Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
52874582
label
Daily Press Guidance - June 11, 1997
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
52874582
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Daily Press Guidance - June 11, 1997
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of the Press Secretary (Clinton Administration)
General Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
52874582
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7432015-20110586F-003-005-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
56890421450ce9f3
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2011-0586-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Press Secretary
Series/Staff Member:
General Files
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
10858
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Daily Press Guidance - June 11, 1997
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
93
1
1
1
6/11/97
Daily Press Guidance
Wednesday
June 11, 1997
(For internal use only.)
updated on
6. drive
Press Guidance
7/9/97
Wednesday, June 11, 1997
Schedule
1.
Crime event - Crime
2
Business Roundtable
Domestic
1.
Budget
Taxes - Budget
Medicare - medicare
Welfare
2.
Race - Race Relations
3.
Tobacco - Tobacco
4.
INS deportation - immigration
5.
FDA reform - FDA
6.
NTSB Crash Recorders Transportations
7.
FAA personnel announcements -FAA
8.
Disaster Supplemental - FEMA
9.
Taxation of Indian Gaming Commission -Indian Sites
Foreign
1.
2.
3.
Denver UN Qatar Summit , foreign
4.
DROC (Ex-Zaire)
5.
Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville)
6.
Sierra Leone
7.
China
8.
Haiti
9.
NATO
10.
Germany
11.
Middle East
12.
Libya/Pan Am
13.
Canada
14.
Ralston
15.
Cyprus
16.
Kazakstan/Iran
17.
France
18.
Russia/NIS
19.
Iran
20.
Korea
21.
Indonesia
22.
Algeria
23.
Saudi Arabia
24.
25.
Fast Track - foreign
Trips and Visitors
26.
Burma
27.
Bosnia
28.
Ireland
29.
Northern Ireland
30.
Gulf War Illness
31.
Gingrich and Nicaraguans
PRESIDENT CLINTON ADDRESSES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SYMPOSIUM ON
YOUTH VIOLENCE AND CRIME
June 11, 1997
Today, President Clinton is acting to further restrict youth access to guns. In a keynote
address at the Department of Justice Conference entitled, "Curbing Youth Violence and Drugs:
Communities Working Together," the President will announce that he is issuing the Treasury
Department to publish regulations requiring federal firearms licensees to post signs and issue
written notifications advising handgun purchasers that it is illegal to transfer a handgun to a minor
or for minors to possess a handgun.
The conference consists of four panel discussions: (1) targeting guns and drugs; (2)
targeting gang violence; (3) enforcement strategies that work; and (4) prevention and intervention
strategies that work. Attorney General Reno will open the conference at 9 a.m. The President
will speak during lunch after the first two panels. HUD Secretary Cuomo will close the
Conference after panels three and four.
The sequence of events is as follows:
Georgetown University president Father Leo O'Donovan makes welcoming
remarks and announces the President, the Attorney General and Treasury Under
Secretary for Enforcement Ray Kelly onto the stage.
Under Secretary Kelly will make remarks and introduce the Attorney General.
The Attorney General makes remarks and introduces the President.
The President makes remarks.
A fact sheet on the President's juvenile justice announcement, the Administrations record
on fighting juvenile crime, and supportive statements from the Fraternal Order of Police and
Handgun Control and are attached.
YOUTH VIOLENCE AND CRIME
June 11, 1997
Announcement
Today, President Clinton announced he will act to further restrict youth access to guns by
directing the Treasury Department to publish regulations requiring federal firearms
licensees to post signs and issue written notifications warning handgun purchasers about
transferring guns to minors.
Background
Guns are at the heart of our nation's youth violence epidemic. Guns -- and handguns in
particular -- have fueled the surge in juvenile murders. Since 1984, the number of
juveniles killing with a gun has quadrupled. And teenage boys today are more likely to
die of gunshot wounds than all natural causes combined.
The Administration's juvenile crime legislation gets tough on guns by: increasing
penalties for illegally transferring guns to juveniles; expanding the Brady Law to prohibit
violent juveniles from owning guns as adults; and requiring federal gun dealers to provide
child safety locks with every gun sold.
The President believes there is more we must do to cut off the easy access to guns for our
kids. For almost every gun that gets into a juvenile's hands, an adult had an opportunity
to stop that transfer from taking place.
The President's directive ensures that Treasury will do everything in its power to put
adult gun purchasers on notice about their legal obligation to keep handguns away from
our kids. The directive calls for Treasury to issue regulations requiring all FFLs to post
signs and issue written warnings with each handgun sold that:
(1)
Make clear that it is generally illegal for any adult to transfer a handgun to
a minor, or for minors to possess a handgun;
(2)
Make clear that violation of the prohibition on transferring a handgun to a
juvenile may be punishable by up to 10 years in prison;
(3)
Warn that handguns are a leading contributor to juvenile violence and
fatalities; and
(4)
State that safely storing and locking handguns will help ensure compliance
with this law.
Clinton Administration's Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Strategy
The President's strategy seeks to break the back of violent gangs, reduce youth violence,
and provide kids with alternatives to steer them away from gangs, guns, and drugs. In
addition to getting tough on guns, his strategy includes $200 million for local prosecutors,
probation officers, and anti-gang task forces and funds after school programs to keep kids
off the streets and out of trouble.
PRESIDENT CLINTON:
FIGHTING JUVENILE CRIME
"As I begin my second term as President, the next stage in our fight must center on keeping our children safe and
attacking the scourge of juvenile crime and gangs. I want every police officer, prosecutor, and citizen in
America working together to keep our young people safe and young criminals off the streets. This should be
America's top priority in the fight for law and order over the next four years."
-President Clinton
Radio Address, January 11, 1997
Juvenile Crime Rates are Dropping for the First Time in Years
In the years before the Clinton Administration, the juvenile crime rate was increasing at alarming
rates. Between 1987 and 1993, the juvenile violent crime arrest rate increased 62%.
In 1995. the juvenile crime arrest rate decreased for the first time in 7 years. The rate decreased 2.9% in 1995.
The juvenile murder arrest rates has declined sharply during the Clinton Administration. In 1995 the murder arrest rate for juveniles declined
15.2% -- the largest one-year drop in more than 10 years. Since 1993, the juvenile murder arrest rate has dropped 22.8%
[Source: FBI, 1995 Uniform Crime Report, 10/96]
Fewer guns in the hands of our children. President Clinton signed into law a youth handgun ban in
his 1994 Crime Bill. The ban makes it a federal offense, with some exceptions, for an adult to transfer a
handgun to a juvenile, or for a juvenile under the age of 18 to knowingly possess a handgun or handgun
ammunition. [Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 103-322]
Zero tolerance for guns in schools. In October 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Gun-Free
Schools Act, and issued a Presidential Directive later that month to enforce "zero tolerance" in our
schools -- you bring a gun to school, you don't come back for a year. [Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, enacted
as part of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, P.L. 103-382, signed on 10/20/94]
Strengthened efforts to clamp down on illicit gun markets, especially those that provide guns to
children. The President directed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to implement the
Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative in 17 pilot cities. Through this initiative, law enforcement
traces all guns used in crime that are seized by Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers, using
the trace information to identify and prosecute illegal gun traffickers. [Memorandum on the Youth Crime Gun
Interdiction Initiative to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, 7/8/96]
Strengthened and expanded the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. President
Clinton expanded the Drug-Free Schools Act into the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act of 1994, making
violence prevention a key part of that program. The President's proposed FY 98 Budget contains a $60
million increase for Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, which reaches 97% of the nation's school
districts. Schools use these funds to keep violence, drugs and alcohol away from students and out of
schools. [ONDCP, The National Drug Control Strategy, 1997: Budget Summary, 1997]
Supporting curfews at the local level. The Clinton Administration has encouraged communities to
adopt curfew policies because they can help fight juvenile crime and keep our children safe. The Justice
Department issued a report highlighting the successes of community-supported curfew programs. For
example, New Orleans' curfew program, in combination with summer jobs and recreational programs,
resulted in a 27% drop in juvenile crime during curfew hours in 1994, compared to the previous
year. [Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs, 5/96]
Expanding truancy programs. Truancy prevention initiatives have been shown to keep more children
in school and dramatically reduce daytime crime. For example, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, local police
officers participating in their anti-truancy initiative pick up truant students and take them to a Boys and
Girls Club for counseling. Since the anti-truancy initiative began, daytime burglary has dropped 33%
and daytime aggravated battery has dropped 29%. The President has issued a guidebook to school
districts nationwide which outlines the central characteristics of a comprehensive truancy prevention
policy and highlights model initiatives in cities and towns across the country. [Department of Education,
Manual to Combat Truancy, 7/96]
Encouraged schools to adopt school uniform policies to help reduce violence while promoting
discipline and respect. [Public Papers of the Presidents, Memorandum on the School Uniforms Manual, 2/23/96]
Placing child safety locks in guns. The President is fighting for legislation to require child safety locks
on every gun sold in America. He has already signed a directive to every federal agency, requiring child
safety locks in every handgun issued. [Memorandum on Child Safety Lock Devices for Handguns, 5/5/97]
THE AGENDA AHEAD
The President recognizes that juvenile crime will be the largest threat to our communities in the future.
That is why he has proposed a bill that will be a full scale assault on juvenile crime. The President's bill:
Targeting gangs and violent juveniles, with new prosecutors and anti-gang initiatives, including
the authority to try violent juveniles as adults when they commit adult crimes. The President's Anti-
Gang and Youth Violence Strategy provides grants to localities to fund scores of new prosecutors
and anti-gang initiatives so that they may pursue, convict and sentence gang members for their
crimes.
Keeping our kids gun- and drug-free, by requiring gun dealers to sell child safety locks with
every handgun, expanding the Brady Law to prevent juveniles convicted of violent crimes from
buying guns when they turn 18, and enacting tough new measures to crack down on drunk or
drugged driving.
Keeping our kids on the right track through anti-truancy measures, curfews, and keeping schools
open late and on weekends to keep children off the streets and out of trouble.
FRATERNAL OR ER OF PO CE
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
309 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.E.
WASHINGTON, DC 20002
PHONE: (202) 547-8189 FAX: (202) 547-8190
GILBERT G. GALLEGOS
JAMES O. PASCO, JR.
NATIONAL PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
BERNARD H. TEODORSKI
NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT
CHAIRMAN. NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
James Pasco
11 June 1997
202-547-8189
FOP SUPPORTS CLINTON'S JUVENILE HANDGUN DIRECTIVE
The President of the nation's largest police organization weighed
in with strong support of President Clinton's Juvenile Handgun
Directive today.
Gilbert G. Gallegos, National President of the Fraternal Order of
Police, hailed the President's directive to the Treasury Department
to conduct a hard hitting public awareness campaign through
Federally licensed firearms dealers. "The epidemic of intentional
and accidental misuse of firearms by juveniles has reached critical
mass, " said Gallegos "and every possible innovative tactic within
existing law must be brought to bear on violators."
Clinton's directive to Treasury requires that notices be posted at
all of the nation's 112,000 Federally licensed firearms dealers
advising that:
1.
It is generally a violation of Federal law for a juvenile
(under 18) to possess, or an adult to transfer to a
juvenile, any handgun.
2.
Violators will be Federally prosecuted.
3.
Handguns are a leading cause of juvenile fatalities.
4.
Safe storage and use of safety locking devices on
firearms are options to be considered in keeping firearms
safe from accidental discharge or misuse.
"We commend the President for continuing his effort to find new and
innovative ways to avoid the criminal misuse of firearms within
existing law, " said Gallegos. "Speaking for officers across the
country who are confronted daily by armed juvenile gang bangers,
I'm here to tell you we'll take all the help we can get - and
federal prosecutions coupled with a vigorous public awareness
campaign will help a lot!"
The Fraternal Order of Police is the largest police organization in
the United States with over 277,000 members.
HANDGUN CONTROL
ONE MILLION STRONG
working to
keep handguns out of the wrong hands.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
CONTACT: Naomi Paiss or Robin
June 11, 1997
Terry at (202) 898-0792
STATEMENT OF SARAH BRADY
CHAIR, HANDGUN CONTROL, INC.
RE: EXECUTIVE ORDER ON GUN WARNING LABELS
Handgun Control, Inc. applauds and supports President Clinton's executive order
mandating the provision of written warnings with each handgun sale. Every year,
children and teenagers are responsible for 10,000 unintentional shootings in which at
least 800 people die. Too many Americans are uninformed about the legal and human
consequences that flow from children having unsupervised access to handguns. If we
want to keep guns out of the hands of children, the first step is educating and warning
adults about their responsibilities as gun owners. The President's action is a major and
critical step forward in the campaign to keep guns out of the hands of children.
But this executive order is only the first step. We urge the Senate, which is currently
considering the Juvenile Crime Bill, to include a provision mandating child safety locks
to bc sold with all new handguns. Inexpensive trigger locks are the equivalent of a child-
safety cap on a bottle of aspirin. But for some reason, the NRA and its allies in Congress
continue to oppose this sensible measure to reduce the appalling rates of teen homicide,
suicide and unintentional gun accidents in this country.
Again and again, research tells us that a home without guns is a safer home. For those
Americans who choose to own a handgun. however, every measure that can be taken to
protect our children must be supported. President Clinton's order is a welcome addition
to the sensible precautions we must take to live carefully with lethal firearms.
-30-
Handgun Control. Inc., chaired by Sarah Brady. is the nation's largest citizens' gun control lohhying
organization. Based in Washington, DC, HCI works to enact stronger federal, state and local gun control
laws, bus does not seek to ban handguns. Founded in 1974, HCI has more than 400,000 members
nationwide and works with local groups around the country to enucl and protect reasonable gun control
laws.
Handgun Control, Inc., 1225 Eye Street, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005
(202) 896-0792
FAX (202) 371-9615
268 Bugh St., Box 555. San Francisco. CA 01101
(415) 433-3535
FAX (415) 433 0274
10951 W. Pico Blvd., Suite 100, Loe Angoics, CA 00064
(310) 446-0058
FAX (310) 475-314/
5292.qas
Page 1
JUVENILE HANDGUN DIRECTIVE
JUNE 11, 1997
&
What is the directive that the President signed today?
A:
Today, the President signed a directive to ensure that the Treasury
Department do everything possible to enforce the Youth Handgun Safety
Act -- including requiring that federal gun dealers post signs and issue
written warnings that:
(1) Make clear that it is generally illegal for any adult to transfer a
handgun to a minor (under 18), or for that minor to possess that
handgun, period;
(2) Make clear that transferring a handgun to a minor may be
punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment;
(3) Warn that handguns are a leading contributor to juvenile
violence and fatalities; and
(4) State that safely storing and locking handguns will help ensure
compliance with this law.
&
What is the impact of this directive? How is it any different -- or how does
it augment current law?
A:
This directive will require, for the first time ever, that federal firearms
dealers (FFLs) post signs and issue written warnings about the responsibility
that gun purchasers have under current law to not transfer a handgun to
juveniles -- as well as about the dangers that handguns pose to kids
generally. That's an important change for two reasons.
First, for almost every gun that gets into a juvenile's hands, an adult had
the opportunity -- in fact, the legal responsibility -- to stop that transfer
from taking place. Today's directive puts adult gun purchasers on notice
about this responsibility -- and warns them about the legal sanctions that
may apply if this responsibility is ignored.
Second, the mix of kids and guns is at the heart of the nation's youth
violence epidemic. Since the mid 1980s, the number of kids killing with a
gun has quadrupled; the number of kids killed by guns has nearly tripled;
and teenage boys today are more likely to die of gunshot wounds than
5292.qas
Page 2
all natural causes combined. Still, we do more to warn Americans about
the dangers of most household products than we do about the dangers
that guns pose to our children. Today's directive represents an effort to
correct this imbalance.
Q:
Can you please clarify under what authority you're taking this action?
A:
The authority for this directive is two-fold:
(1) 18 U.S.C. Sec. 926(a) generally provides that the Secretary of the
Treasury may proscribe certain rules and regulations to carry out the
provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act as amended; and
(2) 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(x)(1) -- or the Youth Handgun Safety Act,
which was included by Senator Kohl as an amendment to the 1994
crime bill -- prohibits, in most circumstances, juveniles from
possessing handguns, and adults from transferring handguns to
juveniles.
Our directive finds that additional warnings are necessary to fully carry out
the prohibitions of the Youth Handgun Safety Act, and calls for signs to be
posted and written warnings issued to help ensure compliance with the
law.
&
What punishments are provided for in the Youth Handgun Safety Act?
A:
Juveniles who violate the ban on handgun possession are subject to
mandatory probation. Adults who violate the prohibition on transferring
handguns to juveniles are punishable by a prison term of 1 to 10 years,
depending on the circumstances. Additionally, the Administration has
called for increasing both of these penalties in its juvenile crime legislation.
Q:
Have you successfully prosecuted anyone under the Youth Handgun
Safety Act? Do you know how many persons have been prosecuted
overall?
A:
No, I don't have a number on the total prosecutions. But I do have an
example. I know that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Tennessee successfully
prosecuted an illegal gun dealer who -- among other illegal firearms
activities -- sold a pistol to a 13-year old. He's been sentenced to 33
months in prison.
&
Do you think that this directive will really help keep handguns from
292.qas
Page 3
juveniles? Shouldn't your directive do more than simply call for signs and
warnings?
A:
Of course, we believe that this directive is meaningful and will have
impact. And it certainly makes as much sense to warn gun purchasers
about their legal responsibilities and the dangers of handguns as it does
for the many other products that are sold with similar warnings.
At the same time, there is only SO much we can do under existing law to
keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. That's why our juvenile crime bill
includes 3 key gun provisions: it increases penalties for transferring guns to
juveniles; it prohibits violent juveniles from ever owning guns; and it
requires that federal gun dealers provide child safety locks with every gun
sold. With these additional changes in law, we will be able to do even
more to keep guns away from our kids.
&
If you're going to issue warnings about guns, why don't you just regulate
them like other products through the Consumer Products Safety
Commission?
A:
First of all, today's directive does more than simply warn gun purchasers
about the dangers of handguns; It makes clear to gun purchasers that
they have responsibilities -- and that transferring a handgun to a juvenile is
a crime punishable by as much as 10 years imprisonment.
