w i l l be an event where a
group o f d i s t i n g u i s h e d Americans f o r NAFTA w i l l t a l k about i t . I t
w i l l include former Secretaries o f State, Nobel Prize-winning
economists, other c i v i c leaders i n c l u d i n g former President Carter.
On Wednesday, the President w i l l probably do some NAFTAr e l a t e d meetings i n the morning, perhaps phone c a l l s . He's done a
number o f phone c a l l s today. Then the President and the F i r s t Lady
w i l l t r a v e l t o the P i t t s b u r g h area t o t a l k about h e a l t h care. This
w i l l be p a r t of an ongoing campaign by both the President and the
F i r s t Lady t o promote h e a l t h care. They w i l l go t o a l i b r a r y —
w e ' l l have more d e t a i l s on t h a t .
On Thursday, the President w i l l t r a v e l t o Lexington,
Kentucky, f o r a NAFTA event. I t w i l l be t o a p l a n t . We haven't
s e t t l e d on the s p e c i f i c one y e t . But h e ' l l t o u r one o f the hightech f a c i l i t i e s t h e r e and t a l k w i t h workers about the b e n e f i t s of
NAFTA.
On Friday, he w i l l probably make more phone c a l l s and
perhaps more meetings, and there's also a b i p a r t i s a n congressional
meeting on Friday, which w i l l cover a number o f t o p i c s , i n c l u d i n g
NAFTA.
Then the r a d i o address on Saturday i s the only t h i n g on
f o r the weekend as o f t h i s moment.
MORE
#127-11/01
�- 2-
Q
Why does t h e F i r s t Lady b e l i e v e t h a t the insurance
i n d u s t r y has got t o be pushed back, and i t ' s got t o loosen i t s g r i p
on h e a l t h care? She was very tough i n her comments today.
MS. MYERS: C e r t a i n l y — the insurance i n d u s t r y has
spent $6 m i l l i o n already on an ad campaign t o t r y t o change t h e focus
of t h e debate. I t h i n k the F i r s t Lady wants t o make c l e a r , as does
the President, t h a t p a r t i c u l a r l y the President w i l l spend a l o t o f
time t a l k i n g about u n i v e r s a l i t y of h e a l t h care, t h a t everybody has t o
be covered.
That i s a p r i n c i p l e on which there can be no
equivocation. The President i s committed t o i t .
The insurance i n d u s t r y , some i n s u r e r s are against t h a t ,
because i t w i l l take away t h e i r r i g h t t o a b o l i s h coverage i f people
get s i c k ; t o e l i m i n a t e people from coverage i f they have a
p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n ; or t o r a i s e rates i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y . Those
p r a c t i c e s w i l l be eliminated under the President's plan. And not
s u r p r i s i n g l y , there's some o p p o s i t i o n t o i t . So t h e President and
the F i r s t Lady and the r e s t o f the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s going t o campaign
very hard t o make the p o i n t , t h e President's plan w i l l cover
everybody; i t w i l l provide a package of b e n e f i t s t h a t can never be
taken away.
Q
I s t h i s p a r t l y d r i v e n by the f a c t t h a t , a t l e a s t
the p o l l i n g t e l l s us, the insurance i n d u s t r y i s very unpopular w i t h
the American people? I mean, do you need a bogeyman i n order t o
b u i l d support f o r h e a l t h care?
MS. MYERS: Well, I t h i n k i t goes t o the fundamental
issues of t h e campaign. The President i s u n w i l l i n g t o compromise on
the issue o f u n i v e r s a l coverage. There are many i n the insurance
i n d u s t r y who are against t h a t . I t h i n k the p o i n t i s t h a t t h e
President and t h e F i r s t Lady and others are going t o take on anybody.
I f anybody wants t o have a f i g h t about whether the coverage should be
u n i v e r s a l , t h a t ' s a f i g h t we're going t o have. I t i s a p o i n t on
which the President i s not w i l l i n g t o compromise.
Q
I s t h a t a yes t o the bogeyman?
(Laughter.)
MS. MYERS: This i s — we want t o have a very vigorous
debate about these issues, and I t h i n k the President's going t o make
his p o s i t i o n c l e a r , and the F i r s t Lady w i l l as w e l l .
Q
Has Mrs. C l i n t o n been i n touch w i t h the insurance
i n d u s t r y a l l along i n the preparation? Have they worked together a t
a l l on t h i s ?
MS. MYERS: Sure. There have been a number o f
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from a v a r i e t y o f i n d u s t r i e s i n c l u d i n g the insurance
i n d u s t r y as t h i s plan has been prepared over the past e i g h t months.
Q
So they had some input i n t o the plan?
MS. MYERS: Sure, of course. There were a number of
p u b l i c hearings. We've heard from them e x t e n s i v e l y . They simply
disagree on a number o f important issues. As you know, a t t h e
c u r r e n t — t h e c u r r e n t circumstances, the insurance i n d u s t r y can drop
somebody i f they g e t sick. The insurance i n d u s t r y can say, o r
c e r t a i n companies can say, t h a t i f you have a p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n ,
you can't g e t h e a l t h coverage. They can r a i s e your rates
i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y i n many places. Those are p r a c t i c e s t h a t w i l l no
longer be allowed. And those are t h i n g s the President and t h e F i r s t
Lady are very committed t o .
MORE
#127-11/01
�- 3-
Q
The President has campaigned f o r some Democrats,
stayed out o f some races. Does he expect t o have any k i n d of an
e f f e c t tomorrow, any k i n d o f c o a t t a i l s ?
MS. MYERS: I t h i n k we have — the President has
campaigned f o r a couple o f candidates who believe t h a t t h a t would be
h e l p f u l . And we hope t h a t i t has been. Governor F l o r i o , f o r
example, and Mayor Dinkins, two people who the President supports and
has made no secret o f t h a t support. We'll see what happens tomorrow.
Q
Does he believe i n general t h a t p r e s i d e n t s can have
c o a t t a i l e f f e c t s i n terms o f g e t t i n g out a vote as opposed t o r a i s i n g
money?
MS. MYERS: Well, I t h i n k t h a t g e n e r a l l y e l e c t i o n s l i k e
t h i s t u r n on l o c a l issues. But i n these cases where t h e l o c a l — the
candidates, the Governor and the Mayor i n t h i s case, thought i t would
be h e l p f u l , the President went and t r i e d t o be h e l p f u l ; t h i n k s t h a t
they've done a good j o b and should be r e e l e c t e d . So, h o p e f u l l y , i t
helps. But there's no way t o know.
Q
Do you see any k i n d o f referendum on the President
i n any o f these e l e c t i o n s on h i s performance?
MS. MYERS: No. But I do t h i n k i n both cases there i s a
— they share a common agenda. I n New Jersey, Governor F l o r i o ' s
fought hard f o r t h i n g s l i k e welfare reform and gun c o n t r o l , changes
i n access t o weapons. Those are t h i n g s t h e President supports. He's
also fought hard f o r f i s c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y — the same t h i n g i s t r u e
i n New York. Mayor Dinkins has fought f o r a number o f t h i n g s the
President believes i n . So t o the extent t h a t he can help them or a t
l e a s t t r y t o help them be r e e l e c t e d , he i s w i l l i n g t o do t h a t . But
there's no way t o know.
Q
I n V i r g i n i a , A l l e n has made something o f an issue
of Mary Sue Terry's t i e s t o the C l i n t o n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Do you t h i n k
t h a t ' s going t o have any kind of e f f e c t w i t h voters?
MS. MYERS: That remains t o be seen. But again, where
the l o c a l organizations thought i t would be h e l p f u l , t h e President
t r i e d t o help.
Q
The insurance i n d u s t r y says t h a t a t t h e time they
ran t h e i r choice ad i t was accurate. Why does the F i r s t Lady t h i n k
i t was a great l i e ?
MS. MYERS: I t ' s never been accurate. Most companies —
or many companies now who o f f e r h e a l t h coverage t o t h e i r employees
only o f f e r one o p t i o n , i f they o f f e r coverage a t a l l . Under the
President's plan everybody would be covered through t h e i r employer
and everybody would have, i n the o r i g i n a l plan, a t l e a s t three
options. That was c e r t a i n l y never guaranteed — i s n o t guaranteed
under t h e e x i s t i n g system. So i t ' s always been t r u e t h a t the
President's plan expands choice f o r consumers.
Q
The President s a i d on September 22nd t h a t the vast
m a j o r i t y o f Americans would get as good or b e t t e r b e n e f i t s f o r —
without paying more. And now i t seems t o t u r n out t h a t 4 0 percent
w i l l pay more. Most o f those w i l l get b e t t e r b e n e f i t s , b u t they w i l l
a c t u a l l y pay more. There seems t o have been some slippage i n t h a t —
MS. MYERS: No, no, i t ' s not t h a t simple. S i x t y percent
of people w i l l pay t h e same or less f o r the same or b e t t e r b e n e f i t s .
Twenty-five percent o f people w i l l pay more i n insurance premiums f o r
b e t t e r coverage. Now, i t ' s impossible t o gauge f o r a l l those people
whether t h e i r out-of-pocket expenses w i l l a c t u a l l y go up. I f you pay
a low premium and have a $5,000 d e d u c t i b l e , your out-of-pocket
MORE
#127-11/01
�- 4-
insurance c o s t s , i f you use medical services a t a l l , are higher than
your premium. Under the President's plan, your deductibles w i l l be
l i m i t e d and the cost of your premium w i l l go down s u b s t a n t i a l l y .
And then there's t h a t 15 percent who are mostly young,
healthy people, who through community r a t i n g s w i l l see t h e i r rates go
up somewhat. But t h a t ' s a modest increase f o r most of those people.
And — l e t me make one other p o i n t — we're t a l k i n g about the f i r s t
year. We're t a l k i n g about the p o i n t of beginning. As the p l a n i s
implemented and the cost c o n t r o l s take e f f e c t , people's o v e r a l l
insurance costs w i l l continue t o d e c l i n e . And so more people w i l l
see b e t t e r b e n e f i t s . And t h a t doesn't take i n t o account the greatest
b e n e f i t of a l l , which i s y o u ' l l have a guaranteed package o f b e n e f i t s
t h a t can never be taken away.
Now, even i f you're healthy and 25, i f you become sick
you could lose your insurance, you could develop a p r e e x i s t i n g
c o n d i t i o n which would mean t h a t you would never be able t o get
insurance again. A l l of those fears w i l l be a l l e v i a t e d under the
President's p l a n .
Q
Two f o r e i g n p o l i c y ones f o r today's newspapers. On
China, why i s the U.S. s o f t e n i n g i t s p o l i c y now when at the same time
i t ' s been g i v i n g human r i g h t s warnings?
MS. MYERS: We're absolutely not s o f t e n i n g our p o l i c y .
Our p o l i c y has never been t o i s o l a t e China. Our p o l i c y has always
been t o engage China; t o t a l k about the issues o f concern t o us,
p a r t i c u l a r l y human r i g h t s , t r a d e , and n o n p r o l i f e r a t i o n issues. This
i s p a r t of an ongoing attempt t o continue t o work w i t h China t o
promote our concerns; t o maintain a dialogue t h a t w i l l help address
our concerns.
That's why we attached c o n d i t i o n s t o renewal of MFN;
t h a t ' s why we added sanctions when — over the sale of M - l l
technology. We w i l l continue t o press our agenda w i t h the Chinese —
but through engagement as opposed t o i s o l a t i o n . I t ' s never been our
p o l i c y t o i s o l a t e them.
Q
And the r e p o r t s about s e l l i n g m i s s i l e s t o Taiwan,
i s t h a t p a r t o f the same t h i n g , an e f f o r t t o balance r e l a t i o n s
between the two?
MS. MYERS: What r e p o r t s of s e l l i n g m i s s i l e s t o Taiwan?
Q
I t came out l a s t week — t h a t was a Taiwanese
newspaper r e p o r t , the U.S. i s s e l l i n g shoulder m i s s i l e s t o Taiwan.
MS. MYERS: I'm u n f a m i l i a r w i t h t h a t , and I c e r t a i n l y
w i l l get back t o you on i t . But our p o l i c y toward China has not
changed.
Q
Do you have a f i g u r e , e i t h e r number of people or
percentage, who would be paying more i n h e a l t h care premiums i f the
present system were allowed t o continue?
MS. MYERS: Paying more than they pay now? I t h i n k t h a t
there's no question t h a t t h e i r h e a l t h premiums w i l l continue t o go
up, as they have every year f o r the past X number of years. Health
costs —
Q
I s t h a t 100 percent, everybody's premiums? I n
other words, have you f o l k s provided some a n a l y s i s t o show how many
more Americans would see t h e i r premiums go up i f nothing i s done as
against how many more Americans w i l l see t h e i r premiums go up under
the President's plan?
MS. MYERS: I ' l l take the question and see i f we have
t h a t s p e c i f i c a l l y broken down. As you know, our estimates are t h a t
MORE
#127-11/01
�_ 5-
h e a l t h spending w i l l go from what i t c u r r e n t l y i s t o n e a r l y 2 0
percent o f the GDP by the year 2000. That i s a s u b s t a n t i a l increase
and somebody i s going t o have t o be paying f o r i t . I t w i l l come
mostly from h e a l t h consumers. But I ' l l see i f we have i t broken down
by — s i m i l a r t o the s t a t i s t i c s about under the plan.
