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
235148604
label
[11/15/1994 – 04/21/1998]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
235148604
contentType
document
title
[11/15/1994 – 04/21/1998]
citationUrl
collections
Presidential Electronic Mail from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS)
Automated Records Management System (ARMS) Email from the Office of Policy Development (OPD) Bucket
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
235148604
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
26444780-20190155F-001-001-2022
[fast track...]
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5f01ac682803792d
ocrText
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (ALL-IN-1 MAIL)
CREATOR: Jonas E. Neihardt (NEIHARDT_J) (OMB)
CREATION DATE/TIME:15-NOV-1994 09:11:47.66
SUBJECT: Oxley on Telecom Leg.
TO: Thomas A. Kalil
(KALIL_T) Autoforward to: Remote Addressee
(
[email protected]@inet) (OPD)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Gregory C. Simon
(SIMON_G) Autoforward to: Remote Addressee
(Gregory C.
Simon@EOP_OVP@CCGATE@EOPMRX(VPO)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Michael R. Nelson
(NELSON_M) (STP)
READ:NOT READ
TEXT:
Note how Oxley's "one-wire" concept resembles "Title VII."
ATTACHMENT 1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE:15-NOV-1994 08:44:00.00
ATT BODYPART TYPE:B
ATT CREATOR: Jeffrey A. Weinberg
ATT SUBJECT: Telecommunications legislation in 104th Congress
ATT TO: Christopher F. Edley, Jr
(EDLEY_C)
ATT TO: Sally Katzen
(KATZEN_S)
ATT CC: Kenneth L. Schwartz
(SCHWARTZ_K)
ATT CC: Louisa Koch
(KOCH_L)
ATT CC: Jonas E. Neihardt
(NEIHARDT_J)
ATT CC: Bruce W. McConnell
(MCCONNELL_B)
ATT CC: Timothy R. Fain
(FAIN_T)
ATT CC: James C. Murr
(MURR_J)
ATT CC: James J. Jukes
(JUKES_J)
TEXT:
At the end of last week, I attended a conference at which Rep.
Oxley (R - Ohio) spoke about the outlook for telecommunications
legislation. He is in line to chair the telecommunications
subcommittee. He said:
1. Telecommunications legislation has been bipartisan and he
expected that it would continue to be. The starting point would
be the legislation that passed the House. House hearings would be
scheduled for January and February. He expected that the Senate
would move on the legislation in tandem with the House rather than
waiting for the House to complete action first.
2. He said that he opposes cost-based fees for telephone
companies and is against restrictions on foreign ownership of
American communications companies. He foresees 1 wire into the
home with no restrictions on what it can carry.
3. The enacted "over regulatory" cable legislation "was one of
the worst" in his tenure in the House and might be amended.
4. He claimed credit for legislation on spectrum auctions and
thought that it was great that the Treasury was getting the
revenue from the auctions.
Other items of interest:
Jurisdiction of Energy and Commerce Committee could be changed to
shift securities to Banking Committee.
Oxley supports passage of GATT and reinstituting fast track
authority.
Gingrich also spoke at the conference and, in response to a
question, he said that he favored action on telecommunications
legislation.
END ATTACHMENT 1
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (ALL-IN-1 MAIL)
CREATOR: Paul A. Deegan (DEEGAN_P) (OPD)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-DEC-1994 15:14:53.63
SUBJECT: AMERICAS SUMMIT: CANADA TO PUSH FOR QUICK START TO
TO: David J. Lane
(LANE_D) (OPD)
READ: 8-DEC-1994 16:04:33.04
TEXT:
Date: 12/08/94 Time: 15:11
AMERICAS SUMMIT: Canada to push for quick start to liberal trade
Knight-Ridder
Ottawa--Dec 8--Canada will push for an immediate start to trade
liberalization in the hemisphere at the 3-day Miami Summit starting
Friday, senior officials from Prime Minister Jean Chretien's office
said today.
In a briefing to reporters, the senior officials said Canada does
not want any delay in moving toward hemispheric free trade, including
the accession of Chile to the North American Free Trade Agreement
between the US, Canada and Mexico.
The Miami Summit also will serve to begin examining the
possibilities of having Latin American and Carribean trade groups,
such as Mercosur, the Andean Pact and others, join NAFTA.
"There is very little collective knowledge of the similarities or
lack of similarities between the various trade agreements," an
official said. The Miami Summit will begin the process of
understanding the "common ground" between all the trade groups in the
hemisphere.
"We're hopeful we can start with Mercosur in the new year, a
dialogue as to whether there is a possibility between having an
agreement between Mercosur and NAFTA," an official said.
The Miami Summit also should produce an announcement that Chile
will join NAFTA, an official said. Once the announcement is made, the
official said he expected the US to ask for fast-track authority from
Congress to allow for the process to be completed quickly.
Canada wants the process for Chile joining NAFTA to be
accomplished within a certain period of time.
At the summit, Canada also will advocate that no new trade and
investment barriers be created within the Americas, the prohibition
of export subsidies for agricultural trade within the hemisphere and
concrete steps to expand NAFTA to include other countries from the
region.
Canada also views the Miami Summit as the first step in its move
toward greater interest in Latin America.
