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
68170658
label
Office of Management and Budget [5]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
68170658
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Office of Management and Budget [5]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Council of Economic Advisers (George W. Bush Administration)
R. Glenn Hubbard's Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
68170658
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
t010-061d-omb-5-20140342f
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
7803128153c141ac
ocrText
2014-0342-F
[
]
Monday, April 27, 2015
FOIA Marker
This is not a textual record. This FOIA Marker indicates that material has been removed
during FOIA processing by George W. Bush Presidential Library staff.
Council of Economic Advisers
Hubbard, R. Glenn - Subject Files
Location or
NARA Number:
FRC ID:
OA Number:
Stack: Row: Sect.: Shelf: Pos.:
Hollinger ID:
W
30
13
5
1
5648
18583
1403
1551
Folder Title:
Office of Management and Budget [5]
Withdrawn/Redacted Material
The George W. Bush Library
DOCUMENT FORM
SUBJECT/TITLE
PAGES
DATE
RESTRICTION(S)
NO.
001
Memorandum
Faxed Memorandum and attachment - To: Agency
9
07/11/2001
P5;
Heads - From: Jay P. Lefkowitz
002
Memorandum
Faxed Memorandum and attachment - To: Agency
8
07/06/2001
P5;
Heads - From: Jay P. Lefkowitz
003
Memorandum
Memorandum and attachment - To: Agency Heads
-
4
06/26/2001
P5;
From: Jay P. Lefkowitz
COLLECTION TITLE:
Council of Economic Advisers
SERIES:
Hubbard, R. Glenn - Subject Files
FOLDER TITLE:
Office of Management and Budget [5]
FRC ID:
5648
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advise between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
2201(3).
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
Deed of Gift Restrictions
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
A. Closed by Executive Order 13526 governing access to national
Records Not Subject to FOIA
security information.
B. Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the document.
Court Sealed - The document is withheld under a court seal and is not subject to
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
the Freedom of Information Act.
of gift.
2014-0342-F
Page 1 of 1
This document was prepared on Tuesday, April 28, 2015
-COMM.
JOURNAL-
DATE
JUL-18-2001
TIME
17:23
MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION
START=JUL-18 17:21
END=JUL-18 17:23
FILE NO. =695
STN NO.
COMM.
ABBR NO.
STATION NAME/TEL NO.
PAGES
DURATION
001
OK
55013
005/005 00:01:49
-EOP-CEA
-EOP-CEA
-
*****
-
202 395 6958- *********
CCICF
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 13, 2001
THE DIRECTOR
M-01-27
MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES,
AND INDEPENDENT REGULATORY AGENCIES
FROM:
Mitchell Director E. Daniels, Jr. MEDICALLY
SUBJECT:
Guidance for Implementing E.O. 13211
President Bush issued Executive Order No. 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," on May 18, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 28355
(May 22, 2001)). In order to ensure that agencies "appropriately weigh and consider the effects
of the Federal Government's regulations on the supply, distribution, and use of energy," the
President has directed agencies to prepare and submit to OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) a "Statement of Energy Effects" for their "significant energy actions."
This memorandum provides guidance on the implementation of this Order.
1. What is the basic purpose for having an agency prepare a Statement of Energy Effects?
The basic purpose for having an agency prepare a Statement of Energy Effects is to ensure
that agencies "appropriately weigh and consider the effects of the Federal Government's
regulations on the supply, distribution, and use of energy." As President Bush stated in
E.O. 13211:
The Federal government can significantly affect the supply, distribution, and use of energy.
Yet there is often too little information regarding the effects that governmental regulatory
action can have on energy (Sec. 1).
2. What agencies does the Order cover?
E.O. 13211 applies to all Federal agencies, except for the independent regulatory agencies
(Sec. 4(c)). We encourage independent regulatory agencies to comply voluntarily with the
provisions of this Order, particularly Section 3(b).
CC:CF
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 13, 2001
THE DIRECTOR
M-01-27
MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES,
AND INDEPENDENT REGULATORY AGENCIES
FROM:
Director Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. mEDamiely
SUBJECT:
Guidance for Implementing E.O. 13211
President Bush issued Executive Order No. 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," on May 18, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 28355
(May 22, 2001)). In order to ensure that agencies "appropriately weigh and consider the effects
of the Federal Government's regulations on the supply, distribution, and use of energy," the
President has directed agencies to prepare and submit to OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) a "Statement of Energy Effects" for their "significant energy actions."
This memorandum provides guidance on the implementation of this Order.
1. What is the basic purpose for having an agency prepare a Statement of Energy Effects?
The basic purpose for having an agency prepare a Statement of Energy Effects is to ensure
that agencies "appropriately weigh and consider the effects of the Federal Government's
regulations on the supply, distribution, and use of energy." As President Bush stated in
E.O. 13211:
The Federal government can significantly affect the supply, distribution, and use of energy.
Yet there is often too little information regarding the effects that governmental regulatory
action can have on energy (Sec. 1).
2. What agencies does the Order cover?
E.O. 13211 applies to all Federal agencies, except for the independent regulatory agencies
(Sec. 4(c)). We encourage independent regulatory agencies to comply voluntarily with the
provisions of this Order, particularly Section 3(b).
- 2
3. When does an agency prepare a Statement of Energy Effects?
To the extent permitted by law, an agency is obligated to prepare a Statement of Energy
Effects for those matters identified as a significant energy actions. According to E.O. 13211,
"significant energy action" means "any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal
Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation,
including notice of inquiry, advance notice of proposed rulemaking, and notice of proposed
rulemaking:
"(1)(i) that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any
successor order, and
"(ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy (Sec. 4(b))'
Based on this definition, an agency should discuss with OIRA whether a regulatory action
is significant, and "is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of
energy." If OIRA determines that the regulatory action is a significant energy action, OIRA will
inform the agency, which shall then prepare a Statement of Energy Effects (Sec. 4(b)(2)).
4.
What is meant by "a significant adverse effect?"
Adverse effects could include any of the following outcomes compared to a world without
the regulatory action under consideration:
1. Reductions in crude oil supply in excess of 10,000 barrels per day;
2. Reductions in fuel production in excess of 4,000 barrels per day;
3. Reductions in coal production in excess of 5 million tons per year;
4. Reductions in natural gas production in excess of 25 million mcf per year;
5. Reductions in electricity production in excess of 1 billion kilowatt-hours per year or in
excess of 500 megawatts of installed capacity;
6. Increases in energy use required by the regulatory action that exceed any of the thresholds
above;
7. Increases in the cost of energy production in excess of one percent;
8. Increases in the cost of energy distribution in excess of one percent; or
9. Other similarly adverse outcomes.
1 "Regulation" and "rule" have the same meaning as they do in Executive Order 12866
or any successor order (Sec. 4(a)).
- 3-
A regulatory action could also have significant adverse effects if it:
1.
Adversely affects in a material way the productivity, competition, or prices in the
energy sector;
2.
Adversely affects in a material way productivity, competition or prices within a
region;
3.
Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency regarding energy; or
4.
Raises novel legal or policy issues adversely affecting the supply, distribution or use
of energy arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in Executive Order Nos 12866 and 13211.
5. What does an agency do with this Statement of Energy Effects?
First, and most important, agencies are to utilize, to the extent permitted by law, the
Statement of Energy Effects in their decisionmaking to improve the quality of agency actions
affecting energy supply, distribution, or use.
Second, agencies are to submit a Statement of Energy Effects to the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) whenever they present a significant energy
action for OIRA review under E.O. 12866 (Sec. 3(a)).
Third, agencies are to publish their Statements of Energy Effects, or a summary thereof, in
each related Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and in any resulting Final Rule (Sec. 3(b)).
On those occasions when an agency publishes only a summary of a Statement of Energy Effects,
the agency shall also make the Statement of Energy Effects available through an agency web site
(and include the web site address in the NPRM and/or Final Rule) and provide the public with
notice of whom to telephone to request, without cost, a paper copy of the Statement of Energy
Effects.
6. What is a Statement of Energy Effects?
According to E.O. 13211, "A Statement of Energy Effects shall consist of a detailed
statement by the agency responsible for the significant energy action relating to:
"(i) any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in
supply, price increases, and increased use of foreign supplies) should the proposal be
implemented, and
- 4
)
"(ii) reasonable alternatives to the action with adverse energy effects and the expected
effects of such alternatives on energy supply, distribution, and use" (Sec. 2(b)).
In preparing a Statement of Energy Effects, agencies must follow the "Guidelines to Standardize
Measures of Costs and Benefits and the Format of Accounting Statements" (OMB Memorandum
M-00-08, March 22, 000)(<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m00-08.pdf>).
7. What is meant by "reasonable alternatives?"
Alternatives that rely on incentives and offer increased flexibility are often more cost-
effective than more prescriptive approaches. Reasonable alternatives may include any of the
following.
1.
Informational Measures;
2.
Market-Based Approaches;
3.
Performance-Based Standards;
4.
Different Requirements for Different Segments of the Regulated Population;
5.
Alternative Levels of Stringency;
6.
Alternative Effective Dates of Compliance; or
7.
Alternative Methods of Ensuring Compliance.
Within a command-and-control regulatory program, performance-based standards may offer
advantages over standards specifying design, behavior, or manner of compliance.
8. How detailed should the Statement of Energy Effects be?
As a general matter, the Statement of Energy Effects should be prepared at the level of
detail appropriate and practicable for reasoned decisionmaking on the matter involved, taking into
consideration uncertainties, the significance and complexity of the decision, and the need to
adequately inform the public. For example, if the significant energy action has an economic impact
that would require the agency to prepare a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) under Sections
3(f)(1) and 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, then the Statement of Energy Effects should be prepared at
the level of detail and analytic effort commensurate with the RIA. If the significant energy action
has less economic impact, then the level of detail and analytic effort should be commensurate
therewith.
9. What happens in emergency situations or in situations with short-term deadlines?
In emergency situations, or when an agency is obligated by law to act more quickly than
normal rulemaking procedures allow, the agency shall notify OIRA as soon as possible, and, to the
extent practicable, comply with E.O. 13211. For those regulatory actions that are governed by a
- 5 -
statutory or court-imposed deadline, the agency shall, to the extent practicable, schedule
rulemaking proceedings so as to permit sufficient time to prepare any applicable Statement of
Energy Effects and to permit OIRA to conduct its regulatory review.
10. When did the Order take effect?
E.O. 13211 became effective on May 18, 2001. It applies to any significant energy action
initiated by an agency after May 18, 2001. If an agency has already published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking that constitutes a significant energy action, the agency shall prepare the
Statement of Energy Effects and submit it to OIRA as soon as practicable, but no later than the
agency submits the Final Rule to OIRA under E.O. 12866.