Second, the mandate of the Consumer Products Safety Commission does
not include firearms. The Commission is expressly prohibited from getting
into matters concerning the manufacture and sale of firearms and
firearms ammunition. So we simply don't have this authority.
Q.
What is the Administration's position on the various Republican proposals
to combat juvenile crime?
A.
First of all, we are opposed to H.R. 3, the bill that passed the House. It
does not come close to representing a comprehensive attack on gangs
and guns. It doesn't guarantee that Boston's successful juvenile crime
initiative -- Operations Cease-fire and Nite Lite -- can be replicated. It
doesn't include any provisions relating to kids and guns. And it does not
specifically address the high number of crimes committed by juveniles
when school goes out.
We're hopeful that the Senate will work with US to address these issues.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider legislation this
Thursday, and we are communicating our concerns to them now. We will
[292.qas
Page 4
have to wait and see how the mark-up in that committee goes before we
know whether or not we'll be able to support a Senate bill.
Q.
What does the Administration's juvenile justice proposal do?
A.
The legislation proposed by the President in February is part of an overall
Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Strategy that seeks to crack down on
violent gangs, reduce youth violence, and provide our kids with positive
alternatives to steer them away from gangs, guns, and drugs.
The strategy provides critical resources for state and local prosecutors to
target, prosecute and convict violent youth gangs. It permits Federal
prosecutors to prosecute juveniles in adult court when they commit
violent crimes. It requires child safety locks for guns to prevent accidents
and thefts, and extends the Brady Law SO that violent juveniles can never
own a gun. Finally, the Strategy also calls for at least 1,000 after school
initiatives to keep kids off the streets and give them positive alternatives.
The Administration calls on Congress to pass juvenile crime legislation
addressing these key issues.
The Business Roundtable
Bris
Wed & Thurs.
7
1997
MAR
Donald V. Fites
1615 L Street, N.W.
Chairman
Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20036-5610
Ralph S. Larsen
(202) 872-1260 Fax (202) 466-3509
Cochairman
Samuel L. Maury
President
Walter V. Shipley
Cochairman
Patricia Hanahan Engman
John F. Smith, Jr.
Executive Director
Cochairman
February 26, 1997
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
In keeping with our quarter-century tradition, I am writing on behalf of the 200 members of The Business
Roundtable to ask you to be the keynote speaker at our 25th Annual Meeting on Thursday, June 12, at the
JW Marriott, in Washington, D.C. We have had the honor of being addressed by every sitting president -
yourself included - in our 25-year history.
I know you are familiar with the Roundtable's work. The organization has a reputation for playing a
constructive and creative role in the development of public policy. The CEOs devote considerable
resources and personal time to advancing critical issues on which they believe they can make an important
contribution. Our activities in support of NAFTA, GATT, and Fast-Track, balancing the federal budget,
and our partnership with the governors throughout the country to stimulate systemic reform in K-12
education are examples of some of our efforts.
I hope that you will be able to join us. We would all very much enjoy having the opportunity to see you
again. The Roundtable will follow up with your office to confirm your attendance. The meeting begins at
4:00 p.m., will conclude at 6:00 p.m., and is followed by a cocktail reception which we would be happy to
have you join if time allowed. We will work to accommodate your schedule.
I have attached a list of our members for your reference. With best personal wishes, I am
Sincerely
Dr
Fiter
Donald V. Fites
Chairman & CEO
Caterpillar Inc.
Chairman, The Business Roundtable
The Business Roundtable
An association of Chief Executive Officers committed to improving public policy
Membership List
F. Duane Ackerman - BellSouth Corporation
Roger G. Ackerman - Corning Incorporated
William F. Aldinger - Household International, Inc.
Paul A. Allaire - Xerox Corporation
Robert E. Allen - AT&T
Ronald W. Allen - Delta Air Lines, Inc.
W. Wayne Allen - Phillips Petroleum Company
Rand V. Araskog - ITT Corporation
Nolan D. Archibald - The Black & Decker Corporation
Norman R. Augustine - Lockheed Martin Corporation
Keith E. Bailey - The Williams Companies, Inc.
Curtis H. Barnette - Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Donald R. Beall - Rockwell International Corporation
Hans W. Becherer - Deere & Company
Riley P. Bechtel - Bechtel Group, Inc.
Geoffrey C. Bible - Philip Morris Companies Inc.
Peter I. Bijur - Texaco Inc.
Robert H. Bohannon - Viad Corp
Michael R. Bonsignore - Honeywell, Inc.
Lawrence A. Bossidy - AlliedSignal Inc.
Mike R. Bowlin - ARCO
William E. Bradford - Dresser Industries, Inc.
James L. Broadhead - FPL Group, Inc.
John H. Bryan - Sara Lee Corporation
John E. Bryson - Edison International
David L. Burner - The BFGoodrich Company
Duane L. Burnham - Abbott Laboratories
M. Anthony Burns - Ryder System Inc.
Robert N. Burt - FMC Corporation
August A. Busch III - Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
Thomas E. Capps - Dominion Resources, Inc.
Philip J. Carroll - Shell Oil Company
William Cavanaugh, III - Carolina Power & Light Company
Paul W. Chellgren - Ashland Inc.
Dick Cheney - Halliburton Company
Philip M. Condit - The Boeing Company
E. Gary Cook - Witco Corporation
Luke R. Corbett - Kerr-McGee Corporation
1
A.D. Correll - Georgia-Pacific Corporation
Albert J. Costello - W.R. Grace & Co.
David A. Coulter - BankAmerica Corporation
Robert L. Crandall - AMR Corporation
Jack B. Critchfield - Florida Progress Corporation
John J. Curley - Gannett Co., Inc.
A.W. Dahlberg - The Southern Company
George David - United Technologies Corporation
Richard K. Davidson - Union Pacific Corporation
Earnest W. Deavenport, Jr. - Eastman Chemical Company
Jerry E. Dempsey - PPG Industries, Inc.
Kenneth T. Derr - Chevron Corporation
Livio D. DeSimone - 3M
John T. Dillon - International Paper Company
Joseph L. Dionne - The McGraw-Hill Companies
E. Linn Draper, Jr. - American Electric Power Company
James L. Dutt - McDermott International, Inc.
Robert J. Eaton - Chrysler Corporation
Walter Y. Elisha - Springs Industries, Inc.
R. Keith Elliott - Hercules Incorporated
D.T. Engen - ITT Industries
Thomas J. Engibous - Texas Instruments Incorporated
Roger A. Enrico - PepsiCo, Inc.
James D. Ericson - Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co.
William T. Esrey - Sprint Corporation
Melvyn J. Estrin - FoxMeyer Health Corp.
Phillip W. Farmer - Harris Corporation
W. James Farrell - Illinois Tool Works Inc.
George M. C. Fisher - Eastman Kodak Company
Richard B. Fisher - Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
Donald V. Fites - Caterpillar Inc.
Peter H. Forster - DPL Inc.
H. Laurance Fuller - Amoco Corporation
Louis V. Gerstner, Jr. - IBM Corporation
Samir F. Gibara - The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Raymond V. Gilmartin - Merck & Co., Inc.
Roberto C. Goizueta - The Coca-Cola Company
Steven F. Goldstone - RJR Nabisco
Harvey Golub - American Express Company
David R. Goode - Norfolk Southern Corporation
Melvin R. Goodes - Warner-Lambert Company
Joseph T. Gorman - TRW Inc.
Jeffrey P. Gotschall - SIFCO Industries, Inc.
Maurice R. Greenberg - American International Group, Inc.
Gerald Greenwald - UAL Corporation
2
Donald W. Griffin - Olin Corporation
William H. Grigg - Duke Power Company
Brian L. Halla - National Semiconductor Corporation
George J. Harad - Boise Cascade Corporation
James F. Hardymon - Textron Incorporated
Thomas C. Hays - American Brands, Inc.
Charles A. Heimbold, Jr. - Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
James A. Henderson - Cummins Engine Co., Inc.
Charles L. Henry - Schuller Corporation
Glen H. Hiner - Owens Corning
David H. Hoag - The LTV Corporation
Irvine O. Hockaday, Jr. - Hallmark Cards, Inc.
Harry G. Hohn - New York Life Insurance Co.
William J. Hudson, Jr. - AMP Incorporated
Ray R. Irani - Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Verne G. Istock - First Chicago NBD
Peter S. Janson - ABB Inc.
David A. Jones - Humana Inc.
Michael H. Jordan - Westinghouse Electric Corporation
William H. Joyce - Union Carbide Corporation
Harry P. Kamen - Metropolitan Life Insurance
James P. Kelly - United Parcel Service of America
Charles F. Knight - Emerson Electric Company
David H. Komansky - Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
L. Dennis Kozlowski - Tyco International, Ltd.
Robert D. Krebs - Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.
Jack Krol - DuPont Company
Arnold G. Langbo - Kellogg Company
Ralph S. Larsen - Johnson & Johnson
Charles R. Lee - GTE Corporation
Gerald M. Levin - Time Warner Inc.
Loida Nicolas Lewis - TLC Beatrice Inter. Holdings, Inc.
H. William Lichtenberger - Praxair, Inc.
George A. Lorch - Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
Vernon R. Loucks, Jr. - Baxter International Inc.
John A. Luke, Jr. - Westvaco
Edwin Lupberger - Entergy Corporation
Reuben Mark - Colgate-Palmolive Company
J. Willard Marriott, Jr. - Marriott International, Inc.
Arthur C. Martinez - Sears, Roebuck and Co.
Steven C. Mason - Mead Corporation
Samuel L. Maury - The Business Roundtable
W. Craig McClelland - Union Camp Corporation
Hugh L. McColl, Jr. - NationsBank Corporation
Richard D. McCormick - US WEST
3
John B. McCoy - Banc One Corporation
Leslie G. McCraw - Fluor Corporation
Dana G. Mead - Tenneco, Inc.
Joseph J. Melone - The Equitable Companies, Inc.
Jack L. Messman - Union Pacific Resources
Ernest S. Micek - Cargill, Inc.
Roger Milliken - Milliken & Company
Edward F. Mitchell - Potomac Electric Power Company
Paul M. Montrone - Fisher Scientific Inter., Inc.
E. J. Mooney - Nalco Chemical Company
M. Thomas Moore - Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc.
Southwood J. Morcott - Dana Corporation
Joseph Neubauer - Aramark Corporation
Frank N. Newman - Bankers Trust New York Corporation
Richard C. Notebaert - Ameritech
Lucio A. Noto - Mobil Corporation
Paul H. O'Neill - Aluminum Company of America
Robert J. O'Toole - A. O. Smith Corporation
James E. Oesterreicher - J. C. Penney Co., Inc.
Richard E. Olson - Champion International Corporation
James F. Orr III - UNUM Corporation
Richard J. Osborne - ASARCO, Inc.
Robert B. Palmer - Digital Equipment Corporation
James L. Pate - Pennzoil Company
John E. Pepper, Jr. - The Procter & Gamble Company
Lawrence Perlman - Ceridian Corporation
James E. Perrella - Ingersoll-Rand Company
Dennis J. Picard - Raytheon Company
Joseph A. Pichler - The Kroger Company
Lewis E. Platt - Hewlett-Packard Company
Philip J. Quigley - Pacific Telesis Group
Bruce E. Ranck - Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.
Lee R. Raymond - Exxon Corporation
John S. Reed - CITICORP
Oliver G. Richard, III - The Columbia Gas System, Inc.
John M. Richman - R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company
H. John Riley, Jr. - Cooper Industries, Inc.
James M. Ringler - Premark International, Inc.
Bert C. Roberts, Jr. - MCI Communications Corporation
Edward B. Rust, Jr. - State Farm Insurance Companies
Arthur F. Ryan - The Prudential Ins. Co. of America
Stephen W. Sanger - General Mills, Inc.
Philip G. Satre - Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
Henry B. Schacht - Lucent Technologies
James P. Schadt - Reader's Digest Association, Inc.
4
Wolfgang R. Schmitt - Rubbermaid Incorporated
Richard Scott - Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.
Ivan G. Seidenberg - NYNEX Corporation
Robert B. Shapiro - Monsanto Company
Richard L. Sharp - Circuit City Stores, Inc.
Jeremiah J. Sheehan - Reynolds Metals Company
Walter V. Shipley - The Chase Manhattan Corporation
Charles R. Shoemate - CPC International, Inc.
A.J.C. Smith - Marsh & McLennan Companies
Frederick W. Smith - Federal Express Corporation
John F. Smith, Jr. - General Motors Corporation
Raymond W. Smith - Bell Atlantic Corporation
William D. Smithburg - The Quaker Oats Company
John W. Snow - CSX Corporation
John R. Stafford - American Home Products Corporation
William S. Stavropoulos - The Dow Chemical Company
William C. Steere, Jr. - Pfizer, Inc.
Daniel J. Sullivan - Caliber System, Inc.
Richard J. Swift - Foster Wheeler Corporation
Wilson H. Taylor - CIGNA Corporation
Robert A. Tinstman - Morrison Knudsen Corporation
Randall L. Tobias - Eli Lilly & Company
Gary L. Tooker - Motorola, Inc.
Alex Trotman - Ford Motor Company
Robert J. Ulrich - Dayton Hudson Corporation
James A. Unruh - Unisys Corporation
Thomas J. Usher - USX Corporation
Linda J. Wachner - Warnaco
Harold A. Wagner - Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Martin D. Walker - M.A. Hanna Co.
Douglas A. Warner, III - J. P. Morgan & Company, Inc.
Sanford I. Weill - Travelers Group
Robert E. Weissman - The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation
John F. Welch, Jr. - General Electric Company
Edward E. Whitacre, Jr. - SBC Communications, Inc.
Tony L. White - The Perkin-Elmer Corporation
David R. Whitwam - Whirlpool Corporation
J. Lawrence Wilson - Rohm and Haas Company
Kenneth L. Wolfe - Hershey Foods Corporation
Willis B. Wood, Jr. - Pacific Enterprises
John B. Yasinsky - Gencorp, Inc.
Douglas C. Yearley - Phelps Dodge Corporation
5
Daniel Wexler
05/02/97 03:16:51
PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Stephanie S. Streett/WHO/EOP, Karin Kullman/WHO/EOP
cc:
Subject: The Business Roundtable
The best times for the President at the Business Roundtable for June 12 would be either 4:00 pm
or 5:30 pm.
The 4:00 pm - 6:00 pm time frame is their only scheduled plenary session during their meeting.
Former President Bush and economist Lester Thorow are the other confirmed speakers at the
moment. It would be my recommendation to have the President speak at the 5:30 time slot. He
would then conclude the meeting.
I
GUIDANCE ON DISASTER ASSISTANCE
JUNE 11, 1997
*
Erskine has not had any discussions with the Republican leadership today, but there have
been discussions at the staff level.
*
We are continuing to call on the Republican Congress to send the President a clean
disaster assistance bill, and that bill ought to be fully funded.
*
They ought to stop playing games on this.
*
We're making it clear to them that these other issues are going to have to be worked
out on a stand-alone basis.
TOIV
Hilley
GUIDANCE ON BUDGET
*
This afternoon (prob. at 1:30), Secretaries Rubin and Riley are going to brief on the tax
legislation, particularly the education components, over at the Department of Education.
(Rangel may attend as well, we need to check on that.)
*
We expect the President to send a letter to Congressman Rangel today that thanks him for
the excellent work he has done and states the President's view that Mr. Rangel's proposal
meets the four tests the President laid out for a tax package yesterday.
*
(DRAFT of letter attached)
*
(In addition, we expect that the Administration will communicate our views to Chairman
Archer today on his proposal. That communication will also outline the proposals
referenced today by the Vice President to assist small business people. COPY OF
DRAFT ALSO ATTACHED)
TOIV
Siewert
MIKE -- THIS IS A DRAFT OF A LETTER THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL SEND TO
RANGEL WE CAN'T RELEASE IT YET, BUT IT GIVES YOU A GOOD SENSE OF THE
FOUR PRINCIPLES.
BT
Dear Congressman Rangel:
I am pleased that your tax cut package embraces the principles that I have set forth. Most
importantly, it is designed to give working families in America the tax relief they deserve.
If we are going to continue to invest in education and the rest of our successful economic
strategy, any tax cut package must meet four basic tests. First of all, it must reflect the terms of
the bipartisan budget agreement. Second, the tax cuts must be designed help the economy
continue to grow. Third, that tax cut must primarily benefit middle-class families. Fourth, a tax
cut must genuinely expand educational opportunities for Americans of all ages. Your package,
though it differs from our proposal in some respects, meets those tests. The Republican House
proposal does not.
We are particularly pleased that your proposal gives American families the help they need to make
investments in education and lifelong learning. The decision to include a HOPE scholarship
proposal mirrors our initiative to make education more affordable and to make the 13th and 14th
grades universal. You have improved our initial proposal by allowing students who receive Pell
Grants to the full amount of the HOPE scholarship. We fully endorse that change. Although our
tuition deduction plans differ in some particulars, we are pleased that your proposal incorporates
the full $10,000 tax benefit for tuition paid -- regardless of its source. Like our proposal, your
tuition plan will help families who are not wealthy enough to pay for the entire amount of tuition
out of savings and are therefore forced to borrow. It would also help Americans undertake
lifelong learning so that they can take advantage of the opportunities offered by the new economy.
Your tax cut plan is a welcome addition to the current tax cut debate. I hope that the House
Democrats and Republicans and the Senate Democrats and Republicans will work with us to
enact a tax cut package that meets the four tests I outlined above.
DRAFT
4 Comp cpt G..
2
Protonce
June 10, 1997
The Honorable Bill Archer
Meal
-DC
- D.16.11 - D.1 6.11
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means
- ea
U.S. House of Representatives
- cop
- $600 m.K
???? Longworth
- 65-47(amg) 65-67
- MSA (11-9)
Washington, DC 20515-4005
Media Commin Media Grannic
Dear Chairman Archer:
I have reviewed the tax plan you released yesterday, providing the details of the tax/portion
of the bipartisan budget agreement. The President is anxious to sign legislation implementing the
agreement into law, but in its present form, the proposal you have put forth does not meet the test
of fairness to working families and has other serious problems. My major concerns are listed
below.