The summit will be attended by 34 heads of state of the countries
of the hemisphere, except Cuba, which was not invited at the
insistence of the US, the officials said. Foreign and trade ministers
will accompany the heads of state. End
By Roland Blassnig, Knight-Ridder Financial News
(NOTE: Comments or suggestions about this item or any other
aspect of KRFN's news coverage can be sent via the Internet to the
following address: [email protected])
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (ALL-IN-1 MAIL)
CREATOR: Peter M. Yu (YU_P) (OPD)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-JAN-1995 07:49:42.67
SUBJECT: Transition Materials
TO: David J. Lane
(LANE_D) (OPD)
READ: 8-JAN-1995 15:26:40.42
TO: Sheryll D. Cashin
(CASHIN_S) (OPD)
READ: 8-JAN-1995 13:37:10.70
TO: Paul R. Dimond
(DIMOND_P) (OPD)
READ: 8-JAN-1995 09:37:25.04
TO: Elgie Holstein
(HOLSTEIN_E) (OPD)
READ: 9-JAN-1995 09:29:27.16
TO: Heather L. Ross
(ROSS_H) (OPD)
READ: 9-JAN-1995 08:06:25.50
TO: Ellen S. Seidman
(SEIDMAN_E) (OPD)
READ:10-JAN-1995 17:47:19.31
TO: Dorothy Robyn
(ROBYN_D) (OPD)
READ: 8-JAN-1995 12:10:54.12
TO: Thomas A. Kalil
(KALIL_T) Autoforward to: Remote Addressee
(
[email protected]@inet) (OPD)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Michael D. Deich
(DEICH_M) (OPD)
READ: 9-JAN-1995 08:09:32.71
TO: Robert C. Fauver
(FAUVER_R) (OPD)
READ: 9-JAN-1995 08:25:53.04
TO: Robert D. Kyle
(KYLE_R) (OPD)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Michael Punke
(PUNKE_M) (OPD)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Michael B. Froman
(FROMAN_M) (OPD)
READ: 9-JAN-1995 08:31:57.76
TO: Helen C. Walsh
(WALSH_H) (OPD)
READ: 9-JAN-1995 15:00:03.90
TO: William E. Whyman
(WHYMAN_W) (OPD)
READ:12-JAN-1995 12:02:11.32
TO: Sylvia M. Mathews
(MATHEWS_S) (OPD)
READ: 9-JAN-1995 14:28:55.39
TEXT:
Attached please find a rough draft compilation of the "transition material" that
you all provided me. A next draft will include David's, Heather's, and Deich's
information. At that time, I will also ask for bios to be be included in Part
V. Any comments greatly appreciated--I know we're all busy, but I think we all
agree that this will help whomever takes Bob's place.
Thank you in advance for your help. (Paul--I didn't put all of your material
in; I'm thinking of putting the remaining material in an attachment. Is that
okay?)
ATTACHMENT I
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 8-JAN-1995 07:45:00.00
ATT BODYPART TYPE:p
ATT CREATOR: Peter M. Yu
TEXT:
PRINTER FONT 12_POINT_COURIER
Draft/Close-
Hold
HORIZONTAL 8
PRINTER FONT 16_POINT_ROMAN
Background Materials
on the
National Economic Council
Outline
I. The National Economic Council: A Mid-Term
Assessment
II. The NEC Agenda for 1995-96
III. Lessons Learned from the First Two Years
IV. Staff Suggestions Regarding Internal Operations
V. Biographies of Policy Staff
RESET 1
HORIZONTAL_PITCH 11
PRINTER FONT 12_POINT_ROMAN
I. THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: A MID-
TERM ASSESSMENT
Like any "agile" organization, the National Economic Council needs to
respond to the changing environment in which it operates, while adhering
to its basic principles and functions, as discussed in Section I below.
This paper offers thoughts on the function and future of the NEC, and
proceeds in three parts. The first section reviews the functioning of
the NEC over the Administration's first two years; the second discusses
major changes in the political, institutional, and policy environment
and how the NEC's role might change in response. The third section
identifies several actions the NEC might consider.
LOOKING BACK: NINE ROLES OF THE NEC
One can distinguish among at least nine functions the NEC staff
have played during the Administration's first two years. These roles
are obviously not mutually exclusive; indeed, every NEC activity
involves more than one of these functions.
PRINTER FONT_12_POINT_ROMAN_ITALIC
(1)
Interagency Manager--This is the NEC's "honest broker" role,
by which it convenes, organizes, facilitates, and referees the
decisional process. There are dozens of examples of this
function, with member agencies playing the lead role in some, such
as budget and tax matters, and NEC staff playing the lead role in
others, such as certain trade issues, disaster insurance, and
intellectual property issues.
(2) Policy Development (including relevant legislative liaison
activity)--The NEC has assumed the lead on certain Presidential
initiatives, such as CDFIs, urban policy, the APEC meeting, and
the Detroit jobs conference.
(3) Policy Implementation--On certain Presidential priorities, the NEC
has played a critical role in implementation, including
influencing authorizations and appropriations. Defense
reinvestment and EZ/ECs are examples of this function.
(4) The "Economic Perspective"--In many areas, the NEC has emphasized
the "economic perspective" on issues. Here, China's MFN status,
regulatory issues (such as risk and cost-benefit), and
agricultural policy are examples.
(5) Outreach and Liaison to the Business Community & Others--On many
issues, the NEC serves as a contact point for the business
community, environmental interests, and others. NAFTA, GATT, NII,
and the electronics/telecommunications industries illustrate this
well.