11. With whom should we consult when we have questions concerning E.O. 13211?
If your staff have questions concerning this Order, please contact Richard Theroux in
OIRA (202/395-3089 and [email protected]).
o
Withdrawal Marker
The George W. Bush Library
FORM
SUBJECT/TITLE
PAGES
DATE
RESTRICTION(S)
Memorandum
Faxed Memorandum and attachment - To: Agency Heads - From: Jay P.
9
07/11/2001
P5;
Lefkowitz
This marker identifies the original location of the withdrawn item listed above.
For a complete list of items withdrawn from this folder, see the
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet at the front of the folder.
COLLECTION:
Council of Economic Advisers
SERIES:
Hubbard, R. Glenn - Subject Files
FOLDER TITLE:
Office of Management and Budget [5]
FRC ID:
FOIA IDs and Segments:
5648
2014-0342-F
OA Num.:
1551
NARA Num.:
1403
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advise between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
2201(3).
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
Deed of Gift Restrictions
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
A. Closed by Executive Order 13526 governing access to national
Records Not Subject to FOIA
security information.
B. Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the document.
Court Sealed - The document is withheld under a court seal and is not subject to
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
the Freedom of Information Act.
of gift.
This Document was withdrawn on 4/15/2015 by WW
Withdrawal Marker
The George W. Bush Library
FORM
SUBJECT/TITLE
PAGES
DATE
RESTRICTION(S)
Memorandum
Faxed Memorandum and attachment - To: Agency Heads - From: Jay P.
8
07/06/2001
P5;
Lefkowitz
This marker identifies the original location of the withdrawn item listed above.
For a complete list of items withdrawn from this folder, see the
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet at the front of the folder.
COLLECTION:
Council of Economic Advisers
SERIES:
Hubbard, R. Glenn - Subject Files
FOLDER TITLE:
Office of Management and Budget [5]
FRC ID:
FOIA IDs and Segments:
5648
2014-0342-F
OA Num.:
1551
NARA Num.:
1403
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(I) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advise between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
2201(3).
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
Deed of Gift Restrictions
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
A. Closed by Executive Order 13526 governing access to national
Records Not Subject to FOIA
security information.
B. Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the document.
Court Sealed - The document is withheld under a court seal and is not subject to
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
the Freedom of Information Act.
of gift.
This Document was withdrawn on 4/15/2015 by WW
-COMM. JOURNAL- DATE JUL-10-2001 ***** TIME 13:52
MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION
START=JUL-10 13:52
END=JUL-10 13:52
FILE NO.=485
STN NO.
COMM.
ABBR NO.
STATION NAME/TEL NO.
PAGES
DURATION
001
OK
&
57294
001/001 00:00:26
-EOP-CEA
-
-EOP-CEA
*****
-
202 395 6958- *********
LCA has ne
ONLY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
objection.
OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
per DFR
July 6, 2001
7-9-01
MEMORANDUM FOR DESIGNATED AGENCY HEADS
(SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION LIST)
FROM:
Jay General P. Lefkowitz Counsel AM
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled "President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology"
Attached is a proposed executive order entitled "President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology," that was prepared by the White House National Economic Council.
On behalf of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, I would appreciate
receiving any comments you may have concerning this proposed executive order. If you have
any comments or objections, they should be received no later than close of business, Monday,
July 16, 2001. Please be advised that agencies that do not respond by the deadline will be
recorded as not objecting to the proposal.
Comments or inquiries may be submitted by telephone to Mr. Mac Reed (202-395-3563)
of this office or fax to 202-395-7294.
Thank you.
Attachments Distribution List
Proposed Executive Order
cc:
Mitch Daniels
Dick Emery
Chris Ullman
Sean O'Keefe
Karen Keller
Austin Smythe
Marcus Peacock
Jim Capretta
Eric Pelletier
Robin Cleveland
Amy Smith
CEA has ne
STATE OFFICE PRESIDENT SERVICE UNITED a
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
objection.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
per DFR
July 6, 2001
7-9-01
MEMORANDUM FOR DESIGNATED AGENCY HEADS
(SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION LIST)
FROM:
Jay General P. Lefkowitz Counsel PM
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled "President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology"
Attached is a proposed executive order entitled "President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology," that was prepared by the White House National Economic Council.
On behalf of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, I would appreciate
receiving any comments you may have concerning this proposed executive order. If you have
any comments or objections, they should be received no later than close of business, Monday,
July 16, 2001. Please be advised that agencies that do not respond by the deadline will be
recorded as not objecting to the proposal.
Comments or inquiries may be submitted by telephone to Mr. Mac Reed (202-395-3563)
of this office or fax to 202-395-7294.
Thank you.
Attachments - Distribution List
Proposed Executive Order
cc:
Mitch Daniels
Dick Emery
Chris Ullman
Sean O'Keefe
Karen Keller
Austin Smythe
Marcus Peacock
Jim Capretta
Eric Pelletier
Robin Cleveland
Amy Smith
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Honorable Colin L. Powell
Secretary
Department of State
Honorable Paul H. O'Neill
Secretary
Department of the Treasury
Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld
Secretary
Department of Defense
Honorable Ann M. Veneman
Secretary
Department of Agriculture
Honorable Mel Martinez
Secretary
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Honorable John Ashcroft
United States Attorney General
Honorable Donald L. Evans
Secretary
Department of Commerce
Honorable Norman Y. Mineta
Secretary
Department of Transportation
Honorable Gale Norton
Secretary
Department of the Interior
Honorable Elaine L. Chao
Secretary
Department of Labor
Honorable Roderick R. Paige
Secretary
Department of Education
Honorable Tommy G. Thompson
Secretary
Department of Health and Human Services
Honorable Anthony J. Principi
Secretary
Department of Veterans Affairs
Honorable, Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Honorable George Tenet
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
Honorable Steven R. Cohen
Acting Director
Office of Personnel Management
Honorable Condoleezza
Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs
Honorable Margaret LaMontagne
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Policy
Honorable R. Glenn Hubbard
Chairman
Council of Economic Advisers
Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales
Counsel to the President
Honorable Lewis Libby
Chief of Staff and Counselor
to the Vice President
Honorable Harriet Miers
Staff Secretary to the President
Honorable Clay Johnson
Director of Presidential Personnel
Honorable Larry Lindsey
Director
National Economic Council
Honorable Karen Hughes
Counselor to the President
Honorable Karl Rove
Senior Advisor to the President
Honorable Nick Calio
Assistant to the President and
Director of Legislative Affairs
Honorable Albert Hawkins
Assistant to the President and
Cabinet Secretary
Executive Order
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the
United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
and in order to establish an advisory committee on science and technology, it is
hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment. There is established the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology Policy (PCAST). PCAST shall be
composed of not more than 25 members, one of whom shall be the Assistant to
the President for Science and Technology ("Assistant"), and 24 of whom shall be
appointed by the President and have diverse perspectives and expertise in
science, technology and the impact of science and technology on the economy.
The Assistant to the President for Science and Technology shall co-chair PCAST
with a nonfederal member designated by the President.
Sec. 2. Functions.
(a) The PCAST shall advise the President, through the Assistant, on matters
involving science and technology policy.
(b) In performance of its advisory duties, PCAST shall assist the National
Science and Technology Council (NSTC) in securing private sector involvement
in its activities.
Sec. 3. Administration.
(a) The heads of the executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent
permitted by law, provide PCAST information concerning scientific and
technological matters when requested by the PCAST co-chairs.
(b) In consultation with the Assistant, PCAST is authorized to convene ad hoc
working groups to provide preliminary non-binding information and advice directly
to PCAST.
(c) Members of PCAST shall serve without any compensation for their work on
PCAST. However, members may be allowed travel expenses, including per
diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving
intermittently in the government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707).
(d) Any expenses of PCAST shall be paid from the funds available for the
expenses of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
(e) The Office of Science and Technology Policy shall provide such
administrative services as PCAST may require.
Sec. 4. General.
(a) Notwithstanding any other Executive order, the functions of the President
applicable to PCAST under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended,
except that of reporting to Congress, shall be performed by the Office of Science
and Technology Policy in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
established by the Administrator of General Services.
(b) PCAST shall terminate 2 years from the date of this order unless extended
prior to that date.
(c) Executive Order 12882 of November 23, 1993; Executive Order 12907 of
April 14, 1994; and section 1(h) of Executive Order 13138 of September 30, 1999
are hereby revoked.
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
CERTIFICATE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
THE
June 22, 2001
THE DIRECTOR
M-01-24
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
FROM:
Mitchell Director E. Daniels, Jr.
SUBJECT:
Reporting Instructions for the Government Information Security
Reform Act
The Government Information Security Reform Act (Security Act), passed last year as part of the
FY 2001 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106-398), amended the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) by adding a new subchapter on information security. The Security Act focuses on
the program management, implementation, and evaluation aspects of the security of unclassified
and national security systems. Generally, the Security Act codifies existing OMB security
policies, Circular A-130, Appendix III, and reiterates security responsibilities outlined in the
Computer Security Act of 1987, the PRA, and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. In addition, the
Security Act requires annual agency program reviews and annual independent evaluations for
both unclassified and national security programs.
On January 16, 2001, OMB issued memorandum 01-08, guidance to agencies on implementing
the Security Act. The guidance directs agency heads to transmit to OMB in September,
contemporaneous with their FY 2003 budget materials, copies of the annual agency program
reviews, independent evaluations, and for national security systems, audits of the independent
evaluations. In addition to the program reviews and evaluations, agency heads should also
provide a brief executive summary, not to exceed 15 pages, developed by the agency Chief
Information Officer, agency program officials, and the Inspector General that is based on the
results of their work. These executive summaries will serve as the primary basis for OMB's
summary report to Congress. Instructions for completing the executive summary are detailed in
the attachment.
A letter from the agency head that transmits the required information should be sent to:
Mitchell Daniels
OMB Director
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
.
Room 252
Washington, DC 20503
9/1
PAGE
IDI
JUN-25-01 21:02 FROM : OMB ADMIN CU
The program reviews, independent evaluations, and executive summaries along with any other
appropriate information should be sent electronically in Microsoft Word or Word Perfect to
Kamela White at [email protected].
Attachment
2
2/9
PAGE
ai
JUN-25-01 21 02 21:02 FROM:OMB ADMIN CU
Reporting on the Government Information Security Reform Act
OMB Memorandum, 01-08, "Guidance on Implementing the Government Information Security
Reform Act", directs agencies to provide to OMB the following information: 1) copies of annual
program reviews; 2) copies of independent evaluations; and 3) for national security systems,
copies of audits of the independent evaluations. Additionally, the OMB guidance referenced
follow-on instructions to be issued to agencies on reporting the results of the program reviews
and independent evaluations in an executive summary. The reporting instructions below provide
a consistent form and format for agencies to report back to OMB. Each topic in the reporting
instructions relates to a specific agency responsibility outlined in the Security Act or OMB
Circular A-11.
I.