Your bill will reduce the value of the $500 child credit for millions of low income families by
requiring a family to take the child credit only after the earned income tax credit is taken against
their tax liability. A family with two children and $25,000 of income, for example, would
receive no tax relief from the child credit under your proposal. Under the President's plan, this
family would get $1,000, the same as a family that earned twice as much. We would favor a
refundable child credit that better targets low and middle income working families.
The proposed legislation singles out six million families who pay for child care and gives
them a smaller tax cut. Beginning in 2002. families who receive a tax credit for their child care
expenses would lose 50 cents for each dollar of their child credit. This provision unfairly limits
tax relief for single parents who are required to work to support their children and families with
second earners who are struggling to maintain a decent standard of living.
The education package falls nearly $13 billion short of the agreed goal of $35 billion in tax
cuts for education, which are consistent with the HOPE scholarship and tuition deduction
proposals in the President's FY98 Budget. Furthermore, as compared to the President's proposals,
it directs more benefits toward middle- and upper-income families while reducing the benefits to
lower-income families who rely on loans and grants to finance their education. It introduces
serious administrative complications and works much more poorly than the President's proposals
in helping to enhance educational opportunities for students.
The HOPE credit would be cut to 50 percent of tuition expenses. halving the value of
education benefits for millions of students attending community colleges and other low-
cost institutions.
Unlike the universally available tuition deduction in the President's package, the tuition
deduction in your proposal would be available only if education expenses are paid from
certain education savings plans. Hence, no help is given beyond the first two years of
higher education to low-income students and students who must borrow to pay tuition.
Tax-free savings offered through new education investment accounts and the opportunities
for tax-deferred saving through private prepaid tuition plans are overly generous to upper
income families, since they have neither income limits nor contribution limits. This would
give high-income taxpayers an incentive to use these vehicles to save tax-free, even if they
never intend to use the savings for education expenses.
The American Dream IRAs are not sufficiently targeted. Contributions could be made to
these back-loaded IRAs without any income limits, which would surely result in a substantial
shifting of existing savings into tax-preferred investment vehicles by high-income taxpayers, rather
than creating new savings.
The proposal to index certain capital assets and lower the rate of tax on capital gains provide a
double benefit to taxpayers, substantially overcompensating them for the effects of inflation. The
package would disproportionately benefit the wealthy over lower- and middle-income wage
earners. The package so have an explosive revenue cost in years after 2007, possibly jeopardizing
all our important work on deficit reduction. In addition. the indexing proposal is enormously
complex and difficult to administer To quote the New York State Bar Association, indexing is
"fundamentally flawed" and would create problems that would "overwhelm taxpayers and the
IRS."
At a time when the U.S. economy is the strongest in the world, you have proposed to spend
$34 billion over 10 years to eliminate the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax, a proposal that
benefits America's largest and wealthiest companies.
Your plan contains other provisions that raise serious concerns. The safe-harbor for
independent contractor status would permit employers to avoid essential worker protections. This
proposal could lead to widespread shifting of employees to independent contractor status, resulting
in loss of worker protections such as pension and health coverage, and consequently wage and
hour protections, unemployment insurance benefits and compensation for work-related injuries.
Under your proposal, Indian tribes would be subject to the unrelated business income tax on
all income earned from commercial activities. Contrary to long-established United States policy,
this tax fails to respect the sovereignty of Indian tribes and their special status as domestic
dependent nations. This lack of respect for sovereignty is particularly apparent in the difference
the proposal would create between tribes and States. In addition, the proposal would be extremely
difficult to administer.
The President's FY98 Budget contained a number of important initiatives that we are very
disappointed were not included in your proposals. The Nation's mayors and urban and rural
communities have been extremely supportive of the President's brownfields provision, which
allows a special deduction for certain expenses associated with environmental cleanup. No
provision is included to stimulate investments in Community Development Financial Institutions
to revitalize distressed neighborhoods around the country. No provision is included for equitable
tolling, which protects a taxpayer's rights when he or she is incapacitated. or for restructuring our
Nation's affordable housing portfolio. And while tax relief is provided for the District of
Columbia, no additional Empowerment Zones or Enterprise Communities for the rest of the
country are provided.
Your bill also includes a provision to raise the debt ceiling. While we support this provision,
we believe that it should be included in the other reconciliation bill, as the Senate plans to do.
In conclusion, we think this package disproportionately benefits the most well off in society.
Given the tough choices that need to be made within this tax package, we think it is unwise, for
example, to eliminate the corporate AMT while at the same time, denying tax relief provided by
the child credit to millions of hard working taxpayers with children who receive the earned
income tax credit. Moreover, the provisions in the package that drive up costs in the second ten
years. are those that most advantage high income taxpayers. This is an unwise legacy to leave to
our children.
We look forward to working with the Congress to design a tax package that helps working
families pay for education, buy and sell a house, and raise their children. We are committed to
achieving a tax package that is fair to all Americans.
Sincerely,
06/11/97 13:31 202 456 1605
WHITE HOUSE NEC
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 6-11-97 ; 10:31
;
the white House-
05/11/87
10:34
202 6220646
OFC TAX POLICY
002
To Jake
DEMOCRATIC ALTERNATIVE
62223
Deliver ASA
5-year cost
in billions
I.
Education Tax Benefits
A.
Hope credit as proposed by the Administration with the following
changes:
1.
Eliminate the provision reducing the limitation on the credit
by the amount of Pell Grants and other nontaxable Federal
grants. These grants will be treated like other scholarship
grants, offsetting tuition expenses but not reducing the
limitation on the credit.
2.
Eliminate the B. grade requirement and substitute a
requirement for satisfactory academic progress.
3.
Allow the credit against the minimum tax.
4. Phase in the limitation on the credit as follows: $1,100 for
1997, 1998 and 1999, $1,200 for 2000, and $1,500 for 2001
and thereafter.
The alternative substitutes a 20 percent nonrefundable HOPE
credit for nuition costs for the Administration's deduction. The
credit would be available after student ceases to be eligible for
phased-in $1,500 HOPE credit described above. The credit would
be allowable against the minimum tax. The limitation on the
amount of expenses for which the credit is allowable is phased in
as follows: $4,000 for 1997, 1998, 1999, $5,000 for 2000, $7,500
for 2001, $10,000 for 2002 and thereafter.
$37.0
B.
Permanent extension of exclusion of employer-provided
educational assistance and reinstatement of exclusion for graduate
education. The reinstatement of the exclusion for graduate
education would take effect for courses beginning after June 30,
1997.
3.4
36/11/97
13:32
202 456 1605
WHITE HOUSE NEC
003
SENT-BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 6-11-97 ; 10:32
;
The white House-
6
UD/11/87
10:34
3202 6220046
UFC TAX POLICY-
7003
to 2 -
5-year cost
in billions
C. The education zone proposal from H.R. 1512. The proposal
permits local governments to issue up to $10 billion per year for
5 years of interest-free bonds to assist elementary and secondary
schools (either in empowerment zones or enterprise communities
or with at least 35-percent poor students) which join with 8 private
business in a partnership to improve education. The business
would be required to make contributions to the partnership.
1.6
II. Family Credit
An income tax credit per child for children under age 18 to begin in
1998; the credit would be $300 in 1998, 1999, and 2000, $500 in 2001
and thereafter; phased out for families with incomes between $60,000 -
$75,000 and unavailable to those with more than $75,000; refundable to
the extent of the employee share of payroll taxes and allowed before the
EITC.
71.2
III. Capital Gains
A. President's exclusion of $500,000 on sale of a principal residence.
1.9
B. Allow deductibility of losses on sale of a principal residence.
3.8
C. Allow an 18 percent rate (7.5 percent for taxpayers in 15-percent
bracket) on capital gains, up to a lifetime cap of $600,000,
generated by capital assets not publicly traded on established
markets; require a 3-year holding period.
5.7
IV. Estate Tax Relief
The alternative includes an additional exclusion for family-owned
business interests:
A. The limitation on the exclusion would be $400,000 except that so
much of the.exclusion that.is not claimed on the death of the first
spouse may be claimed by the estate of the other spouse. This
permits family-owned business interests with values up to
$2 million to pass with no estate tax in the case of a married
couple.
06/11/97
13:32
202 456 1605
WHITE HOUSE NEC
004
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 i 6-11-97 ; 10:32
;
ine white house-
UD/11/87
10:30
202 0220640
OFC-TAX POLICY
1004
. 3 -
5-year cost
in billions
B. The provision would take effect for decedents dying after
December 31, 1997.
1.9
V. Extenders
A. The research credit would be extended for one year.
2.1
B. The provision permitting fair-market value deduction for
contributions of appreciated stock to private foundations would be
extended for one year.
0.1
C. The work opportunity tax credit would be extended for one year
with the following modifications:
1. The credit would be expanded to cover certain individuals
losing their eligibility for food stamps as contained in the
Administration's proposal. This change would be effective
for individuals hired after date of enactment through
September 30, 2000.
0.2
2. The credit would be modified as provided in H.R. 1729 to
increase the credit rate to 40 percent and provide a lower
credit for workers not meeting 400 hour requirement.
0.5
D. The Orphan Drug Credit would be made permanent.
0.2
VI. Other Presidential Initiatives
The alternative includes the following tax provisions as recommended in
the President's budget:
A. Expansion of empowerment zones and enterprise communities.
The President's proposal would be modified by requiring that three
of the additional empowerment zones would be designated in areas
with distressed financial service industries meeting the
requirements of the Kennelly bill. H.R. 2015 and financial service
industries in those areas would be treated as qualified businesses,
eligible for otherwise available tax benefits.
1.0
06/11/97
13:33
202 456 1605
WHITE HOUSE NEC
SENT BY Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 6-11-97 ; 10:32
:
ine white House-
10.00
LT606 0660040
oro TAA FULICI
UUS
. 4 *
5-year cost
in billions
B. Brownfield tax incentives. The President's proposal would be
modified by including the provisions of H.R. 523 that permit tax-
exempt qualified redevelopment bonds to be used to pay
environmental remediation expenses for qualified sites.
1.2
C. Tax credit for investment in community development financial
institutions.
D. Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit.
0.3
E. Equitable tolling of statute of limitations for incapacitated
0.1
taxpayers.
F.
Extension and modification of Puerto Rico tax credit.
0.7
G. Foreign sales corporation benefits for licensed software.
0.6
H. District of Columbia tax incentives
0.3
TOTAL
$133.7
"Less than $50 million.
Propared by Democratic Staff of the Committee on Ways and Means.
June 10, 1997
GUIDANCE ON MEDICARE/MEDICAID
JUNE 11, 1997
The Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee have issued a preliminary mark that
has a number of problems in Medicare, Medicaid, and KidsCare. In some cases, they have
diverged from the budget agreement. In other cases, we have other concerns. We're in
contact with the members to let them know our concerns and we fully anticipate that some
of these issues, at least, will be resolved before the final Chairman's mark is presented to
the committee.
Medicare
*
Raising Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. We are concerned about this proposal,
especially in this context.
First, it was not discussed as part of budget agreement.
Second, we are very concerned about moving in this direction absent any consideration for
the potential impact on elderly retired Americans. This is a population that is extremely
difficult to insure, so we're concerned about the impact of this proposal on their access to
affordable insurance. This is a proposal that clearly needs further thought and does not
belong in this package.
Balanced Billing They would allow balanced billing, which we strongly oppose. This
permits private health plans that contract with Medicare to charge more than Medicare
allows.
MSA's. We're uncertain at this time, but
Phase-in of home health transfer. We believe this is not consistent with the Budget
Agreement. While the agreement says phase in the premium increase, it does not say
phase in the home health switch. Rather they should do that now. They've done what the
Ways and Means Committee did. However, the House Commerce Committee marked up
yesterday and did it in a way that is consistent with agreement, and that's the way to go, in
our view. (Frank Raines has written to Ways and Means to express concern about this.)
$5 copayment for home health visits. We don't believe this is consistent with the spirit of
the budget agreement. We feel we had a pretty good understanding of the limits of any
additional burdens we would put on beneficiaries. This is an additional burden which we
oppose.
Medicaid
*
They've gone even farther than the House Commerce Committee and eliminated entirely
the provision of the Budget Agreement providing $1.5 billion to help low-income seniors
with the cost of the increased Medicare premiums. This clearly violates the agreement.
(House Commerce provided in the neighborhood of a half billion.)
KidsCare
(IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL IF YOU COULD FIT THIS IN.)
*
They've confined all of the money they provide to a block grant program that does not
provide meaningful coverage. We're working with a bipartisan group of Senators
who have a proposal we think is much preferable to the current mark under
discussion (Rockefeller/Chafee).
TOIV
Jennings
RACE INITIATIVE TALKING POINTS - 6/10/97
(Surrogates)
The charge the President set is to shape an initiative that will use policies and people to respect
each others' differences and yet be a united America.
Why Now?
Unlike previous presidential efforts, this initiative is not the result of a crisis. The theme of racial
reconciliation has been present throughout the Administration's first term and into its second.
The President has consistently said he had three goals in running for the office:
to keep the American Dream alive for everyone who wanted to work for it;
to keep America a force in the world for peace and democracy; and
to keep us one America, a nation coming together instead of coming apart.
The Administration has made real progress on issues of economic opportunity, strengthening
families, reducing crime rates, and foreign policy (the first two goals). The time is right to move
forward more aggressively on the third.
The President believes that we should take stock of the progress we have made in race relations
and take action to improve the ability of all Americans to succeed in the 21st century.
We face a very different America in the next century. There are four school districts in
the country, including one right across the river from here (in Virginia), with children
from more than 100 different racial and ethnic groups in the single district. We should
embrace such diversity.
Unfortunately, there are some new and disturbing examples of going backward: the lack
of economic progress among Hispanic Americans and the greatly reduced number of
black and Hispanic students in California and Texas universities.
Overview
The effort will be a balance of study, dialogue and action -- including fact finding and policy.
We will seek to promote honest dialogue on the issues of race and to develop real solutions that
can be implemented by individuals, communities, religious congregations, educational and non-
profit organizations, businesses, state and local governments, and other groups.
Elements of the proposal:
1.
Advisory Board - This seven-person group will advise the President and assist him in
outreach efforts and consultations with experts. (Examples of those we have consulted
already include Taylor Branch, Henry Cisneros, Chris Edley, Deval Patrick, Chancellor
Tien, Warren Christopher and Bill Galston.) Advisory board members will also reach out
as surrogates for the President to various communities, provide guidance and analysis on
topics concerning race and recruit more leaders to implement solutions that will improve
race relations.
1
2.
Presidential Events - The President will do a series of events to encourage dialogue and
help focus people on the tough issues around race. These events will include four town
halls, a White House conference on hate crimes, three meetings with the advisory board
and other activities like the Tuskegee ceremony.
3.
Presidential Report - The President will present a report to the American people next
summer. The report will:
lay out the President's vision of a just America, including an illustration and
assessment of the growing diversity of our nation;
report on how the nation has evolved on the issue of race over the past 30 years;
and
provide tools and recommendations that help individuals, communities,
corporations and government address the difficult issues.
4.
Executive Director and Staff - The President will appoint an executive director and a
small staff responsible for working closely with White House staff on policy, outreach,
legal and communications efforts; helping advisory board members to fulfill their duties;
surveying individuals and organizations for best practices and model programs; and
analyzing existing studies on matters of race.
Personal Conviction and Commitment
The President's experiences with discrimination are rooted in the South's legacy of slavery.
His grandfather had a grade-school education and ran a grocery store in Hope, Arkansas.
Most of the customers were poor, black, working people. As a child in that store,
President Clinton learned to treat people of different races with respect and dignity.
His grandparents were in the minority - being poor, Southern whites who were pro-civil
rights - and they taught the President a lesson that he has carried with him through life:
Discrimination is not just morally wrong, it hurts everyone.
The President has been consistent and steadfast throughout his life and professional career in his
pursuit of equality and opportunity for all.
President Clinton's personal history and conviction to lead this country in finding strength in our
diversity make him well-suited to help forge alliances and reconcile differences among us.
The President will be actively involved in the initiative and will help provide its intellectual
leadership. He will also involve the American people in an unprecedented way.
Study/Dialogue/Action
We will undertake fact finding (e.g.: what are the stereotypes and what are the facts), dialogue
and policy/action (e.g.: best practices, positions on minority enrollment in higher education)
concurrently and through an iterative process.
2
Study
Through the initiative, we will review and analyze existing data on race relations including:
reports by bodies such as the Truman Commission, the Kerner Commission, the Johnson Council
and the US Commission on Civil Rights; works by today's leading scholars; information
collected at the President's town hall meetings; and future demographic trends. This material
will be provided to the Advisory Board and the White House and will serve as the foundation for
the President's report to the American people.
Dialogue
The President has long maintained that the evil of racism is rooted in our separateness. He
believes that greater dialogue between individuals of differing races will reveal the similar
interests and values all Americans share. The President will encourage tough, bold dialogue to
address the difficult racial issues that we too often avoid.
The President has been a constant voice in pressing racial healing and unity, for instance:
speeches in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1993 and Austin, Texas, in 1995;
inaugural and State of the Union addresses this year; and
remarks at the Jackie Robinson anniversary commemoration.
When public officials are not open to discussion of racial issues, or through their silence allow
negative depictions of racial minorities to go unchecked, such postures significantly affect
national attitudes and policy.
Willie Horton Ad: Presidential campaign ads featuring Willie Horton, an African-
American parolee found guilty of another heinous crime, lent national legitimacy to the
perception of African-American men as violent criminals.
Positive changes have followed when presidents have spoken openly about race.
Civil Rights Movement: The Kennedys outreach to the King family, particularly when
Martin Luther King Jr. was in jail, helped legitimize Reverend King's use of civil
disobedience at a time when supporters of segregation were attempting to paint him and
other civil rights leaders as criminals.
Tuskegee: President Clinton's public apology to the victims of the "Tuskegee
Experiment" prompted numerous positive discussions in the media and elsewhere on race
and health care in America.