Q
This morning you said you were t a k i n g a question
from us about whether the President keeps a d i a r y or any k i n d of
thing l i k e that.
MS. MYERS: I don't know what prompted t h a t .
(Laughter.) The President said t h a t he occasionally takes notes
which are a p a r t of the White House record, h i s t o r i c record, and he
also p e r i o d i c a l l y d i c t a t e s i n t o a tape recorder.
Q
Has he made any arrangements or any plans w i t h any
biographers the way t h a t Bush did?
Q
Would he l i k e one?
MS. MYERS:
Q
You guys can ask him t h a t .
Does he have a tape system i n the Oval Office?
MS. MYERS:
Q
I don't know.
I don't b e l i e v e so.
Can you take that?
MS. MYERS: Sure. I'm sure t h a t there i s — I don't
know i f there's a system s t i l l i n place. I t ' s not i n use i f i t i s .
But I ' l l see. I t h i n k i t ' s been dismantled. (Laughter.) I t h i n k
the lessons of previous presidents are f a i r l y powerful i n t h a t
regard.
Q
What does he do w i t h these tapes? I mean, does he
j u s t put them i n storage? I mean, what does he intend t o do w i t h
these tapes?
record.
MS. MYERS: I t h i n k they're l a r g e l y f o r the h i s t o r i c a l
They're h i s r e c o l l e c t i o n s of events.
Q
W i l l be they be transcribed? Whose — i s there
somebody i n the White House now who's i n charge of t r a n s c r i b i n g these
tapes, o r are they j u s t being stored?
MS. MYERS: I t h i n k they're j u s t being s t o r e d a t t h i s
p o i n t . And I t h i n k a t some p o i n t h e ' l l make a d e c i s i o n about what or
how he wants t o do w i t h them. But a t t h i s p o i n t , I t h i n k i t ' s
something t h a t ' s he's been doing f o r a few months j u s t t o record h i s
impressions o f events as they happen.
Q
Does he do i t at any p a r t i c u l a r time o f the day,
l i k e a t the end of the day —
MS. MYERS: No, I t h i n k he g e n e r a l l y does i t a t the end
of the day, a t night, probably r a t h e r l a t e at n i g h t , i f the past i s
prologue.
Q
(Laughter.)
I s i t a small, hand-held tape recorder?
MS. MYERS: I d i d n ' t get the model and make.
I'm happy t o —
Q
I'm j u s t curious.
Q
Japanese.
MR
OE
#127-11/01
�- 6-
MS. MYERS: Yes —
Ainerican brand.
(laughter) —
I'm sure i t ' s an
Q
He doesn't have t o reach a l l the way across t h e
credenza and t u r n i t on and o f f , does he?
MS. MYERS: I d i d not get the s p e c i f i c technology
i s employed f o r t h i s p r a c t i c e . But i t i s a tape recorder.
that
Q
But you are sure t h a t there i s no recording i n the
Oval O f f i c e of —
MS. MYERS: I ' l l double-check i t .
I mean, we've had
t h i s conversation k i n d of i n j e s t over the course o f the l a s t many
months. But I w i l l — I don't know how i t was set up i n the e a r l y
'70s, f o r example.
Q
Ask David.
Q
Was the President aware of t h e CIA involvement,
payments t o some of t h e m i l i t a r y leaders i n H a i t i ?
MS. MYERS: As you know, we cannot —
Q
Question?
MS. MYERS: CIA — a l l e g a t i o n s about CIA payments t o
H a i t i a n o f f i c i a l s . I t i s an i n t e l l i g e n c e issue and, t h e r e f o r e , I
cannot comment on i t .
Q
— confirmed by members of t h e committee.
MS. MYERS: Nonetheless, i t i s an i n t e l l i g e n c e issue,
and I can't comment on i t .
Q
to
Would the President t h i n k i t would be appropriate
—
MS. MYERS: I j u s t can't comment on i n t e l l i g e n c e
matters.
Q
Again, w i t h regard t o the e l e c t i o n , i f F l o r i o and
Dinkins, who have been helped by the President lose — should lose
tomorrow
or f o r g e t t h a t — how does the White House read the
s i g n i f i c a n c e t o the President o f tomorrow's e l e c t i o n ? What i s t h e
p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e meaning o f tomorrow's e l e c t i o n s ?
MS. MYERS: Well, I t h i n k t h a t they, again, are, as
we've s a i d a l l along through l o c a l e l e c t i o n s , t h a t they are l a r g e l y
about l o c a l issues. To the degree t h a t the President shares an
agenda, o r a t l e a s t a common goal on c e r t a i n issues, he's been
w i l l i n g and happy t o campaign, t o t a l k about those t h i n g s — h e a l t h
care again, v i o l e n c e , f i s c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , whatever. But I t h i n k
l o c a l e l e c t i o n s t u r n l a r g e l y on l o c a l issues. And i f the President
can go down there and help by underscoring some of t h e things t h a t
they share, then he's been happy t o do t h a t .
Q
Let me f o l l o w on t h a t , Dee Dee. I n New Jersey,
i t ' s very possible, f o r example, the F l o r i o e l e c t i o n could t u r n on
t a x increases, which i s hardly n e c e s s a r i l y j u s t a l o c a l issue. I n
f a c t , i t ' s being looked a t as s o r t of a n a t i o n a l bellwether. And
the President had s o r t of a s i m i l a r experience when he f i r s t came i n
o f f i c e here — he increased taxes. Don't you a t l e a s t have t o face
some choices — i f F l o r i o loses tomorrow, people are going t o ,
e s p e c i a l l y Republicans obviously, are going t o p o i n t a t the White
House and say t h i s i s happening n a t i o n a l l y , t o o ; t h e President should
watch out?
MORE
#127-11/01
�- 7-
MS. MYERS: And then i f F l o r i o wins, what are you a l l
going t o say?
Q
Local issues.
(Laughter.)
MS. MYERS: I f you weren't such a good g o l f e r .
Q
I n a l l seriousness, I mean, Republicans obviously
are going t o use t h i s against you i f F l o r i o loses.
MS. MYERS: They're going t o use i t i f F l o r i o loses no
matter what the circumstances are. And, again, we went where the
l o c a l organizations thought i t would be h e l p f u l . We t r i e d t o
underscore issues where the President and the Governor or the
President and the Mayor see t h i n g s i n common. We'll see how t h i n g s
go. We c e r t a i n l y wish him the best of luck. Again, the President
supports both s t r o n g l y and hopes they both win.
Q
— Bosnia before again, The Washington Times s t o r y
on Bosnia — i s the President going t o authorize and increase i n a i r
drops?
MS. MYERS:
answer t o t h a t .
I ' l l have t o take t h a t .
I don't know the
Q
Dee Dee, when you mentioned e a r l i e r the 60-percent
f i g u r e f o r those who would pay the same or less under the President's
p l a n , you're t a l k i n g only about —
MS. MYERS: Premiums. Yes, e x a c t l y , the universe we're
t a l k i n g about here i s people who are p r e s e n t l y p r i v a t e l y insured.
Q
I t ' s a c t u a l l y a 50-50 breakdown or close t o t h a t ,
i s i t not, i f you include the working uninsured now who would
a c t u a l l y have t o pay a l i t t l e more i n the President's plan?
MS. MYERS: Well, the working uninsured don't have any
insurance. So t o go from having nothing t o having something requires
t h a t you have t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h a t . I'm not sure what the exact
f i g u r e i s . I t h i n k t h a t somebody i n one of the committees said l a s t
week i t was 50 percent. But those people don't p r e s e n t l y have
insurance, so i n order t o add them, I t h i n k i t ' s reasonable t o assume
— expect- t h a t they would have t o pay something.
But t h a t s t i l l
doesn't get you t o 100 percent o f the universe because you have
Medicare, Medicaid.
Q
What was the r e a c t i o n i n the White House today t o
the p u b l i c a t i o n of the s t a f f s a l a r i e s ?
MS. MYERS: I t h i n k we're going t o post White House
correspondent s a l a r i e s and then you guys could do a comparable study.
Q
That would put us i n a dilemma.
(Laughter.)
Q
W i l l you d i s c l o s e your sources when you do i t ?
MS. MYERS: Sure. No, I t h i n k there's always a great
deal o f i n t e r e s t i n such s t o r i e s , as you can imagine. Any
o r g a n i z a t i o n where s a l a r i e s are published — I t h i n k i t becomes a
t o p i c o f conversation.
Q
Do you t h i n k the EEOC i s going t o look i n t o the
f a c t t h a t , i n general, women tend t o make less than the men i n the
White House?
MS. MYERS: I don't know.
MORE
Y o u ' l l have t o ask the EEOC.
#127-11/01
�- 8-
Q
Well, should they look i n t o i t ?
MS. MYERS:
I ' l l r e f r a i n from commenting on t h a t .
Q
You say t h i s great i n t e r e s t — but why, since
there's so much i n t e r e s t , why d i d you a l l refuse t o put i t out?
MS. MYERS: Well, we thought i t was a privacy issue. We
t h i n k t h a t — we gave ranges f o r senior s t a f f . Everybody knew what
t h e i r commissions were, whether they were an a s s i s t a n t o r a deputy
a s s i s t a n t , t h e r e f o r e , what t h e i r salary range was.
We thought t h a t
was s u f f i c i e n t .
Q
Has the p u b l i c a t i o n shown any discrepancies t h a t
people f i n d a matter of concern?
Q
Have they asked f o r a raise?
MS. MYERS: Sure, I t h i n k we've done the best we can
throughout t h i s process t o both r e c r u i t people from a l l over the
country, t o have as diverse a s t a f f as we can, both i n terms of
previous experience, i n terms of where they come from i n the country,
i n terms o f t h e i r backgrounds and t h e i r e t h n i c and gender
backgrounds. And I t h i n k , g e n e r a l l y , we've done a good j o b . We've
also t r i e d t o make sure t h a t people's s a l a r i e s are commensurate w i t h
t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Now, I don't t h i n k you can ever do t h a t t o
the s a t i s f a c t i o n of every s i n g l e i n d i v i d u a l i n every s i n g l e instance;
but I t h i n k l a r g e l y we've been successful. And i f there are places
t h a t we need t o make adjustments, I t h i n k w e ' l l look a t where those
adjustments ought t o be made.
Q
So i t ' s j u s t s o r t of something — you t h i n k t h i s
job i s worth and you put a s a l a r y on, there's no c r i t e r i a , there's no
standards?
MS. MYERS: No, I t h i n k there's — sure there's
c r i t e r i a . There's s a l a r y ranges f o r the top s l o t s , which we
published — which we made p u b l i c months ago. And I t h i n k then there
i s c e r t a i n l y h i s t o r y . We looked a t how other White Houses d i d i t ,
how they were organized, how people were p a i d , and t r i e d t o use both
h i s t o r i c a l precedent and our own judgment and our own sense of what
people's f u n c t i o n s were because sometimes they're i n jobs t h a t don't
n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c t the f u l l range of t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . So
i t ' s a v e r y s u b j e c t i v e process, as you know, and we t r i e d t o take as
many f a c t o r s as we could i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . And I t h i n k , generally,
we f e e l t h a t we've done a p r e t t y good j o b . But i t ' s never p e r f e c t
and i f t h e r e ' s ways we can make i t b e t t e r I t h i n k w e ' l l look at t h a t .
Q
I n your claim t o pay l e s s than the Bush
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n people got — compared t o what period of time during
the Bush a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ?
MS. MYERS: Well, there's a congressionally or
l e g i s l a t i v e l y - p e r m i t t e d c e i l i n g which went up a t the end of the Bush
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t o I t h i n k $134,000. We came i n and made j u s t a
judgment t h a t the top s a l a r y range would be $125,000. And so — and
then the other s a l a r i e s were adjusted downward based on t h a t .
Q
The a r t i c l e seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t your claim t o be
paying l e s s than the Bush people i s somewhat of an exaggeration,
since they only got i t f o r l i k e — they only got raises f o r l i k e two
weeks.
MS. MYERS: But we were authorized at t h a t l e v e l , so I
t h i n k i t i s f a i r because we were authorized at t h a t l e v e l . And had
President Bush been r e e l e c t e d , h i s s t a f f would be c u r r e n t l y making a
MR
OE
#127-11/01
�- 9-
higher l e v e l of s a l a r y than what the C l i n t o n White House i s c u r r e n t l y
making.
I would also p o i n t out t h a t we worked very hard t o
reduce the White House s t a f f and t o reduce the o v e r a l l budget of the
White House, which we d i d , although not by 25 percent. But the
o v e r a l l budget of the White House was reduced by some $10 m i l l i o n .
And I t h i n k t h a t ' s a s i g n i f i c a n t accomplishment and i t c e r t a i n l y
wasn't easy. So I t h i n k there's a number of f a c t o r s t h a t have
c o n t r i b u t e d t o the salary s t r u c t u r e . And, again, i f there's some
g l a r i n g discrepancies, w e ' l l be l o o k i n g a t them.
Q
into this.
Are there? Are there any g l a r i n g discrepancies?
MS. MYERS: Not t h a t I know o f . We're only eight hours
I'm sure — give us a few more hours.
Q
I s R i c k i Seidman s t i l l on the p a y r o l l ?