Reporting Instructions for the Executive Summarv
For non-national security programs, each agency head shall transmit to the OMB Director the
results of an annual security review that includes: 1) an executive summary on how the agency
is implementing the requirements of the Security Act and 2) copies of the annual program
reviews' and independent evaluations. For national security programs, the agency head shall
transmit to the OMB Director an annual report that includes: 1) an executive summary on how
the agency is implementing the requirements of the Security Act and 2) the audits of independent
evaluations of national security systems.
The executive summary shall consist of two separate components, one prepared by the Inspector
General (IG) characterizing the results of the independent evaluation and the other prepared by
the Chief Information Officer (CIO), working with program officials, that is based on the results
of the annual program reviews. These summaries will be the primary basis of OMB's summary
report to Congress. The executive summary, consisting of both the IG and CIO components,
should not exceed 15 pages.
Each agency shall submit their executive summary and additional required materials to OMB
September 10th when their budget submission is due. Please note that this information should be
sent to OMB under separate cover from the agency's budget materials according to the directions
in the memorandum attached to these reporting instructions.
1 Agencies should provide sufficient documentation for each of the reporting areas that supports the
findings and assessments in their annual program reviews as reported in the executive summary. They should not
submit copies of actual program reviews. For example, for system reviews (which are essential elements of each
program review), the submission should include the number and types of systems in place for that program, the
number of systems tested, and the specific types of tests conducted to determine whether appropriate management,
operational, and technical controls were in place and functioning properly. The submission should include a
characterization of problems found (e.g., types of vulnerabilities), but specific problems should not be associated
with any specific system.
3
9/8
PAGE
ID
no
ADMIN
FROM
21:00
A.
Instructions for Agency CIOs and Program Officials
CIOs working with program officials should respond to the 14 topics listed below. All responses
should be based on the results of the annual program reviews. Unless otherwise noted, all
responses to the statements below should be organized by major agency component, e.g.
operating division or bureau, and be separated into each of the 13 topic areas. Please note that
most of the topic areas below require that the agency first describe how it measures performance2
for the requirements of the Security Act and second describe the actual level of performance
based on the results of the annual program reviews.
Topic 14 requires the agency to develop a plan of action with milestones to correct any security
weaknesses identified by the annual program reviews and independent evaluations. This plan is
due to OMB by October 31, 2001. Additional instructions on the plan of action will be issued by
OMB this summer.
B.
Instructions for Agency IGs
The Security Act directs IGs or their designee, to perform annual independent evaluations of the
information security program and practices of the agency. OMB requests that IGs respond to
topics 2-13. All responses should be based on the results of the independent evaluations. IGs are
not required to describe or evaluate how an agency measures performance with respect to its
annual program reviews or evaluate the review itself. Instead, IG responses should focus on the
actual performance of the agency's security program and practices. For national security
systems, IGs should respond to topics 2-13 as appropriate based on the information in the audits
of the independent evaluations.
IL
Specific Questions
A.
General Overview
In this section, the agency shall provide the following information:
1. Identify the agency's total security funding as found in the agency's FY01 budget
request, FY01 budget enacted, and the FY02 budget request. This should include a
breakdown of security costs by each major operating division or bureau and include
critical infrastructure protection costs that apply to the protection of government
2
In this context, performance measures are not those required by the Government Performance and Results
Act However, agencies, in consultation with the CIO, should begin incorporating their performance plans (as
required under section 1115 of title 31) this summer a description of the time periods and the resources, to include
budget, staffing and training, that are necessary to implement an agencywide information security program.
(Section 3534(d)(1)-(2) of the Security Act).
4
9/6
PAGE
ai
JUN-25-01 21:03 FROM OMB ADMIN CU
operations and assets.³ Do not include funding for critical infrastructure protection
pertaining to lead agency responsibilities such as outreach to industry and the public⁴.
2. Identify the total number of programs included in the program reviews or independent
evaluations.
3. Describe the methodology used in the program reviews and the
methodology used in the independent evaluations.
4. Report any material weakness in policies, procedures, or practices as identified and
required to be reported under existing law. (Section 3534(c)(1)-(2) of the Security Act).
B.
Security Program Performance
In this section, the agency shall succinctly describe:
5. The specific measures of performance used by the agency to ensure that agency
program officials have: 1) assessed the risk to operations and assets under their control; 2)
determined the level of security appropriate to protect such operations and assets; 3)
maintained an up-to-date security plan (that is practiced throughout the life cycle) for
each system supporting the operations and assets under their control; and 4) tested and
evaluated security controls and techniques. Include information on the actual
performance for each of the four categories. (Section 3534(a)(2) of the Security Act).
6. The specific measures of performance used by the agency to ensure that the agency
CIO: 1) adequately maintains an agency-wide security program; 2) ensures the effective
implementation of the program and evaluates the performance of major agency
components; and 3) ensures the training of agency employees with significant security
responsibilities. Include information on the actual performance for each of the three
categories. (Section 3534(a)(3)-(5) of the Security Act).
7. How the agency ensures that employees are sufficiently trained in their security
responsibilities. Identify the total number of agency employees and briefly describe what
types of security training was available during the reporting period, the number of agency
employees that received each type of training, and the total costs of providing such
training. (Section 3534(a)(3)(D), (a)(4), (b)(2)(C)(i)-(ii) of the Security Act):
3 Agencies should report security costs which agree with those reported on their FY02 Exhibit 53. If
security costs detailed in an agency's Exhibit 53 were incomplete or inaccurate, corrected security costs should be
reported, and differences with the final FY02 Exhibit 53 noted.
The following agencies have lead agency responsibilities pertaining to critical infrastructure protection:
Commerce, Treasury, EPA, Transportation, FEMA, HHS, Energy, Justice, State, DOD, and CIA.
5
9/S
PAGE
ID
CU
ADMIN
OMB
8. The agency's documented procedures for reporting security incidents and sharing
information regarding common vulnerabilities. Include a description of procedures for
external reporting to law enforcement authorities and to the General Services
Administration's FedCIRC. Include information on the actual performance and the
number of incidents reported. (Section 3534(b)(2)(F)(i)-(iii) of the Security Act).
/
9. How the agency integrates security into its capital planning and investment control
process. Were security requirements and costs reported on every FY02 capital asset plan
(as well as exhibit 53) submitted by the agency to OMB? If no, why not? (Sections
3533(a)(1)(A)-(B), (b)(3)(C)-(D), (b)(6) and 3534(a)(C) of the Security Act).
10. The specific methodology (e.g., Project Matrix review) used by the agency to
identify, prioritize, and protect critical assets within its enterprise architecture, including
links with key external systems. Describe how the methodology has been implemented.
(Sections 3535(a)(1)(A)-(B); (b)(3)(C)-(D), (b)(6) and 3534(a)(C) of the Security Act).
11. The measures of performance used by the head of the agency to ensure that the
agency's information security plan is practiced throughout the life cycle of each agency
system. Include information on the actual performance. (Sections 3533(a)(1)(A)-(B),
(b)(3)(C)-(D), (b)(6) and 3534(a)(C) of the Security Act).
12. How the agency has integrated its information and information technology security
program with its critical infrastructure protection responsibilities, and other security
programs (e.g., physical and operational). (Sections 3534 (a)(1)(B) and (b)(1) of the
Security Act).
13. The specific methods (e.g., audits or inspections) used by the agency to ensure that
contractor provided services (e.g., network or website operations) or services provided by
another agency are adequately secure and meet the requirements of the Security Act,
OMB policy and NIST guidance, national security policy, and agency policy. (Sections
3532(b)(2), 3533(b)(2), 3534(a)(1)(B) and (b)(1) of the Security Act).
C.
Next Steps
14. Each agency head, working with the CIO and program officials, must provide the
following information to OMB by October 31, 2001. Provide a strategy to correct
security weaknesses identified through the annual program reviews, independent
evaluations, other reviews or audits performed throughout the reporting period, and
uncompleted actions identified prior to the reporting period. Include a plan of action with
milestones that include completion dates that: 1) describes how the agency plans to
address any issues/weaknesses; and 2) identifies obstacles to address known weaknesses.
6
9/9
PAGE
: a I
JUN-25-01 21:03 FROM OMB ADMIN CU
William B. Boning
06/26/2001 04:00:51 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Alice H. Williams/CEA/EOP@EOP
CC:
Subject: emergency board for american and apfa
I have no objections. the memo says non-responders are recorded as not objecting, so I will not respond.
Brent
Withdrawal Marker
The George W. Bush Library
FORM
SUBJECT/TITLE
PAGES
DATE
RESTRICTION(S)
Memorandum
Memorandum and attachment - To: Agency Heads - From: Jay P.
4
06/26/2001
P5;
Lefkowitz
This marker identifies the original location of the withdrawn item listed above.
For a complete list of items withdrawn from this folder, see the
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet at the front of the folder.
COLLECTION:
Council of Economic Advisers
SERIES:
Hubbard, R. Glenn - Subject Files
FOLDER TITLE:
Office of Management and Budget [5]
FRC ID:
FOIA IDs and Segments:
5648
2014-0342-F
OA Num.:
1551
NARA Num.:
1403
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advise between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
2201(3).
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
Deed of Gift Restrictions
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
A. Closed by Executive Order 13526 governing access to national
Records Not Subject to FOIA
security information.
B. Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the document.
Court Sealed - The document is withheld under a court seal and is not subject to
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
the Freedom of Information Act.
of gift.
This Document was withdrawn on 4/15/2015 by WW
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
BURDENG
Date:
5/15/01
Please deliver to:
Mac Reed
FAX number of addressee: 54294
Telephone number of addressee: 53563
From:
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
FAX number of sender:
(202)395-6958
Telephone number of sender: (202) 395-5042
Number of pages, including cover sheet: 3
Message:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502
THE CHAIRMAN
May 15, 2001
MEMORANDUM FOR MAC REED
FROM;
Alice H. Williams, alice
Executive Assistant to the Chairman
SUBJECT:
Distribution List - Proposed Executive Orders
Please change the name on the distribution list of Proposed Executive Orders from:
Honorable Diana Furchtgott-Roth
Chief of Staff
Council of Economic Advisers
to the following:
Honorable R. Glenn Hubbard
Chairman
Council of Economic Advisers
Dr. Hubbard was confirmed by the Senate on May 10 and appointed by the President to
be Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers on May 11.
Phillip L. Swagel
06/14/2001 11:00:24 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Annette E. Rooney/OMB/EOP@EOP
CC:
Subject: CEA comments on LRM AER91 USTR fact sheet on TPA
CEA comments on LRM AER91 USTR fact sheet on TPA
1. page 1, Free Trade, 1st bullet. The figure that export jobs pay 13-18% more than non-export jobs is
based on data from before NAFTA. This is way out of date. New research on this has been held
up by disputes between IRS and Census. Until that is resolved, we should unfortunately drop this
talking point.