(6) Facilitation of Private-
Party Negotiations--Building on its
"honest broker" capacity and its White House reputation, the NEC
has facilitated negotiations among private parties. The
Superfund-insurance negotiations and Car Talk are good examples of
this dynamic.
(7) Strategic Planning--At times, the NEC has applied its resources to
broader projects concerning the future of the economy. The
workforce and structural transformation groups are examples of
this activity, as are the CIA's long-term forecasting activities.
(8) Message--The NEC has also played an important role in coordinating
the development and implementation of the Administration's
economic message.
(9) Integration--Throughout all of its activities, the NEC has
integrated politics, congressional concerns, and message with
policy, and maintained a sense of teamwork and collegiality among
the NEC members.
PRINTER FONT 12_POINT_ROMAN
Over the first two years of the Administration, the NEC has
evolved very quickly and has functioned remarkably well. The dramatic
mid-term changes, however, require a critical reexamination of the NEC's
role and functioning.
LOOKING AROUND: HOW THINGS ARE CHANGING
Changes in the political environment, the policy agenda, and the
institutional environment challenge the NEC to focus its roles and
functions for the next two years.
In general, the third and fourth years of most Presidential first
terms have been dedicated to policy implementation and reelection--not
to policy development, the activity to which a majority of NEC staff
time has been dedicated. Moreover, the Republican's control of Congress
and their "Contract" provide them with extra influence over the policy
agenda. Accordingly, the Administration's efforts will likely have a
larger reactive aspect as well as an ongoing proactive dimension.
Of the nine roles outlined above, several may be different in the
coming years; for example:
?
The "interagency manager" and "policy development" functions could
be less significant because of the emphasis on implementation and
the Republican agenda.
?
The "strategic planning" function could be overshadowed by a
shorter-term focus on reelection.
? The "economic perspective" function will, at least, be as
prominent. For example, the NEC will need to distinguish rational
reform of regulation from reactionary deregulation, clarifying how
the Administration and the Congress differ on some of these
issues.
? The "liaison" function will be of heightened importance. For the
first few months, business and other groups will court the new
Congress; the NEC will need to be more proactive in its outreach.
In considering the NEC's role, one might ask: what are the NEC's
strengths? where are opportunities for the NEC best to serve the
President? Four possibilities include:
?
Maximize the NEC's role in the budget and government-
reform
activity. This is where much of the NEC's substantive expertise
lies: in creative policymaking in a constrained environment.
This will require effective integration with OVP, OMB, and others.
?
Develop "niches"-
-
policy initiatives in which the NEC can play a
central role. Fast track and product liability reform may be
examples of such niches. The NEC should identify other priorities
not currently addressed and establish policy processes for these.
? Provide policy support for congressional Democrats. Both because
of reduced congressional staffs and because the Administration may
wish congressional Democrats to carry some of the more negative
messages, this may emerge as a critical NEC role. That will
require determining how best to work with Legislative Affairs and
may require more effort at integrating with Communications.
? Coordinate interagency focus on regulatory reform. There will be
efforts led by other agencies but that would benefit from the NEC
staff's contribution or from White House involvement. Examples of
this include financial regulatory reform, policy toward
derivatives, and issues concerning Washington, D.C.
LOOKING AHEAD: WHAT THE NEC MUST DO TO ADAPT
Obviously, the foregoing list is merely suggestive. But the point
should be clear: the NEC should take a hard look at itself and its
environment and consider its roles for the next two years. Several next
steps are possible; these include:
? Develop an NEC policy agenda that fits within the Administration's
overall agenda. As suggested above, the NEC should identify 5-10
issues on which it will take the lead. This will minimize
duplication and maximize the clarity of the NEC's objectives.
? Improve internal NEC communications. Staff are, at times,
disconnected from the principals/deputies process. Better
communications is essential in the new environment.
?
Improve ties with Legislative Affairs. Nothing less than a full-
scale overhaul is needed here. NEC and Legislative Affairs staff
must be provided with common goals and a common agenda; and they
must collaborate to achieve those goals.
? Build ties with key congressional staff. With the assistance of
Legislative Affairs, NEC staff should develop direct contact with
key congressional staff to reduce response time.
? Improve ties with Communications. If war-room type responses are
needed, NEC staff will need to work far more closely with
Communications staff. As with Legislative Affairs, common goals
and a common agenda are necessary to achieve this.
? Improve ties with OVP, NSC, OMB. There remain gaps in
communication and apparent lapses of comfort between these offices
and the NEC. This needs to be corrected.
II. THE NEC AGENDA FOR 1995-
96
A. INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ISSUES
PRINTER FONT
Overview. During the past two years, the Administration has begun to
lay the foundation for a more free and open international economic
system through, for example, passage of NAFTA and the Uruguay Round.
During the next two years, we will work to (1) secure fast track
authority to pursue further trade liberalizing initiatives, (2) build
economic institutions for the future, and (3) cultivate a constituency
in favor of free trade.
PRINTER FONT 12_POINT_ROMAN
? Secure Fast Track Authority: To pursue a number of likely
trade initiatives, including those arising out of the APEC and
Summit of Americas process, the Administration will require fast-
track authority. This will require the Administration to lay out
its future trade agenda, as well as address the link between trade
and labor and environmental issues. The fast track bill will
probably become a larger trade bill to include provisions on a
range of trade issues (e.g., dumping by economies-in-transition).