MS. MYERS: R i c k i , yes, and R i c k i — she's not c u r r e n t l y
being paid. She's on a d m i n i s t r a t i v e leave. I t h i n k she begins again
next Monday as D i r e c t o r of Scheduling. And w e ' l l be glad t o have her
back.
Q
I s Bruce Lindsay s t i l l doing personnel, or not
anymore?
MS. MYERS: Yes, he i s .
Q
Yes?
Because The Post had h i s j o b marked as i f i t
had changed.
MS. MYERS: Well, I t h i n k a t some p o i n t i t was always
the expectation t h a t as personnel became less Bruce would t r a n s i t i o n
i n t o another j o b ; t h a t ' s i n the process.
Q
What j o b i s that?
Q
I t hasn't happened y e t , though.
MS. MYERS:
Q
I t hasn't o f f i c i a l l y happened y e t , no.
Who i s that?
MS. MYERS:
Bruce.
Q
What's the r e a c t i o n around here t o The New York
Times Magazine piece on David Gergen yesterday?
MS. MYERS:
Q
I t h i n k there's an o f f i c i a l r e a c t i o n .
What's the u n o f f i c i a l reaction?
MS. MYERS:
I t was an i n t e r e s t i n g piece.
(Laughter.)
Q
I n the Public L i a i s o n O f f i c e , you have two numbertwo p o s i t i o n s , one held by a male and the other by a female. And the
male person gets $90,000 and the female gets $80,000, and yet the
t i t l e s are e x a c t l y the same. I s t h a t d i f f e r e n c e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
regardless of t i t l e ?
MS. MYERS: I would imagine. I can c e r t a i n l y look — I
mean, I don't know i f w e ' l l be l o o k i n g i n t o t h a t , but —
Q
Could you check i n t o that?
MS. MYERS:
Sure.
MORE
#127-11/01
�- 10 -
Q
Has Oakley a r r i v e d i n Somalia?
MS. MYERS: Yes, he a r r i v e d , I b e l i e v e , t h i s morning or
perhaps l a s t n i g h t , but he i s there now.
Q
What are h i s plans?
Q
What — who?
MS. MYERS: Bob Oakley's back i n Somalia as of today.
His plans are t o continue t o work w i t h people on the ground there t o
help the t r a n s i t i o n t h e r e ; t o work w i t h the other A f r i c a n leaders i n
e s t a b l i s h i n g a process f o r both e s t a b l i s h i n g who i s responsible f o r
k i l l i n g of t h e Pakistani peacekeepers l a s t summer and other episodes;
and f o r c r e a t i n g a process t o move t h a t country towards a more stable
government.
Q
I s he no longer under i n v e s t i g a t i o n himself?
MS. MYERS: I don't know. You'd have t o check w i t h the
State Department. I don't know whether they've completed t h a t , or
not, or whether they would t e l l him i f they had.
Q
On Somalia, can you respond t o The Post e d i t o r i a l
t h a t says — the analysis piece t h a t says the President's aims o f
keeping open t h e l i n e s of communication, the d e l i v e r y of services and
s t u f f , have a l l s l i p p e d since the special forces l e f t and the
redeployment and the deemphasis of the search f o r Aideed; and t h a t
some of the reasons the President said we couldn't simply w i t h draw
from Somalia immediately we're not f u l f i l l i n g now; t h a t t h e s t r e e t s
are not as safe as they were and t h a t t h i n g s are not g e t t i n g done?
MS. MYERS: Well, I t h i n k t h a t we would take — I t h i n k
t h i n k s are g e t t i n g done. We're c o n t i n u i n g t o p r o t e c t , as was l a i d
out by the President, supply l i n e s and l i n e s o f communication.
Q
Well, l e t me go over them one a t a time. The
a r t i c l e says t h a t the supply l i n e s are not as open and t h a t the
s t r e e t s are not as safe. Do you deny that?
MS. MYERS: I t h i n k t h a t we are doing the best we can t o
keep the supply l i n e s open. Food i s c o n t i n u i n g t o be d e l i v e r e d .
That i s -something t h a t we remain committed t o . Communications l i n e s
continue t o f u n c t i o n . That i s something t h a t we are committed t o .
There's been a reduction i n h o s t i l i t i e s c e r t a i n l y d i r e c t e d toward
U.S. forces t h e r e and U.N. forces there. That i s c e r t a i n l y something
t h a t we're committed t o . Again, Durant was released, and we f e e l
we're making some progress on e s t a b l i s h i n g a commission w i t h the help
of the A f r i c a n leaders. And Bob Oakley i s back there, and we're
c o n t i n u i n g t o work on i t .
Q
So do you then deny the general t h r u s t of the
a r t i c l e , which was t h a t Somalia i s a more dangerous place and t h a t
d e l i v e r y of a i d i s a less c e r t a i n p r o p o s i t i o n ?
MS. MYERS: Well, t h i n g s are d i f f i c u l t i n Somalia. And
they w i l l continue t o be d i f f i c u l t . The circumstances have always
been — i t ' s never been an easy s i t u a t i o n . Nonetheless, as I said,
supplies are c o n t i n u i n g t o be d e l i v e r e d . The communications l i n e s
continue t o f u n c t i o n . Those are t h i n g s t h a t we've said t h a t our
forces were t h e r e t o maintain. And we expect t o continue t o maintain
it.
Q
Can I then assume t h a t you deny the t h r u s t of the
editorial?
MORE
#127-11/01
�- 11 -
MS. MYERS:
I l e t my answer stand f o r i t s e l f .
Q
On h e a l t h care, do you consider the insurance
i n d u s t r y t o be the main enemy t h a t you've got i n terms of g e t t i n g
t h i s package through Congress?
MS. MYERS: The main enemy i s anybody who i s against
u n i v e r s a l coverage, a minimum — or a comprehensive package of
b e n e f i t s t h a t can never be taken away. Anybody — t h a t i s the
President's bottom l i n e . Anybody who believes t h a t t h a t ' s not a
necessity of the h e a l t h care package i s somebody t h a t we're going t o
disagree w i t h and f i g h t .
Q
Dee Dee, i n Mrs. Clinton's remarks t h i s morning t o
the p e d i a t r i c i a n s , she s a i d t h a t what the doctor should t r y t o do i s
stand up and take t h e decision-making process back, and they should
be t h e ones t o decide. And a l o t o f the c r i t i c s , on the H i l l a t
l e a s t , are saying t h a t the problem w i t h the President's plan i s not
— i t ' s not t h a t t h e decisions w i l l be going back t o the doctors but
t o t h e government. And the White House i t s e l f has s a i d t h a t the
government i s broken, so why give i t t o the government t o handle?
MS. MYERS: That's not t r u e . The President's plan i s
based on a market-driven, p r i v a t e sector system, j u s t as we have now.
The h e a l t h a l l i a n c e s — what the government w i l l do i s set minimum
standards and then get out of the way. I t w i l l be a l a r g e l y marketd r i v e n process. But because you w i l l u n i v e r s a l coverage under the
President's plan, you won't have insurance companies deciding t h i n g s
l i k e who gets covered, how long people can stay, what treatments may
or may not be r e l e v a n t . Those decisions —
Q
Who would make those decisions?
MS. MYERS:
The doctors?
Doctors.
Q
But a l o t of people have f e l t t h a t the reduction i n
medical i n f l a t i o n , the slow-down of the r a t e of increase r e c e n t l y has
been p r e c i s e l y because insurance companies have been r e q u i r i n g
doctors t o j u s t i f y excessive t e s t s , t o shorten h o s p i t a l stays, and t o
intervene i n the process.
MS. MYERS: But what we're going t o look a t i s instead
of — we have a number of other mechanisms t h a t we b e l i e v e w i l l
c o n t r o l -costs, which are covering everybody, promoting t h i n g s l i k e
p r e v e n t i v e care, i n t r o d u c i n g competition i n t o the system t o squeeze
out some of the waste. A number of measures l i k e t h a t t h a t w i l l help
b r i n g down the cost, as opposed t o l e t t i n g insurance companies decide
t h a t four days i s enough when, perhaps, i t ' s not.
Q
Are you going t o have an A s s i s t a n t Attorney General
f o r C i v i l Rights t h i s week?
MS. MYERS:
I t h i n k there's a good chance.
THE PRESS:
A good
Thank you.
chance.
END
3:11 P.M. EDT
#127-11/01
�The White House
Office of the Press
For Inunediate Release
Secretary
October 14, 1993
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Audiovisual services must be included i n any GATT accord.
The United States does not want any s p e c i a l favors f o r American
a u d i o v i s u a l c r e a t i v e works, but we also cannot accept t h a t audioproducts be s i n g l e d out f o r unacceptable r e s t r i c t i o n s . The United
States i s ready t o sign a GATT accord t h a t i s f a i r and j u s t f o r
a l l . But l e t me make i t c l e a r t h a t f a i r n e s s and j u s t i c e must
apply t o a u d i o v i s u a l works as w e l l as other elements i n a f i n a l
GATT deal. This i s a v i t a l jobs issue as w e l l as a f a i r n e s s issue
f o r America.
F i n a l l y , l e t me say once again t h a t the Uruguay Round i s
very important t o the r e s t o r a t i o n of g l o b a l growth, and t h a t i s
why i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t we f i n i s h t h i s agreement by December 15.
That deadline i s f i r m , and our t r a d i n g partners must be prepared
t o s e t t l e w i t h us on the many outstanding issues i f we are t o
succeed.
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 14, 1993
GARDNER TO SERVE AS ENVOY TO GATT
The President announced today t h a t he intends t o nominate
former Washington Governor Booth Gardner t o be Deputy United
States Trade Representative, w i t h t h e rank o f Ambassador. He
w i l l serve i n USTR's Geneva, Switzerland o f f i c e , r e p r e s e n t i n g the
U.S. before the General Agreement on T a r i f f s and Trade, the world
body on t r a d e p o l i c i e s and p r a c t i c e s among n a t i o n s .
"Booth Gardener was one o f t h e very best governors w i t h whom
I served. He has a s o l i d background i n business and t r a d e " s a i d
the President, "and knows f i r s t - h a n d the importance o f f r e e and
f a i r t r a d e t o keeping our economy s t r o n g and c r e a t i n g jobs f o r
American workers. I t h i n k he w i l l do an outstanding j o b i n
Geneva."
Gardener served as Governor o f Washington from 1985-93,
making economic development a top p r i o r i t y o f h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
He had p r e v i o u s l y served a four year term as Pierce County
Executive. From 1972-80, Gardener was the President o f the L a i r d
Norton Company, a n a t i o n a l b u i l d i n g supply f i r m . He a l s o has
experience i n academia, having served from 1967-72 as D i r e c t o r o f
Business and Economics a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f Puget Sound. He
holds h i s undergraduate degree from the U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington
and a Masters o f Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n from Harvard U n i v e r s i t y .
#
#
#
�THE WHITE HOUSE
O f f i c e o f the Press
Secretary
For Immediate Release
J u l y 20, 1993
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
I n accordance w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 13, Public Law
806, 80th Congress (15 U.S.C. 714k), I t r a n s m i t herewith t h e
r e p o r t o f t h e Commodity Credit Corporation f o r f i s c a l year 1991.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
J u l y 20, 1993.
# # #
�THE WHITE HOUSE
O f f i c e o f the Press
Secretary
For Iminediate Release
J u l y 20, 1993
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
I n accordance w i t h t h e provisions of s e c t i o n 13, Public Law
806, 80th Congress (15 U.S.C. 714k), I t r a n s m i t herewith t h e
r e p o r t o f the Commodity C r e d i t Corporation f o r f i s c a l year 1990.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
J u l y 20, 1993
# # #
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 3,
1993
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am pleased to sign into law H.R. 1876, extending
l e g i s l a t i v e "fast track" procedures to conclude the Uruguay
Round of m u l t i l a t e r a l trade negotiations. I want to extend
my thanks to the Congress for i t s broad b i p a r t i s a n support for
t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n and the Administration's trade p o l i c i e s .
Fast track authority i s c r i t i c a l to our e f f o r t to complete
these important negotiations by December 15, 1993.
Fast track
procedures give our negotiators the bargaining power they need
in Geneva, while at the same time ensuring the Congress' role
during the negotiation and approval of a Uruguay Round
agreement.
The Uruguay Round i s an ambitious e f f o r t , involving more
than 100 nations, to lower t a r i f f and non-tariff b a r r i e r s around
the world and to strengthen and update a set of r u l e s for
international trade that have become increasingly i n e f f e c t i v e
and obsolete.
Completion of the Uruguay Round would provide a major
boost to the world economy at a time when i t i s c r u c i a l l y
needed. As the world's leading exporter — and the world's
most open economy — the United States stands to benefit
s i g n i f i c a n t l y by reducing trade b a r r i e r s and opening markets
around the world for manufactured goods, a g r i c u l t u r a l products,
and s e r v i c e s .
We remain committed to completing these important
negotiations t h i s year, and we w i l l encourage our trading
partners to make t h e i r contribution to bringing the negotiations
to a successful conclusion.
WILLIAM J . CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 2, 1993.