2. page 1, Free Trade, 3rd bullet. Check source on NAFTA and UR give $1500 per family.
Phillip Swagel
Council of Economic Advisers
Old Executive Office Building, Room 328
Washington, DC 20502
(202) 395-5040
(202) 395-6853 fax
[email protected]
URGENT
PS 6/17/21 11Am
Total Pages: 17
LRM ID: AER91
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Washington, D.C. 20503-0001
Wednesday, June 13, 2001
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
Legislative Liaison Officer - See Distribution below
FROM:
John D. Burnim (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
OMB CONTACT:
Annette E. Rooney
E-Mail: [email protected]
SUBJECT:
US Trade Representative Fact Sheeton Trade Promotion Authority (Nine )
PHONE: (202)395-7300 FAX: (202)395-5691
DEADLINE:
5:00 PM Thursday, June 14, 2001
In accordance with OMB Circular A-19, OMB requests the views of your agency on the above
subject before advising on Its relationship to the program of the President. Please advise us if this
item will affect direct spending or receipts for purposes of the "Pay-As-You-Go" provisions of Title
XIII COMMENTS: of the Omnibus this Budget Reconciliation LRM Act has of 1990. also beene mailed
DISTRIBUTION LIST
AGENCIES:
COMMERCE - Michael A. Levitt - (202) 482-3151
-AGRICULTURE Jacky Chandler - (202) 720-1516
018 Council of Economic Advisers - Liaison Officer - (202) 395-5084
033 Environmental Protection Agency - John Reeder - (202) 564-5200
061 JUSTICE - Daniel Bryant - (202) 514-2141
062-LABOR - Robert A. Shapiro - (202) 693-5500
076 National Economic Council - John Ackerly (202) 456-2884
114-STATE - Paul Rademacher - (202) 647-1963
118-TREASURY Thomas M. McGivern - (202) 622-2317
EOP:
Amy C. Smith
Robin Cleveland
Maureen Walsh
Karyn T. Carson
Danielle M. Simonetta
Rodney G. Bent
Brett S. Loper
Michael Casella
Christine C. McCarlie
Ronald L. Silberman
Kirsten A. Chadwick
Dennis Craythorn
Dirksen Lehman
Randolph M. Lyon
George M. Andricos
Jennifer M. Baffi
John Sammis
Millicent H. Schwenk
Nancy P. Dorn
P.1/17
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 18:28 TO:18 - CEA
LRM ID: AER91
SUBJECT: US Trade Representative Fact Sheet on Trade Promotion
Authority
RESPONSE TO
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL
MEMORANDUM
If your response to this request for views is short (e.g., concur/no comment), we prefer that you respond by
e-mail or by faxing us this response sheet. If the response is short and you prefer to call, please call the
branch-wide line shown below (NOT the analyst's line) to leave a message with a legislative assistant.
You may also respond by:
(1) calling the analyst/attorney's direct line (you will be connected to voice mail if the analyst does not
answer): or
(2) sending us a memo or letter
Please include the LRM number shown above. and the subject shown below.
TO:
Annette E. Rooney Phone: 395-7300 Fax: 395-5691
Office of Management and Budget
Branch-Wide Line (to reach legislative assistant): 395-6194
FROM:
(Date)
(Name)
(Agency)
(Telephone)
The following is the response of our agency to your request for views on the above-captioned subject:
Concur
No Objection
No Comment
See proposed edits on pages
Other:
FAX RETURN of
pages, attached to this response sheet
P.2/17
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 18:28 TO:18 - CEA
The Bush Administration's Framework for Trade Promotion Authority
The President's first legislative trade priority is U.S. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). TPA is a critical
part of the President's ability to negotiate good trade deals that will open markets, increase choices and
lower costs for American farmers, workers, consumers, and businesses.
Our trading partners need to know the President's negotiators speak for the entire United States. U.S.
TPA tells other governments that there will be no more negotiation once they reach an agreement with
the President. And it ensures close collaboration with Congress. The Executive Branch has not had TPA
since 1994, and America's competitors have taken advantage in the interim.
Since taking office, the Bush Administration has listened to diverse viewpoints, and the Bush trade
agenda represents broadly supported goals and principles.
The President's trade agenda for 2001 is intended to further the benefits of expanding markets for
American consumers, farmers, workers, and businesses to advance a forward strategy for freedom,
sustainable development, and increased living standards.
TPA gives the President the flexibility to seize any trade opportunity, without compromising American
sovereignty or slipping into protectionism. As the President has said, trade helps create the culture of
liberty and the economic wealth needed to build and sustain support for better working conditions and
improved environmental protection around the world.
The TPA framework also reflects the fact that there is a range of trade-related opportunities beyond trade
negotiations themselves to move governments around the world toward respect for worker rights and for
the environment in connection with international trade. There is also a "toolbox" of illustrative
measures that can be used in combination with trade negotiations to encourage countries to protect their
environments and observe core labor standards.
This is a major step forward for those concerned about labor and environmental issues in trade.
Both labor and environmental goals will be included in the list of principal U.S. negotiating objectives
for future trade agreements, thus meeting a key request from the labor and environmental communities.
The framework also seeks to increase transparency in international trade organizations and agreements,
including opening the WTO to greater public scrutiny and allowing the public to observe dispute
settlement proceedings - two important NGO requests.
The longer we wait, the more we delay opportunities for our consumers, farmers, workers and
businesses. The rest of the world is moving forward and signing trade deals that exclude the U.S.
U.S. exporters are losing business in Chile to Canadian firms because Canada has negotiated a free trade
agreement with Chile and the U.S. has not. This is just one example, there are over 130 preferential
trade agreements in the world today, and the U.S. is a party to only two.
Free Trade
Free Trade is good for American workers, because when American workers compete on the world stage,
American workers win. 12 million U.S. jobs depend on exports, and pay on average 13-18% more.
Contol date
Free Trade is good for American farmers, because when the world buys America's top-quality food,
American farmers win. One in three U.S. farm acres is planted for export, and 25% of gross farm
M.
NAFTA
income comes from exports.
Free Trade is good for American consumers and businesses, because when Americans can shop the
world for the best prices and highest quality goods, American consumers and producers win. The
NAFTA and Uruguay Rounds have provided an average savings of approximately $1,500 per family.
7
P.3/17
FROM COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 18:28 TO:18 - CEA
What is U.S. TPA?
U.S. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is the trade negotiating authority that Congress
has granted to each of the previous five presidents since 1974.
Under this authority, which expired in 1994, the executive branch is bound by law to
consult regularly and in detail with the Congress, and solicit advice from statutory
advisory committees and the public, as trade agreements are negotiated. In return,
Congress agrees to vote up or down on legislation implementing trade agreements that the
President brings back.
Because of the close executive-Congressional collaboration that TPA requires, it helps
ensure that U.S. negotiators will bring back trade agreements that Congress has shaped.
In addition, TPA gives U.S. trade negotiators maximum leverage by telling the world that
Congress and the executive branch are united in seeking to open foreign markets.
At the same time, our trading partners know that an agreement they strike with U.S.
negotiators under TPA will not be reopened once the President sends it to the Congress.
That means foreign governments do not need to hold back concessions for fear there will
be a second round of negotiations.
TPA gives other countries confidence to close out complex and politically sensitive
agreements with the United States.
7
a: 4/17
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 18:28 TO:18 - CEA
Why does the U.S. need TPA now?
In the absence of U.S. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), other countries have been
moving forward with trade agreements while America has lagged behind. There was a
time when U.S. involvement in international trade negotiations was a prerequisite for
them to succeed. That is no longer true. Indeed, other countries are writing the rules of
the international trading system as they negotiate without us.
For example, the European Union has preferential trade agreements with 27 countries,
and 20 of these agreements have been signed since 1990. Just last year, the European
Union and Mexico the second largest market for American exports - entered into a
preferential trade agreement. The European Union is also negotiating preferential trade
deals with the Mercosur nations of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, and the
Gulf Cooperation Council countries of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and
the United Arab Emirates. Japan is negotiating a free trade agreement with Singapore,
and is exploring free trade agreements with Mexico, Korea, and Chile.
There are more than 130 preferential trade agreements in force globally, but the United
States has only 2 free trade agreements in effect: one with Canada and Mexico (NAFTA),
and the other with Israel.
Our deadlock hurts American businesses, workers, and farmers, as they find themselves
shut out of the many preferential trade and investment agreements negotiated by our
trading partners. To citc just one example, while U.S. exports to Chile face an 8% tariff,
the Canada-Chile trade agreement will free Canadian imports of this duty.
Other countries are adopting standards for autos and other products that benefit each
other's producers and make it harder for our companies to sell in their markets. The
United States needs to decide whether it wants to stand on the sidelines and cede these
markets to European, Japanese, and other competitors, or whether we want to negotiate
market access and rules that will benefit U.S. producers and workers.
We cannot afford to stand still while other nations seize the mantle of leadership on trade
from the United States. This would be a huge missed opportunity and an historic mistake
for our people.
2
LI/S 'd
FROM: COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 18:28 TO:18 - CEA
The Bush Administration Trade Agenda: U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement
The U.S.-Vietnam bilateral trade agreement (BTA), signed in July 2000, is part of a
historic, decade-long normalization of U.S.-Vietnam relations begun in the 1990s under
former President George Bush.
Implementation of the BTA requires comprehensive trade and investment liberalization
by Vietnam, in exchange for normal trade relations (NTR) tariff benefits from the U.S..
The BTA will expand economic freedom not only for Americans in Vietnam, but for
Vietnamese citizens, by expanding the right to trade, requiring greater transparency in
decision-making, and introducing competition in key services sectors.
Implementation of the comprehensive agreement fulfills the strategic U.S. goal to open
the Vietnamese market and move Vietnam toward rules-based, global market systems.
These reforms will help create a more open society in Vietnam.
The BTA enjoys bi-partisan, broad-based support from the Congress, non-governmental
organizations and business associations.
The BTA is strongly supported by Vietnam veterans and former POWs now serving their
country as Members of Congress, such as Sens. John McCain, John Kerry, and Chuck
Hagel, and others, as well as former Sen. Bob Kerrey and Gov. Jesse Ventura. In
addition, a wide range of educational and humanitarian NGOs, including the US-
Indochina Educational Foundation, the Church World Service and Witness, and
International Voluntary Services, have endorsed BTA implementation.
The BTA is a comprehensive trade agreement which will provide expanded market access
for U.S. goods and services.
Vietnam has made significant commitments across a wide range of industries, including:
the lowering of tariffs on hundreds of categories of industrial goods and farm products;
the phasing out of all non-tariff measures; and expanding access to its services market in
a broad array of areas, including financial services, telecommunications services,
distribution services, audio visual services, as well as other sectors.
This agreement will provide for greater protection for U.S. intellectual property rights and
investment and the adoption of a transparent rules-based legislative and regulatory system.