Action (Best Practices / Policy)
Best Practices: This initiative will attempt to identify and create solutions for improving race
relations and the circumstances of Americans of all races. Those solutions will be designed for
individuals, communities, religious congregations, educational and non-profit organizations,
businesses, state and local governments, and other groups to implement.
Policy: The Administration will develop wholly new policy and refocus or better target existing
policy. Some policies will respond to information arising as the initiative moves forward. Other
policies will attempt to address longstanding problems in new and creative ways. The
3
Administration's actions and policies will be announced over the course of the year-long
initiative.
Race Broadly Defined
The initiative is directed at race, broadly defined: White, Hispanic, Asian, African American, etc.
Every American must understand that improving race relations and preparing to enter the 21st
century as one America is important to him or her and to our children's future.
Of course, the initiative will recognize the unique history of African Americans in this country.
Future Focus
While it will review the current problems that we face as a nation and the history that has brought
us here, the intent of the initiative forward looking. We will consider where the nation is going
in terms of demographics and the complexity of race issues.
Timing
The initiative will be a year-long effort. We hope it will stimulate honest dialogue, improved
policy and better relations that will continue to live and grow after the year is over.
This issue has been with us throughout our nation's history. We certainly cannot expect to
resolve it in one year.
Spending (if asked)
This initiative is about policy that makes a difference. We will look at policy ideas that call for
reprioritization of our current spending.
(For Thursday media outreach, we will add points on how/why advisory board members were
selected; criteria for choosing executive director; and goals and specifics of the initiative.)
4
DRAFT- RACE INITIATIVE Qs & As - 6/10/97
Initiative
Q:
Is systemic racism and bigotry still a crucial problem for the United States? Is race
still an impediment to opportunity and progress in America?
A:
America is moving closer to fulfilling its fundamental promise of equality and the
opportunity of advancement for all. President Clinton has worked to restore the
American dream by expanding the economy, investing in education and making our
communities safer. However, more needs to be done. We face new challenges and a
very different America in the next century.
For instance, there are four school systems in the country right now, including one across
the river (in Virginia) with children from more than 100 different racial and ethnic groups
in a single district. We should embrace such diversity.
Unfortunately, there are some disturbing examples of going backward: the lack of
economic progress among Hispanic Americans; the greatly reduced number of black and
Hispanic students in California and Texas universities; and the young, African-American
boy in Chicago who was dragged from his bicycle and beaten just because of his color.
Q:
How was this initiative developed? Who did the President call on among the White
House staff?
A:
The President charged Erksine Bowles and Sylvia Mathews with developing the
parameters of an initiative that would move to fulfill America's promise of opportunity
and fairness for all Americans, and that would promote unity while preserving cultural
differences.
Sylvia convened an internal working group of approximately 25 individuals from
different offices within the White House and from different races. The group met
regularly starting in March, and daily for the past few weeks. Erskine and other members
of the senior staff participated periodically in the working group meetings. The President
received regular updates on the group's direction and progress.
Offices: Domestic Policy, Public Liaison, Intergovernmental, Legislative, Cabinet
Affairs and Communications.
Individuals: Elena Kagan, Maria Echaveste, Doris Matsui, Mickey Ibarra, Lynn
Cutler, Janet Murgia, Tracey Thornton, Thurgood Marshall Jr., Ann Lewis,
Minyon Moore.
The group also has consulted with individuals outside of the White House: Taylor
Branch, Chris Edley, Henry Cisneros, Chancellor Tien, Warren Christopher, Bill Galston.
1
Q:
Civil rights groups have expressed dissatisfaction that they have not been consulted
and dismay at the lack of substance to the initiative. How do you respond?
A:
In the process of defining this initiative, we sought comments and ideas from numerous
individuals and organizations. More importantly, we have created plenty of chances for
future consultation. This is only the beginning of an initiative that will be a uniquely
inclusive and broad-ranging year-long effort. We encourage those willing to engage in
tough, honest dialogue to join us.
The President is prepared to design wholly new policy and to refocus existing policy. We
will look for and implement solutions in areas such as economic opportunity, housing,
health care, crime and the administration of justice. We have said all along that we will
not outline a full set of proposals and recommendations at the outset. The Administration
will unfold policy changes and developments over the course of the year.
Q:
How can the President ask others to "get their houses in order" on this subject,
when the White House itself lacks diversity, especially in its upper ranks?
A:
[Insert Bob Nash info.]
Q:
Isn't this just the President's reactionary position after the Administration has
neglected to take stronger stances on behalf of minorities?
A:
The President has consistently said he had three goals in running for the office: to keep
the American Dream alive for everyone who wanted to work for it; to keep America a
force in the world for peace and democracy; and to keep us "One America," a nation
coming together instead of coming apart.
The Administration has made real progress on issues of economic opportunity,
strengthening families, reducing crime rates, and foreign policy (the first two goals).
The unemployment rate for Hispanic Americans in May was about 7 percent,
down from 11 percent when President Clinton took office.
The African-American poverty rate has dropped to its lowest level in history - 29
percent in 1995.
The Administration has approved more than $2 billion in Small Business
Administration loans to Asian Americans.
The time is right to move forward more aggressively on the President's third goal.
Already the President has taken action in this area with his apology, on behalf of the
federal government, to the victims of the Tuskegee experiment, his commitment to a
White House conference on hate crimes and already an interagency group is exploring
how to persuade colleges to adopt new tools to achieve racially diverse student bodies.
2
President's Commitment
Q:
The President seems to waiver in his commitment to this issue. One day he asks the
Supreme Court not to hear an affirmative action case and the next day he
announces an initiative on improving race relations. How serious is he about this
initiative?
A:
The President is very serious about this initiative. He has been steadfast throughout his
life and professional career in his pursuit of equality and opportunity for all.
The President's experiences with discrimination are rooted in the South's legacy
of slavery.
As a candidate, the President has consistently said one of his main goals in
running for the office was to keep the American Dream alive for everyone who
wanted to work for it and to keep us "one America," a nation coming together
instead of coming apart.
As President, he has been a constant voice in pressing racial healing and unity.
For instance: speeches in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1993 and Austin, Texas, in
1995; inaugural and State of the Union addresses this year; and remarks at the
Jackie Robinson anniversary commemoration.
President Clinton's personal history and conviction to lead this country in finding
strength in our diversity make him well-suited to help forge alliances and reconcile
differences among us. The President will be actively involved in the initiative and will
help provide its intellectual leadership.
Q:
Does the President really expect this initiative to make a difference or is it just a way
for him to get more media attention?
A:
This initiative will attempt to identify and create solutions for improving race relations
and the circumstances of Americans of all races. Those solutions will be designed for
individuals, communities, religious congregations, educational and non-profit
organizations, businesses, state and local governments, and other groups to implement.
The Administration will develop wholly new policy and refocus existing policy. Some
policies will respond to information arising as the initiative moves forward. Other
policies will attempt to address longstanding problems in new and creative ways.
Expectations
Q:
Will this initiative address the serious imbalances in opportunity that can be
attributed to race?
A:
This initiative will study the imbalances in opportunity that can be attributed to race, open
channels for discussion about those imbalances and create or refocus policy to address
those imbalances.
3
We will strive to identify and create solutions for improving race relations and the
circumstances of Americans of all races. Those solutions will be designed for
individuals, communities, religious congregations, educational and non-profit
organizations, businesses, state and local governments, and other groups to implement.
Q:
How can the President hope to improve race relations and the lot of minorities
without dedicating significant funds to the problems that arise from racism?
A:
Different times call for different solutions. The choice is not between massive programs
and nothing. Much can be done within the confines of tighter federal spending that we
face today and going forward. Funds can be reallocated, as they were, in the balanced
budget agreement, to provide health cover to five million uninsured children. And we
can seek creative ways to generate new funds, not just from federal and state spending.
≈:
What can we expect to see change as a result of this initiative?
A:
We will promote a better understanding of and a greater respect for both the similarities
and differences between people of different races.
We will challenge leaders and "doers" will step forward, in communities throughout the
nation, to find and put into practice ideas to improve race relations and stimulate
opportunity for all.
We will identify and disseminate proven practices for promoting racial harmony.
We will analyze critical issues affecting race relations in this country and propose
government actions and policies to address these issues.
Q:
How does the President intend to keep this from becoming just a big talk fest?
A:
The effort will be a balance of study, dialogue and action - including fact finding and
policy.
We will seek to promote honest dialogue on the issues of race and to develop real
solutions that can be implemented by individuals, communities, religious congregations,
educational and non-profit organizations, businesses, state and local governments, and
other groups. We will undertake fact finding (e.g.: what are the stereotypes and what are
the facts), dialogue and policy/action (e.g.: best practices, positions on minority
enrollment in higher education) concurrently and through an iterative process.
4
Logistics
Q:
When will the advisory board hold its first meeting? When will it conclude its
work?
A:
The advisory board will meet for the first time in the next six weeks or so. An exact date
has not yet been determined. At this point, the board will likely disband after the
President submits his report to the American people.
Q:
When can we expect to see the first action or policy recommendations from the
advisory board?
A:
As a result of this initiative, we expect the President to implement wholly new policies as
well as to reshape existing policies. The Administration's actions and policy changes
will take place over the course of the year-long initiative. We cannot say when the first
announcement will be. It will be several weeks before the advisory board, the initiative
staff and Administration representatives start working together.
Advisory Board
≈:
Why did the President appoint an advisory board rather than an independent
commission?
A:
This initiative is designed to use presidential leadership to prepare the American people
for the next century. President Clinton's personal history and conviction to lead this
country in recognizing the strength in our diversity make him well-suited to help forge
new alliances among citizens. The President will be actively involved in the initiative
and will help provide its intellectual leadership. He will also involve the American
people in an unprecedented way.
The seven members will serve as partners in the initiative by reaching out to various
communities, amplifying the President's efforts and recruiting more leaders on this issue.
The advisory board members were selected based on the concept that they would excel in
these responsibilities and be respected, if not well known, in what is a Presidentially-led
effort.
Q:
Wouldn't you have been better off with individuals with name recognition?
A:
In identifying an advisory board, the working group sought individuals who could reach
out as surrogates for the President to various communities, provide guidance and analysis
on topics concerning race and recruit more leaders to implement solutions that will
improve race relations.
We also looked for a group of individuals who would provide diversity on a number of
fronts, be respected in their fields and be team players exemplifying the relationships we
5
hope the whole initiative will engender.
Many of the advisory board's members are familiar ones, especially in their communities
or areas of expertise.
Q:
Why are there no Native Americans on the advisory board?
A:
The advisory board consists of seven individuals. These individuals represent diversity in
race, age, gender, background and political perspective. There will be many, many
opportunities (for example: staff appointments, Presidential town hall meetings, advisory
board outreach) over the course of the initiative for the President and the advisory board
to work with and hear from individuals whose diversity is not reflected on the board.
6
Talking Points on Tobacco Settlement Talks
The Administration is closely monitoring the settlement talks among the tobacco industry,
state attorneys general, public health groups, and private lawyers. Any agreement would
have to be passed by the Congress and signed by the President.
We will carefully review any settlement that emerges from the discussions, and we will
seek the advice of the public health community. As the President has said, in reviewing
any settlement proposal, our focus will stay squarely on protecting kids and the public
health.
Q:
Would you support a settlement that caps punitive damages? That seems to be the
key stumbling block.
A:
Tm not going to speculate on any particular aspects of a potential settlement. The
Administration proposed the toughest measures ever to protect children from tobacco, and
we are fighting in the courts to see that those restrictions take effect. Our focus in
reviewing any settlement will stay on protecting kids and the public health. The President
has made it clear he is not going to agree to anything with respect to tobacco that
jeopardizes the public health.
Q:
Senator Lott and others are urging quick closure to the talks. They say that the
window of opportunity is closing. Is the Administration trying to help close the
deal?
A:
No. Because any settlement will have a profound and lasting impact on the public health,
the Administration will have to consider a settlement in a careful and thorough manner.
There will be no rush to judgment and no precipitous action. We are not going to take a
position on a proposal until the Administration and the public health community have fully
reviewed it.
U.S. Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Office of Public Affairs
425 I Street. NW
Washington, DC 20536
Removal of Criminal Aliens on Commercial Flights
June 11, 1997
Q. Is it true INS is sending thousands of criminal aliens out of the United
States on commercial flights without escort?
A. INS screens every alien deported on a case-by-case basis, and escorts any
person who may be a threat to themselves or others. Remember that these
people have completed their criminal sentences. INS is the only federal
agency, and perhaps the only agency, that escorts convicted criminals on
commercial flights after they are released from prison. While we may not
like to think about it, there are no restrictions of any kind on the use of
commerical transportation by persons who have served their time.
Q. But criminal aliens have caused disturbances on commercial flights. Isn't
that true?
A. That's extremely rare, and INS is reviewing its procedures to make sure
that, as the number of criminal aliens being deported continues to increase,
the safety and security of commercial passenger flights is maintained.
Q. Is it true INS puts aliens on commercial flights who are health risks?
A. No. Every alien in INS custody receives a health screening before being
deported.
FDA Legislation - Talking Points
6/11/97
(Zonana, HHS: 690-6343)
The Administration is hopeful that Congress will put aside contentious issues and
enact consensus bipartisan legislation to strengthen the FDA and promote the
public health.
The Administration also strongly supports the reauthorization of the highly
successful prescription drug user fee program ("PDUFA reauthorization"), and is
hopeful that PDUFA reauthorization will not become bogged down in the larger
debate over FDA legislation.
As Secretary Shalala told Sen. James Jeffords, R-Vt., in a letter last week:
"A protracted and contentious debate [on FDA legislation] would not serve our
mutual goal [of reauthorizing PDUFA and strengthening the FDA]"
In other words. we should enact the elements of FDA legislation that we can all
agree upon (including PDUFA reauthorization), and leave contentious issues
aside.
Press Guidance
June 10, 1997
NTSB RECOMMENDS CRASH RECORDERS IN NEW AUTOMOBILES
Background: The Washington Post reports today that the staff of the NTSB recommended to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that automakers install crash recorders
in new cars and trucks.
NHTSA conducted a research program in the early '70's on this exact issue which found
"that while the devices were proven accurate their cost and lack of direct safety benefits
could not justify their wide spread installation."
This research also indicated that there were some very complicated legal and access issues
including search and seizure, probable cause and evidence rules.
You should also know that many of the Smart Airbags used in cars and trucks today
already contain detection devices that provide useful information (ie. Whether the
individual was wearing a seat belt.)
Silverman
per Aikey/DOT
Press Guidance
June 11, 1997
Q AND A ON FAA ADMINISTRATOR JANE GARVEY
Q:
Is the President concerned that Jane Garvey has never been a pilot?
A:
She has an aviation background and experience in managing large complex agencies. The
President has full confidence that her managerial skills and leadership are what the FAA
needs to meet the challenges that lie ahead.
Q:
What is the situation concerning a power outage at National Airport today?
A:
A fuse blew at 8:30am but was replaced and up and running in short time. There are still
minimal delays but as most of you know this is not infrequent at National Airport.
See attached press release on Garvey and Donohue.
Silverman
per Aikey/DOT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 11, 1997
THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCES HIS INTENT TO NOMINATE JANE GARVEY
AS ADMINISTRATOR AND GEORGE DONOHUE AS DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Today the President announced his intent to nominate Jane Garvey as Administrator and
George Donohue as Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation
Upon announcing these appointments the President stated, "Jane Garvey is a leader in
transportation and is a proven innovator and manager. She has the expertise to move aviation
safety forward. She and George Donohue will make a superior team as we work to modernize
the FAA."
Vice President Gore stated, "This new FAA leadership team is ideal to move forward the
vital initiatives recommended by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security."
Ms. Garvey, of Amherst, Massachusetts, is currently the Acting Administrator of the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Ms. Garvey
was appointed by President Clinton in 1993 to serve as the Deputy Administrator of FHWA.
During her tenure as FHWA Deputy Administrator, Ms. Garvey assisted in carrying out the
commitment to increase investment in infrastructure by leading a team that created, tested and
secured legislation in 1995 authorizing an innovative approach to funding federal-aid highways.
The initiative has helped make possible more than $5 billion worth of projects. Prior to joining
the Executive Branch, Ms. Garvey served as Director of Boston's Logan International Airport,
the nation's 13th busiest airport. She has also served as Commissioner of Public Works in
Massachusetts, the nation's 8th largest state highway program. Ms. Garvey also served as the
Associate Commissioner for the Department of Public Works for the State of Massachusetts,
where she directed construction and maintenance activities and developed several environmental
initiatives. Ms. Garvey holds degrees from Mount Saint Mary College and Mount Holyoke
College.
- more -
Dr. Donohue, of Bethesda, Maryland, is currently serving as Associate Administrator for
Research and Acquisitions at the Federal Aviation Administration. He is responsible for a 2,000-
member organization charged with designing and upgrading the infrastructure of the National
Airspace System.
Prior to joining the FAA, Dr. Donohue was a Vice President with the RAND Corporation. In this
position he directed Project AIR FORCE, overseeing research, quality control and financial
management of the U.S. Air Force's Federally Funded Research and Development Center for
policy and analysis. Dr. Donohue's thirteen years of experience at the RAND Corporation also
includes serving as a member of the RAND Graduate School, as Associate Director of the
International Security and Defense Policy Program, and as Director of Technology Application
Program for Project AIR FORCE. Prior to joining the RAND Corporation he served as Director
of the Aerospace and Strategic Technology Office for the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, as Vice President of Dynamics Technology, Inc., and as Head of the Advanced Concepts
Division in the Fleet Engineering Department for the Naval Ocean Systems Center.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the world's largest aviation agency, with
48,000 employees, and facilities located in every state. The FAA oversees the nation's air traffic
control system, ensures the aviation system's safety and security, and provides financial and
technical assistance to airports.
-30-30-30-
Fact Sheet on Expansion of Small Business Capital Gains
and Home Office Deduction
June 11, 1997
Today, Vice President Gore announced that the Clinton administration would support expansion
of the small business capital gains tax incentive and of the home office deduction. These two tax
benefits will help hi-tech and bio-tech entrepreneurs, start-up companies, parents who work out
of their home, and other Americans who are seizing the opportunities of the new economy.