# #
#
�THE WHITE HOUSE
O f f i c e o f t h e Press S e c r e t a r y
For Immediate Release
June 25, 1993
June 25, 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
SUBJECT:
A c t i o n s Concerning
of Preferences
t h e G e n e r a l i z e d System
Pursuant t o s e c t i o n s 5 0 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) , 5 0 2 ( b ) ( 7 ) , 5 0 2 ( c ) ( 5 ) , and 504
of t h e Trade A c t o f 1974, as amended ( t h e 1974 A c t ) (19 U.S.C.
2 4 6 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) , 2 4 6 2 ( b ) ( 7 ) , 2 4 6 2 ( c ) ( 5 ) , and 2464), I am a u t h o r i z e d
t o make d e t e r m i n a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e a l l e g e d e x p r o p r i a t i o n
w i t h o u t compensation by a b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y , t o
make f i n d i n g s c o n c e r n i n g whether s t e p s have been, t a k e n o r a r e
b e i n g t a k e n by c e r t a i n b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s t o
a f f o r d i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y r e c o g n i z e d worker r i g h t s t o workers i n
such c o u n t r i e s , t o t a k e i n t o account i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e
G e n e r a l i z e d System o f Preferences (GSP) e l i g i b i l i t y o f a
b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y t h e e x t e n t t o which c e r t a i n
b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s a r e p r o v i d i n g adequate and
e f f e c t i v e means under i t s laws f o r f o r e i g n n a t i o n a l s t o secure,
t o e x e r c i s e , and t o e n f o r c e e x c l u s i v e r i g h t s i n i n t e l l e c t u a l
p r o p e r t y , i n c l u d i n g p a t e n t s , trademarks, and c o p y r i g h t s , and
t o m o d i f y t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f d u t y - f r e e t r e a t m e n t under t h e
GSP c u r r e n t l y b e i n g a f f o r d e d t o such b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g
c o u n t r i e s as a r e s u l t o f my d e t e r m i n a t i o n s .
S p e c i f i c a l l y , a f t e r considering a p r i v a t e sector request
f o r a r e v i e w c o n c e r n i n g t h e a l l e g e d e x p r o p r i a t i o n by Peru
of p r o p e r t y owned by a U n i t e d S t a t e s person a l l e g e d l y w i t h o u t
prompt, adequate, and e f f e c t i v e compensation, w i t h o u t e n t e r i n g
i n t o good f a i t h n e g o t i a t i o n s t o p r o v i d e such compensation o r
o t h e r w i s e t a k i n g s t e p s t o d i s c h a r g e i t s o b l i g a t i o n s , and w i t h o u t
s u b m i t t i n g t h e e x p r o p r i a t i o n c l a i m t o a r b i t r a t i o n , I have
decided t o c o n t i n u e t h e r e v i e w o f t h e a l l e g e d e x p r o p r i a t i o n
by Peru.
Second, a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g v a r i o u s p r i v a t e s e c t o r r e q u e s t s
f o r a r e v i e w o f whether o r n o t c e r t a i n b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g
c o u n t r i e s have t a k e n o r a r e t a k i n g s t e p s t o a f f o r d i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y r e c o g n i z e d worker r i g h t s (as d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n
5 0 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) o f t h e 1974 A c t (19 U.S.C. 2 4 6 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) ) t o workers
i n such c o u n t r i e s , and i n accordance w i t h s e c t i o n 5 0 2 ( b ) ( 7 )
of t h e 1974 A c t (19 U.S.C. 2 4 6 2 ( b ) ( 7 ) ) , I have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t
Panama has t a k e n o r i s t a k i n g s t e p s t o a f f o r d i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y
r e c o g n i z e d worker r i g h t s , and I have determined t h a t M a u r i t a n i a
has n o t t a k e n and i s n o t t a k i n g s t e p s t o a f f o r d such i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y r e c o g n i z e d r i g h t s . T h e r e f o r e , I am n o t i f y i n g t h e
Congress o f my i n t e n t i o n t o suspend t h e GSP e l i g i b i l i t y o f
M a u r i t a n i a . F i n a l l y , I have determined t o c o n t i n u e t o r e v i e w
the s t a t u s o f such worker r i g h t s i n B a h r a i n , E l Salvador, F i j i ,
Guatemala, I n d o n e s i a , Malawi, Oman, and T h a i l a n d .
Third, a f t e r considering various p r i v a t e sector requests
f o r a r e v i e w o f whether o r n o t c e r t a i n b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g
c o u n t r i e s a r e p r o v i d i n g adequate and e f f e c t i v e means under
t h e i r laws f o r f o r e i g n n a t i o n a l s t o secure, t o e x e r c i s e , and
to enforce exclusive r i g h t s i n i n t e l l e c t u a l property, i n c l u d i n g
p a t e n t s , trademarks, and c o p y r i g h t s , I have d e t e r m i n e d t o
c o n t i n u e t h e r e v i e w o f t h e Dominican R e p u b l i c , Guatemala, and
Honduras.
more
(OVER)
�F o u r t h , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( f ) o f t h e 1974 A c t (19 U.S.C.
2 4 6 4 ( f ) ) , I am hereby a c t i n g t o modify t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f d u t y f r e e t r e a t m e n t under t h e GSP c u r r e n t l y b e i n g a f f o r d e d t o I s r a e l .
S p e c i f i c a l l y , I have determined under t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f
s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( f ) t h a t t h e per c a p i t a gross n a t i o n a l p r o d u c t
f o r I s r a e l , c a l c u l a t e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e b e s t a v a i l a b l e
i n f o r m a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g 1992 World Bank s t a t i s t i c s , exceeds t h e
applicable l i m i t provided i n section 5 0 4 ( f ) ( 2 ) .
Accordingly,
p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( f ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , b e g i n n i n g on J u l y 1, 1993,
and c o n t i n u i n g t h r o u g h June 30, 1995, t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f
p r e f e r e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t p r o v i d e d under s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B )
o f t h e 1974 A c t (19 U.S.C. 2 4 6 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ) s h a l l be a p p l i e d
s u b s t i t u t i n g "25 p e r c e n t " f o r "50 p e r c e n t . "
Furthermore,
p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( f ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , e f f e c t i v e J u l y 1, 1995, I s r a e l
s h a l l no l o n g e r be t r e a t e d as a b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y
f o r purposes o f t h e GSP.
Pursuant t o s e c t i o n 504 o f t h e 1974 A c t , a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g
v a r i o u s r e q u e s t s f o r a waiver o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s e c t i o n
504(c) o f t h e 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2464(c)) w i t h r e s p e c t t o
c e r t a i n e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e s , I have determined t h a t i t i s
a p p r o p r i a t e t o modify t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f d u t y - f r e e t r e a t m e n t
under t h e GSP c u r r e n t l y b e i n g a f f o r d e d t o c e r t a i n a r t i c l e s and
t o c e r t a i n b e n e f i c i a r y developing c o u n t r i e s . Further, i n order
t o c o n v e r t a p r i o r P r e s i d e n t i a l d e c i s i o n t a k e n i n terms o f t h e
T a r i f f Schedule o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s (TSUS) i n t o t h e nomenc l a t u r e o f t h e Harmonized T a r i f f Schedule o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
(HTS), I have a l s o determined t h a t i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o c o n v e r t
t h e w a i v e r o f s e c t i o n 504(c) o f t h e 1974 Act w i t h r e s p e c t t o
lawn t e n n i s b a l l s p r o v i d e d f o r i n TSUS 734.85 from I n d o n e s i a
i n t o t h e HTS nomenclature, s p e c i f i c a l l y HTS subheading
9506.91.00.
S p e c i f i c a l l y , pursuant t o s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( c ) ( 3 ) o f t h e 1974 A c t
(19 U.S.C. 2 4 6 4 ( c ) ( 3 ) ) , I have determined t h a t i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e
t o waive t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 504(c) o f t h e 1974 Act w i t h
r e s p e c t t o c e r t a i n e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e s from c e r t a i n b e n e f i c i a r y
d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s . I have r e c e i v e d t h e a d v i c e o f t h e U n i t e d
S t a t e s I n t e r n a t i o n a l Trade Commission on whether any i n d u s t r i e s
i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s are l i k e l y t o be a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by such
w a i v e r s , and I have determined, based on t h a t a d v i c e and on t h e
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n s 501 and 502(c) o f t h e 1974
Act (19 U.S.C. 2461 and 2 4 6 2 ( c ) ) , t h a t such w a i v e r s are i n t h e
n a t i o n a l economic i n t e r e s t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . The w a i v e r s o f
t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 504(c) o f t h e 1974 A c t a p p l y t o t h e
e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e s i n t h e HTS subheadings and t h e b e n e f i c i a r y
d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s s e t o p p o s i t e such HTS subheadings
enumerated below.
HTS subheadings and c o u n t r i e s g r a n t e d
w a i v e r s o f s e c t i o n 504(c) o f t h e 1974 A c t
HTS
Subheading
Country
7202.50.00
8521.10.60
8527.11.60
Zimbabwe
Malaysia
Malaysia
These d e t e r m i n a t i o n s s h a l l be p u b l i s h e d i n t h e F e d e r a l R e g i s t e r .
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
# # #
�THE
WHITE HOUSE
O f f i c e o f t h e Press S e c r e t a r y
For Immediate Release
June 25, 1993
TO MODIFY DUTY-FREE TREATMENT UNDER THE
GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
1.
Pursuant t o t i t l e V o f t h e Trade Act o f 1974, as
amended ("1974 A c t " ) (19 U.S.C. 2461 e t s e q . ) , t h e P r e s i d e n t
may d e s i g n a t e s p e c i f i e d a r t i c l e s p r o v i d e d f o r i n t h e Harmonized
T a r i f f Schedule o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ("HTS") as e l i g i b l e f o r
p r e f e r e n t i a l t a r i f f t r e a t m e n t under t h e G e n e r a l i z e d System o f
Preferences ("GSP") when i m p o r t e d from d e s i g n a t e d b e n e f i c i a r y
developing c o u n t r i e s .
2. Pursuant t o s e c t i o n 504(c) o f t h e 1974 A c t (19 U.S.C.
2 4 6 4 ( c ) ) , b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s , except those
d e s i g n a t e d as l e a s t - d e v e l o p e d b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s
pursuant t o s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( c ) ( 6 ) o f t h e 1974 A c t , are s u b j e c t t o
l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e p r e f e r e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t a f f o r d e d under t h e
GSP.
Pursuant t o s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( c ) ( 5 ) o f t h e 1974 A c t , a c o u n t r y
t h a t i s no l o n g e r t r e a t e d as a b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y
w i t h r e s p e c t t o an e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e may be r e d e s i g n a t e d as a
b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y w i t h r e s p e c t t o such a r t i c l e
i f i m p o r t s o f such a r t i c l e from such c o u n t r y d i d n o t exceed
the l i m i t a t i o n s i n section 504(c)(1) ( a f t e r a p p l i c a t i o n o f
paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) ) d u r i n g t h e p r e c e d i n g c a l e n d a r year.
Pursuant
t o s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) o f t h e 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2 4 6 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ) ,
s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) o f t h e 1974 Act s h a l l n o t a p p l y w i t h
r e s p e c t t o any e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e i f a l i k e o r d i r e c t l y
c o m p e t i t i v e a r t i c l e i s not produced i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s on
January 3, 1985.
F u r t h e r , pursuant t o s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) o f
t h e 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2 4 6 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) ) , t h e P r e s i d e n t may d i s r e g a r d
the l i m i t a t i o n s provided i n section 504(c)(1)(B) w i t h respect t o
any e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e i f t h e a p p r a i s e d v a l u e o f t h e t o t a l i m p o r t s
of such a r t i c l e i n t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s d u r i n g t h e p r e c e d i n g
c a l e n d a r year i s not i n excess o f an amount t h a t bears t h e
same r a t i o t o $5,000,000 as t h e gross n a t i o n a l p r o d u c t o f t h e
U n i t e d S t a t e s f o r t h a t c a l e n d a r year (as determined by t h e
Department o f Commerce) bears t o t h e gross n a t i o n a l p r o d u c t
of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s f o r c a l e n d a r year 1979.
3. S e c t i o n 5 0 2 ( b ) ( 7 ) o f t h e 1974 Act (19 U.S.C.
2 4 6 2 ( b ) ( 7 ) ) p r o v i d e s t h a t a c o u n t r y t h a t has n o t t a k e n o r i s
not t a k i n g steps t o a f f o r d i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y r e c o g n i z e d worker
r i g h t s , as d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) o f t h e 1974 A c t
(19 U.S.C. 2 4 6 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) ) , i s i n e l i g i b l e f o r d e s i g n a t i o n as a
b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y f o r purposes o f t h e GSP.
Pursuant t o s e c t i o n 504 o f t h e 1974 A c t , t h e P r e s i d e n t may
withdraw, suspend, o r l i m i t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f d u t y - f r e e
t r e a t m e n t under t h e GSP w i t h r e s p e c t t o any a r t i c l e o r w i t h
r e s p e c t t o any c o u n t r y upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e f a c t o r s s e t
f o r t h i n s e c t i o n s 501 and 502(c) o f t h e 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2461
and 2 4 6 2 ( c ) ) .
more
(OVER)
�4. Pursuant t o s e c t i o n s 501, 5 0 3 ( a ) , and 504(a) o f t h e
1974 A c t (19 U.S.C. 2461, 2463(a), and 2 4 6 4 ( a ) ) , i n o r d e r t o
s u b d i v i d e and amend t h e nomenclature o f e x i s t i n g p r o v i s i o n s o f
t h e HTS t o modify t h e GSP, I have determined, a f t e r t a k i n g i n t o
account i n f o r m a t i o n and a d v i c e r e c e i v e d under s e c t i o n 5 0 3 ( a ) ,
t h a t t h e HTS s h o u l d be m o d i f i e d t o a d j u s t t h e o r i g i n a l
designation of e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e s .