Vietnam will adopt the WTO "TRIPs" standards for intellectual property protection in 18
months or less; phase out its burdensome investment licensing regime for many sectors;
and adhere to WTO standards in applying customs, import licensing, state trading,
technical standards and sanitary and phytosanitary measures.
U.S.-Vietnam Trade: In 2000, the U.S. exported $368 million of goods to Vietnam, including:
Machinery $80 million; Electrical Machinery $59 million; Fertilizers $47 million; Optics
and Medical Equipment $13.1 million; Cotton, Yarn and Fabric $15.5 million; Animal
Feed $8.7 million; Dairy Products $4 million; Pharmaceuticals $4 million.
LI/9 'd
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 18:28 TO:18 - CEA
Background on the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement
The growth of the world economy depends on world trade. The growth of
world trade depends on American leadership. And America will lead
toward freer trade, toward wider and more lasting prosperity for ourselves
and for the world. President George W. Bush, May 31, 2001
Vietnam is one of six countries with whom the United States does not now have normal trade
relations, meaning that the lower tariff rates the United States applies to imports from nearly
every other country are not applied to imports from Vietnam.
Under U.S. law, two conditions must be met in order for Vietnam to receive Normal Trade
Relations ("NTR") status: (1) Vietnam must sign, and Congress must approve, a bilateral
commercial agreement; and (2) the President must either find that Vietnam is in compliance with
certain freedom of emigration requirements (commonly referred to as the "Jackson-Vanik"
amendment) or annually "waive" those requirements, thus indicating that Vietnam is making
sufficient progress on this issue.
In July, 2000, the United States and Vietnam signed a bilateral trade agreement that fulfills the
first condition necessary to give Vietnam NTR status. Negotiations on the agreement began in
1996. The agreement represents an important milestone in the decade-long normalization of
U.S.-Vietnam relations begun in the 1990s under former President Bush.
Under legislation dating from 1975, trade agreements with countries like Vietnam are subject to
expedited Congressional review. Under this procedure, Congress considers whether to approve a
joint resolution, the wording of which is set out in law and may not be amended. A maximum of
45 legislative days is allotted for committee review of the resolution and both houses of Congress
must vote on the resolution within legislative days thereafter.
Vietnam has received annual waivers of "Jackson-Vanik" requirements since 1998. A waiver
makes Vietnam eligible for benefits provided by the U.S. Overseas Private Investment
Corporation and the Export-Import Bank. If Congress approves the bilateral trade agreement,
Vietnam will also be eligible for NTR status, subject to renewal each year.
Under the trade agreement, Vietnam has committed to opening its market to U.S. goods,
services, and investment and to moving toward adoption of World Trade Organization and other
international trade and investment norms. The agreement covers six major areas: market access
for industrial and agricultural goods, protection of intellectual property, market access for
services, investment protection, business facilitation, and transparency.
P.7/17
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 18:28 TO:18 - CEA
Questions and Answers on the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement
Q:
What is the Vietnam Trade Agreement?
A:
In July 2000, the United States and Vietnam signed a bilateral trade agreement, that will,
when it becomes effective, extend normal trade relations (NTR) benefits to Vietnam.
This agreement will establish a legal framework for basic trading relations. It is not a free
trade agreement.
Without NTR, Vietnamese industrial and agricultural goods would face U.S. tariffs on
average of 40-50 percent. With NTR, U.S. tariffs are reduced to the lower NTR tariff rate
at an average of 3 percent.
The agreement also requires Vietnam to open its market for goods and services, protect
intellectual property rights comprehensively, reform its investment regime, and establish
a transparent trade and investment system.
The agreement must be approved by Congress to enter into force. The Administration
supports normalization of trade relations with Vietnam.
Q:
What action does Congress need to take to pass the Vietnam BTA?
A:
Congress needs to enact a Joint Resolution approving the trade agreement, which
authorizes the President to extend NTR tariff rates to Vietnam.
à
What opportunities are there for U.S. firms in the Vietnamese market? How will the
bilateral trade agreement enhance these opportunities?
A:
The bilateral agreement will increase opportunities for U.S. firms in Vietnam by requiring
Vietnam to dismantle a wide range of trade barriers, open its services market in areas
such as banking, insurance, telecommunications and distribution, and provide
comprehensive protection of intellectual property rights.
Vietnam is a country of 80 million people, most of whom are under the age of 25. Thus,
though its income levels are low, it holds great potential as a market for U.S. goods and
services, as its economy develops, the private sector expands, and the government
loosens its controls over markets.
Under this agreement Vietnam has agreed to significantly increase its openness to U.S.
investment. The agreement assures U.S. companies protection for their investments in
Vietnam and permits repatriation of profits and other financial transfers on a national
treatment basis.
The BTA phases out investment screening by the Vietnamese government. Within a three
year period the BTA will reform the functioning of joint ventures, allowing U.S.
investors to select managerial personnel without regard to nationality, and enjoy greater
managerial control over their ventures.
U.S. merchandise exports to Vietnam in 2000 were $368 million, up 27 percent from
1999. Top exports included machinery, fertilizer, and footwear components.
L
LI/8
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 18:28 TO:18 - CEA
Q:
What is the status of the working party on Vietnam's accession to the World Trade
Organization, and are the Vietnamese actively seeking accession at present?
A:
Vietnam applied to accede to the WTO in 1995, and its accession working party has met
four times since then. To date, most of Vietnam's efforts have been spent responding to
obligatory questions about its trade regime.
The bilateral trade agreement moves Vietnam solidly in the direction of adopting WTO
standards in a number of key areas. But more work needs to be done, in the area of rules
and market access.
The U.S. has already begun to indicate to Vietnam how its regime needs to be modified to
comply with WTO rules. The next meeting of the accession working party is this fall.
Q:
Why should the United States normalize trade relations with a country such as
Vietnam, which does not respect basic human rights and religious freedom?
A:
The Administration shares the concern about the protection of human rights and religious
freedom in Vietnam, and recognizes that while some progress has been made in recent
years, repression still exists.
The United States has engaged in a human rights dialogue with Vietnam for over eight
years, and the Administration continues to express these concerns, including in senior
level meetings with Vietnamese officials.
Once granted by the U.S. government, Vietnam's NTR status will be contingent upon an
annual Presidential recommendation to Congress that the Jackson-Vanik waiver be
extended for another year. Upon a Presidential recommendation for a waiver, the
Congress may introduce and vote on a resolution of disapproval within 60 days.
Normalized trade relations with Vietnam can help lead to expanded economic
opportunities in a rules-based environment, which can foster stronger civic institutions,
transparency in governmental and judicial decision making and a greater degree of
individual freedoms. It is no coincidence that countries that enjoy such freedoms are, in
fact, those with open economies.
Q:
Under U.S. trade laws, what determines whether or not Vietnam receives NTR status?
A:
Under U.S. trade laws, in order for Vietnam to receive such Normal Trade Relations
status, two conditions must be met:
Vietnam must sign, and the Congress must approve, a bilateral commercial
agreement; and
The President must either find that Vietnam is in compliance with certain freedom
of emigration requirements (commonly referred to as the "Jackson-Vanik"
amendment) or annually "waive" those requirements, thus indicating that Vietnam
is making sufficient progress on this issue. Jackson Vanik waivers must be
reviewed and renewed by the President annually in order for NTR status to
7
LI/6
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 18:28 TO:18 - CEA
continue.
Q:
Has the delay in introducing the implementing resolution damaged U.S.-Vietnamese
bilateral relations?
As the Administration has explained to the Vietnamese government, the timing of the
implementing resolution is not related to bilateral issues. It has to do with considerations
concerning the broader trade legislative agenda and the legislative calendar. From a
practical point of view, the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance
Committee have only recently concluded their consideration of President Bush's tax
reduction legislation.
Furthermore, the President wanted to outline a comprehensive trade agenda for the
upcoming year. The 2001 trade agenda has been presented to the Congress and the public,
and in doing so, the President has indicated that the Vietnam BTA is a part of his overall
trade agenda.
Putting the agreement in a broader historical context, the negotiation was mostly
completed in 1999, and the United States wanted to finalize it at that time, but Vietnam
delayed for an entire year.
The Administration is pleased that Vietnam agreed to sign the agreement in
July 2000, but that resulted in the issue running over into the transition of
Administrations.
LI/0I 'd
FROM: COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 18:28 TO:18 - CEA
Background on the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
FTA Provisions
The Jordan Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was signed on October 24, 2000. It will take effect as America's third free
trade agreement, and the first ever with an Arab state. The FTA is the capstone of growing U.S.-Jordanian collaboration
in economic relations, which began with close bilateral cooperation on Jordan's accession to the World Trade
Organization (WTO) and was followed by the conclusion of a trade and investment framework agreement and a bilateral
investment treaty. The FTA serves as an example for Jordan's neighbors in the Middle East of the benefits of peace and
economic reform.
The Jordan FTA achieves significant and extensive liberalization across a wide spectrum of trade issues. It will eliminate
all tariff and non-tariff barriers to bilateral trade in virtually all industrial goods and agricultural products within 10 years.
The FTA also includes, for the first time ever in a trade agreement, a set of substantive provisions on electronic
commerce that set a good example for other countries to follow with respect to liberalization in areas critical to the high-
tech and multimedia industry. The agreement helps to advance a global free trade agenda for electronic commerce. Both
countries agreed to seek to avoid imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions, imposing unnecessary barriers to
market access for digitized products, and impeding the ability to deliver services through electronic means. These
provisions also tie in with commitments in the services area that, taken together, aim at encouraging investment in new
technologies and stimulating the innovative uses of networks to deliver products and services. Jordan is one of only 13
other countries in the world to provide market access and national treatment guarantees for the motion picture industry
one of the U.S.' largest exports. The agreement will significantly liberalize bilateral trade in services across a wide range
of services sectors.
The FTA's provisions on intellectual property rights (IPR) build on the strong IPR commitments Jordan made in acceding
to the WTO. The FTA incorporates the most up-to-date international standards for copyright protection, as well as data
exclusivity for pharmaccuticals and stepped-up commitments on enforcement. Among other things, Jordan has
undertaken to ratify and implement the World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and WIPO
Performances and Phonograms Treaty within two years. These two treaties, sometimes referred to as the "Internet
Treaties," establish several critical elements for the protection of copyrighted works in a digital network environment,
including creators' exclusive right to make their creative works available online, as well as Jordanian adherence to new
WIPO treaties on copyright protection in the internet.
The agreement also contains trade-related environmental and labor provisions. These provisions will not require either
country to adopt any new labor or environmental laws, and each country retains the absolute right to set its own labor and
environmental standards and to change those standards. As part of the agreement, the two countries affirm the
importance of not waiving or derogating from their labor or environmental laws in order to encourage trade.