Expands the Small Business Capital Gains
Allows more business to qualify for capital gains by doubling the limits on asset size
from $50 million to $100 million.
Makes it easier for businesses to qualify for the capital gains tax benefit.
(1)
Working capital will be treated as an active trade or business asset if it is
reasonably expected to be used within five years.
(2)
Funds invested in R&D will be treated as creating an active trade or
business asset dollar-for-dollar.
(3)
The time period for taking full advantage of these working capital rules
would be extended from 2 years to 5 years. These changes would
particularly help bio-tech companies and other R & D firms that have long
development periods before products can be brought to market.
Permit stock redemptions for a broader range of incidents, e.g. death, divorce, mental
incompetence.
Clarify rules to ensure that software and other R&D firms are not disqualified simply
because their principal asset may be the skill or reputation of their employees.
Expands Home Office Deduction
Expands the existing home office deduction to cover cases where:
(1)
The office is exclusively used to conduct substantial and essential
administrative or management activities on a regular systematic basis.
(2)
The taxpayer has no other location to conduct these essential
administrative or management activities.
This proposal would not amend the definition of a principal place of business.
00/08/97
18:50
202 208 5320
ASS'T SEC-IA
002
06/08/97 FRI 18:01 FAX 202 514 9078
TRIBAL JUSTICE
Office of the Attorney General
Washington, B. H 20530
June 6, 1997
The Honorable Bill Archer
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We write to express the views of the Departments of Justice
and the Interior on H.R. 325, which would subject tribal
government revenue derived from Indian gaming to federal income
taxation, and H.R. 1554, which would subject tribal governmental
revenue from trade and business activities generally to federal
income taxation. The Departments of Justice and the Interior
strongly oppose these measures because they are contrary to the
United States' longstanding protection of tribal self-government
and the Federal trust responsibility.
Since the formation of the Union, the United States has
recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations under the
protection of the Federal Government. Through numerous treaties
and statutes, the United States has guaranteed the right of
Indian tribes to self-government. Accordingly, the United States
deals with Indian tribes on the basis of government-to-government
relations. As a corollary to these principles, the Federal
Government is committed to promoting tribal self-sufficiency and
economic development. Nevertheless, most reservation Indians
continue to live in conditions of extreme poverty.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. $5 2701
et Beg., promotes "tribal economic development, self-sufficiency,
and strong tribal governments." Indian tribes use the govern-
mental revenue derived from gaming for government purposes, such
as roads, water systems, schools, hospitals, law enforcement and
educational programs. Under IGRA, Indian tribes develop plans
for use of Indian gaming revenue to meet government needs and to
promote self-sufficiency. (Such plans must be approved by the
Secretary of the Interior before any per capita payments may be
made to tribal members. If an Indian tribe does make payments to
tribal members under such a plan, federal income tax is assessed
on the income received by the tribal members as individual
citizens. 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (b) .)
18/90/95
18:01
7,202 208 5320
ASS'T SEC-IA
TRIDAL JUSTICE
003
00/06/97 PRI 18:02 FAX 202 614 9078
The Honorable Bill Archer
Page 2
Other tribal government undertakings, such as the develop-
ment of tribal natural resources or the utilization of the tribal
labor force in manufacturing or agriculture, are equally
important in promoting tribal economic development and supporting
tribal self-sufficiency. Historical Federal Government dealings
with Indian tribes undermined traditional tribal economies. In
keeping with the Federal trust responsibility, the United States
has promoted tribal ventures which provide alternative avenues of
employment for tribal members as a means to address severe Indian
unemployment, which often reaches above 50% on large reser-
vations. See e.g., 25 U.S.C. 55 47, 450e, 477, 1451 et seq.
The United States has a unique legal relationship with
Native American tribal governments as set forth in the
Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, and court
decisions. H.R. 325 and H.R. 1554 are contrary to the
longstanding federal recognition of tribal self-government and
inconsistent with federal pledges to protect Indian tribes. See
e.g., 25 U.S.C. $ 3601; Treaty with the Cherokee, 7 Stat. 18
(1785). These proposals would interfere with important tribal
governmental programs and undercut tribal efforts to develop
Indian reservations as the "permanent homes" of Indian peoples.
see Treaty with the Sioux, Art. 15; 15 Stat. 635 (1868)
For all of these reasons, the Departments of Justice and the
Interior strongly oppose any measures imposing Federal income tax
on the governmental revenues of Indian tribes.
Sincerely,
BRMM Bruce Babbitt
Janet
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
QATAR -- VISIT OF AMIR
June 11, 1997
Q:
What did the President and the Amir of Qatar discuss?
A:
During their meeting today the President and the Amir had an opportunity to
review the efforts of the peace process. The two leaders reaffirmed their
commitment to peace in the region.
They also discussed the progress in the preparations for the Middle East North
Africa Summit taking place in Doha in November.
Q:
What about the Amir's comments yesterday about Iran and Iraq?
A:
Of course in any relationship there will be areas of disagreement, but there is still
much common ground. This meeting focused on the areas where the U.S. and Qatar
can continue to work together.
The President had an opportunity to discuss the U.S. position that Iran and Iraq
still pose a threat to stability in the region.
DENVER SUMMIT
June 11, 1997
KEY ELEMENTS OF AGENDA:
Economic
Efforts to promote growth and reduce social risks in world economy; encourage
reduction of deficits, investment in people and export-led growth. Increase efforts to
fight corruption and money-laundering.
Push for sound macroeconomic and financial policies and structural reforms to allow
markets to function effectively in the global economy.
Encourage strengthening of small and medium-sized businesses.
Aging
Focus on "active aging" populations, including strengthening pension and healthy
systems and encouraging medical and behavioral research.
Security
Confront global security threats including money-laundering, cyber-crime, drug traffic,
terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear smuggling.
Health
Accelerate work on AIDS vaccine research.
Environment
Facilitate transfer of environmentally sound technologies, promote child survival and
sustainable development, take action to address greenhouse gas concentrations, advance
efforts on environmental health and reform of U.N. environmental programs.
Russia
Further efforts to integrate Russia into international financial institutions, including
Paris Club, WTO and OECD.
Africa
Africa Trade Initiative: Improve market access in industrialized countries for African
producers, strengthen assistance to promote economic reform and trade liberalization,
target assistance to public administration and civil society programs. enhance food
security, strengthen peacekeeping capabilities.
Democracy
Launch year-long effort to advance and coordinate human rights and democracy
programs.
RUSSIA AND THE DENVER SUMMIT
The Denver Summit of the Eight is a milestone in Russia's new role as an international
partner committed to democracy and competitive international markets.
Russia's role at Denver builds on several years of successful cooperation among the
Eight:
Munich 1992 -- Yeltsin joins for one meeting;
Tokyo 1993 -- Yeltsin joins for a discussion on Russia;
Naples 1994 -- Yeltsin joins regional political discussion;
Halifax 1995 -- Yeltsin joins political and global discussions;
Moscow 1996 -- Russia hosts Nuclear Safety and Security Summit;
Lyon 1996 -- Russia joins political and global discussions.
At Denver, the Eight will review key international political issues and strengthen
cooperation on global challenges such as combating international crime, drugs,
terrorism and infectious diseases and protecting the environment.
Denver will mark the first time Russia participates in Summit discussions on economic
issues such as the economic consequences of the aging of our populations, the role of
small and medium enterprises in job growth and the impact of globalization on our
societies.
While at Denver, the G-7 will hold one meeting on certain financial and economic
matters such as international monetary policy and will provide guidance to the
International Financial Institutions.
We expect the trend of Russia's increased cooperation with the Eight will continue after
Denver. Prime Minister Blair has indicated he plans to use the Denver model next year
at Birmingham.
(If raised -- G-7 continue to meet separately?)
We expect the G-7 leaders will meet as necessary on core economic and financial issues.
(If raised -- is there a full G-8?)
The role of the Eight continues to evolve and will grow in the future. You should also
expect that the Seven will meet as necessary on core economic and financial issues.
UN ARREARS
Q:
Have you reached agreement with Chairman Helms on UN Arrears?
A:
The bill the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to mark up this week
represents a major breakthrough in our discussions with the Congress on UN
arrears. We are continuing to work with the committee on the details. The
administration appreciates the good faith effort that Chairman Helms, Senator
Biden, and other members of Congress have made to work with us on the issue. We
should keep in mind, however, that today's Senate action is only one step in the
legislative process.
Q:
What are the terms of the agreement?
A:
The Senate bill would authorize the payment of $819 million in arrears to the UN
and other international organizations over the course of the next three fiscal years
(FY98 - FY00).
The release of the arrears payments would be conditioned on meeting a reform
benchmarks in each of the three fiscal years. These benchmarks include reducing
U.S. assessments from 25% to 20% and cutting the budgets of the UN and other
international organizations.
Q:
Doesn't the Senate figure fall short of the President's FY98 request?
A:
The SFRC's bill provides most of what the President requested. Most important,
the bill would enable us to pay off our arrears to the UN regular budget and to UN
peacekeeping.
Q:
Can the Administration deliver the reforms the deal calls for?
A:
The bill contains some very tough reform conditions. We are concerned with some
of the provisions and are continuing to discuss them with the Committee. Like
Congress, however, we believe that the United Nations needs to embrace extensive
reforms if it is to remain relevant in meeting the challenges of the next century.
On House Bill:
Had good discussions with members on both sides of aisle on State bill now being
considered by House.
Encouraged by efforts to come to agreement on reorganization language.
There are other problems with the bill (Mexico City family Planning language and
foreign policy micromanaging). But if the reorganization language is good -- i.e., it
gives the President the flexibility he needs -- and there are adequate funding levels
(close to President's budget), then we hope to be able to support the bill moving along
the legislative process.
On Senate Bill:
Major step forward on UN reform. Still working with committee on details.
Negotiations continue on reorganization language. No deal yet.
Devil is in the details. President needs flexibility to implement an effective
reorganization plan.
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
June 11, 1997
UN HR INVESTIGATION
Q:
What is the status of the UN investigative team going to the Democratic Republic of
the Congo?
A:
The officer in charge of the UN human rights center in Geneva has met with his
senior staff. They are organizing the advance team. The team will consist of human
rights officers, Secretariat officials, investigators and forensic experts.
Q:
Who will be on the team?
A:
We don't have the names yet. We refer you to the UN Human Rights Center for the
list of names.
Q:
When will the team leave?
A:
An advance team expects to deploy in the DROC by June 20. The full investigative
team expects to deploy by July 7.
Q:
(if asked) What is the U.S. doing about reports of massacres in Eastern Zaire?
A:
The allegations are of grave concern to the United States. There are many
seemingly credible reports from various sources that serious human rights violations
have been, and continue to be, committed in eastern Congo against civilians.
For several months, we have been pressing our concerns with the Alliance leadership
and at the highest levels with neighboring governments.
Ambassador Richardson, Assistant Secretary for Human Rights Shattuck, and
other U.S. Government officials have been in the region recently meeting with
DROC Government officials, representatives of civil society, non-governmental
organizations and others. The U.S. Government has given a clear and consistent
message that killings must stop and that a UN investigative team must be allowed to
do its work.
President Kabila committed June 7 to admit a UN team to investigate allegations of
killings of refugees by July 7, with an advance team to enter by June 20. He stated
that DROC forces would abide by international humanitarian law and that
transgressors would be prosecuted. He also agreed that the UNHCR and ICRC
would have full access throughout the country to do their work.
We welcome this pledge and expect President Kabila to honor his commitments.
Q:
(If asked) Who has committed the excesses? Is it Kabila's forces or is it the
Rwandans?
A:
We don't know. That is what the UN investigative team will try to find out.
REFUGEE UPDATE
Q:
Would you provide an update on access and assistance to refugees remaining the
Democratic Republic of the Congo?
A:
We remain extremely concerned about the well-being of the Rwandan refugees who
remain in the DROC.
With the airlift of the more than 50,000 refugees who were found in areas accessible
to the international community, the refugee relief effort is shifting to a search and
rescue mode.
It is essential that UNHCR and other relief agencies be allowed immediate access to
all areas where refugees have been reported, particularly in light of allegations that
the killing of refugees may be continuing.
It is imperative that the new government of the DROC ensure the protection of the
refugees as well as of humanitarian workers.
President Kabila assured Ambassador Richardson on June 7 that he would grant
full access throughout the country to UNHCR and the International Committee of
the Red Cross (ICRC).
While we welcome this assurance, we wish to state once again that words are not
enough and that immediate action is needed.
&
How many refugees have been airlifted back to Rwanda and what information do
you have on the whereabouts of others?
A:
The airlift of refugees as they emerge from the forest is continuing.
Over 50,000 Rwandan refugees have now been airlifted back to Rwanda:
39,700 refugees from Kisangani
7,150 from Mbandaka on the border with Congo (Brazzaville)
3,288 from Tingi-Tingi/Amisi, Punia, and Kindu
A number of humanitarian search teams and refugee collection points have been set
up south and southeast of Kisangani, in the Mbandaka area, and west of Goma.
UNHCR plans to begin searching in the Boende area, east of Mbandaka, where
there are reports of several thousand refugees and in Ikela, 200 miles southeast of
Kisangani.
While this access is welcome, it is not enough. There are other areas where refugees
have been reported where UNHCR and others are still not allowed to travel.
Q:
What is happening to the refugees who fled to Congo (Brazzaville) given the present
fighting there?
A:
Approximately 30,000 Rwandan refugees had crossed into Congo (Brazzaville).
With the outbreak of fighting, UNHCR has been unable to gain access to the
refugees since June 5.
There are reports of DROC refugees, who fled to Congo Brazzaville, and Congolese
citizens crossing the river into the DROC. We do not have any numbers at this
time.
REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE)
June 11, 1997
Q:
Progress on resolving crisis?
A:
President Lissouba announced an unconditional cease-fire today, along with a call
for international mediation. We do not yet have a response from former President
Sassou.
Q:
How many Amcits remain in Brazzaville? How many departed yesterday/today?
A:
A small number of Americans remain in Brazzaville. We will seek to arrange the
departure of all those Amcits wishing to leave. The French are playing a key role in
operational issues regarding the departure of Americans. (For the briefer: We can
confirm that 36 Amcits have arrived in Libreville.)
As we indicated yesterday, this is a very rapidly evolving situation, and numbers
regarding departure of Americans are constantly changing.
Q:
Has the Ambassador asked for the evacuation of American citizens?
A:
The Ambassador has requested the ordered departure of American citizens and
non-essential staff members. The Ambassador and a core Embassy staff plan to
remain.
Q:
Will the C-130 return to Brazzaville?
A:
The C-130 is standing by in a neighboring country.
SIERRA LEONE: UPDATE
June 11, 1997
Q:
What is the U.S. reaction to reports of the coup leaders demanding $46 million to
stop down? Who will pay this demand?
A:
We do not know whether the coup leaders in Sierra Leone have made any demands
for payment to return authority to the democratically-elected government. The
Armed Forces Ruling Council (AFRC) spokesman has reportedly denied that any
such request was made.
The United States supports the position taken by the Organization of African Unity
(OAU) in Harare calling on the international community to refrain from recognizing
the new regime or lending support in any form to the perpetrators of the coup
d'etat.
CHINA
June 11, 1997
CHINA/TAIWAN
Q:
Can you comment on reports that China and Taiwan will stage exercises in the
Taiwan Strait, risking an increase in tension during the Hong Kong transition?
A:
We think those reports should be checked for accuracy with Taipei and Beijing. We
have no evidence of any large-scale military exercises scheduled by either Taiwan or
the PRC. We believe Taiwan's plans are modest in scale and non-provocative. We
have no indications that the PRC is planning large-scale exercises similar to those
carried out last year.
We believe both sides have shown restraint in military deployments the Taiwan
Strait, and urge them to continue efforts to improve dialogue and further reduce
tensions.
U.S. HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS TO CHINA
Q:
What has the Administration determined about the reported shipments of 46
"supercomputers" to China?
A:
I cannot discuss business proprietary information on specific export cases.
In late 1995, the President decided to streamline computer export controls to allow
exports of certain computers to civil end-users in countries like China, without prior
U.S. Government review.
The systems eligible for this treatment are those that perform at a level between
2,000 and 7,000 MTOPS - Millions of Theoretical Operations per Second.
When the regulatory change became effective, companies became responsible for
keeping specific records of such shipments, so that they could report on such sales as
requested by the U.S. Government. We have been examining these records.
Our review of such exports to China that have occurred under this policy has thus
far revealed no diversions to end-users of concern. We will continue to review the
issue.
Q:
Well, press reports indicate that some computers have gone to end-users engaged in
missile development work. Doesn't this show that the President's 1993 and 1995
computer decisions were wrong?
A:
As I noted, we have not identified such problems.
The President's decisions in 1993 and 1995 to streamline export licensing
requirements for computers were based on interagency-agreed recommendations
from Defense, State, Energy, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and
Commerce.
The 1993 decision modernized an outdated set of controls that were focused on
denying a wide range of low level computer technologies to the Soviet Union. The
1995 decision recognized the growing worldwide availability (or, uncontrollability)
of computers. It also recognized that U.S.-origin computers should not be shipped
to certain end users without explicit U.S. authorization.
This was, and is, a reasonable balance to our security and economic interests that
was carefully considered and supported by all of the national security agencies
involved in the export policy development process.
Q:
What about the report today that Silicon Graphics also exported computers to
China's Academy of Sciences last year?
A:
We have been aware of this report. The Commerce and Justice joint investigation
into the reported exports to Russia is examining the range of Silicon Graphics'
exporting practices.
Q:
In early 1996, the Administration liberalized its controls on computer exports.
What level of computers were liberalized to China?
A:
In January 1996, the Administration implemented the following computer export
policy for a group of countries that includes China:
Computers at any level require an export license when the exporter knows, or has
reason to know, that the shipment is being made to a facility engaged in, among
other activities, the design, development, production or stockpiling of nuclear
weapons.
Computers up to 2000 MTOPS may be sold to all other end users in Russia and
China, including military end-users, without a license.