I n a d d i t i o n , pursuant
t o t i t l e V o f t h e 1974 A c t , I have determined t h a t i t i s
appropriate t o designate s p e c i f i e d a r t i c l e s provided f o r i n the
HTS as e l i g i b l e f o r p r e f e r e n t i a l t a r i f f t r e a t m e n t under t h e GSP
when i m p o r t e d from d e s i g n a t e d b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s ,
and t h a t such t r e a t m e n t f o r o t h e r a r t i c l e s s h o u l d be t e r m i n a t e d .
I have a l s o determined, pursuant t o s e c t i o n s 5 0 4 ( a ) , ( c ) ( 1 ) ,
and ( c ) ( 2 ) o f t h e 1974 A c t , t h a t c e r t a i n b e n e f i c i a r y c o u n t r i e s
s h o u l d no l o n g e r r e c e i v e p r e f e r e n t i a l t a r i f f t r e a t m e n t under
t h e GSP w i t h r e s p e c t t o c e r t a i n e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e s .
Further, I
have d e t e r m i n e d , pursuant t o s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( c ) ( 5 ) o f t h e 1974 A c t ,
t h a t c e r t a i n c o u n t r i e s should be r e d e s i g n a t e d as b e n e f i c i a r y
developing countries w i t h respect t o c e r t a i n e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e s .
These c o u n t r i e s have been p r e v i o u s l y excluded from b e n e f i t s o f
t h e GSP w i t h r e s p e c t t o such e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e s p u r s u a n t t o
s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) o f t h e 1974 A c t . F u r t h e r , pursuant t o
s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) o f t h e 1974 A c t (19 U.S.C. 2 4 6 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ) ,
I have determined t h a t t h e l i m i t a t i o n p r o v i d e d f o r i n
s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) o f t h e 1974 A c t (19 U.S.C. 2 4 6 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) )
should not apply w i t h respect t o c e r t a i n e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e s
because no l i k e o r d i r e c t l y c o m p e t i t i v e a r t i c l e was produced i n
t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s on January 3, 1985. L a s t , I have determined
t h a t s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) o f t h e 1974 A c t s h o u l d n o t a p p l y
w i t h r e s p e c t t o c e r t a i n e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e s pursuant t o
s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) o f t h e 1974 A c t .
5.
Pursuant t o s e c t i o n s 5 0 2 ( b ) ( 7 ) , 5 0 2 ( c ) ( 7 ) , and
504 o f t h e 1974 A c t (19 U.S.C. 2 4 6 2 ( b ) ( 7 ) , 2 4 6 2 ( c ) ( 7 ) , a n d
2464), I have determined t h a t i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o p r o v i d e f o r
t h e suspension o f p r e f e r e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t under t h e GSP f o r
a r t i c l e s t h a t a r e c u r r e n t l y e l i g i b l e f o r such t r e a t m e n t and t h a t
are i m p o r t e d from M a u r i t a n i a . Such suspension i s t h e r e s u l t o f
my d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t M a u r i t a n i a has n o t t a k e n and i s n o t t a k i n g
s t e p s t o a f f o r d i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y r e c o g n i z e d worker r i g h t s , as
d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) o f t h e 1974 A c t (19 U.S.C.
2462(a)(4)).
6. Pursuant t o s e c t i o n s 501 and 502 o f t h e 1974 A c t
(19 U.S.C. 2461 and 2462), and having due r e g a r d f o r t h e
e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a s e t f o r t h t h e r e i n , I have determined
t h a t i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o d e s i g n a t e A l b a n i a as a b e n e f i c i a r y
d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y f o r purposes o f t h e GSP.
7. P r o c l a m a t i o n 6517 o f December 23, 1992, withdrew t h e
d u t y - f r e e t r e a t m e n t accorded under t h e GSP, p u r s u a n t t o t i t l e V
of t h e 1974 Trade A c t , t o i m p o r t s o f s u l f a n i l i c a c i d , p r o v i d e d
f o r i n HTS subheading 2921.42.24. P r o c l a m a t i o n 6544 o f
A p r i l 13, 1993, made f u r t h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n t h e HTS p r o v i s i o n s
f o r such goods. Through t e c h n i c a l e r r o r , t h e HTS p r o v i s i o n s
c r e a t e d i n t h e annexes t o such p r o c l a m a t i o n s were n o t p r o p e r l y
s t r u c t u r e d and numbered. T h e r e f o r e , I have decided t h a t i t i s
necessary and a p p r o p r i a t e t o modify t h e HTS t o c o r r e c t these
errors.
8. S e c t i o n 604 o f t h e 1974 A c t , as amended (19 U.S.C.
2483), a u t h o r i z e s t h e P r e s i d e n t t o embody i n t h e HTS t h e
substance o f t h e r e l e v a n t p r o v i s i o n s o f t h a t A c t , and o f
o t h e r A c t s a f f e c t i n g i m p o r t t r e a t m e n t , and a c t i o n s t h e r e u n d e r ,
i n c l u d i n g t h e removal, m o d i f i c a t i o n , c o n t i n u a n c e , o r i m p o s i t i o n
of any r a t e o f d u t y o r o t h e r i m p o r t r e s t r i c t i o n .
more
�NOW, THEREFORE, I , WILLIAM J. CLINTON, P r e s i d e n t o f t h e
U n i t e d S t a t e s o f America, a c t i n g under t h e a u t h o r i t y v e s t e d
i n me by t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e laws o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o f
America, i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o t i t l e V and s e c t i o n 604 o f
t h e 1974 A c t , do p r o c l a i m t h a t :
(1)
I n o r d e r t o d e s i g n a t e c e r t a i n a r t i c l e s as e l i g i b l e
a r t i c l e s f o r purposes o f t h e GSP when i m p o r t e d from d e s i g n a t e d
b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s , t h e HTS i s m o d i f i e d as
p r o v i d e d i n Annex I t o t h i s p r o c l a m a t i o n .
(2) (a) I n o r d e r t o d e s i g n a t e c e r t a i n a r t i c l e s as
e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e s f o r purposes o f t h e GSP when i m p o r t e d from
any d e s i g n a t e d b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y , t h e Rates o f
Duty l - S p e c i a l subcolumn f o r t h e HTS subheading enumerated i n
Annex 11(a) t o t h i s p r o c l a m a t i o n i s m o d i f i e d by i n s e r t i n g i n
t h e parentheses t h e symbol "A" as p r o v i d e d i n such Annex.
(b)
I n o r d e r t o d e s i g n a t e c e r t a i n a r t i c l e s as
e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e s f o r purposes o f t h e GSP when i m p o r t e d from
any d e s i g n a t e d b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y e x c l u d i n g I n d i a ,
t h e Rates o f Duty l - S p e c i a l subcolumn f o r t h e HTS subheading
enumerated i n Annex 11(b) t o t h i s p r o c l a m a t i o n i s m o d i f i e d by
i n s e r t i n g i n t h e parentheses t h e symbol "A*" as p r o v i d e d i n
such Annex.
(c)
I n order t o r e s t o r e p r e f e r e n t i a l t a r i f f treatment
under t h e GSP t o a c o u n t r y which has been excluded from t h e
b e n e f i t s o f t h e GSP f o r an e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e , t h e Rates o f
Duty l - S p e c i a l subcolumn f o r each o f t h e HTS subheadings
enumerated i n Annex 11(c) t o t h i s p r o c l a m a t i o n i s m o d i f i e d :
( i ) by d e l e t i n g symbol "A*" i n p a r e n t h e s e s , and ( i i ) by
i n s e r t i n g i n such subcolumn t h e symbol "A" i n l i e u t h e r e o f .
(d)
I n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e t h a t one o r more c o u n t r i e s
should no l o n g e r be t r e a t e d as a b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y
w i t h r e s p e c t t o an e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e f o r purposes o f t h e GSP, t h e
Rates o f Duty l - S p e c i a l subcolumn f o r each o f t h e HTS p r o v i s i o n s
enumerated i n Annex 11(d) t o t h i s p r o c l a m a t i o n i s m o d i f i e d :
( i ) by d e l e t i n g t h e symbol "A" i n p a r e n t h e s e s , and ( i i ) by
i n s e r t i n g i n such subcolumn t h e symbol "A*" i n l i e u t h e r e o f .
(3)
I n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e suspension o f p r e f e r e n t i a l
t r e a t m e n t under t h e GSP f o r M a u r i t a n i a , t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e
a d d i t i o n o f A l b a n i a as a b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y under
t h e GSP, t o p r o v i d e t h a t one o r more c o u n t r i e s t h a t have n o t
been t r e a t e d as b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s w i t h r e s p e c t
t o an e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e should be r e d e s i g n a t e d as b e n e f i c i a r y
d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o such a r t i c l e f o r purposes
of t h e GSP, and t o p r o v i d e t h a t one o r more c o u n t r i e s s h o u l d
no l o n g e r be t r e a t e d as b e n e f i c i a r y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s w i t h
r e s p e c t t o an e l i g i b l e a r t i c l e f o r purposes o f t h e GSP, g e n e r a l
note 3 ( c ) ( i i ) t o t h e HTS i s m o d i f i e d as p r o v i d e d i n Annex I I I t o
t h i s proclamation.
(4)
I n o r d e r t o ensure t h e w i t h d r a w a l o f GSP t r e a t m e n t
from i m p o r t s o f s u l f a n i l i c a c i d and t o c o r r e c t t e c h n i c a l
e r r o r s i n c e r t a i n HTS p r o v i s i o n s , as c r e a t e d i n t h e Annex t o
P r o c l a m a t i o n 6517 and m o d i f i e d i n Annex I I t o P r o c l a m a t i o n 6544,
such annexes a r e hereby superseded, and t h e HTS i s m o d i f i e d as
set f o r t h i n Annex IV t o t h i s p r o c l a m a t i o n .
more
(OVER)
�Annex
III
M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o General Note 3 ( c ) ( i i ) o f t h e HTS
(a) E f f e c t i v e w i t h r e s p e c t t o a r t i c l e s b o t h : ( i ) imported on o r a f t e r January
1. 1976, and ( i i ) e n t e r e d , o r withdrawn from warehouse f o r consumption, on o r
a f t e r J u l y 1, 1993.
(1) General note 3 ( c ) ( i i ) ( A ) i s m o d i f i e d by i n s e r t i n g "Albania" m
a l p h a b e t i c a l o r d e r i n t h e enumeration o f independent c o u n t r i e s .
(2)
General note 3 ( c ) ( i i ) ( D ) i s m o d i f i e d :
(i)
by d e l e t i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g HTS subheading and t h e c o u n t r y s e t
o p p o s i t e such subheading:
4008.19.10
8112.91.50
8521.10.00
0709.90.05
0710.80.70
1604.16.10
2902.60.00
4412.11.10
4418.20.40
4804.31.60
7008.00.00
7320.10.30
8402.20.00
8408.20.90
8471.92.40
8481.80.90
Malaysia;
Thailand
8527.11.60
(ii)
Malaysia
Chile
Malaysia
by adding i n n u m e r i c a l sequence, t h e f o l l o w i n g HTS p r o v i s i o n s and
c o u n t r i e s s e t o p p o s i t e them:
8516.80.80
Mexico
8521.10.60
Indonesia;
Thailand
8527.31.40
8536.61.00
8542.80.00
8548.00.00
8716.39.00
9006.99.00
9405.50.30
Mexico
Guatemala
Morocco
India
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Philippines
Brazil
Malaysia
Mexico
Malaysia
Mexico
Malaysia
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
India
( i i i ) by adding, i n a l p h a b e t i c a l o r d e r , t h e f o l l o w i n g c o u n t r i e s o p p o s i t e
t h e f o l l o w i n g HTS p r o v i s i o n s :
2603.00.00
2915.39.50
2917.35.00
2918.90.30
3402.20.10
4104.22.00
7113.19.50
Indonesia
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Brazil
India
(b) E f f e c t i v e w i t h r e s p e c t t o a r t i c l e s b o t h : ( i ) imported on o r a f t e r January
1, 1976, and ( i i ) e n t e r e d , o r withdrawn from warehouse f o r consumption, on o r
a f t e r 60 days a f t e r t h e date o f p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s P r o c l a m a t i o n i n t h e
Federal Register.
(1) General note 3 ( c ) ( i i ) ( A ) i s m o d i f i e d by d e l e t i n g " M a u r i t a n i a " from t h e
enumeration o f independent c o u n t r i e s .
(2) General note 3 ( c ) ( i i ) ( B ) i s m o d i f i e d by d e l e t i n g " M a u r i t a n i a " from t h e
enumeration o f c o u n t r i e s .
more
�(5) Any p r o v i s i o n s of previous proclamations and Executive
orders i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s proclamation are
hereby superseded t o the extent of such inconsistency.