Like the 1985 U.S.-Israel Free Trade Area Agreement, the Jordan FTA creates a multi-step dispute settlement process
that places a premium on cooperative resolution of disputes, as well as on procedural transparency. Any dispute that
cannot be resolved through consultation may be referred to a panel of independent experts for a non-binding opinion. If a
dispute cannot be settled after panel proceedings are completed, the FTA authorizes the affected party to take any
"appropriate and commensurate measure," without specifying the form that this action should take. However, the party
taking the action may not act in a manner that is inconsistent with its WTO obligations. Because the United States
already has a Bilateral Investment Treaty with Jordan, the FTA does not include an investment provision.
Jordan's Trade Profile
Jordan became a member of the World Trade Organization in April 2000. In 2000, U.S. exports to Jordan were $306
million. Top U.S. exports to Jordan in 1999 included wheat ($58 million), machinery and mechanical appliances ($43
million) and aircraft and aircraft parts ($19 million). Jordanian exports to the United States in 2000 were $73 million.
Jordan has a population of roughly 5 million and is bordered by Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.
9
LI/II
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 18:28 TO:18 - CEA
The Bush Administration Trade Agenda: U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
Implementation of the U.S.-Jordan FTA is of major strategic importance to the United States. Jordan is
a key ally and friend in working with the United States to promote peace and prosperity in the Middle
East region.
The FTA sends a signal to Jordan, as well as other countries in the region, that support for peace and
economic reform yields concrete benefits. It will support Jordan's domestic economic reforms,
encourage efforts by other neighboring countries to open their economies, and enhance regional stability
in the Middle East.
The FTA, the first ever between the United States and an Arab state, represents a positive step during a
very sensitive moment in the Middle East.
The U.S.-Jordan FTA also has economic importance in its implications for the region.
Although Jordan itself is a small market, the FTA attests to the fact that Jordan is a model for economic
reform for other countries in the region. The agreement's provisions on trade set a high standard for
other countries to emulate, and provide better market access for U.S. suppliers vis a vis European Union
suppliers. The EU has its own FTA with Jordan.
The Jordan FTA achieves significant and extensive liberalization across a wide spectrum of trade issues.
The FTA will eliminate tariffs on virtually all bilateral trade in agricultural and industrial goods within
10 years.
The tariff reductions will take place in four stages: Current tariffs of less than 5 percent ad valorem will
be phased out in two years; those that are now between and 5 and 10 percent will be eliminated in four
years, those between 10 and 20 percent will be eliminated over five years, and those that are now more
than 20 percent will be phased out over 10 years.
Jordan already enjoys near complete access to the U.S. services market. The FTA will open the
(
Jordanian services market to U.S. companies.
The agreement will significantly liberalize bilateral trade in services across a wide range of services
sectors. Liberalization has been achieved in many key sectors, including energy distribution, convention
services, printing and publishing, courier services, audiovisual, education, environmental, financial,
health services, and transport services.
Jordan is one of only 13 other countries in the world to provide market access and national treatment
guarantees for the motion picture industry - one of the United States' largest exports.
The FTA also includes, for the first time ever in a trade agreement, substantive provisions addressing
electronic commerce.
Jordan and the United States have each committed to promote a liberalized trade environment for
electronic commerce that should encourage investment in new technologies and stimulate the innovative
uses of networks to deliver products and services. Both countries will seek to avoid imposing customs
duties on electronic transmissions, imposing unnecessary barriers to market access for digitized
products, and impeding the ability to deliver services through electronic means.
Jordan has made market access and national treatment commitments in all the sectors critical to
completing an electronic commerce transaction, including telecommunications, computer-related
services, financial services, distribution services and express delivery services.
The intellectual property rights provisions of the agreement incorporate the most up-to-date
international standards for copyright protection.
Among other things, Jordan has undertaken to ratify and implement the World Intellectual Property
Organization's (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty within two
1)
22/17
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
CEA - 8I:01 18:28 IOOZ-EI-NOP
years. These two treaties, sometimes referred to as the "Internet Treaties." establish several critical
elements for the protection of copyrighted works in a digital network environment, including creators'
exclusive right to make their creative works available online.
The agreement also contains trade-related labor and environmental provisions. These provisions will
not require either country to adopt any new labor or environmental laws, and each country retains the
absolute right to set its own labor and environmental standards and to change those standards. With
respect to labor:
The labor provisions reaffirm the parties' support for the core labor standards adopted in the 1998
International Labor Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
As part of the agreement, the two countries affirm the importance of not waiving or derogating from
their labor laws to encourage trade, and agreed to strive to improve their labor standards.
The agreement also includes commitments related to the effective enforcement of each country's labor
laws. Each government has agreed not to fail to enforce its labor laws, through a sustained or recurring
course of action or inaction, in a manner affecting trade with the other party. The agreement makes
clear that in enforcing its labor laws, each country retains the right to set its own enforcement priorities
accordingly. The labor provisions of the FTA do not require any changes in U.S. law. Indeed, each
country reserves its right to change its laws.
The Jordan FTA also includes a separate set of substantive provisions on trade and the environment.
Specifically, each country affirms the importance of not waiving or derogating from its environmental
laws to encourage trade.
The United States and Jordan also reaffirm their belief in the principle of sustainable development and
agree to strive to maintain high levels of environmental protection and to improve their environmental
laws. The agreement also includes a provision, similar to that described above regarding the
enforcement of domestic labor laws, addressing the effective enforcement of each country's
environmental laws. Like the agreement's labor provisions, the environmental provisions of the FTA
do not require any changes in U.S. law. Indeed, each country reserves its right to change its laws.
The United States and Jordan also agreed, in a separate understanding, on an environmental
cooperation initiative.
It establishes a U.S.-Jordanian Joint Forum on Environmental Technical Cooperation for ongoing
discussion of environmental priorities and identifies environmental quality and enforcement as areas of
initial focus. The FTA and supplemental understandings also contain other environment-related
elements, including provisions addressing transparency and public input and environmental exceptions.
Finally, the FTA's provisions eliminating tariffs on environmental goods and liberalizing Jordanian
restrictions on certain environmental services constitute a "win" for business and a "win" for the
environment. Both countries conducted environmental reviews of the FTA.
Like the 1985 U.S.-Israel Free Trade Area Agreement, the Jordan FTA creates a multi-step dispute
settlement process that places a premium on cooperative resolution of disputes, as well as on procedural
transparency.
Any dispute that cannot be resolved through consultation may be referred to a panel of independent
experts for a non-binding opinion. If a dispute cannot be settled after panel proceedings are completed,
the FTA authorizes the affected party to take any "appropriate and commensurate measure," without
specifying the form that this action should take. However, the party taking the action may not act in a
manner that is inconsistent with its WTO obligations.
11
LI/EI 'd
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 18:28 TO:18 - CEA
Questions and Answers on the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
≈:
Why is the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement important for Jordan and the United
States?
A:
Strategic Importance
Jordan is an key ally and friend. It is an important partner in working with the United
States to promote peace and prosperity in the region and cooperates closely on a variety
of issues.
The FTA, the first ever between the United States and an Arab state, represents a positive
step during a very sensitive moment in the Middle East.
The U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement (FTA) sends a signal to Jordan, as well as to
other countries in the region, that support for peace and economic reform yield concrete
benefits.
The FTA will contribute to increased bilateral trade and investment. Closer business ties
between our countries should help bring about needed economic growth and job creation
in Jordan.
A:
Economic Importance:
The FTA attests to the fact that Jordan is a model for economic reform for other countries
in the region. The agreement's provisions on trade set a high standard for other countries
to emulate.
The FTA reduces tariffs across-the-board on bilateral trade in both industrial and
agricultural goods. This sets a good precedent for trade liberalization with other countries
in the region and provides better market access (albeit to a small market) for US suppliers
vis a vis the EU.
In the case of tariffs for autos and auto parts, the United States received
quicker and deeper tariff outs than the European Union in its FTA with
Jordan.
The FTA is the first ever trade agreement to include commitments covering electronic
commerce, an area of vital commercial interest to the United States.
Jordan is the first country to legally bind itself to no customs duties on
electronic transmissions (WTO members currently only have political
commitments in this area).
Jordan's other steps in this area include its commitment not to impose
unnecessary regulation on electronic commerce.
12
LI/DI 'd
FROM COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 18:28 TO:18 - CEA
Jordan is one of only 13 other countries in the world to provide market access and
national treatment guarantees for the motion picture industry - one of the United States'
largest exports.
The agreement includes state-of-the art commitments for the protection of intellectual
property that go beyond TRIPS in a region where piracy is a significant problem for all
content providers.
Q:
How does the Administration plan to address trade-related labor and environment
issues in the U.S.-Jordan FTA and other agreements?
A:
On May 10 President Bush submitted to Congress his 2001 legislative agenda for
international trade. The President's International Trade Agenda clearly demonstrates that
the Administration's commitment to open trade is matched by a strong commitment to
protecting the environment and improving labor standards, as well as promoting the
protection of children.
The President's trade agenda recognizes that there are many ways we can advance our
goals in these areas as we pursue more traditional commercial objectives. By including a
principal trade negotiating objective on mutually reinforcing trade and environment
policies, the agenda indicates that we can make progress in addressing labor and
environment issues in trade negotiations. The agenda includes an illustrative "toolbox" of
actions that the United States can take in combination with trade negotiations to advance
trade-related labor and environment goals.
As we work with Congress to enact the Administration's top trade priority, Trade
Promotion Authority, as well as other key objectives such as the U.S.-Jordan FTA, we are
confident that we can craft a bipartisan approach to environment and labor objectives that
respects U.S. sovereignty and avoids protectionism.
Q:
Is the Administration going to reopen negotiations with Jordan to change those
provisions?
R:
Recognizing that the FTA negotiations with Jordan have been completed and the
agreement signed, we do not intend to reopen the text. However, we will continue to
work with Congress to address any concerns with the FTA through implementing
legislation or other means.
13
LI/SI 'd
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 18:28 TO:18 - CEA
Questions and Answers on the President's Trade Legislative Agenda
and Trade Promotion Authority
Q:
Why is U.S. Trade Promotion Authority important?
A:
To move forward on a trade agenda and negotiate the best possible deals, the executive branch
will need as much negotiating leverage as possible. Our trading partners need to know the
President's negotiators speak for the entire United States. U.S. TPA tells other governments
that there will be no more negotiation once they reach an agreement with the President. And it
ensures close collaboration between Congress and the President.
Q:
What are the prospects for TPA?
A:
TPA has not been renewed since 1994, so no one should underestimate the difficulty of the
task. However, the stakes are too high not to succeed. The economic prosperity of the United
States - with more choices and lower prices for consumers, export opportunities for farmers, or
new business opportunities for entrepreneurs - demands that Congress and the President work
together to ensure success.
Q:
What is the thinking behind the various labor and environment provisions in the
framework?