Computers up to 7000 MTOPS may be sold to strictly civilian end users for civilian
uses, without a license.
Computers above 7000 MTOPS, for all end users/end-uses, require a license.
Q:
Isn't it difficult for a company to know in every case whether an end-user is civilian,
or military, or engaged in proliferation activities?
A:
It can be. That is why U.S. exporters have been clearly instructed to contact the
government (i.e., the Commerce Department) when they are uncertain about an
end-user.
If an exporter had any doubts about the activities of an end-user, however, that
company has an obligation to resolve those doubts or to contact the government for
assistance.
CHINESE EXECUTION/ARBITRARY POLICE POWER
Q:
Do you have any comment on the summary execution in Xinjiang of eight Muslims,
charged with bombing buses there?
A:
We are aware of reports of growing problems with terrorist incidents in Western China,
but have little reliable information on the situation. While our abhorrence for terrorist acts
is well-known, we also have significant concerns about the absence of due process in
China's criminal justice system.
Q:
Is China a police state, as the New York Times article implies?
A:
Certainly the level of police presence in many areas of China is intrusive, and its
intolerance for political dissent constitutes one of the principal disagreements the United
States has with China. We also note the article points out the rapid process of change that
has taken place in China over the last 2-3 decades. We believe the direction of change has
been toward a broadening of some democratic rights in China, and we hope that trend
will continue.
GEPHARDT OPPOSITION TO MFN
Q:
Minority Leader Gephardt has come out in opposition to MFN renewal for China. Is this
a blow to the Administration's renewal efforts?
A:
Mr. Gephardt opposed MFN last year. We disagree with him, but respect his decision to
do so again this year. However, this does not in any way change the President's view that
extending normal trade status to China is the best way to integrate China further into the
family of nations, and to secure our interests and ideals. Every President who has
confronted the issue has supported MFN for China.
If we were to revoke normal trade status we would isolate ourselves cut off our contact
with the Chinese people and undermine our influence with the Chinese government.
Revocation would undermine America's security, non-proliferation, and economic
interests, Engagement is the best way to advance the rule of law or respect for human
rights in China. If we are to help shape China's direction, we must actively engage China
on all fronts. using the appropriate tools at our disposal, not the blunt instrument of MFN
revocation.
MFN
WHY CONTINUATION OF NORMAL TRADE STATUS IS IN THE NATIONAL
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES:
ENGAGEMENT: President Clinton's strategy is clear: US interests are best served by a
secure, stable, open and prosperous China. The manner in which we engage China will help
determine whether it becomes integrated into international norms and institutions or whether
it becomes more isolated and unpredictable. This vote must be about how best to promote
U.S. interests--not an endorsement of China's policies. Extending to China the same normal
trade treatment we give to virtually every nation on earth will help further integrate China--
and promote the interests of the American people.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION: China's adherence to international norms is
fundamental to advancing the interests of the American people. On nonproliferation, China
has joined us in the NPT, CTBT, and CWC regimes. China is a constructive contributor to
maintaining stability on the Korean peninsula and bringing North Korea into peace talks. We
have a strong bilateral program to combat alien smuggling, narcotics trafficking and terrorism.
Negotiations on China's adherence to WTO norms and standards are moving forward,
building on past trade successes such as last year's intellectual property accord. MFN
extension supports our efforts to subject China to the same international discipline as other
major powers and builds on cooperation in important areas.
HONG KONG: Hong Kong is the gateway of trade between the US and China. Revocation
of MFN would seriously weaken the people of Hong Kong just when they need to assert their
strength and autonomy. The Hong Kong Government estimates that revocation would: slash
trade by $20-$30 billion, eliminate 60,000-85,000 jobs, cut economic growth by well over
50% and reduce income by $4 billion. That's why Hong Kong leaders across the political
spectrum, including Hong Kong Democratic Party leader Martin Lee and Governor Patten
favor renewal of MFN.
JOBS: Today an estimated 170,000 U.S. job depend on exports to China. U.S. exports to
China have more than tripled over the past decade and China is now our fifth largest trading
partner, accounting for $12 billion of U.S. exports. Revocation would derail the talks on
China's entry into the World Trade Organization, under which China would reduce its trade
barriers substantially, creating new export opportunities for U.S. companies and workers.
Revocation would invite retaliation against U.S. exporters and investors. Revocation would
also hurt U.S. consumers, who could pay upwards of half a billion dollars more in a single
year because of higher tariffs on such products as shoes and clothing.
HUMAN RIGHTS: Engagement does not mean endorsement. The Administration has
consistently pressed its human rights concerns with China, including most recently in Geneva
at the UN Human Rights Committee. Over time normal trade and continued economic
engagement opens up Chinese society. Every year, thousands of Chinese employees of U.S.
companies visit this country, gaining exposure to our politics, economy and personal
freedoms. Revoking normal trade status will diminish these growing ties and play into the
hands of those in China who want less openness.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: Revocation would also set back the cause of winning religious
freedom in China. This is the view of the China Service Coordinating Office, an organization
serving more than one hundred Christian organizations in China They fear the following
effects: doors will be closed for service through educational, cultural and other exchanges;
revocation would undermine Hong Kong and Taiwan, hurting their Christian outreach to the
mainland
TAIWAN: Revocation would damage Taiwan's economy, with $20-30 billion invested in
the mainland. Taiwan's economic viability is in the interest of the American people.
HAITI
June 10, 1997
Resignation of Prime Minister
Q:
What do you make of Haitian Prime Minister Smarth's decision to resign?
A:
Haiti continues its difficult process of political and economic transition. We strongly
support the continuation of economic reform in Haiti, which is essential to creating the
climate for long-term growth. We are also working to strengthen Haiti's democracy: in
this regard, I would note that this latest change in government is taking place in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Haitian Constitution and in a way that
reflects respect for the institutions of Haitian democracy. We urge all elements of Haitian
society to continue to work within the framework of Haiti's constitutional, democratic
institutions.
NATO
June 11. 1997
Accession Talks
Q:
Any comment on press reports that Germany and the majority of other allies
support including Romania in the first group to be invited to begin accession talks
(as opposed to the U.S. preference to restrict the first group to Poland, the Czech
Republic and Hungary)?
A:
We do not believe it would be prudent to comment on press reports on this subject.
The question of whom to support is being discussed within the Alliance and the final
decision will only come when NATO heads of state and government meet on July 8
in Madrid.
We have not yet made a decision on the number of new entrants we would support.
This matter is being discussed within the Administration, in consultation with the
Congress, and with our NATO allies.
Since NATO is a consensus organization, the final NATO decision on this issue must
and will reflect the consensus of all 16 members.
Gilman on NATO Enlargement
Q:
Does the Administration support the Gilman on NATO enlargement?
A:
The Administration supports and welcomes Congressional support for NATO
enlargement. The Gilman bill, as amended by Representative Hyde, is consistent with our
policy that NATO's door must remain open, and that the first new members to be named
at Madrid shall not be the last.
Hyde's amendment names Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as eligible for
assistance under the NATO Participation Act. (Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and
Slovenia were named in earlier versions of this bill.) It does not force the Administration
prematurely or unilaterally to name countries as ready for NATO membership, but
advances our policy of maintaining a steady and consistent policy of NATO's enlargement
to countries ready to assume the responsibilities of NATO membership, when their
membership will benefit NATO.
Kissinger Op Ed Attacking NATO-Russia
Q:
Any response to Kissinger's attack on the NATO-Russia Founding Act from the Sunday
"WP"?
A:
We are pleased by Kissinger's continued support for NATO enlargement, which he
reaffirmed in his Op-ed piece of last Sunday. Unfortunately, Kissinger's piece also
misunderstands and mischaracterizes the NATO-Russia Founding Act.
The Founding Act establishes a constructive partnership between NATO and Russia, even
as NATO continues to take in new members. It neither replaces, weakens or dilutes
NATO. Kissinger appears to have confused the NATO Alliance with the NATO-Russia
arrangements. But the distinction is clear to every member of the Alliance.
NATO will take its own decisions -- and respond in cases of emergencies or threats to any
of its members. The Founding Act says so explicitly (none of its provisions, "infringe
upon or restrict the rights of NATO...") When all NATO members, including the U.S.,
agree, NATO may chose to take joint decisions with Russia. But as even FM Primakov
has observed, Russia does not have a seat in the North Atlantic Council, which remains
NATO's sole policy-making body.
Kissinger has called for the Senate to reaffirm the primacy of the NAC in setting NATO
policy. We would welcome the Senate reaffirming a long-established position strongly
and repeatedly affirmed by this Administration
Kissinger charges that NATO's collective defense mission will somehow be weakened by
NATO-Russia cooperation. Nonsense. NATO and the United States have repeatedly
stated that NATO's prime mission will remain the collective defense of all its members.
Sintra NATO Foreign Ministers Meeting
Q
Can you comment on press reports from the Sintra NATO Foreign Ministers meeting that
the U.S. believes that only 3 aspiring members -- Poland, the Czech Republic, and
Hungary -- should be invited to join the Alliance at the Madrid Summit?
A:
At Sintra, NATO foreign ministers held a preliminary exchange of views on the
considerations that should guide the Alliance toward its decision at Madrid on whom to
invite to begin accession talks.
No decision has been made on the number of new entrants we would support, but most
important is that all new members be able to assume the full responsibilities of
membership.
We will be reviewing the matter and consulting closely with our NATO allies.
(If pressed: This was the first NATO discussion of the issue of "who." Allies expressed a
range of preliminary views, as is normal and healthy. The Alliance will develop a
consensus before Madrid
Madrid Summit
Why NATO Enlargement is in America's National Interest
At its Madrid Summit on July 8-9, NATO will invite additional states to join the North Atlantic
Alliance. Here are reasons why NATO enlargement serves America's national security interests:
1. Enlargement will make NATO stronger and better able to address Europe's security
challenges.
Europe remains a vital American interest. Europe's fate and America's future are joined. We
fought two world wars and the Cold War in part to protect the security of Europe and the
transatlantic area. Taking wise steps now will strengthen our common security, enhance
NATO's ability to address Europe's future security challenges and reduce the possibility of
another conflict.
Stronger collective defense. NATO's core mission remains the collective defense of NATO
territory. A NATO that embraces Europe's new democracies -- with capable militaries and a
commitment to improve them -- will be better able to fulfill its basic mission.
Greater ability to address new security challenges. NATO also is addressing Europe's new
security threats, from weapons proliferation to ethnic conflict to terrorism. Enlargement
increases the number of states willing to share these responsibilities. Central European
countries that want to join NATO have already contributed troops and bases to NATO's
efforts in Bosnia and have stated their intention to do their part in NATO's security mission in
the future. Combined with the Partnership for Peace and NATO's new constructive
partnership with Russia, a larger Alliance will be better able to address the new security
challenges of the 21st century.
Past enlargements made NATO stronger NATO has enlarged three times before -- adding
Greece and Turkey in 1952, West Germany in 1955 and Spain in 1982. Each time, the
Alliance benefited from the addition of states committed to the security of the transatlantic
area and prepared to contribute to it. Current efforts to enlarge the Alliance will have the
same result.
2. Enlargement will help secure the historic gains of democracy in Europe.
Part of a broader effort to build a new Europe. As President Clinton has stated since 1994,
we have an opportunity, for the first time in history, to build an undivided, democratic and
secure Europe. NATO can now do for Europe's east what it did for Europe's west -- provide
a secure climate where freedom, democracy and prosperity can grow. Such a Europe would
be a stronger and better partner in trade, investment, diplomacy and other aspects of security.
While other institutions play a role -- including the European Union, OSCE, and others --
NATO remains the keystone of America's involvement in transatlantic security.
Bolsters progress toward strong democracies and free markets Joining NATO helped Italy,
Germany and Spain reintegrate into the democratic community. Now, the very prospect of
NATO membership has encouraged Central European states to continue and deepen their
democratic and market reforms. Already, states in the region have strengthened civilian
control of their militaries, improved relations with ethnic and religious minorities and
accelerated economic privatization -- in part to improve their prospects for membership in and
cooperation with NATO.
Improves and protects the business climate for American firms and workers. Our economic
ties with Europe are among the most significant in the world and Europe's fastest-growing
economies are now in Central Europe. Growing European markets will yield benefits for
American exporters and export-industry workers. The stabilizing effect of NATO
enlargement and its encouragement of free market reforms will help create a better long-term
environment for trade, investment and economic growth in Central Europe. The resulting
prosperity will benefit the United States, as did Western Europe's American-assisted recovery
after WWII.
3. Enlarging NATO will encourage prospective members to resolve their differences
peacefully.
NATO enlargement is helping to resolve potentially dangerous conflicts. When he signed the
NATO Treaty in 1949, President Truman said that if NATO had existed in 1914 or 1939, it
would have prevented the hostilities that tore the world apart. NATO has helped reconcile
former adversaries like France and Germany and helped moderate tensions between Greece
and Turkey. Today, the prospect of NATO's enlargement has made Europe safer by
encouraging the new democracies to improve their ties. Many countries have already reached
agreements on border and ethnic issues that otherwise might have become sources of tension
(Hungary-Romania, Poland-Lithuania, Poland-Ukraine, Slovenia-Italy, the Czech Republic-
Germany).
4. Enlarging NATO will erase the artificial line in Europe that Stalin drew, bringing
Europe together in security.
Eliminates gray zone of insecurity. NATO enlargement will help prevent emergence of a gray
zone of insecurity in a region where past insecurity has helped generate the century's worst
conflicts. While not all interested European states will be invited at Madrid to join the
Alliance, NATO will keep the door open for future members; the first to join shall not be the
last. Enlargement, combined with other arrangements like the Partnership for Peace and
NATO's new relationship with Russia an Ukraine will yield security benefits beyond NATO's
own borders By contrast, a decision not to enlarge NATO would suggest a permanent
acceptance of the Cold War dividing line.
An enlarging NATO is forging a more constructive relationship with Russia. During the Cold
War, NATO and Russia were nuclear adversaries. A new NATO, as it prepares to add new
members, has also laid the foundation for constructive partnership with a new, democratizing
Russia. An important part of that new relationship is the NATO-Russia Founding Act. That
document creates a new Joint Council for NATO-Russia consultations, coordination and,
when possible, joint action.
Insecurity is more expensive. NATO membership involves solemn security commitments and
financial obligations; like all the other elements of American security, it is not cost- or risk-
free. But history shows that the cost of inaction is much higher. The Pentagon estimates that
NATO enlargement will cost the U.S. $150-200 million per year over the next decade. But
when the U.S. failed to address Europe's security challenges after World War I, we paid a
terrible price in blood and treasure.
American leadership. NATO enlargement constitutes a tangible expression of America's
commitment to remain engaged in Europe and to exert our leadership in efforts to build a
safer and more prosperous transatlantic area for the 21st century. This is part of a larger
strategy that we must pursue to put behind us the darkest moments of the 20th century and
fulfill the possibilities of the 21st.
SURVEILLANCE OF SCIENTOLOGISTS IN GERMANY
June 10, 1997
Q
What is the USG's reaction to Germany's decision to place Scientology under
surveillance?
A:
Our understanding is that Germany's state and federal interior ministers decided late last
week to gather information on the Scientology movement. This decision was apparently
based on the recommendation of an experts group.
We will certainly examine the details of this decision closely as more information become
available.
The U.S. Government has in the past expressed concern about discrimination against
Scientologists in Germany, specifically raising this issue in the annual State Department
Human Right Report.
Q:
Will the decision involve intrusive methods such as wiretaps, etc.?
A:
We do not yet know the details of the decision, including what methods of observation
will be used by law enforcement agencies, so it would be inappropriate to speculate on
that.
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
June 11, 1997
House Resolution on Jerusalem as Capital of Israel
Q:
Any reaction to the House resolution reaffirming the view that Jerusalem is the
capital of Israel?
A:
Our views on this issue are of course very well known. The President has made it
clear on numerous occasions that we are simply not going to be drawn into a public
discussion of this sensitive issue, an issue which the parties themselves have agreed
to deal with in their permanent status negotiations.
The focus needs to be on getting the Palestinians and Israelis back to the negotiating
table to deal with their differences in a credible and constructive way. This sort of
resolution doesn't help, it simply distracts.
LIBYA/PAN AM FAMILIES
Re letters Libya has been sending to Pan Am victims' families:
There is nothing new here except for the new level of audacity demonstrated by such a cynical
approach to the victims' families.
His claim that he has renounced terrorism is belied by Libya's continued support for it, and
Qadhafi's expressions of satisfaction with every bomb that kills innocent Israelis and damages
the peace process.
Qadhafi knows what he has to do to comply with his obligations under the resolutions of the
UN Security Council.
First and foremost, he has to surrender the two suspects in the bombing of PA 103 bombing
to either the UK or US, both of which have legal jurisdiction over the case.
Second, he must stop flouting UN prohibitions on Libyan flight activity.
And third, he must renounce terrorism.
CANADA -- PACIFIC SALMON
Background: Every summer since 1994 we have had dispute with Canada over how to implement
provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty of 1985 This year for the first time the stakeholders
(fishing interests) on both sides have gotten together for talks: they made some progress but have
not reached agreement. Canada walked out of government- to- government negotiations several
weeks ago (during the Canadian election campaign) and Canada began enforcing regulations on
U.S. fishing vessels-- four were pulled into port but all four have now been released. In a related
move, British Columbia Premier Clark has said he is going to cancel the lease for our submarine
testing facility at Nanoose Bay
U.S. postponed talks set to resume May 30 because of Canadian seizures of U.S. fishing
boats; created wrong climate for productive talks.
Need to tone down rhetoric and reestablish talks in atmosphere of good faith.
Working with our stakeholders so we can move forward when appropriate; no date set vet for
resumption of talks.
If asked: Clark's actions on Nanoose Bay are actually an issue between B.C. and Canadian
government. Have received no official notice of termination of lease. No further comment
RALSTON
June 9. 1997
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 9, 1997
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Withdrawal of General Ralston from Consideration for Nomination
as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I respect General Joe Ralston's decision to remove his name from
consideration as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I am pleased that General Ralston has agreed to Secretary Cohen's
request to continue in his current post as Vice Chairman. For
thirty-two years, in war and in peace, General Ralston has served
our nation with uncommon distinction. As Vice Chairman, he is a
valued advisor to me and he has played a key role in the
Pentagon's review of its post-Cold War mission. The Joint Chiefs
and our country will benefit from his continued service. He is
an outstanding officer.