(6) (a) The m o d i f i c a t i o n s made by Annexes I , I I ,
and I I I ( a ) t o t h i s proclamation s h a l l be e f f e c t i v e w i t h respect
t o a r t i c l e s both: ( i ) imported on or a f t e r January 1, 1976, and
( i i ) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse f o r consumption, on or
a f t e r J u l y 1, 1993.
(b) The m o d i f i c a t i o n made by Annex 111(b) t o t h i s
proclamation s h a l l be e f f e c t i v e w i t h respect t o a r t i c l e s both:
( i ) imported on or a f t e r January 1, 1976, and ( i i ) entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse f o r consumption, on or a f t e r 60 days
a f t e r the date of p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s proclamation i n the
Federal Register.
(c) The m o d i f i c a t i o n s made by Annex IV t o t h i s
proclamation s h a l l be e f f e c t i v e w i t h respect t o a r t i c l e s both:
( i ) imported on or a f t e r January 1, 1976, and ( i i ) entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse f o r consumption, on or a f t e r
January 12, 1993.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
t h i s t w e n t y - f i f t h day of June, i n the year of our Lord
nineteen hundred and n i n e t y - t h r e e , and of the Independence of
the United States of America the two hundred and seventeenth.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
more
�5
Annex I
M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e HTS
The HTS i s m o d i f i e d as p r o v i d e d below, w i t h b r a c k e t e d m a t t e r i n c l u d e d t o
a s s i s t i n t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f p r o c l a i m e d m o d i f i c a t i o n s . The f o l l o w i n g
supersedes m a t t e r i n t h e HTS. The subheadings and s u p e r i o r t e x t a r e s e t f o r t h
i n columnar f o r m a t , and m a t e r i a l i n such columns i s i n s e r t e d i n t h e columns o f
t h e HTS d e s i g n a t e d "Heading/Subheading", " A r t i c l e D e s c r i p t i o n " , "Rates o f Duty
1-General", "Rates o f Duty l - S p e c i a l " , and "Rates o f Duty 2", r e s p e c t i v e l y .
E f f e c t i v e w i t h r e s p e c t t o a r t i c l e s b o t h ; ( i ) imported on o r a f t e r January 1,
1976, and ( i i ) e n t e r e d , o r w i t h d r a w n from warehouse f o r consumption, on o r
a f t e r J u l y 1, 1993.
1.
Subheading 4418.20.00 i s superseded by:
"4418.20
4418.20.40
[Builders' joinery...]
Doors and their frames and thresholds:
French doors
4418.20.80
2.
7.5%
Other
7.5%
Subheading 8521.10.00 i s superseded
[Video
"8521.10
8521.10.30
8521.10.90
Other
(
33 1 3
/X
33 1/3%"
by:
recording...:]
Magnetic t a p e - t y p e :
Color, c a r t r i d g e or c a s s e t t e t y p e :
Not c a p a b l e of r e c o r d i n g
8521.10.60
Free (A*,CA,E,
IL, J)
Free (A,CAE,
IL, J)
3.97,
'.
3.9%
Other
3.9%
Free ( A . C . C A . E ,
IL, J)
Free ( A * C , C A , E ,
IL.J)
Free ( A , C , C A , E ,
IL,J)
(
35%
35%
35%"
Annex I I
M o d i f i c a t i o n i n t h e HTS o f an A r t i c l e ' s P r e f e r e n t i a l
T a r i f f Treatment under t h e GSP
E f f e c t i v e w i t h r e s p e c t t o a r t i c l e s b o t h : ( i ) imported on o r a f t e r January 1,
1976, and ( i i ) e n t e r e d , o r w i t h d r a w n from warehouse f o r consumption, on o r
a f t e r J u l y 1, 1993.
(a) For HTS subheading 7202.50.00, i n t h e Rates o f Duty l - S p e c i a l subcolumn,
i n s e r t i n t h e parentheses f o l l o w i n g t h e "Free" r a t e t h e symbol "A," i n
alphabetical order.
(b) For HTS subheading 2902.60.00, i n t h e Rates o f Duty l - S p e c i a l subcolumn,
i n s e r t i n t h e parentheses f o l l o w i n g t h e "Free" r a t e t h e symbol "A*," i n
alphabetical order.
(c) For HTS subheadings 4008.19.10, 8112.91.50 and 8527.11.60, i n t h e Rates o f
Duty l - S p e c i a l subcolumn, d e l e t e t h e symbol "A*" and i n s e r t an "A" i n l i e u
thereof.
(d) For t h e f o l l o w i n g HTS p r o v i s i o n s , i n t h e Rates o f Duty l - S p e c i a l
subcolumn, d e l e t e t h e symbol "A" and i n s e r t an "A*" i n l i e u t h e r e o f :
0709.90.05
0710.80.70
1604.16.10
4412.11.10
4804.31.60
7008.00.00
7320.10.30
8402.20.00
8408.20.90
8471.92.40
8481.80.90
8516.80.80
8527.31.40
8536.61.00
8542.80.00
8548.00.00
8716.39.00
9006.99.00
9405.50.30
more
(OVER)
�7
Annex IV
E f f e c t i v e w i t h r e s p e c t t o a r t i c l e s b o t h : ( i ) imported on o r a f t e r January 1,
1976 and ( i i ) e n t e r e d , o r withdrawn from warehouse f o r consumption, on o r
a f t e r January 12, 1993.
1. The HTS i s m o d i f i e d as p r o v i d e d below, w i t h b r a c k e t e d m a t t e r i n c l u d e d t o
a s s i s t i n t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f p r o c l a i m e d m o d i f i c a t i o n s . The f o l l o w i n g
supersedes m a t t e r i n t h e HTS. The subheadings and s u p e r i o r t e x t a r e s e t f o r t h
i n columnar f o r m a t , and m a t e r i a l i n such columns i s i n s e r t e d i n t h e columns o f
t h e HTS d e s i g n a t e d "Heading/Subheading", " A r t i c l e D e s c r i p t i o n " , "Rates o f Duty
1-General", "Rates o f Duty l - S p e c i a l " , and "Rates o f Duty 2", r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Subheading 2921.42.24 i s d e l e t e d and t h e f o l l o w i n g new subheadings i n s e r t e d i n
n u m e r i c a l sequence:
[Amine-function compounds:]
[Aromatic monoamines...:]
[AniIine derivatives...:]
"2921.42.21
Metanilic acid
2921.42.22
Sul fani l i e acid
2.4t/kg +
18.8%
Free (A*,CA,E,
IL.J)
15.4t/kg +
60%
2.4t/kg +
18.8%
Free (CA,E I L , J)
IS.U/kg +
60%"
(
Conforming change: General note 3 ( c ) ( i i ) ( D ) t o t h e HTS i s m o d i f i e d by
d e l e t i n g "2921.42.24 I n d i a " and i n s e r t i n g , i n n u m e r i c a l sequence,
"2921.42.21 I n d i a " i n l i e u t h e r e o f .
# #
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
May
19,
1993
WORLD TRADE WEEK, 1993
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
Each year. World Trade Week allows us to highlight the
importance of international trade, which l i n k s the United States
with other nations i n partnership for economic prosperity. I t
i s also a time to recognize the importance of our e f f o r t s to
stimulate domestic economic growth through the sale of American
products and services abroad.
For Americans, trade has buttressed our Nation's standing
as the world's largest and most productive economy. Exports
support m i l l i o n s of American jobs and account for nearly
one-sixth of the employment in the U.S. manufacturing and
a g r i c u l t u r a l sectors. In fact, each $1 b i l l i o n of American
merchandise exports supports nearly 19,000 domestic jobs. As
a r e s u l t , companies have been formed, f a c t o r i e s b u i l t , and new
industries created. And these export-related jobs are good
ones, paying on average 17 percent more than the o v e r a l l average
wage.
Indeed, i t i s our a b i l i t y to modernize and expand our
i n d u s t r i a l production that serves as the foundation for export
growth, allowing us to develop and produce quality products
while identifying marketing opportunities at home and abroad.
Our ingenuity and our determination to be the best make
America's products and services among the world's most
competitive.
For U.S. products and services to succeed i n an
increasingly competitive global marketplace, however, we must
be equally competitive at home and abroad. Recently, t h i s
Administration announced a broad new economic strategy to
enhance government/industry cooperation in creating new
technologies. Through commercialization, these technologies
w i l l be made available to smaller companies. Small and
medium-size businesses create half the new jobs in t h i s country
and two-fifths of our Gross National Product, and many of these
firms w i l l seek to increase exports of t h e i r products.
The
high-technology sector, which employed about 10 m i l l i o n people
and accounted for more than $100 b i l l i o n worth of U.S. exports
in 1992, i s c r u c i a l to advancing the i n d u s t r i a l competitiveness
of the United States and assuring us of an edge in world
markets.
Creating a climate for American exports requires not only a
strong domestic economy, but also free and f a i r access for U.S.
products to markets abroad. This Administration, therefore, i s
building a trade agenda that w i l l allow U.S. exports to compete
on a l e v e l playing f i e l d with our trading partners.
more
(OVER)
�A top trade-related p r i o r i t y i s the North Ainerican Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which w i l l link the United States,
Canada, and Mexico into a single market of 360 m i l l i o n consumers
currently spending $6 t r i l l i o n annually. Mexico, once economic a l l y isolated from the United States, has emerged as our
Nation's t h i r d largest trading partner. With supplemental
agreements to address environmental and labor issues, NAFTA
w i l l be a positive force for creating American jobs.
In addition to our focus on the NAFTA negotiations, t h i s
Administration i s determined to complete the General Agreement
on T a r i f f s and Trade (GATT) Uruguay Round agreement. GATT i s an
agreement binding more than 100 nations to a mutual i n t e r e s t i n
strengthening the global environment for trade. As part of
these negotiations, t h i s Administration i s seeking provisions
that ensure free and f a i r trade for American industry, as well
as e f f e c t i v e b i l a t e r a l dispute settlement mechanisms. A
successful Uruguay Round would lower t a r i f f and nontariff
b a r r i e r s to manufactured products and other commodities, thereby
increasing cumulative world output by more than $5 t r i l l i o n and
cumulative U.S. output by more than $1 t r i l l i o n over the next
10 years.
While advancing our Nation's i n t e r e s t s through the GATT
negotiations, the United States and other countries must
provide f i n a n c i a l assistance to ensure key p o l i t i c a l and
economic reforms i n Russia and the former Soviet republics.
By c a r e f u l l y targeting t h i s assistance, our Nation w i l l not
only encourage progress toward global s t a b i l i t y , arms control,
and nonproliferation, but also help create an environment i n
which trade with that region can f l o u r i s h .
Creating a secure and prosperous global environment for
trade also hinges on continued U.S. e f f o r t s to benefit from the
great opportunities that are available i n the high-growth East
Asian and Latin American markets, two of the f a s t e s t growing
regions for American exports.
Although thousands of U.S. companies continue to boost
t h e i r p r o f i t margins through exports, thousands of other
American firms have yet to market t h e i r goods abroad. I n fact,
j u s t 15 percent of American companies account for 85 percent of
our Nation's exports. With U.S. merchandise exports totaling
more than $448 b i l l i o n i n 1992, "World Trade Week" reminds us
of the merits of international commerce and the vast export
opportunities yet to be explored by American business.
N W THEREFORE, I , WILLIAM J . CLINTON, President of the
O,
United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested i n
me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do
hereby proclaim the week beginning May 16, 1993, as World
Trade Week. I i n v i t e the people of the United States to
j o i n i n appropriate observances to reaffirm the potential
of international trade for creating prosperity for a l l .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand t h i s
nineteenth day of May, i n the year of our Lord nineteen hundred
and ninety-three, and of the Independence of the United States
of America the two hundred and seventeenth.
WILLIAM J . CLINTON
#
#
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
A p r i l 9,
1993
PRESS BRIEFING
BY DEE DEE MYERS
The Briefing Room
11:55 A.M.
EDT
MS. MYERS: To begin, the President has asked me to
announce today h i s decision to pursue with Congress the approval of
l e g i s l a t i o n renewing f a s t track procedures to conclude the Uruguay
Round of the m u l t i l a t e r a l trade negotiations. Since taking o f f i c e in
January, t h i s administration's highest p r i o r i t y has been to
strengthen the U.S. economy. We have put forth an ambitious program
designed to reduce the budget d e f i c i t and increase investments i n
areas c r i t i c a l to our future economic strength. But while the
administration's economic strategy s t a r t s with the enactment of the
President's economic program, global economic growth from expanded
world trade i s a c r u c i a l part of our strategy.
The Uruguay Round, involving more than 100 nations,
began i n 1986.
The f a i l u r e to complete the Round has been a source
of disappointment and f r u s t r a t i o n to the United States and many of
our trading partners. A successful round would lower t a r i f f and nont a r i f f b a r r i e r s around the world and e s t a b l i s h new m u l t i l a t e r a l rules
for world trade. I t would be the single most important step we can
take to open foreign markets around the world to U.S. manufactured
goods, a g r i c u l t u r a l products and s e r v i c e s .
President Clinton and Ambassador Kantor have spoken with
leaders from the EC, Japan and other nations and emphasized our
strong desire to complete an ambitious Uruguay Round t h i s year. They
believe that our trading partners share t h e i r commitment to the
overriding importance of completing the Round.