We must reach an internal agreement on the coalition necessary to
secure fast track and, consequently, our position on these issues.
?
U.S.-
Japan Relations: The Administration has built a reputation
for being tough with Japan, and getting results, without resorting
to Japan bashing. In the next two years, we will focus on
additional Framework issues and other, good individual cases
(e.g., cellular telephones) through which we can make tangible
progress in opening markets.
?
Halifax/International Financial Institutions: In preparation for
the G-7 meeting in Halifax in June, we will complete a review of
major international economic institutions and make recommendations
for their reform. With regard to international financial
institutions, we hope to address the need for further debt relief,
a special allocation of Special Drawing Rights (SDR) in the IMF,
and the replenishment of the International Development Association
-- the World Bank's soft loan window.
?
Jakarta/Miami Follow-
Up: By the 1995 APEC Leaders' meeting in
Osaka, we hope to complete work on the blueprint for achieving
free and open trade in the Asia Pacific. We will work with the
Japanese, who will chair this process, to produce a specific
timetable and work plan. To follow up on the Summit of Americas,
we hope to lay the groundwork for free trade with Latin American
countries. In the short-run, this could involve preliminary
consultations with the Chileans regarding a free trade agreement.
?
WTO: As the WTO comes into being, we will work to develop its
agenda, including unresolved Uruguay Round issues, new issues
(e.g., labor, environment, competition), and the accession of new
members (e.g., China, Taiwan, Russia).
?
Cultivating a Free Trade Constituency: It will be important to
demonstrate trade's significant economic role, in order to
strengthen public support for further trade
liberalizing initiatives. In part, this is an issue of domestic
education, training, and reemployment policy. However, we also
must (1) make a stronger effort to promote publicly the benefits
of trade for U.S. workers and firms, (2) develop strong export
promotion strategies, particularly towards the Big Emerging
Markets (BEMS), and (3) eliminate remaining domestic barriers to
exports, such as unnecessary export controls.
B. DOMESTIC ECONOMIC ISSUES
PRINTER FONT POINT ITALIC
Overview. The NEC's domestic agenda covers a broad range of issue areas
and includes both issues placed on the agenda by the Administration, and
those placed on the agenda by the new Republican majority.
PRINTER FONT 12_POINT_ROMAN
? Health Care Reform: [to be completed]
? Education, Training, and Reemployment: An NEC-led group will
complete development, communication, and, to the extent enacted,
the implementation of Middle Class Bill of Rights (including adult
workforce empowerment and reemployment initiatives). In addition,
the NEC will assist DoEd in defending and implementing the
interagency Technology Learning Challenge, assist in developing
options for a 1996 campaign for the Lifelong Learning Agenda
(particularly Goals 2000, School-to-Work, and Skills Standards),
and assist in the further development of the Middle Class Bill of
Rights (including Individual Education Accounts, Skills
Scholarships, education tax incentives, private sector
initiatives).
? Car Talk: This is a stakeholder-inclusive, professionally
facilitated advisory committee that is designed to replace the
traditional "CAFE wars" with more constructive ways of dealing
with the greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. The
committee is addressing vehicle fuel efficiency, vehicle miles
travelled (including related land use issues), alternative fuels,
and alternative-fuel vehicles. The committee is scheduled to
make an interim report in March and a final report in September.
The Administration will have to respond to the recommendations,
some of which may be politically problematic.
? Financial services legislation: During the next several months,
the House will begin to consider legislation on several issues:
bank regulatory consolidation; Glass-Steagall reform/repeal;
derivatives; and disclosures involving municipal securities. The
Senate is likely to wait for the House to move and then--except
with respect to Glass-Steagall--cut back on or moderate any House
bill before passage. Traditionally, banking legislation has
passed in even-numbered years, so this is likely to be a two-year
process.
In addition, the Administration has promised to deliver
legislation to reform the Federal Home Loan Bank System early this
year. We have almost completed work on the proposal, which should
garner significant support. The major question with this
legislation is whether we can or should attach to it provisions
that would solve the
longer-term weakness of the Savings Association Insurance Fund.
While SAIF's flaws are structural, no one on the Hill wants to fix
it unless some sort of compromise can be brokered between the
banking and savings industries, and the bankers (at least the ABA)
are too short-sighted to understand how badly they'll get hurt if
SAIF fails.
?
Disaster insurance: For the last year, an NEC-led interagency
working group has been considering development of a program that
could allow the insurance industry to pick up a larger share of
natural disaster expenses. We have developed a proposal that,
because it gives the insurance industry less than it would like to
have, is not meeting with universal adulation. However,
submitting a legislative proposal (even if in the form of a
detailed policy statement rather than legislation) early in the
next session may be desirable, largely because, if there is
another major earthquake in the next two years, some legislation
of this sort is likely to move and the extant alternatives are
potentially far more costly to the federal government.
?
HUD homeownership partnership: HUD will soon launch an exciting
initiative to dramatically increase the homeownership rate by the
year 2000, primarily by increasing minority homeownership rates.
This is not just another government program, but rather a major
effort involving most of the major players in the sector. It
consists of serious pledges by those outside government who can
make it happen to take specific action steps and to accomplish
specific results. This high-quality program can both benefit from
White House attention and can benefit the White House. The NEC
should put some resources behind continuing to help it along, and
in particular, to making certain it stays on the right track and
gets and continues to get Presidential attention.