A:
The framework is based on the premise that, in the trade and economic sphere, we can promote
environmental protection, help protect children from grave labor abuses, and promote
adherence to core labor standards around the world in three ways.
First, as the President has said, trade helps create the culture of liberty and the economic wealth
needed to build and sustain support for better working conditions and improved environmental
protection around the world.
Second, we can also make progress in addressing labor and environment issues in trade
negotiations. For that reason, the framework makes the promotion of core labor standards, the
protection of children, and mutually reinforcing trade and environmental policies principal
negotiating objectives for the United States, along with more traditional commercial objectives.
Third, is the concept of a "toolbox" of illustrative measures that could be used in combination
with trade negotiations to encourage countries to protect their environments and adhere to core
labor standards.
≈:
Why should trade critics view this proposal as progress on these issues?
A:
This is a major step towards those who have sought to have labor and environment issues
treated on an equal footing with more traditional trade negotiating objectives. Both labor and
environmental goals will be on the list of principal U.S. negotiating objectives for TPA
agreements, thus meeting a key request from the labor and environmental communities in
recent debates over TPA.
This agenda also increases transparency in international trade organizations and agreements,
including opening the WTO to greater public scrutiny and allowing the public to observe
dispute settlement proceedings - two important NGO requests.
Also included is a "toolbox" of ideas for promoting core labor standards, the protection of
children, and environmental protection around the world in combination with trade
negotiations.
16/17
FROM COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 18:28 TO:18 - CEA
TOTAL P P.17
Q:
The framework does not say whether trade sanctions will apply to labor and the
environment. How does the framework address this issue?
A:
The framework include specific objectives that address enforcement concerns. It calls for U.S.
negotiators to ensure that U.S. rights under trade agreements are secured through rapid,
effective, and transparent enforcement procedures appropriate to the parties, nature, and subject
matter of the agreements, without compromising U.S. sovereignty or slipping into
protectionism.
≈:
How long will TPA remain in effect?
A:
This is a subject we want to discuss further with the Congress. Whatever period is chosen
should be sufficient to allow the Administration to conclude some major trade agreements, such
as the FTAA, as well as the potential new WTO negotiating round.
Q:
Is the Administration going to submit TPA legislation?
A:
We intend to continue an active exchange of views with Congress to move the legislative
process forward. We hope that our TPA framework will assist the Congress in developing
actual legislation and we would hope to assist in that effort.
Q:
Does the Administration have a deadline for Congress to take up TPA?
A:
It is important that the President receive this authority quickly. The longer we wait, the more
we delay opportunities for our consumers, farmers, and businesses. U.S. exporters are losing
business in Chile to Canadian firms because Canada has negotiated a free trade agreement with
Chile and the United States has not. This is only one example, there are some 130 preferential
trade agreements in the world today, and the United States is a party to only two.
Q:
Will TPA move as a part of a package with other trade bills?
A:
The Administration is prepared to be flexible on that question and are interested in working
with Congress to determine the best means of moving TPA and other crucial trade bills on the
President's trade legislative agenda forward expeditiously. This is primarily an issue for
Congress, but it may be that it is more efficient to deal with a number of similar issues in
several of these implementing bills simultaneously.
15
LI/LI
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 18:28 TO:18 - CEA
Phillip L. Swagel
06/14/2001 11:12:01 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Annette E. Rooney/OMB/EOP@EOP
CC:
Subject: CEA comments on LRM AER90 Commerce Fact Sheets on TPA
On the last page, "Why Trade is Good for America":
3rd bullet point: I calculate that exports accounted for 16 percent (not 18 percent) of GDP growth over
1996-2000 (the last five years).
Phillip Swagel
Council of Economic Advisers
Old Executive Office Building, Room 328
Washington, DC 20502
(202) 395-5040
(202) 395-6853 fax
[email protected]
URGENT
Total Pages: 10
LRM ID: AER90
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Washington, D.C. 20503-0001
Wednesday, June 13, 2001
PS 1/14/01
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
Legislative Liaison Officer - See Distribution below
FROM:
John D. Burnim (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
OMB CONTACT:
Annette E. Rooney
E-Mail: Annette [email protected]
SUBJECT:
COMMERCE PHONE: (202)395-7300 Fact Sheets FAX: on Trade (202)395-5691 Promotion Authority (7)
DEADLINE:
5:00 PM Thursday, June 14, 2001
In accordance with OMB Circular A-19, OMB requests the views of your agency on the above
subject before advising on its relationship to the program of the President. Please advise us if this
item will affect direct spending or receipts for purposes of the "Pay-As-You-Go" provisions of Title
XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
COMMENTS: Please provide comments/clearance on the seven attached Commerce Fact
Sheets/Talking Points on Trade Promotion Authority by 5:00 PM, Thursday, June 14th. If you do
*
not respond by the deadline, we will presume that your agency has no comment.
Additional papers in support of Trade Promotion Authority are under development and will be
X
circulated as soon as they are available.
DISTRIBUTION LIST
AGENCIES:
007-AGRICULTURE - Jacky Chandler - (202) 720-1516
018-Council of Economic Advisers - Liaison Officer - (202) 395-5084
033-Environmental Protection Agency - John Reeder - (202) 564-5200
061-JUSTICE - Daniel Bryant - (202) 514-2141
062-LABOR - Robert A. Shapiro - (202) 693-5500
076-National Economic Council - John Ackerly - (202) 456-2884
114-STATE - Paul Rademacher - (202) 647-1963
118-TREASURY Thomas M. McGivern - (202) 622-2317
128-US Trade Representative - Carmen Suro-Bredie - (202) 395-4755
Danielle M. Simonetta
EOP:
Brett S. Loper
Robin Cleveland
Christine C. McCarlie
Karyn T. Carson
Kirsten A. Chadwick
Rodney G. Bent
Dirksen Lehman
Michael Casella
George M. Andricos
Ronald L. Silberman
John Sammis
Dennis Craythorn
Millicent H. Schwenk
P.1/10
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 15:22 TO:18 - CEA
LRM ID: AER90
SUBJECT: COMMERCE Fact Sheets on Trade Promotion Authority
RESPONSE TO
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL
MEMORANDUM
If your response to this request for views is short (e.g., concur/no comment), we prefer that you respond by
e-mail or by faxing us this response sheet. If the response is short and you prefer to call, please call the
branch-wide line shown below (NOT the analyst's line) to leave a message with 8 legislative assistant.
You may also respond by:
(1) calling the analyst/attorney's direct line (you will be connected to voice mail if the analyst does not
answer); or
(2) sending us a memo or letter
Please include the LRM number shown above, and the subject shown below.
TO:
Annette E. Rooney Phone: 395-7300 Fax: 395-5691
Office of Management and Budget
Branch-Wide Line (to reach legislative assistant): 395-6194
FROM:
(Date)
(Name)
(Agency)
(Telephone)
The following is the response of our agency to your request for views on the above-captioned subject:
Concur
No Objection
No Comment
See proposed edits on pages
Other:
FAX RETURN of
pages, attached to this response sheet
P.2/10
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 15:22 TO:18 - CEA
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OF TRADE AGREEMENTS
The Administration will vigilantly monitor and enforce aggressively. The Administration will
continue to work with Congress and American businesses, farmers, workers and consumers to
ensure effective monitoring of U.S. trade agreements, quick responses to non-compliance, and to
make U.S. exporters aware of the opportunities created by these trade agreements and assistance
available from the U.S. government.
Monitoring compliance overseas. The Commerce/State Overseas Compliance Program
provides for trade experts to monitor compliance with international trade obligations and support
enforcement of U.S. trade laws, such as those involving market access issues, subsidies, dumping
and other unfair trade practices. By gathering information "on the ground" in foreign countries,
we are able to help American businesses make the most of market access opportunities and
facilitate the investigation of trade agreement violations.
The Administration's compliance program has been successful.
For example, the European Commission recently agreed to modify its proposal for a
motorcycle driving license directive, removing an engine size restriction, which would
have severely limited U.S. exports of motorcycles to the European Union, the largest
foreign market for U.S. motorcycle exports.
After the U.S. expressed concern to Korean officials about new burdensome, costly and
potentially discriminatory tire safety inspection procedures, Korean officials agreed to
amendments.
Compliance advocacy efforts helped a small U.S. manufacturer of appliance moving
products stop the unauthorized copying of its sales brochures by its Korean distributor.
As a result of Administration efforts, Egypt ended a prohibition on the importation of
consumer goods unless they were shipped directly from the country of origin.
Challenging existing barriers. If the United States cannot achieve compliance on the part of our
trading partners, the Administration will not hesitate to seek enforcement either through the
World Trade Organization or through the use of U.S. trade laws. The United States has been one
of the world's most frequent users of WTO dispute settlement procedures. Of the 57 WTO cases
filed so far, we have won 29 either through litigation or settling "out of court" in our favor.
0I/8 'd
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 15:22 TO:18 - CEA
TRADE AGREEMENTS AND THE TRADE DEFICIT
While some critics of Trade Promotion Authority have expressed concern that the negotiation of
trade agreements may increase the U.S. trade deficit, the claim has never been substantiated. The
facti is that many factors which are not related trade agreements influence the flow of a country's
imports and exports. The U.S. trade deficit is primarily driven by macroeconomic factors such as
the relative growth of the U.S. economy and the strength of the U.S. dollar.
The U.S. trade balance is mainly the result of macroeconomic factors.
The strong growth of the U.S. economy coupled with weaker economies abroad has led to
an increase in the U.S. trade deficit. The global financial crisis cut U.S. exports to South
Korea, the ASEAN states and much of South America. Moreover, U.S. exports waned
as a result of the recession in Japan and a period of slower growth in Europe.
Consequently, this has resulted in a significant deterioration in foreign demand for U.S.
goods and services.
/e Necty put cigital inlles from 132
Appreciation of the U.S. dollar/has increased the price of U.S. goods abroad and
A2pt
decreased the price of imports in the United States.
meil
Employment statistics refute the critic's argument that a rising trade deficit leads to lower
employment. United States job creation has increased dramatically during the past
oppin
decade and unemployment is near its lowest level since 1970. In 1970, trade as a
the v.s.
percentage of GDP was 13 percent; now it is over 31 percent.
The benefits of trade agreements are far reaching.
One of the main purposes of trade agreements is to stimulate growth in foreign countries
so that these countries can provide a better market for U.S. goods.
The strong growth of the Canadian and Mexican markets, facilitated in part by the
NAFTA, should help bolster future demand for U.S. exports in these countries.
Trade agreements foster higher-wage jobs, long term, sustainable growth and raising
living standards both in the United States and abroad.
Trade agreements promote the rule of law and strengthen the international marketplace.
Trade agreements benefit U.S. consumers.
Although many often equate imports with "lost" jobs, the reality is usually much more
complex.
Imports supply critical inputs for many of the goods and services produced in the United
States, including products destined for export, often making them more competitive in a
global marketplace.
Imports often play a key role in ensuring supplies of vital materials that are either scarce
or simply not available domestically.
More generally, imports provide consumers and businesses with a wider choice in the
marketplace, thereby enhancing living standards and contributing to competitiveness.
2
P. 4/10
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 15:22 TO:18 - CEA
WHAT IS THE ILO AND WHAT IS ITS RELEVANCE TO TRADE?
Addressing trade-related labor concerns is an important part of the international trade agenda
President Bush has made clear that our commitment to open trade must be matched by a
strong commitment to improving labor standards.
The International Labor Organization (ILO) has an important role to play.
In this regard, the President has suggested strengthening and raising the profile of the
International Labor Organization (ILO) as part of the effort the United States could
undertake to promote the protection of children and adherence to core labor standards.
What is the International Labor Organization and how does it work?
The ILO is an independent agency of the United Nations, based in Geneva, Switzerland
with 174 member countries. It is unique in that it is the only international agency with a
tripartite structure, composed of business, labor and government. The U.S. is represented
at the ILO by the departments of Labor and State, the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Council for
International Business. Among other objectives, the ILO's mandate is to promote fair
trade among nations through adherence to basic labor standards (freedom of association;
the right to organize and bargain collectively; nondiscrimination; abolition of forced and
child labor).
Strengthening the ILO's ability to enforce existing standards.
The President has suggested providing strong support for ILO efforts to foster member
country adherence to core labor standards, such as the ILO Declaration on Fundamental
Principals and Rights at Work and the new Convention on the Worst Forms of Child
Labor. This could include improving the ILO's ability to monitor and hold member
countries accountable for violations of core labor standards and encouraging joint work
with the WTO and World Health Organization.
ILO is the most competent international organization to deal with trade and labor issues.
Developed and developing countries agree. Accordingly, the ILO will play an increasing
role in the debate about how to integrate social issues into the multilateral system. In
1996 the Singapore Ministerial called for greater cooperation between the ILO and the
WTO. In Seattle, the U.S. put forward a proposal to create a working group in the WTO
to examine the relationship between trade and labor and such issues as the use of positive
trade policy incentives to encourage respect for core labor standards and the effects of
derogation from national labor standards on international trade.
3
01/9/d
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 15:22 TO:18 - CEA
ILO is moving forward with new ideas.
ILO Director-General Somavia wants to play a lead role in developing consensus on how
trade and labor issues could be integrated in the globalization process. He has floated
various ideas to strengthen ILO technical expertise, to foster high-level exchange and
dialogue and to provide an integrated framework for greater policy coherence between the
multilateral institutions. Employer and worker delegates were supportive of this
approach in recent consultations.
We're encouraged by Director General Somavia's recent efforts to strengthen ILO
mechanisms so as to foster consensus on how to integrate trade and labor issues and to
promote greater coordination with other international organizations.
4
P.6/10
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 15:22 TO:18 - CEA
FOREIGN COMPETITION DOES NOT WAIT FOR U.S.
LEADERSHIP
The United States is a party to just two of the estimated 130 free trade agreements
(FTAs) in force world wide.
The European Union has FTAs with 27 countries.
Mexico has FTAs with 26 countries (in addition to NAFTA with the U.S. and
Canada).
While previous rounds of trade negotiations were highly successful in reducing
trade barriers, much work remains to be done to level the playing field for US
businesses. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is needed because U.S. exporters and
workers will gain considerably from negotiations to reduce market barriers.
Restrictive import policies, exclusionary standards, anticompetitive government
procurement rules, lack of intellectual property protection, and services barriers
are tremendous obstacles to U.S. exports.
Since U.S. tariffs are already low compared to those of our trading partners, the
United States has a great deal to gain from future negotiations aimed at prying
open foreign markets.
Without TPA, the United States will lose its role as a world leader in setting global
trade policies and standards.
Given the plethora of FTAs negotiated by our trading partners, the United States
is facing the prospect of following precedence set by others.
Not only is the influence of the United States being threatened on a global scale,
but U.S. business decision makers may put more emphasis on foreign markets.
Businesses may choose to move operations abroad to a country that has favorable
trade agreements with foreign competitors.
Failure to secure TPA severely disadvantages U.S. trade negotiators and proves
harmful to the economic livelihood of U.S. businesses.
Trade Promotion Authority is essential to help place U.S. businesses, farmers, and
workers in a position of equality with foreign rivals.
In a sense, if TPA is not granted, the United States will inadvertently enable
foreign barriers to U.S. exporters by not combating the obstacles through trade
negotiations.
5
01/2'd
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 15:22 TO:18 - CEA
WHY NAFTA HAS BEEN GOOD FOR AMERICA
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has produced a tremendous growth in
trade for the United States and our two partners, Mexico and Canada
With the advent of NAFTA, Mexico has grown to be our second largest trading partner,
second only to Canada. Trade with our NAFTA partners is growing twice as fast as U.S.
trade with the rest of the world and accounts for approximately one-third of all U.S.
merchandise trade, exceeding trade with both the EU and Japan combined.
We trade $1.8 billion a day with our NAFTA partners -- that's $1.2 million a minute. A
staggering amount of trade by any estimation.
NAFTA works for U.S. companies and workers
NAFTA has leveled the playing field for our exporters. Virtually all our exports enter
Canada duty free. Two-thirds now enter Mexico duty-free - almost all manufactured
exports will in be duty-free in 2003. (Prior to NAFTA, Mexican duties ranged up to 25
percent and were on average two and one-half times U.S. duties.)
A key benefit has been NAFTA's help in offsetting the negative effect that the Asian
financial crisis has had on the U.S. economy. Between 1997 and 2000, U.S. merchandise
exports to other than NAFTA countries rose by just six percent. Meanwhile, U.S. sales to
Canada increased 18 percent, and exports to Mexico surged by 56 percent.
The NAFTA has allowed U.S. industry to create productive partnerships, thereby increasing
our global competitiveness.
By reducing barriers and guaranteeing access, businesses have been freed to make
decisions based on the most efficient use of resources. The NAFTA has fostered
production sharing partnerships in which different parts of the manufacturing process are
performed throughout the region, increasing the competitiveness of a number of sectors.
NAFTA and open trade have had real benefits for the average U.S. family
NAFTA and the Uruguay Round have resulted in higher incomes and lower prices for
goods -- benefits amounting to $1300 to $2000 a year for a family of four. Taxes on trade
are a heavy burden on hard-working families.
The NAFTA has clearly transformed the relationship between the United States and Mexico.
President Bush noted in a recent address "free trade brings greater political and personal
freedom." As Mexico embraced the opening of its economic system under NAFTA, it
opened politically as well. President Fox is the first president elected from the opposition
in 71 years.
6
01/8 'd
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 15:22 TO:18 - CEA
SERVICES NEGOTIATIONS AND U.S. SERVICES TRADE
The United States is the world's premier producer and exporter of services.
Encompassing all economic activity other than agriculture, manufacturing, and mining,
the service sector is the largest component of the U.S. economy, accounting for about 80
percent of GDP and private non-farm employment (a record 93 million jobs in 2000).
The U.S. exported $295 billion in services in 2000, compared to U.S. service imports of
$215 billion, leading to a $80 billion trade surplus in services trade. This compared to
U.S. exports of goods of $773.3 billion in 2000 (double-check numbers).
Services cover an enormous range of industries, including banking and insurance, travel,
entertainment, legal and other business services, and professional services.
The United States is currently involved in major multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations
which would benefit greatly from the Congress restoring President trade promotion authority.
With trade promotion authority, our negotiating partners will know that the commitments
made by the United States will be accepted or rejected by the Congress as a whole, and
without amendments.
Current negotiations that will benefit trade in services include the General Agreement on
Trade in Services, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, the U.S.-Chile Free Trade
Agreement, and the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. (Any figures on what impact
these negotiations could have for U.S. business - $100 million increase in exports?)
TPA will ensure that American services exporters will have the opportunity to compete
successfully in world markets.
U.S. services compete successfully worldwide. Major markets for U.S. services exports
include the European Union ($93 billion in 2000 exports of U.S. commercial services),
Japan ($34 billion), and Canada ($22 billion).
At $13 billion (1999), Mexico is currently the largest of the emerging markets for U.S.
services exports.,
Numerous emerging markets around the world import over $1 billion in U.S. services
cach year - Argentina, Bermuda, Brazil, Chile, and Venezuela in this hemisphere, and, in
Asia, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore,
Taiwan, and Thailand. In 1997, South Africa became the first country in Africa to import
over $1 billion per year in U.S. services.
7
P.9/10
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 15:22 TO:18 - CEA
0110 78101
WHY TRADE IS GOOD FOR AMERICA
The free exchange of goods and services creates jobs, raises incomes, sparks innovation, spreads
technology, and stimulates opportunity, fresh ideas, and democratic values, both at home and
abroad.
The U.S. economy now provides Americans with living standards that are higher
than those in most other major industrial economies. One out of every 14 workers in
the U.S. business sector is supported by the sale of U.S.-produced goods and services in
foreign markets. Since 1980, manufacturing exports alone have grown by nearly three
and one-half times and the United States has been exporting six times more services.
Roughly 1 in 5 factory jobs is due to exports. In 15 U.S. states, over 1/5 of manufacturing
jobs depend on exports. Recent studies provide evidence of substantial wage advantages
in jobs supported by goods exports, on the order of a 13-18 percent premium over the
average earnings in the overall economy.
Trade has become increasingly important to the U.S. economy. The United States is
the world leader in exports, representing 12.7 percent of global trade. In 2000, exports
were 11 percent of overall GDP, while imports were nearly 15 percent. Both ratios have
increased from about four percent of GDP 40 years ago. In durable goods
manufacturing, the presence of international trade is even more pronounced: durable
goods exports accounted for about 31 percent of the sector's GDP and imports 45
percent.
Exports support economic growth through jobs and international sales. During the last
five years, exports of U.S. goods and services rose 40 percent. During this time, export
growth accounted for 18 percent of the growth in total GDP, despite the fact that
exports were only 11 percent of the economy.
While the manufacturing sector's share of U.S. GDP has shrunk from 25 percent to
16 percent since WWII, its international trade has grown markedly. In 2000,
manufactured goods accounted for just over 80 percent of the country's total trade
(exports plus imports, including services). This ratio has increased over the past several
decades.
The decline in the importance of manufacturing in the nation's economy is a trend that
can be found in most developed economies. As standards of living rise, demand by
consumers shifts from products to services--education, entertainment, travel, financial
and government services. At the same time, world trade in manufactured goods is
growing in importance. The WTO reports that since 1950 the volume of manufactures
trade has increased by a factor of 40.
8
OI/OI 'd
FROM:COLLINS, D.M.
JUN-13-2001 15:22 TO:18 - CEA