Consequently, the President has decided, a f t e r
consulting with members of Congress, to seek l e g i s l a t i o n t h i s year
needed to complete these important negotiations t h i s year. The draft
b i l l we w i l l send to Congress would extend congressional f a s t track
procedures to an Uruguay Round implementing b i l l provided that he
n o t i f i e s the Congress no l a t e r than December 15th, 1993, of h i s
intent to enter into such agreements before A p r i l 15th, 1994.
Conventional wisdom says i t w i l l be d i f f i c u l t to
complete t h i s Round to expand and l i b e r a l i z e trade at a time when
much of the world economy i s in the doldrums. But the President
believes that i s p r e c i s e l y the time we must do i t . We ask other
nations to j o i n us i n taking the sometimes hard steps needed to bring
the Round to a successful conclusion for the benefit of a l l nations.
Q
Dee Dee,
i t ' s taken t h i s long.
some of our trading partners wonder why
MS. MYERS: I t ' s complex. No one said t h i s would be
easy. I t ' s a complicated process. But we're committed to i t , and
the President believes we can wrap i t up by the end of the year.
MORE
#53-04/09
�- 2-
Q
Wait a minute. I s the question why the Round has
taking so long, or i s the question why i t ' s taken to so long —
MS. MYERS:
The extension?
Q
Why i t ' s taking the President so long to ask for an
extension of f a s t track authority.
MS. MYERS: Well, i t hasn't been necessary. I mean,
he's asking for an extension now. I t ' s i n plenty of time. The
extension w i l l extend, as we said, to December 15th to be signed by
— completed by Congress by A p r i l 15th, '94.
Q
Yes, but t h i s i s the f i r s t signal from t h i s
administration that i t i s w i l l i n g to give any kind of p r i o r i t y to the
Uruguay Round and get GATT on track.
MS. MYERS: I would disagree with that. The President
has said repeatedly that he wants to conclude the Uruguay Round t h i s
year. He's committed to doing that.
Q
A trade-related question. The President's been
talking tough about Iran, on the one hand, but also pledging to help
the a i r l i n e industry on the other hand. How does he come down on
t h i s apparent request by Boeing and GE to s e l l j e t l i n e r s to Iran?
MS. MYERS:
and we're reviewing i t .
Q
We're aware of t h e i r desire to make the sale
Beyond that, we have nothing to add.
Do you have any concerns going i n about aiding
Iran?
MS. MYERS: Obviously, we're — the embargo i s s t i l l i n
place. We're committed to that. We're not going to do anything to
aid Iran at t h i s point. But we're aware of the a i r l i n e industry's
request for t h i s . We'll take a look at i t out of f a i r n e s s to the
industry.
Q
How long does the President think i t w i l l take
before universal health care — access to health care w i l l be phased
in to cover a l l Americans?
MS. MYERS: That w i l l be part of our proposal which, as
you know, has been pushed back, but w i l l be put forth sometime i n
May.
Q
How long do you —
i d e a l l y what are h i s hopes —
MS. MYERS: Those are s t i l l the kinds of decisions that
are being made. Obviously i t ' s something that the President i s
committed to. He wants to see universal care, access to insurance
for everybody. But those are the decisions that are s t i l l being
made, and I can't comment on i t u n t i l we have a proposal.
Q
Are you s t i l l on track with the scheduling of that
with the problems that H i l l a r y Clinton has been facing l a t e l y i n her
personal l i f e ?
MS. MYERS: Due to unforeseen circumstances with Mrs.
Clinton, I think the deadline has been pushed back some. But we
s t i l l look forward to a health care proposal i n May.
Q
t h i s point.
date.
I s n ' t i t May 17th now?
MS. MYERS: I don't think we have a firm date on i t at
That was reported somewhere today, but there's no firm
MORE
#53-04/09
�- 3 -
Q
Dee Dee, there's a story t h i s morning that the G-7
meeting i n Tokyo i n July could be moved up; quotes an unnamed
administration o f f i c i a l .
MS. MYERS: I think we'll wait and see what the r e s u l t s
of the m i n i s t e r i a l meeting i s i n Tokyo next week. I don't have
anything further to say. There have been no decisions made. We'll
look forward to the r e s u l t s of that meeting.
Why would t h i s even be contemplated?
Isi t
possible?
MS. MYERS: I haven't heard any s p e c i f i c t a l k of that.
I think we'll wait and see what happens next week. At t h i s point
we're s t i l l planning to go to Tokyo i n July.
Q
Well, t h i s individual seemed to indicate that t h i s
has been given some consideration i n the administration as a
possibility.
MS. MYERS: At t h i s point we're s t i l l committed to going
to Tokyo i n July, and we look forward to the f i r s t m i n i s t e r i a l round
next week i n Tokyo.
Q
T e l l us about the funeral plans today and tomorrow.
MS. MYERS: There i s a memorial service today at 2:00
p.m.
And then I don't have the s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s on the plans for
tomorrow other than there w i l l be a funeral service i n Scranton with
family and friends.
Q
When are they going?
MS. MYERS: They're leaving for Scranton tomorrow
morning. They'll spend the day i n Scranton. They'll come back and
spend — i t ' s l i k e l y that t h e y ' l l spend Saturday night at Camp David
and return to Washington probably Sunday night.
Q
What do you hope to accomplish, see accomplished in
the m i n i s t e r i a l meetings i n Tokyo next week?
MS. MYERS: Well, we hope to move forward on the
development of a m u l t i l a t e r a l package of a i d for Russia. We put
forward a $1.6 b i l l i o n package l a s t week i n Vancouver. We're working
toward a second package of b i l a t e r a l support. And we're looking
forward to working out the terms of a m u l t i l a t e r a l aid program for
the Russians.
Q
Are you concerned that the Russians seem to be
blocking the imposition of tighter sanctions on Bosnia?
MS. MYERS: Well, we're continuing to discuss that.
We're continuing consultations with the U.N. Security Council. We're
hopeful that we'll have increased sanctions against the Serbians, and
we're hopeful that we'll have a vote on that next week.
Q
Well, the Russians apparently have signaled —
signaled that they w i l l not go along with that.
have
MS. MYERS: I don't think that's c l e a r at t h i s point.
We're hopeful that t h e y ' l l agree to j o i n the sanctions. We think
i t ' s important to press Serbia to j o i n the peace process.
Q
Do you think i t ' s
given our support for Russian —
the l e a s t that they could do,
MS. MYERS: I don't want to apply any quid pro quo here.
These are separate issues. But we believe that a l l p a r t i e s should
MORE
1
#53-04/09
�- 4 -
come and sign the peace accords on Bosnia. We're hopeful that the
Russians w i l l help us put additional pressure on the Serbs. We're
going to continue to put additional pressure on the Serbs through
enforcing the no-fly zone, which begins Monday, additional economic
sanctions —
Q
Do you think the Russians may be holding back their
support because of their upcoming referendum?
MS. MYERS: Well, that's a question that only the
Russians can answer. I think at this point we're committed to
additional sanctions, to cracking down on t r a f f i c on the Danube, to
seizing international assets of the Serbians outside of that country,
to impounding trucks, boats, things like that.
Q
I f we can't do that, are we now considering and are
there in fact meetings today on the subject of more military force,
including a i r strikes?
discussions.
MS. MYERS: At this point we're moving forward with the
We're hopeful that we'll get additional sanctions.
Q
Dee Dee, on Bosnia, Senator Biden's in Bosnia —
was meeting with the Bosnian president today. And he said the
Bosnian president i s requesting U.S. military aid — $50 million in
U.S. military aid. What would be the administration's position on
giving military aid to Bosnia and on ending the embargo?
MS. MYERS: Well, there an embargo against selling arms
to the Bosnians at this point or delivery arms to the Bosnians at
this point. That's s t i l l in effect. We are, of course, abiding by
that. We don't have any — beyond that, I don't have anything to
add.
Q
He's saying that he would like to see that embargo,
the U.S. pushed to get that embargo lifted, and get the $50 million
aid.
MS. MYERS: Yes, and we believe we need to continue to
work in concert with the Europeans, particularly with reference to
the arms embargo. And we'll continue to do that. But I don't have
anything to add about the military package.
Q
— comment on the fact the Serbs found ammunition
and what-not on these U.N. convoy trucks?
MS. MYERS: I t ' s an unfortunate incident. I t ' s
troubling, although most of the parties — the parties have so far
respected the embargo. This i s the f i r s t such incident. We believe
i t ' s an isolated incident. I believe the U.N. has ordered a f u l l
inspection of that. We're concerned about i t , but we do believe i t ' s
an isolated incident.
Q
Does i t muddy the waters though —
you're trying to do there?
mess up what
MS. MYERS: I think we'll have to see. Again, the U.N.
i s going to take a look at i t . I think that a l l parties so far have
done a good job at honoring the embargo and not putting arms in the
humanitarian aid convoys. We do think this i s an isolated incident.
Q
When you're speaking about universal health care,
i s there any chance of making the background briefings on i t more
universally available to reporters who cover that beat and want to
ask questions about i t and get i t straight?
MS. MYERS: I don't know what the ground rules —
people were invited today.
MORE
how
#53-04/09
�- 5-
Q
I understand i t was a very s e l e c t i v e l i s t of —
i n v i t a t i o n s have produced l i k e 50 people though. And there are
papers that cover i t with full-time reporters that weren't i n v i t e d ~
not j u s t ours, but others as w e l l .
MS. MYERS:
Q
Let me look into what the — how that was —
Where does i t a c t u a l l y stand now?
We're a l l i n the
dark as —
MS. MYERS: On the health care plan, i n terms of when
i t ' s going to be unveiled?
Q
No.
producing a plan?
Where they stand i n t h e i r deliberations and
MS. MYERS: They're working through the process.
They're s t a r t i n g to make a s e r i e s of decisions.
Q
Do they have any decisions at a l l ?
MS. MYERS:
Q
Nothing that we can t a l k about.
Well, why not?
MS. MYERS:
Why aren't the people —
Because we're going to —
Q
— being l e t i n on what i s being planned?
should have some public debate.
They
MS. MYERS: There w i l l be, I'm sure, broad and extensive
public debate once the package i s complete. The presentation of the
package w i l l be debated widely on Congress, I'm sure among the
American people, i n the press.
Q
Why can't they know what you're thinking about now?
MS. MYERS: I think there's been plenty written and
speculated about what we're thinking about. But we w i l l make the
d e t a i l s of that proposal —
Q
There hasn't —
a c t u a l l y not.
MS. MYERS: I would beg to d i f f e r .
proposal w i l l be available in May.
Q
The d e t a i l s of that
Maybe some s e l e c t i v e leaks from you people, but
very l i t t l e .
MS. MYERS:
Q
I would say good reporting.
I would say s e l e c t i v e leaks.
Q
Dee Dee, can you t e l l us what the cause was of the
misinformation the other day on the President's cut?
MS. MYERS: I bear f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for that. I
spoke to a member of the s t a f f and not d i r e c t l y to the President.
Q
Q
a
And he told you i t was a —
or she told you i t was
What was the question?
—
MS. MYERS: The question was — B r i t ' s s t i l l t r y i n g to
get to the bottom of the great face cut embroglio.
MORE
#53-04/09
�- 6-
Q
Well, I was waiting for you — I would have waited
for you to volunteer i t , but since you didn't, I thought I'd ask you.
MS. MYERS: And my answer was that that was my mistake;
that I did not t a l k d i r e c t l y to the President before commenting on
the -Q
Well, who gave you the misinformation?
MS. MYERS:
Q
I t ' s not important.
Yes, i t i s .
MS. MYERS: I t wasn't the President.
member of the senior s t a f f .
Q
I t was not even a
But i t ' s a c r e d i b i l i t y question.
MS. MYERS:
No, i t ' s not.
I t was a mistake.
(Laughter.)
Somebody misinformed you, and you're not unhappy
about that?
MS. MYERS:
and I apologize.
I take f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i t , Helen,
Q
Can we hope that you, perhaps, had something to say
to the person who misinformed you?
MS. MYERS:
Q
I think i t was an honest mistake.
somebody was j u s t guessing.
MS. MYERS:
That's speculation, but I wouldn't rule i t
out.
Q
that.
What's the r e a l story now?
MS. MYERS:
Q
I think the President spoke c l e a r l y about
You stand behind h i s story?
MS. MYERS:
Q
(Laughter.)
One hundred percent.
A thousand percent i s what we usually say.
Q
No longer the case that the President's — i s to
have — phase i n universal coverage by the end of h i s f i r s t term —
by the end of t h i s term, I mean?
MS. MYERS: I was asked s p e c i f i c a l l y what the plans
were, and I said I wasn't going to comment on the s p e c i f i c s of the
plan u n t i l we make that announcement sometime i n May.
Q
I believe he said that h i s goal was to have i t by
the end of the term.
MS. MYERS: His comments stand, but I'm not going to get
into the business of commenting on the s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s of the health
plan. That's been our position throughout t h i s process.
Q
Speaking of members of the s t a f f , i s there any
active investigation underway to f i n a l l y determine the identity of
the woman who allegedly told General McCaffrey, I don't t a l k to the
military?