I also welcome Secretary Cohen's action to forthrightly and
thoroughly review the military's standards and procedures
involving personal conduct. It is essential that our system is
reasonable, consistent and fair for those who serve our country
and that it is perceived to be SO by the American people.
I look forward to receiving Secretary Cohen's recommendation for
the Chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs.
# # #
CYPRUS
HOLBROOKE: FULL TIME?
Q:
Will Ambassador Holbrooke work on Cyprus full time?
A:
Ambassador Holbrooke will be actively engaged on Cyprus and will keep fully informed of
all developments. He will not, however, serve in his new position to the exclusion of his
other commitments.
HOLBROOKE: REJECTED JOB
Q:
Didn't Holbrooke turn down the Cyprus job before? Why did he change his mind?
A:
There has been repeated speculation about the composition of our Cyprus team for some
time. What is important here is that with Ambassador Holbrooke's appointment, we are
underscoring the commitment of the Administration to pursue a settlement to this historic
conflict.
HOLBROOKE AND THE UN
Q:
Does Holbrooke's appointment mean the U.S. will pursue its own initiative on Cyprus?
Or will Holbrooke back what the UN is doing? If so, will he participate in the upcoming
UN talks this July?
A:
Ambassador Holbrooke's appointment reflects the priority which this Administration
accords the Cyprus issue.
As our announcement noted, we fully back UN-sponsored mediation. The UN Secretary-
General enjoys the UN Security Council's mandate on the facilitation of Cyprus
negotiations. Ambassador Holbrooke will support the Secretary General's efforts to
reconcile the two Cypriot communities.
We understand the UN is still undertaking preparations for the face-to-face talks currently
expected to start in July. How the U.S. will interface with these talks cannot be said
before final UN arrangements.
HOLBROOKE TRAVEL
Q:
Do you have any idea when Holbrooke will travel to the region?
A:
I have nothing further on that beyond what is in our announcement.
HOLBROOKE AND DAYTON
Q:
Will Holbrooke impose a Dayton-style settlement on Cyprus? Will Cyprus be a "Dayton-
II?"
A:
All conflicts are unique. The Dayton process was designed specifically for Bosnia.
Cyprus has a very different history, set of issues and players. For any mediation to be
successful, these peculiarities must be taken into account. The UN and the U.S. fully
appreciate this fact.
Furthermore, we do not believe a solution should be "imposed" on Cyprus. The U.S.
seeks a durable political settlement that is acceptable to all parties.
KAZAKSTAN MISSILE SALES TO IRAN
We do not comment on alleged intelligence information or reports.
We remain concerned about Iranian efforts to acquire advanced weapons systems and
technology; we will continue to work with other countries to prevent destabilizing arms
transfers to pariah states.
FRANCE: ELECTIONS
Q:
Do you expect any changes in French policy toward NATO as a result of the recent
parliamentary elections?
A:
We believe it would be premature to speculate on any policy changes.
We continue to welcome active French participation in NATO and would warmly
welcome a French decision to join the NATO integrated military structure.
The U.S. strongly supports increased European responsibility within NATO including
ongoing NATO efforts to develop a distinct European defense and security identity
(ESDI) within the Alliance.
We foresee agreement on key elements of ESDI as one of the major accomplishments of
the upcoming NATO summit in Madrid
Q:
What about the AFSOUTH command issue?
A:
While we support increased European responsibility within NATO, we continue to believe
that command of NATO's southern region (AFSOUTH) should remain in U.S. hands due
to the strategic importance of the region, the current potential for instability there and the
preponderance of U.S. forces in the region, including the 6th Fleet.
We are continuing discussions on these issues with the French and other NATO allies.
Q:
Any comment on Socialist victory? Possibility of communists in government?
A:
Congratulate Socialist leader Jospin. France is key ally and partner for U.S. Prepared to
work with his government, as we are with all French governments.
Wide range of issues on which we work with France including foreign policy issues like
Bosnia, Middle East. Africa, NATO, global issues like combatting narcotics, crime,
terrorism, protection of environment and global economic issues. Expect this cooperation
with continue with both President Chirac and new government.
If asked about possibility of Communists in government. dependence of Socialists on
Communists for parliamentary majority: Expect to work well with new government,
based on common interests and values with France. Participation of Communists would
not change this.
RUSSIA/NIS
June 11, 1997
Current Items
Russia-Belarus
Noted Russia and Belarus signed treaty creating Russo-Belarus Union; no apparent
changes from agreement between Russia and Belarus in place over a year; recognizes
sovereignty and independence of both states; urge Belarus to adhere to treaty
provisions on human rights, freedom of speech, respect for private property.
General
NATO-Russia
Summit of NATO heads of state and government and Russian President Yeltsin held May 27
in Paris to sign Founding Act. Milestone agreement -- lays basis for robust and growing
partnership between NATO and Russia
Plans for NATO enlargement proceeding on schedule -- Madrid summit on track; will issue
first invitations to prospective new members at July 8-9 meeting.
Enlargement part of broader effort to build comprehensive European security system, which
includes strong NATO-Russia relationship. Going forward in way that does not threaten any
nation's security, enhances stability in Europe.
See Russia as partner of NATO in shaping more secure, stable and undivided Europe. That is
good for United States, Russia and Europe.
Suspension of Harvard Contracts
AID suspended certain Harvard Institution for International Development contracts in Russia
until further notice. Preliminary AID Inspector General investigation indicates two HIID,
employees potentially involved in serious conflicts of interest. Refer to AID for details.
Prospects for START II Ratification by Russian Duma
Believe Yeltsin committed to START II ratification by Duma -- without conditions. Note that
in May 20 meeting with Duma leaders Yeltsin made pitch for START II ratification.
START II ratification in both U.S. and Russia's best interests -- provides for stabilizing
reductions in strategic forces, reduced costs, and opens the door to negotiations on further
reductions in "START III," as agreed in Helsinki.
Ratification of START II by Russia remains an essential prerequisite to begin START III
negotiations toward further reductions in nuclear forces.
Denver Summit of the Eight
Denver meeting will be Denver Summit of Eight; will build on increased Russian involvement;
Yeltsin to arrive and depart with others; will be one press conference by leaders of the Eight
Seven will still discuss economic, financial matters; expect this to be small part of agenda.
IRAN
IRAN-FRANCE: TOTAL DEAL
Q:
What is your reaction to reports of a signed deal between Total and the Iranians to
develop Iranian offshore oil?
A:
As you know, we oppose significant investment in Iran's energy sector.
We have made clear our opposition to the proposed TOTAL deal to the French
government. We remain engaged with Paris on this subject.
FYI--despite press reports, we can not confirm TOTAL has signed a deal)
REACTION TO IRANIAN STATEMENTS
Q:
What is your reaction to new and apparently accommodating statements by Iranian
President Khatami?
A:
We look for indications that Iran is moving toward a more responsible approach to the
region and the world community.
As we have often said, we have no animosity toward the Iranian people or an Islamic
government per se.
Our concern is about the actual policies and practices of the Iranian regime.
The core of those concerns, as you know, are Iran's support for terrorism, Iran's pursuit
of weapons of mass destruction, Iran's efforts to destabilize neighbors, and Iran's abuse of
human rights.
We will judge Iran by its actions.
ELECTIONS
Q:
Any further reaction to the Iranian election?
A:
I think the President summed up our views in London.
Iran did have an interesting and hopeful election.
Nonetheless, we have very real concerns about aspects of GOI's behavior, including
support for terrorism, attempts to undermine the Peace Process and efforts to acquire
weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.
Our differences are not with the people of Iran. As the President indicated we favor an
end to the estrangement between the people of the United States and the people of Iran
and contact between them.
KOREA
U.S./ROK/DPRK Talks
Q:
Can you provide a readout of the U.S./ROK/DPRK meetings in New York June 4 and 5?
A:
Working-level meetings between the U.S., ROK, and DPRK took place June 4 and 5 in
New York
The lead participants were working-level officials from the South Korean Embassy in
Washington (Counselor Soo Kyuck Lee), the Deputy Permanent Representative to North
Korea's UN Mission (Ambassador Li Gun), and the Department's Office of Korean
Affairs (Director Mark Minton) and the NSC (Asia Director Jack Pritchard).
We believe these meetings were useful and expect to continue such discussions. But I
have nothing more regarding scheduling of any further meetings at this time.
As in the past, we do not wish to get into the details of our diplomatic discussions.
Q.
Can you provide some more general background about these working-level trilateral talks?
A:
The U.S., ROK, and DPRK agreed in April to continue working-level discussions aimed
at realizing the U.S.-ROK proposal for four party peace talks.
The purpose of these meetings is to continue discussions at the working level to realize
four party talks. The North Koreans are interested and willing to discuss it, but we have
not yet reached an agreement to actually enter these talks: We will work patiently to
realize this goal, through working meetings and other contacts. These diplomatic contacts
are moving in the right direction, but we do not expect to have something new to report
after each meeting.
[NOTE TO BRIEFER: The previous working-level meeting was May 30 in New York. That
was the first such meeting involving the U.S. and North and South Korea since the April talks,
though the three sides had remained in communication.]
Shooting Incident
We understand there was an encounter between South Korean military ships and a North
Korean patrol boat in ROK territorial waters off the coast of South Korea.
Reports indicate that there was no loss of life or serious injury.
We are consulting with the South Koreans through our embassy in Seoul.
We hope this incident will not adversely affect the ongoing working-level discussions in New
York.
INDONESIA
Ramos Horta and White House Meeting
[Note to briefer: Ramos Horta or his supporters requested meetings with the President and the
Vice President last year, and both meeting requests were turned down (or not acted upon)
However, we are not aware that any other WH meetings were requested. Had they been, NSC
staff would likely have met with Horta.]
Q:
Any comment on the WP story regarding a decision not to see Nobel laureate Jose
Ramos-Horta at the White House?
A:
No such decision of this kind has been made.
Q:
Would the President agree to see Ramos Horta in the future?
A:
I can't speculate on what the President's schedule will or will not permit.
Q:
What about other officials in the White House meeting with Ramos Horta?
A:
A number of NSC officials have interests and responsibilities relating to Indonesia,
including East Timor.
Should they receive requests for a meeting, I expect that they would have an interest in
seeing Mr. Ramos Horta, and that a meeting of some kind would be arranged.
Q:
Didn't the White House turn down a request for a Ramos-Horta meeting with the
President?
A:
While the President's schedule did not permit a meeting with Ramos Horta on his last
visit, other senior Administration officials, including Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth
and Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck, met with Mr. Ramos-Horta.
We share Mr. Ramos-Horta's concerns about human rights in East Timor, as well as the
need for reconciliation, and we recognize his tireless efforts to bring the plight of the
people of the territory to the attention of the international community.
As Mr. Ramos-Horta himself has said, and I quote, "President Clinton is knowledgeable
and sensitive about East Timor."
In March, we once again cosponsored a resolution at the UN Human Rights Commission
on the situation in East Timor, and the President has raised this issue in meetings with
Indonesian President Soeharto.
We have also strongly supported the efforts of the UN Secretary General to encourage
dialogue among the Indonesians, the Portuguese and the people of the territory
Election Process
Q:
What is the Administration's view of the violence associated with the election process in
Indonesia?
A:
We deplore efforts to suppress the peaceful expression of political views or attempts to
influence the election process. We encourage all elements of the Indonesia political
spectrum to exercise restraint and work to ensure the late May elections are free and fair.
ALGERIA
Elections
We commend the government of Algeria for holding parliamentary elections and for
inviting international observers to monitor them. We praise the Algerian people for their
courage in voting. They are the best judge of how the election results will contribute to
the process of national reconciliation in Algeria. A multi-party assembly holds the
potential to move this process a step forward.
We urge the government to address the issues raised by the international observers and
political parties as Algeria prepares for municipal and local elections. The election
campaign also marked a commendable increase in the openness of Algerian television and
radio. We hope that the increased openness will continue as Algeria moves toward the
peace, stability and democracy that so many Algerians have demonstrative they wish to
achieve.
Q
Were the election results free and fair?
A:
We are not going to characterize these elections except to say that it is up to the Algerian
people to determine whether and how the elections can contribute to the process of
national reconciliation.
Q:
What about all these charges of fraud? Where do you come out on the truth?
A:
I refer you to the report of the international election observers. It is an honest treatment.
Further, we understand that a number of political parties have submitted complaints to the
constitutional council of Algeria for resolution. It would not be appropriate for us to
comment on those individual issues before the Constitutional Council has a chance to give
its decision.
Q:
How can you find anything positive in elections so marked with fraud?
A:
We recognize that the process was not perfect. However, opposition parties across the
spectrum are saying in public that there are positive elements in this process that they want
to enforce. We urge the Algerian government and parties to work seriously on resolving
problems that have arisen.
Q:
Doesn't the low turnout invalidate the results of Algeria's June 5 election?
A:
No the 65% level of participation is within the range of previous Algerian elections:
municipal elections of 1990 - 62.17%; legislative elections of 1992 (first round) - 52.2%;
and presidential elections of 1995 - 75%.
Q:
Does the Absence of the FIS invalidate the elections?
A.
We believe Algerians had a broad range of political choice in the elections, extending from
two legal Islamist parties, through the opposition parties, to those supporting the
government.
Q.
Doesn't the President hold all of the power?
A:
No. The elected assembly will have the power to propose legislation and to vote up or
down the President's political program.
Bus Bombing in Algiers
Q:
What is your reaction to yesterday's bus bombings in Algiers, which appear to be linked to
the upcoming elections?
A:
We condemn these brutal acts of terrorism in the strongest terms. We deplore the loss of
life and the injuries to innocent civilians. The U.S. offers its condolences to the families of
the victims, and calls for an end to the violence that has plagued Algeria for so many
years.
Q:
Will such attacks have an impact on the June 5 elections?
A:
The legislative elections will be an important crossroads in Algerian political development.
Peaceful, honest elections could help Algeria emerge from the violence that followed the
cancellation of elections in 1992. Terrorism and violence have no role in such processes.
IRAQ
UN SANCTIONS
Q:
What is your reaction to reports that support for UN sanctions on Iraq is eroding?
A:
We are determined to see the sanctions regime remain until Iraq complies fully with all the
UN Security Council resolutions.
The Security Council has met 37 times since 1991 to review the sanctions and each time
has unanimously decided to keep them in place. We will continue to work with our
coalition partners to keep sanctions in place and we are confident we will be successful.
The US Navy and our coalition partners continue to effectively enforce sanctions
compliance in the Persian Gulf.
Q:
What is your view of oil companies signing new agreements with Iraq to exploit its oil?
A:
We oppose such deals as a violation of the sanctions. We have made clear to appropriate
governments our opposition to such arrangements. We believe there is a good chance that
a future government in Iraq after Saddam will not live up to any deal made by Saddam.
RENEWAL OF UNSCR 986 PROGRAM
Q:
Any thoughts on the renewal of UNSCR 986?
A:
We hope that this decision will help ease the suffering of the people of Iraq. Our
disagreements are not with the people of Iraq, but with their leaders.
Renewing 986 is important for meeting the urgent needs of the Iraqi people. As
Ambassador Richardson said yesterday, we still have some reservations about the
implementation of the resolution. We want the Iraqis and the Secretariat to provide more
timely and accurate information. Addressing these concerns will be important for future
decisions on 986.
If asked:
Q:
Has the U.S. held up contracts under 986 and has this delayed the provision of
humanitarian commodities to Iraq?
A:
Our goal in this process has always been to ensure that the urgent humanitarian needs of
the Iraqi people be met.
The contract approval process exists for one reason: to make sure that the money from the
oil sales is used properly and that the food and medicine get to those who need it most.
This system would not have been necessary were it not for the Iraqi regime's long, well-
documented record of evading its UN obligations and disregarding the needs of its own
people.
I refer you to the UN Secretary General's report on the first six months of the program,
which cites some examples of Iraq's attempt to evade proper monitoring of 986. There
are others, but the point is the record of Iraq's intention to evade sanctions rather than the
details of particular evasions.
SAUDI ARABIA
Khobar Bombing
Q
What about the Sayegh story?
A:
This is an ongoing investigation.
I am not going to comment on this issue.
FAST TRACK
June 10. 1997
The Administration's international trade agenda is on track and moving forward at full
speed. In APEC, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and in the WTO, the United states and
the Clinton Administration are setting the agenda to open markets, expand trade, and increase
domestic prosperity. More than 25% of our economic growth in the past four years has been
driven by export growth.
In the last six months, the U.S. led the world to conclude trade agreements in information
technology and telecommunications which covered more than $1 trillion in global trade. We
just led the developed countries of the world to conclude an historic anti-corruption
agreement among the 29 developed nations in the OECD. We are moving forward in financial
services talks at the WTO.
The President was personally involved in securing the ITA agreement, working with APEC
leaders last Fall to build support for this agreement. APEC has already embarked on "ITA II"
to expand the reach of this agreement and will consider other sectoral trade agreements this
year.
The President and the Administration are actively engaged with the Congress on the trade
agenda.
We are now working in Congress to preserve MFN trade status with China -- normal trade
relations -- a critical measure to protect the economic health of Hong Kong because half of
U.S.-China trade goes through Hong Kong.
We have secured commitments from the congressional leadership to address "fast track" on an
expedited basis this Fall and conclude this year. This effort will involve the President, the
Vice President, and the resources of the White House.
We would like to see Congress approve "fast track" in the Fall to ensure that we can gain
the best possible trade terms on a reciprocal basis for U.S. companies and workers. The.
trade agenda has not been held back by the absence of "fast track" negotiating authority. We are
moving forward in the FTAA, within APEC, and in the WTO on a wide range of negotiations
including financial services.
Fast track is important because trade barriers in the fastest growing markets in the world are
much higher than ours, and fast track will increase our leverage to bring those barriers down
and open markets.
We will work with the Congress this summer to build consensus on the scope of fast track and
how to address labor and environmental issues.
TRIPS AND VISITORS
President Kiro Gligorov of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in Washington June
17 for working visit with the President
Denver Summit of the Eight June 20-22.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard to meet with President Clinton at the White House on
June 27.
POTUS will travel to Denmark in July in conjunction with the July 8-9 NATO Summit in
Madrid
President's visits to Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela rescheduled to October 12-17.
APEC Summit in Vancouver November 24-25.
Visit of President Aliyev of Azerbaijan
Background: The President wrote Aliyev May 10, inviting him to visit Washington, "perhaps in
late July or August." Amb Kauzlarich delivered the letter to Aliyev on Saturday, who promptly
had the part regarding the invitation read to the Azeri press.
POTUS has invited Aliyev to visit Washington; date TBD, possibly in the late summer
Visit of President Shevardnadze
Background: VOA informs us that the Georgian state news agency is reporting that Shevy is
coming here in August to see Clinton.
The President wrote to Shevardnadze on May 31 (letter presented on June 2 by Amb. to
Shevy) inviting him to DC for a meeting sometime in August (date to be tied down in near
future). Shevy accepted the invitation on the spot.
BURMA
Q:
What is the USG's reaction to the ASEAN foreign ministers' decision to admit Burma,
Laos, and Cambodia into ASEAN during that organization's July 25-26 ministerial
meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia?
A:
Our concerns about the SLORC's (State Law and Order Council) policies are well known.
It has violated the rights of its own citizens and taken actions that undermine stability in
the region by producing refugee flows and allowing Burma to remain a major source of
narcotics.
ASEAN shares these concerns and, like the U.S., wants to see them addressed.
We have acknowledged that decisions about ASEAN's membership are for ASEAN
member nations to make.
We nonetheless regret that ASEAN appears to have invited Burma to join its organization
at this time.
We will look to ASEAN to urge the SLORC to seriously address our mutual concerns by
entering into a productive dialogue with democratic forces in Burma and by ceasing its
actions that damage stability in the region.
Q:
Doesn't this decision constitute a rejection of U.S. and Western pressure to keep Burma
out of ASEAN?
A:
The U.S. relationship with ASEAN spans a range of important political, security, and
economic issues of joint concern.
We look forward to continuing to work with this key group of nations to further our
mutual interests in stability and economic growth in Southeast Asia.
At the same time, we now look to ASEAN to persuade the SLORC to enter into a
productive dialogue with democratic forces in Burma and to cease its actions that have
undermined stability in the region.
BOSNIA
June 11, 1997
IFC Loan to Croatia
We have made clear to the Croatians that U.S. support for multilateral lending and
assistance will be conditioned on Croatian cooperation on Dayton implementation
issues.
The U.S. did not object to the $13 million International Finance Corporation loan to
Croatia (considered on June 9) because of the recent positive actions taken by the
Croatian Government in this regard, including opening the Brcko bridge and
commitments on inter-ethnic reconciliation, including full implementation of the
amnesty law.
We expect to see follow-through on these and other obligations commitments, such as
better cooperation on war criminals, in advance of other IFI votes on Croatia.
Bosnia Implementation Plan/European Trips
At the President's direction, we have recently conducted an extensive policy review and
developed a Bosnia implementation plan aimed at reinvigorating U.S. and international efforts
to bring self-sustaining peace to Bosnia. A key conclusion of our review is that Dayton
remains the only viable framework for long-term peace.
Secretary Albright briefed our re-energized approach to our Contact Group partners and the
parties at the Peace Implementation Council Steering Board Ministerial on May 30. She
followed up on her recent travel to the region by further pressing the parties hard on their
obligations.
Both Allies and the parties welcomed our renewed efforts to ensure timely, concrete progress
on implementation. Secretary Albright was particularly firm and specific in her meetings with
the parties on the need for improved performance in areas such as war crimes, public security,
refugee returns and joint institutions.
Dayton's continuing success is evident in the substantial progress we have made since we
began the implementation effort: stopping the fighting, separating the warring factions,
holding successful national elections, creating joint institutions, making great strides in
economic reconstruction, and gradual momentum on freedom of movement and return of
refugees and displaced persons.
The implementation plan is a detailed step-by-step road map aimed at creating a self-
sustaining peace beyond June 1998, establishing courses of action and benchmarks in all
priority implementation areas.
Priority areas are:
- bringing war criminals to justice;
- improving indigenous public security capabilities to maintain law and order:
- preventing a resumption of fighting after SFOR departs by promoting military balance
through completion of train and equip program and arms reductions;
-
advancing development of democratic, self-sustaining joint institutions and promoting the
rule of law;
- securing consistent progress on the return of refugees and displaced persons and the
ability of all Bosnians to move freely throughout the country; and
- enhancing economic reconstruction, inter-entity commerce and accelerated distribution of
economic assistance to all areas of Bosnia;
The plan calls for a strategy to develop and apply greater incentives and other forms of
leverage to give the parties a stake in implementing Dayton and to overcome their differing
visions of Bosnia's future. We will link cooperation with Dayton with all aspects of our
implementation effort using economic, political and every other form of leverage we have
available.
We will also be launching an intensive campaign to reinvigorate the international effort. The
goal is to re-focus implementation efforts and rally the international community on areas
where we expect greater support, such as international police.
We are introducing new programs to effectively and quickly target economic assistance to
"Open Cities" that accept return of refugees and displaced persons from other ethnic groups.
Implementation of Dayton and bringing long term peace and reconciliation to Bosnia remains
a long term process and much work remains to be done. Nevertheless, we should take heart
in all that we have accomplished and re-focus our efforts in order to finish the job.
Train and Equip Program
The international Train and Equip program is successfully helping to establish a stable military
balance in Bosnia, which is one of the keys to establishing a lasting peace in the region. The
recently announced delivery order of 116 refurbished howitzers and 21 heavy equipment
transporters from U.S. Army excess stocks to Bosnia is part of the ongoing program to meet
the defense requirements of the Federation, as identified shortly after Dayton, and within the
parameters of the Bosnia arms control agreements.
The T&E program continues to facilitate concrete progress in the formation of joint
Federation defense structures that will be critical to strengthening the Bosniak-Croat
Federation. The latest step forward in this regard, announced in Sarajevo last week, are the
agreements between Presidents Izetbegovic and Zubak on a joint Federation Military Strategy
and on key commands.
War Criminals
We continue to remain deeply concerned with the slow progress on war crimes front in
Bosnia. Recent convictions in a German Court and by the International Criminal Tribunal are
important steps toward justice in Bosnia, a key ingredient to long-term peace.
With these convictions and the recent delivery of indicted war criminal Zlatko Aleksovski to
the Hague, it is clear we are making slow progress on war crimes. We will not be satisfied,
however, until all indicted war criminals stand trial at the Hague.
We continue to press the parties to fulfill their obligations to turn over indicted war criminals.
We are also examining a variety of ways we can help the Tribunal to bring indicted war
criminals to justice. We have made no decisions on how to assist the Tribunal. We are
reviewing many different options.
If pressed about sending teams of special police or commandos to arrest war criminals:
We have been examining several options to assist and enhance the ability of the Tribunal to
bring indicted war criminals into custody. One option may be to establish some sort of
capability to execute the court's arrest warrants. We are studying the feasibility of these
options but have made no decisions yet.
Radovan Karadzic
Karadzic was removed from office and remains banned from any public or political role as
agreed by Republika Srpska. We continue to monitor the situation and will insist that
Republika Srpska live up to their agreement. We remain concerned about his potential
influence and will not be satisfied until he is brought to justice in the Hague.
IRISH ELECTION
Q
Any reaction to Irish election? Will results have any impact on peace process?
A
Though composition of new government not yet final, appears that composition of
Ireland's governing coalition will change as a result of last Friday's election.
Had excellent, productive relationship with government led by Prime Minister Bruton.
Look forward to continued cooperation on peace process as well as European and other
issues.
Congratulate Bertie Ahern, leader of the Fianna Fail (FEENA FOIL) party, for his party's
strong showing (Ahern will almost certainly be the next PM.)
NORTHERN IRELAND
High-Level Talks with Sinn Fein
The United Kingdom has taken strong steps in pursuit of a cease-fire in Northern Ireland that
would lead to inclusive peace talks.
We have been urging the IRA to declare an unequivocal cease-fire as a precondition for Sinn
Fein's participation in such talks.
Those discussions have been ongoing since the previous cease-fire was broken.
The U.S. has had contacts at high levels with all of the parties to reinforce this message.
Some of these contacts have been well-publicized, such as last week's meeting between British
Northern Ireland Secretary Mowlam and National Security Advisor Berger.
We have not, however, chosen to publicize all of our contacts.
PEARSON DEPORTATION
Background: DOJ has decided to appeal the lower court's ruling that Brian Pearson is eligible to
stay in the U.S. Pearson served time for an IRA bombing (of a military/ policy barracks--no one
injured) before coming to the U.S.
This decision was made by the Department of Justice on legal grounds. Questions concerning
the case should be referred to DOJ.
If asked: This is a deportation case; our policy toward Northern Ireland was not at issue.
That policy is clear --we strongly condemn IRA terrorism and will continue to support efforts
to achieve a just and lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
MITCHELL RESIGNATION AS SAPASS FOR ECONOMIC INITIATIVES IN IRELAND
[Background: It has not been made public yet but Senator Mitchell has submitted a letter to
POTUS resigning his position as Special Advisor to the President and Secretary of State for
Economic Initiatives in Ireland a position he has held since late 1994. Ideally, we would prefer
to announce it at same time his successor is named, which will take a few weeks.]
Yes, Senator Mitchell has decided to give up position as Special Advisor to President and
Secretary of State for Economic Initiatives in Northern Ireland. Will of course continue as
chair of Belfast peace talks; in fact, understand his decision to resign the economic job based
on need to devote his time to the talks.
We are moving to select a successor to Senator Mitchell to oversee Administration support
for economic initiatives. Creating jobs through investment and trade is key to underpinning
Northern Ireland peace process over long term.
CONTINUED IRA VIOLENCE
Strongly condemn continued IRA violence in Northern Ireland and in Britain, urge immediate,
unequivocal cease-fire.
Belfast peace talks (now in recess until June) have best chance of long-term success if they are
inclusive (that is, if Sinn Fein participates) but that can only happen after IRA cease-fire.
ON WHETHER IRA NEEDS TO DISARM BEFORE JOINING TALKS
U.S., like British and Irish governments, have accepted the report issued last year by Senator
Mitchell and his colleagues, which suggested decommissioning of arms in parallel with talks.
GULF WAR ILLNESSES
What is your reaction to the study published today in the New England Journal of
Medicine showing no evidence that Persian Gulf veterans face increased risk of having
children with birth defects?
We welcome publication of this first-rate study addressing an important concern of the men
and women who served our nation in the Persian Gulf.
The study compared the birth records of children born at military hospitals to virtually all
active duty military members who served in the Persian Gulf (a total of nearly 580,000 men
and women) with those of a parallel group of 700,000 service members who were not
deployed to the Persian Gulf. The results should reassure all Persian Gulf veterans, whether
or not they personally have experienced possible Gulf War-related illnesses, that their family
planning can proceed without worry about second-generation health problems related to
Persian Gulf service.
We also note that this study is just one element in a large and comprehensive research
program being conducted by many researchers in coordination with DOD, HHS, and VA.
Additional research designed to address other important Persian Gulf-related health concerns
in as thorough and credible a manner remains in progress, and we look forward to
communicating future results to Persian Gulf veterans and others as soon as they become
available.
How do you respond to criticism that because the study omitted some populations, it may
have overlooked evidence of increased risk of birth defects?
My understanding is that the New England Journal of Medicine is a well-respected publication
with high standards for the quality of the research published.
Beyond that, I would have to refer you to the study authors and their peers in the scientific
community who are qualified to discuss the details and evaluate the merits of this study.
What is your reaction to the findings in the Presidential Advisory Committee (PAC)
supplemental letter report that (1) there was information even prior to the Gulf War
raising cause for concern about chemical weapons storage at Khamisiyah; and (2) that
there was "substantial mismanagement and lack of communication" between the military
and intelligence community on this information?
Important here at the outset to note that we are where we are today -- with all of the recent
and continuing document releases -- because of the President's direction to get out all of the
facts, and DOD and CIA's commitment to carry out that direction
DOD and CIA have already stated for the record that their handling of Khamisiyah-related
information should have been better, and they are both committed to capturing the appropriate
"lessons learned"
Moreover, both agencies currently have their IG staffs investigating the related issues, and
their reports are expected this summer
Why was there, in the PAC's words, "no serious [executive branch] effort to examine the
possibility of chemical warfare agent exposure of U.S. troops at Khamisivah until late
1995" when there were documents available raising this concern by December 1991?
No question that the recently-released documents should have been identified and released
much earlier; this figured prominently in the President's decision in JAN 97 to extend the PAC
he established in MAY 95 in order to provide independent oversight of the ongoing process
These documents are being identified and released now in response to the President's
direction to get out all of the facts
As to why these documents did not come to light earlier, the various ongoing IG and other
investigations at DOD and CIA should help us to understand what happened
The PAC found that there is no single entity integrating the data for a comprehensive
assessment of the government-wide response to Khamisiyah; the PAC also questioned how
individual accountability will be addressed. What is the White House view?
First, the PAC's recommendation that a "presidential-level" entity to integrate intelligence
community "lessons learned" is consistent with the Administration's commitment to take full
advantage of the Gulf War experience to improve our preparedness and planning for future
deployments -- this recommendation will be carefully considered when the President receives
the PAC's interim letter report and the accompanying agency responses
DOD and CIA have asked former SEN Warren Rudman to advise both agencies on the GWI
problem. SEN Rudman is well-qualified to undertake a review of all investigative findings,
and his efforts will enhance our ability to integrate the intelligence "lessons learned"
With respect to accountability, our understanding is that there is no evidence to date of
individual misconduct. If and when any such evidence comes to light, the DOD and CIA IG
and other investigators tackling the many issues involved would document and refer that
evidence to their respective agency heads as a matter of course
The PAC believes that an EPA-type approach would be appropriate for the long-delayed
Khamisiyah modeling effort and that veterans deserve to learn the results of a full-range of
modeling scenarios (including worst-case events). What is your reaction?
DOD and CIA recently formed a joint modeling team to take this work forward to conclusion
as rapidly as possible, with the projected completion date of 21 JUL 97
The PAC's assessment that EPA-type modeling may be useful or even more appropriate will
need to be evaluated by the joint DOD/CIA team
In terms of targeted notification letters, DOD has already sent out letters to those personnel
within 50 kilometers of Khamisiyah, and will conduct additional notifications if necessary
Most important here is that the issue of notification has no bearing on the eligibility of
veterans for physical examinations, health care, and compensation -- and DOD and VA have
strongly encouraged all Gulf War veterans to take full advantage of the available programs
Is DOD using the Privacy Act as a "shield" to block the PAC's "unfettered access" to the
critical information they need?
Our understanding is that earlier this year DOD lawyers noted Privacy Act legal concerns
about certain information being provided to the PAC in response to their requests
We have confirmed that the Privacy Act does have application and have been informed that
the required legal steps are being taken to obtain the consent of individuals providing
information for release of that information to the PAC
Is the PAC likely to be extended again given the many problems still remaining?
The PAC has a critical role to play -- the White House is relying on the PAC's expertise and
independent assessments to enhance program quality across the full spectrum of government
activity related to Gulf War illnesses
Any discussion of extending the PAC would be premature at this juncture given the many
initiatives currently underway and the amount of time remaining before the end of the initial
extension period (31 OCT 97)
The intelligence community admits making mistakes in its handling of the Gulf War
illnesses investigation, and the many recently-declassified documents clearly should have
come out much sooner. With much of the related activity occurring during George Tenet's
tenure at CIA, does the Director-designate retain the President's full confidence?
Absolutely.
The CIA has contributed a tremendous amount to our knowledge about chemical weapons in
the Gulf War theater and specifically about exposure incidents that might be related to
undiagnosed Gulf War illnesses.
George Tenet is fully supportive of the President's commitment to get out all the facts, and
has increased the level of resources devoted to the Gulf War illnesses problem when new
information indicated the need to do so.
What has the Administration done for Gulf War veterans who are sick?
Through the dedicated efforts of DOD and VA personnel, veterans are receiving the care they
need for Gulf War illnesses, whether diagnosed or undiagnosed.
Overall, to date -- (1) DOD & VA toll-free help lines; (2) 80,000+ free medical exams, (3)
26,000+ compensation claims approved; (4) special legislation paying disability for Gulf
veterans with undiagnosed illnesses, with an extension of the presumptive period for
undiagnosed illness compensation forthcoming soon; (5) thousands of pages declassified; and
(6) 90+ federally-sponsored research projects completed or underway.
GINGRICH AND NICARAGUANS
Background Rep. Gingrich reportedly wrote to AG Reno on behalf of thousands of Nicaraguans
who are here illegally and are subject to deportation. During the Reagan Administration, AG
Meese ordered that these deportation of illegal Nicaraguans be suspended, and that order was in
effect rescinded some years ago (during the Clinton Administration). However, during an interim
period, INS has continued to permit Nicaraguans here illegally to obtain work authorization. but
this will end this month. At the same time, the new immigration law makes it much harder for
these illegal Nicaraguans -- as well as all illegals -- to make hardship applications to stay in the
U.S.
The President has expressed concern about changes in the law that make these hardship
applications harder to file for a range of people (beyond Nicaraguans); thus -- without focusing on
Nicaraguans per se -- we should note that Gingrich's sentiments are similar to our own.
Points
We have not seen the Gingrich letter, but will study it carefully.
We have seen the Speaker's comments, and -- as the President has indicated -- we very much
share the Speaker's concerns about certain aspects of the recently enacted immigration law
that could have serious humanitarian implications for families here.
Thus, we were encouraged by the Speaker's sentiments, and hope that they can form the basis
for an Executive-Congressional dialogue that looks at ways to ameliorate these harsh
measures without undermining immigration control.