?
1995 Farm Bill: The Farm Bill encompasses a very wide range of
issues including: commodity programs, food and nutrition issues,
export promotion, conservation, and rural development. The
legislation is revisited every five years and usually consumes 4-6
months. NEC, DPC, OMB, and USDA are co-chairing the
Administration's effort in this area. Current plans call for a
more deductive approach, with a decision memorandum seeking
presidential guidance on the general direction in agricultural
policy.
?
Legal Reforms: The "legal reforms" currently being discussed
include (i) civil justice reforms (such as changes in attorneys'
fees and rules of evidence); (ii) product liability reforms (such
as changes in the law of damages); and (iii) securities litigation
reforms (such as limits on stockholder class-action suits). NEC
and the Counsel's office are co-chairing an effort to develop an
Administration position and legislative strategy in this area.
The Chief of Staff has offered initial guidance; a decision
memorandum is expected in late January.
?
Regulatory Reforms: The NEC is participating in the Vice
President's regulatory reform task force, with a primary role in
the following working groups: cross-cutting issues; financial
services; information technology; and energy, the environment, and
natural
resources. These groups will make presentations to the Regulatory
Working Group and develop administrative and legislative proposals
as directed by the Vice President.
? Regulatory Issues: The NEC is involved in developing the
Administration's position on the major regulatory issues raised in
the Republican Contract including: takings, risk/cost-benefit
analysis, unfunded mandates, and Reg Flex.
?
Superfund Reauthorization: The NEC played a central role in this
area last session and is expected to play a similar role this
session. The Superfund taxes expire this year, but most
indications are that the issue will not arise until after the
first 100 days.
?
R&D Programs: In its first two years, the Administration created
or expanded a number of technology initiatives that are
characterized by cost-shared partnerships with industry. Those
programs, located in agencies such as the Department of Commerce,
the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy, are now
under attack by Republicans. The "Contract with America" targets
the Advanced Technology Program in the Department of Commerce for
elimination, and a proposal by Senators McCain and Warner would
rescind funding for most of DoD's dual-use technology programs.
Also vulnerable are the "clear car" initiative, environmental
technology programs, and cooperative agreements between industry
and the Department of Energy labs. The NEC will be centrally
involved in Administration efforts to block rescission of FY95
funds and to secure FY96 appropriations for these programs, and it
will take the lead (within the White House) when it comes to the
dual-use programs.
?
R&D tax credit: The R&D tax credit will expire in June 1995.
High technology industries will argue for permanence, which would
cost roughly $10 billion over the next five years. The
President's 1993 budget called for a permanent extension of the
R&D credit. The current Administration position is to support
temporary extension, with a commitment to work for a permanent
extension if appropriate offsets can be found. Republicans will
probably offer other business tax incentives as well.
?
Telecommunications: The House and Senate are both expected to
introduce legislation that would reform the Communications Act of
1934. The right legislation will increase competition, stimulate
private sector investment in the "information highway," lower
prices, give consumers more choice, and create jobs. The
Administration would like legislation that promotes competition
for local telephone service, gradually phases out the line-of-
business restrictions that prevent the Regional Bell Operating
Companies from entering long-distance and manufacturing,
eliminates the cable-telco crossownership restriction, and
reaffirms our historic commitment to universal service. Although
there is broad agreement on the principles of the legislation,
there are differences of opinion as to how to manage the
transition from the status quo (government regulation and
incumbent monopolists) to a competitive marketplace with little or
no government regulation. There is also a possibility that
Republicans may attempt to gut the 1992 Cable Act, which would
allow cable companies to raise rates again.
?
National Information Infrastructure: Telecommunications reform is
only one element of the Administration's NII agenda. Other
components include: achieving the President's goal of connecting
all classrooms, libraries, hospitals and clinics to the NII by the
year 2000; promoting use of the NII in health care, electronic
commerce, life-long learning, and the delivery of government
services; increasing the dissemination of government information;
and expanding overseas markets for U.S. information and
communications goods and services.
? Defense Economic Adjustment: Some of the Administration's
investments to ease defense economic adjustment are targets for
FY95 rescission or FY96 reduction/elimination by Republicans. The
NEC will be closely involved in efforts to protect these programs,
which are located in the Department of Labor, EDA, and the
Department of Defense.
?
Procurement Reform: There will be several opportunities to expand
on what the Administration accomplished in last year's procurement
reform bill. Republicans will introduce legislation early in the
session to repeal or significantly reform Davis-Bacon; although
the Administration will not get out in front on reform of Davis-
Bacon, we should be in a position to shape a compromise short of
repeal. There may be a similar opportunity to reform the Cargo
Preference Act. The defense authorization bill will provide
another vehicle for enacting incremental improvements to the
procurement system.
?
Infrastructure: [to be completed]
?
Other Activities: Other activities in which the NEC is involved:
G-7 Summit
G-7 Summit on the Global Information Society
White House Conference on Small Business
White House Conference on Travel and Tourism
National Rural Conference
III. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE FIRST TWO YEARS
This section summarizes the staff's thoughts on lessons learned from the
NEC's first two years of operation. As the comments are drawn from
different staff members, they may be inconsistent.
? There are channels of action and communication in which the NEC is
not naturally involved, particularly at the staff level. These
include the budget, strategy and communications, legislative
relations, and political affairs. Unless the NEC staff actively
reaches out to address these issues, we will find that (i) on
issues where we have the lead, we will get to the end of the
process and discover further support lacking, and (ii) on issues
where we're interested but don't have the lead, we will be left
out and our (perhaps valuable) insights lost.
?
"No sharp elbows" really is a good rule. In general, we have done
much better when we have offered our services, than when we have
demanded leadership. However, persistence is also essential; if
you're not visible around here, you're forgotten.
?
There's too much to do and not enough people to do it. Some of us
have reacted by relatively narrow specialization--with good
results in the chosen field. Others have spread far more broadly,
with generally acceptable results on the coordination front and
less impact on individual programs. A new head of the NEC either
needs to live with this dichotomy or needs to make major
management changes.
?
Policy, rather than process, should guide the NEC. The
President's much-storied campaign mantra, "It's the economy,
stupid," provides the rationale for the creation--and the mission-
-of the NEC. Put simply, the NEC should focus its energies and
limited resources on helping the President define, articulate, and
provide leadership in formulating and communicating a national
economic policy that can dominate American political life for a
generation (and, hence, guide the agencies and the Congress, lead
the public and the parties, now and in the future). Without such
a clear focus, the NEC--apart from any personal style,
relationship, and authority of the new NEC head with the
President--runs a real risk of merely turning into a "third
wheel," to the NSC on foreign policy, the DPC on domestic policy,
OMB on the budget and with the Agencies, the CEA and the Treasury
on economic issues, and the OVP on governmental reform. The
analogy for the NEC's mission should be achieving for national
economic policy in this time of transition following the end of
the Cold War what the NSC achieved for American foreign policy
during the years of transition following the end of World War II.
The challenge for national economic policy is straightforward:
how to make a successful transition from the stagnating wages and
living standards, and small productivity increases, of the old
American economy during the second generation of the Cold War to a
vibrant new American economy with smartly rising productivity,
wages and living standards in a post-Cold War era of global
competition, whole new means of production
through information and communication, and world-wide economic
growth. Stated another way, the issue is whether we can
articulate a national economic policy that empowers the American
people with the opportunity to earn a rising income and, thereby,
to build as burgeoning a middle class over the next generation as
America achieved during the first generation following World War
II.
Given the increasing limits on any national government's authority
in such a global economy and the other marked difference in
circumstances today and fifty years ago, this may seem a tall, if
not daunting order. But the NEC--and this President--will
ultimately not survive the 1996 presidential election unless we
establish such a national economic policy as the majority position
in the country.
IV. STAFF SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THE DAILY OPERATION OF THE NEC
This section summarizes staff suggestions regarding the internal
operation of the NEC--primarily the dynamic between the Assistant and
Deputy Assistants and the staff. Again, as these comments reflect a
number of persons' views, they may be mutually inconsistent.
A. COMMENTS ON THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF THE NEC
?
As I see it, the NEC staff was set up on a model that was
appropriate for Clinton's ambitious agenda and strict WH staffing
constraints. Where the NSC's structure reflects organizational
rigidities (command and control) of the time of its creation (a
big 1950s car company comes to mind) and the military (sensible,
since the NSC deals with security issues and draws staff from the
Pentagon), the NEC was modeled on more modern organizations:
flat, agile, blurred boundaries, ad hoc teaming. In fact, Bo said
at the time that he saw the NEC staff structure as being like a
consulting firm, combining to work on various projects as they
arose.
?
After two years, however, things are different. I doubt we'll be
sending a huge number of policy initiatives up to the hill, and
suspect our new leader will want to focus on implementing and
defending what we care about and communicating more effectively.
Management may actually begin to matter.
?
At the very least, I would think the new leader deserves a special
assistant (to handle press, politics, and general support), while
the staff deserves a staff director, who should live with the
staff in OEOB and meet daily with the three at the top in order to
keep the issues staff well
-informed. The focus of this person
would be communication between the staff and the West Wing, paper
flows, links to the rest of the White House (we're not always well
plugged
-in), links to the agencies, oversight of special projects,
etc. Nancy Soderberg/Will Itoh may be a model.
?
An alternative to this approach would be to bolster the Bo Deputy
position -- no one in Bo's peer group operates without a special
assistant, and Liz does the work of several (scheduler, executive
assistant, receptionist). With some support, this position might
provide the management drive, but this may be unrealistic, since
that position is also the driver of both international and
domestic economic policy.
?
If I were head of the NEC, I would
-
appoint 3 deputies-
-one to manage international issues, one
to manage domestic issues, and Gene to manage communications
issues;
-
appoint a chief of staff focused on administration and paper
flow;
-
hire an overqualified young person to draft letters;
-
formally team each NEC staffer with the legislative affairs
staffer and the political affairs staffer who covers similar
issues.
B. COMMENTS ON THE INTERNAL OPERATIONS OF THE NEC
?
The most significant change I would make centers on the internal
communications flow of the NEC. Papers go up, record keeping is
virtually non
-existent, answers sometimes come back, decisions are
made and we sometimes here sooner rather than later, information
and reactions rarely flow downhill, most of us are in the dark
about each other's work and ideas, and POTUS feedback is next to
nil.
?
If I were head of the NEC, I would
-
formalize paper flow, emphasize records management. Yes,
sometimes there would be forms to fill out, but a paper trail
is important.