MORE
#53-04/09
�- 7-
MS. MYERS: No. And I believe General McCaffrey's made
i t c l e a r that he does not know who that person was, whether she was a
member of the White House s t a f f , somebody coming here for a v i s i t , or
on the grounds for some other reason. I think the General's also
made i t c l e a r that he believes he has an excellent r e l a t i o n s h i p with
the President, as do a l l of the members of the Pentagon who deal with
him regularly and deal with the White House regularly.
Q
— shouldn't there be some e f f o r t to find out who
i t i s and i f the President himself, I believe, has said to d i s c i p l i n e
that person?
MS. MYERS: There i s no active investigation underway.
And, again, I would remind you that there i s — even General
McCaffrey says he's not sure i f i t was a member of the White House
s t a f f . The President has again and again said that that's c e r t a i n l y
not — that kind of behavior would not be tolerated here. He doesn't
believe that that r e f l e c t s — i t c l e a r l y does not r e f l e c t the
attitude of the White House. We have a very good r e l a t i o n s h i p with
the m i l i t a r y members who work here and the people a t the Pentagon and
other places that we deal with.
Q
I t sounds l i k e i t was tolerated.
MS. MYERS: You don't know that i t was a member of the
White House s t a f f , B r i t . I f you can find out who i t i s , please l e t
me know.
Q
— Bush and Jim Baker are going to Kuwait, I
believe, on Sunday or Monday. Have they had any contact with the
President or the administration about the t r i p ?
MS. MYERS:
purely personal.
Kuwait.
No, not that I know of.
Q
Baker and Brady and spouses.
(Laughter.)
I believe i t ' s
Spring break i n
Q
Dee Dee, on the budget, the President has talked
about cutting costs. And the Executive Office of the President's
budget goes up quite considerably — the supplemental i n '93 and '94.
I t amounts to a 10 percent increase over the previous year. Can you
t e l l us why that's true?
MS. MYERS: I haven't seen or looked a t the s p e c i f i c
figures, but when we made the announcement, I believe i t was February
9th, about reducing the White House s t a f f , we said we would have a 25
percent reduction from election day to the beginning of the next
f i s c a l year, which i s October 1, '93. I believe that those goals are
met.
And I don't know the s p e c i f i c s of the budget. I can look into
it.
Q
The numbers i n the budget of personnel don't change
e s s e n t i a l l y . They go from $398 i n '92 to $408 i n '93 to $401 i n '94.
But the d o l l a r figures go up sharply.
MS. MYERS: I t ' s the t o t a l budget of the o f f i c e of
personnel — the way we — you have to remember how we defined i t .
We excluded OMB and USTR. And the budget — i t was a 10 percent
reduction i n the overall budget, which i s more than j u s t personnel.
Q
I'm not asking about personnel. And the point you
make about the reductions makes t h i s sharp increase i n dollars even
more meaningful. I t ' s j u s t not explained.
MS. MYERS: I ' l l have to get back to you, but I think
that there's — I'm sure that we meet our goals of a 10 percent
MORE
#53-04/09
�- 8-
reduction. I t ' s not the — i t wasn't OPM either.
House
i t was s p e c i f i c a l l y White House s t a f f .
—
I t was the White
Q
The Executive Office of the President i s the $400
the inside s t a f f — and i t goes up sharply.
MS. MYERS: But the budget we were looking a t was
roughly a $200 m i l l i o n budget. So I'm not sure how that i s defined
versus how —
Q
This i s a $40 m i l l i o n budget.
House i n t e r n a l budget. And i t ' s up big.
This i s the White
MS. MYERS: But, again, we defined i t a l i t t l e more
broadly. The t o t a l budget we were looking a t was $200 m i l l i o n . We
said we would reduce that budget by 10 percent, and I'm sure we have.
Q
I s the President trying t o refurbish h i s image with
the m i l i t a r y i n the overview sense, the d i f f e r e n t things that have
been held recently that he's done; does he f e e l he has a problem?
MS. MYERS: No, I don't believe that i s to be the case.
He i s the Commander-in-Chief. He w i l l continue to meet with —
confer with the m i l i t a r y , as he has done throughout. He's met with
the Joint Chiefs now twice. He talks with General Powell on a
regular b a s i s . He t a l k s with Secretary Aspin on a regular basis and
other senior m i l i t a r y o f f i c i a l s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p by a l l accounts i s
a good one. And the President w i l l continue to make periodic t r i p s
to the Pentagon and meet regularly with h i s security advisors.
Q
And you don't say that has anything to do with
doing any missionary work?
MS. MYERS: No. He went over there s p e c i f i c a l l y to
discuss the bottom-up review and a variety of national s e c u r i t y
issues. That i s something that i s c e r t a i n l y within h i s realm of
duties as Commander-in-Chief. He i s also making periodic v i s i t s to
a l l the agencies and departments. As you know, he's v i s i t e d OMB and
Treasury and now the Pentagon.
Q
And no missionary work involved i n the McCaffrey
i n v i t a t i o n to jog?
MS. MYERS:
President r e g u l a r l y —
Q
No. General McCaffrey i s a jogger. The
No, but he j u s t ran into him i n the corner, you
mean?
MS. MYERS: No, he invited him to jog with him.
regularly i n v i t e s people to jog with him, as you know.
but I mean —
He
Q
Well, there's a huge universe of people who jog,
and a l o t of them are i n the m i l i t a r y . Why him?
MS. MYERS:
o f f i c i a l delegation.
He was on the t r i p .
He was part of the
Q
Dee Dee, while the President i s out of town, has he
been c a l l i n g any senators to lobby them on the stimulus package? Or
has he been doing anything e l s e — trying t o get that b i l l through?
MS. MYERS: I believe he's made some c a l l s but I don't
know to whom or how many. I think he's been mostly occupied with
tending to h i s family, but I think he has spent a l i t t l e time talking
both to the White House s t a f f and I believe he's made a few c a l l s to
members of the Senate, but I don't know who.
MORE
#53-04/09
�- 9-
Q
Republicans?
MS. MYERS: I don't know who. I don't know.
Q
Can you t e l l us about the discussions with the
military yesterday on Bosnia?
MS. MYERS: The talked about a number of things. I
don't want to go into the specific details other than General Powell
and Secretary Aspin discussed a range of issues.
Q
And meetings today at the White House on Bosnia?
MS. MYERS: I t ' s — I would say there i s a principals
meeting, but i t ' s not specifically on Bosnia. As you know, the
principals meet regularly. I ' sure Bosnia w i l l be among the topics
m
discussed.
Q
Who are the principals.
MS. MYERS: I ' l l have to get back to you.
Q
Senior staff here, you mean?
MS. MYERS: And I believe there w i l l be a few others.
Q
NSC types?
MS. MYERS: NSC types.
I don't know — I don't have the
whole l i s t .
Q
Are Christopher and Aspin coming, or i s i t a
deputies meeting?
MS. MYERS: No, i t ' s principals.
Q
I s i t based on any new decisions?
Q
Who w i l l chair i t — Tony Lake?
MS. MYERS: I'm not sure what the structure of i t — i f
i t ' s Tony or — I believe i t i s .
Q
Your NSC colleague i s here, maybe he can help us.
Q
Can you give us —
MS. MYERS: Tony's chairing i t ?
Q
Who else?
Q
Who's there — cabinet principals.
Q
Well, come on. (Laughter.)
wouldn't be asking you who they are.
Q
I f we knew that we
Christopher and Aspin —
MS. MYERS: Christopher, Aspin, Powell, Lake.
Q
What's i t based on? What i s the premise?
MS. MYERS: They meet periodically.
Q
This i s not a special meeting?
MS. MYERS: They meet periodically. They'll discuss a
number of issues. Again, I am sure Bosnia w i l l be among them.
MORE
#53-04/09
�- 10 -
Q
In talking about Bosnia, what do you think of a
high profile Democratic senator, like Joe Biden, parachuting into
Sarajevo and basically declaring from over there, I think we ought to
— United States — he see's eye to eye with the President on almost
a l l matters of foreign affairs.
MS. MYERS: I think that's been a long held position of
Senator Biden's and I think that as a member of the United States
Senate he's certainly free to travel and make his opinions known as
he see's f i t .
Q
Dee Dee, the President nominated this week a
Chicago attorney who doesn't have any trade experience, I believe, to
be the U.S. coordinator or ambassador to the Uruguay Round. I s this
person going to be the chief negotiator to GATT? And i f so, what i s
the advantage of doing that rather than using the USTR?
MS. MYERS: Mickey Kantor i s the chief negotiator to
GATT. There will be a number of other people that work on i t but, as
you know, Leon Brittan and Mickey Kantor are the two principal people
who are going to try to reach agreement on the Uruguay Round.
Mickey's taken a very direct role in this.
Q
Didn't he pick a new negotiator today —
earlier this week?
Q
Deputy to — great trade
I mean,
—
MS. MYERS: Yes, but Mickey w i l l be the principal ~
Mickey and Leon Brittan are going to be the principal negotiators on
the Uruguay Round as we push toward a conclusion.
Q
Then what w i l l this guy do?
Q
This thing has been hung up for two years.
MS. MYERS: I defer to the USTR on that.
subsidies.
Q
This thing has been hung up for two years on ag
I s there some new plan or how can they shake i t loose?
MS. MYERS: Well, I think Mickey said he was not going
to discuss his negotiating strategy in public, but obviously — and I
don't think anybody ever believed this would be easy; but there i s
reason to believe that we can reach a conclusion. A number of the
principal parties involved and a l l the nations generally have said
that they think i t ' s time. They a l l want a good agreement, and we're
going to push toward a conclusion.
Q
— early next week. What's the President doing on
Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday?
MS. MYERS: Don't have any details of the schedule yet.
We do expect him back on Monday. I think the only thing that's
firmly on i s his meeting with Prime Minister Miyazawa on Friday.
Q
I s he planning any active campaigning for the
stimulus package, particularly out of town?
MS. MYERS: I think he w i l l take advantage of the
interim to travel. We don't have any specific plans, but I think
sometime —
Q
The interim's getting real short.
MORE
#53-04/09
�- 11 -
MS. MYERS: The President has travelled regularly since
being inaugurated and h e ' l l continue to do that. With the exception
of the l a s t couple of weeks, i t was generally a day a week.
Q
This i s n ' t an ad hoc schedule i s i t ? I mean does
the President have any projection of what he does — (laughter) — or
i s i t that you j u s t don't want to t e l l us?
MS. MYERS: Helen, I know t h i s may be d i f f i c u l t for you
to understand, but given the circumstances surrounding h i s family h i s
schedule has been up i n the a i r for the l a s t week.
Q
I know mean that.
MS. MYERS:
But you —
And I apologize i f that's inconvenient for
you.
Q
I t i s n ' t a question of that.
what's going to happen next week.
You surely know
MS. MYERS: Helen, I'm not hiding any d e t a i l s from you
— I promise. We j u s t don't have f i n a l agreements on i t , and as soon
as we do and we can release them, we'll be happy to share them with
you.
We r e a l l y do want you to cover these events.
This i s
not about —
Q
We don't need the sarcasm; we j u s t would l i k e to
know what w i l l be the focus of h i s attention.
MS. MYERS: As soon as I have d e t a i l s of that, I ' l l be
happy to share i t with you.
Q
When you said he's expected back on Monday, i s that
deliberate or were you saying by Monday.
MS. MYERS: No, h e ' l l be here Monday.
back, probably Sunday night.
I expect him
Q
There's an Easter Egg r o l l that's every year. I s
he going to be part of that?
MS. MYERS: The F i r s t Lady i s hosting i t , and the
President w i l l probably be there.
Q
Do you expect the announcement of an AIDS czar t h i s
week or early next week.
MS. MYERS: Don't have a s p e c i f i c date.
in the r e l a t i v e l y near future.
Q
What was the question?
MS. MYERS:
march?
We expect one
AIDS czar.
Q
What are the President's plans, i f any, for the gay
I s he planning to be here?
MS. MYERS:
Q
S t i l l don't have any s p e c i f i c s .
I s he planning to be here to participate?
MS. MYERS:
Don't have any d e t a i l s about that schedule
yet.
Q
— timetable that you're looking for for the fast
track extension of the GATT process.
MORE
#53-04/09
�- 12 -
MS. MYERS: December 15th. This would extend conclusion
of negotiations to December 15th, congressional approval by A p r i l
15th of '94.
Q
When does i t end now —
MS. MYERS:
Q
I'm not sure what the exact date i s .
I think i t ' s up, i s n ' t i t ? I s n ' t i t up?
MS. MYERS:
I t ' s close.
THE PRESS:
Thank you.
END
I don't think i t ' s expired yet.
12:15 P.M. EDT
#53-04/09
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Office of Press and Communications - Philip J. “P.J.” Crowley
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
National Security Council
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36076">Collection Finding Aid</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2011-0516-S
Description
An account of the resource
This collection consists of White House press releases from the files of P.J. Crowley. Crowley served as Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and Senior Director of Public Affairs the National Security Council from 1997–1999. The press releases are arranged by subject or, as in the case of the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, by date.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
370 folders in 33 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Trade [2]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
National Security Council
Office of Press and Communications
Philip "PJ" Crowley
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2011-0516-S
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 14
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/7585702"></a>
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36076">Collection Finding Aid</a>
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
7585702
42-t-7585702-20110516s-014-011-2015
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: NSC Cable, Email, and Records Management System
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference