Images (40)
Document
| id |
id
506673211
|
|---|---|
| contentType |
contentType
document
|
| source |
source
import
|
Source image fields (6)
Extracted text
OCR Page 1 of 40THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
ACTION
CONFIDENTIAL
December 27, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
FROM:
PETER G. PETERSON
SUBJECT:
Bermuda, Generalized Preferences,
and 1972 Trade/Political Strategy
The announcement in Bermuda that we will submit generalized preferences
trade legislation raises questions of implementation, particularly timing,
While we have previously discussed these questions, it is useful to review
them inmlight of your recent initiatives.
The Ways and Means Committee is clearly protectionist in its orientation
and one of the sponsors of the Labor bill along with Hartke is Committee
member Congressman Burke. In past conversations, Wilbur Mills has told me
it might be very difficult to insulate the generalized preferences legislation
from a Christmas Tree approach; in this case the Hartke-Burke bill.
Thus, if we submit only generalized preferences and/or do it at the wrong
time, we could end up opening a political Pandora's box without a positive
alternative of our own to the Hartke-Burke bill. Where do we stand on our
own program? We have several Council on International Economic Policy
Task Forces well into the work on a comprehensive legislative package
(export promotion, adjustment assistance, investment policies, East-West
trade, Presidential negotiating authority, etc.) ), but it would take a crash
effort to get a final legislative package ready for March or April submission.
Aside from political and policy side effects, there is the important question
of our own domestic priorities - since the Ways and Means Committee also
would be handling revenue sharing, health, welfare reform, pension legislation,
environmental and R&D tax credits, and perhaps even broader tax legislation.
There are many options, and all of us who have worked on this, including
MacGregor, Shultz, and Ehrlichman, agree that timing of trade legislation
is both a very tough and a very political decision, particularly in an
election year.
The session you have already approved would be in San Clemente in early
January, which is the earliest time John Connally could conveniently be
there; given the high political content, the legislative strategies, as
well as the subject area, George Shultz and I feel it would be inappropriate
to have a meeting without Connally. Also, Rogers and Kissinger would of
course be there.
DECLASSIFIED
E.O. 12958, Sect. 3.6
By GRG
NARA, Date 12/16/97
Relations
belongs_to