-
establish procedures for document cc
-ing and internal
distribution as well as standard forms for various types of
memos going upwards -- informal, small note, decision,
correspondence covers, etc.
-
establish mandatory record-keeping, including returned
originals with decisions checked, marked, noted or whatever.
-
require guaranteed return of notes, memos with notations --
read, ignored, used, thanks, no good, etc.
-
standardize the procedures for preparing for interagency
meetings, e.g., agenda, documents, attendance, distribution
of background papers.
-
distribute internal analysis to all staff. This includes CEA
announcements of data release and interpretations, papers
other agencies provide to Cutter/Rubin, etc."
END ATTACHMENT I
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (ALL-IN-1 MAIL)
CREATOR: Charles S. Konigsberg (KONIGSBERG_C) (OMB)
CREATION DATE/TIME:16-MAY-1995 20:03:55.16
SUBJECT: URGENT--Kantor is testifying tomorrow at a joint
TO: Michael B. Froman
(FROMAN_M) (OPD)
READ:16-MAY-1995 13:19:05.91
CC: Charles S. Konigsberg
(KONIGSBERG_C) (OMB)
READ:16-MAY-1995 13:32:12.81
CC: Joseph Minarik
(MINARIK_J) (OMB)
READ:16-MAY-1995 13:53:59.82
CC: Gordon Adams
(ADAMS_G) (OMB)
READ:16-MAY-1995 13:31:57.15
CC: Robert G. Damus
(DAMUS_R) (OMB)
READ:16-MAY-1995 13:19:18.97
CC: Jacob J. Lew
(LEW_J) (OMB)
READ:NOT READ
CC: LAWRENCE J. HAAS
(HAAS_L) (OMB)
READ:19-MAY-1995 18:19:16.80
CC: Barry B. Anderson
(ANDERSON_B) (OMB)
READ:16-MAY-1995 13:55:29.35
CC: Philip A. DuSault
(DUSAULT_P) (OMB)
READ:16-MAY-1995 13:31:21.08
CC: Ronald K. Peterson
(PETERSON_RK) (OMB)
READ:16-MAY-1995 13:19:00.65
CC: Annette E. Rooney
(ROONEY_A) (OMB)
READ:16-MAY-1995 13:23:56.52
TEXT:
PRINTER FONT 12_POINT_COURIER
hearing of Ways & Means and House Rules. Dreier is expected to
ask Kantor his opinion about exempting trade implementing bills
from PAYGO. Following are draft talking points and a draft
letter from Director Rivlin opposing such an exemption. Please
let me know by 3pm if NEC has any comments or concerns about
either. Thanks.
DRAFT
Honorable David Dreier
Committee on Rules
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
(also to Beilenson, Crane, and Rangel)
Dear Rep. Dreier:
As you know, Ambassador Kantor will be testifying tomorrow
at a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Rules and the Trade
Subcommittee on the subject of extending trade fast-track
authority. The Administration appreciates your consideration of
this important matter.
It is my understanding, that there has been some discussion
among Members about exempting trade implementing legislation from
the Budget Enforcement Act's PAYGO rules. The Administration has
consistently opposed such efforts.
The Administration shares the widely held view that the
recently completed Uruguay Round accords under the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) are increasing -- and will continue
to increase -- economic growth, here in the United States and
around the world. This Administration, and many Members of
Congress, worked hard to bring those negotiations to a conclusion
precisely to increase economic growth.
Nevertheless, we do not believe it is necessary or prudent
to sacrifice budget discipline to pass trade implementing
legislation in Congress. The Uruguay Round and the NAFTA
implementing legislation both complied with the Budget
Enforcement Act, without a statutory exemption. Moreover, an
exemption for trade legislation from the Budget Enforcement Act
would be unwise at a time when budget discipline is extremely
important.
Instead, I hope that we can work with you and other Members
of Congress to find appropriate offsets for the costs of future
trade legislation.
Thank you again for considering the extension of fast track
authority.
Sincerely,
DRAFT
Talking Points - Opposing Trade Exemption from PAYGO
? The Administration has consistently opposed efforts to exempt
trade implementing legislation from the Budget Enforcement Act.
? The Administration shares the widely held view that the
recently completed Uruguay Round accords under the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) are increasing -- and will continue
to increase -- economic growth, here in the United States and
around the world. This Administration, and many Members of
Congress, worked hard to bring those negotiations to a conclusion
precisely to increase economic growth.
? Nevertheless, we do not believe it is necessary or prudent to
sacrifice budget discipline to pass trade implementing
legislation in Congress.
The Uruguay Round and the NAFTA implementing legislation
both complied with the Budget Enforcement Act, without a
statutory exemption.
Moreover, an exemption for trade legislation from the Budget
Enforcement Act would be unwise at a time when budget
discipline is extremely important.
? Instead, I hope that we can work with you and other Members of
Congress to find appropriate offsets for the costs of future
trade legislation.
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (ALL-IN-1 MAIL)
CREATOR: Paul A. Deegan (DEEGAN_P) (OPD)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-JUN-1995 18:07:12.04
SUBJECT: Do Laura/Gene/Bo have comments on the attached
TO: Thomas O'Donnell
(ODONNELL_T) (OPD)
READ: 8-JUN-1995 19:15:54.43
TO: Dena B. Weinstein
(WEINSTEIN_D) (OPD)
READ: 8-JUN-1995 18:15:45.90
TO: Elena R. Mccoy
(MCCOY_ER) (OPD)
READ: 8-JUN-1995 18:14:00.44
TO: Elisabeth L. Lindemuth
(LINDEMUTH_E) (OPD)
READ: 9-JUN-1995 09:49:02.85
TEXT:
ATTACHMENT 1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 8-JUN-1995 18:05:00.00
ATT BODYPART TYPE:p
ATT CREATOR: Paul A. Deegan
TEXT:
PRINTER FONT 12_POINT_ROMAN
June 5, 1995
MEMORANDUM FOR LEON PANETTA
FROM:
Laura D'Andrea Tyson
SUBJECT:
Long Range Plan
I. International Economy
The priorities of our International Economic Affairs Directorate
for 1995 are a continuation of the work we have been engaged in
over the past two years to develop the international economic
architecture for the future:
Goal: Continue to pursue open and free trade and investment in
the Asia Pacific, in Latin America and other regions. (Kyle)
Objectives:
?
APEC Leaders Summit (Fall 1995) in Japan to review a copy
of the blueprint setting forth proposals to achieve free
and open trade in the region by no later than 2020.
?
Continue the discussion process begun at the Latin
America Summit to achieve free and open trade and
investment in the Western Hemisphere and start
negotiations with Chile on accession to NAFTA.
?
We will seek fast track authority from Congress in 1995
to pursue trade initiatives in order to reduce barriers to
U.S. exports without hurting national security.
?
Reauthorize the Export Administration Act to adopt
administrative reforms that liberalize controls on high-
tech exports.
?
Continue to pursue market
-opening with Japan in the
Japanese Framework talks and with other countries on a
case
-by
-case basis.
?
Work to establish an effective WTO and resolve the GATT
issues left over from the Uruguay Round (financial
services and basic telecommunications).
Goal: Laying the groundwork in the G
-7 and following up the
initiatives of the Halifax Summit for a renewed global
institutional architecture capable of successfully meeting the
economic challenges of the 21st century. (Tarullo)
Goal: Explore opportunities for trade liberalization with the
European Union. (Kyle)
Goal: Prepare for the December 1996 WTO ministerial that will
deal with further multilateral trade liberalization. (Kyle)
Goal: Work on the integration of China, Russia and the
economies
-in
-transition into WTO and the global economy. Also
emphasize the integration of the BEMS (Big Emerging Markets) into
the global economy. (Kyle)
II. Science, Technology, and Infrastructure
Goal: Restructure the International Telecommunications Satellite
Organizations (INTELSAT and INMARSAT) in a way that promotes
rather than inhibits competition in the market for international
satellite services. (Deich)
Objectives:
?
Develop Administration consensus on final details of a USG
proposal to the INTELSAT Working Party on June 13.
?
Coordinate the Administration's efforts to build
international support for the USG position -- including
interventions in various international forums by State,
Commerce, Treasury and the White House.
?
Support and coordinate interagency efforts to build domestic
political support for USG position -- largely from US
satellite producers, US consumers of satellite services and
from US
-owned, separate satellite systems.
?
Coordinate the development of an Administration views on
whether Inmarsat P has been implemented in a way that meets
the criteria set out by the USG last fall, and if not,
whether COMSAT should be allowed to offer Inmarat P services
within the US.
Goal: Amended bilateral agreements that provide a more liberal
aviation environment with Japan and certain EU countries.
(Deich)
Objectives:
?
Coordinate and support Departmental efforts to resolve the
dispute between Federal Express and the Government of Japan
regarding Fedex's desire to operate between Japan and the
Phillipines.
?
Coordinate Administration consideration of proposals to
allow limited antitrust immunity for certain code
-sharing
operations in the context of some type of "open skies"
agreement with Germany.
?
Support efforts to negotiate cargo, pricing, charters and
new access UK.
Goal: Achieve legislative reforms in some of the personnel,
procurement and budget constraints that now hamper the FAA's
ability to adopt new technologies and a more efficient air
traffic control system. (Deich)
Objectives:
?
Coordinate the development of an Administration position on
whether to accept any substantive reforms other than a
government
-corporation as meaningful steps toward developing
a more efficient ATC system.
Goal: Congressional authorization for State Infrastructure
Banks (SIBs) similar to those proposed in the President's Budget.
(Deich)
Objectives:
TOP ODD
\p
?
Work with DOT and OMB to have included in legislation
designating a "National Highway Sytem" a provision that
would allow states the option of using transportation funds
to establish a State Infrastructure Bank.
Goal: Update Presidential Decision Directives on commercial
space policy. (Deich)
Objectives:
?
Support interagency review of Administration policy on
commercial space launch; support implementation of decision
to seek greater consistency in space launch agreements with
Russia, China and (potentially) Ukraine.
?
Review the objections by Sen. Bingaman and other
Congressional critics to the Administration's policy on
commercial remote sensing.
Goal: Work with Congress to pass telecommunications reform
legislation that the President can sign. (Kalil)
Goal: Extend or make permanent the research and experimentation
credit. (Kalil)
Goal: Defend the President's investments in science and
technology, especially Commerce Department's Advanced Technology
Program, ARPA investments in dual
-use technologies, and High
Performance Computing and Communications Initiative.
(Robyn/Kalil)
Goal: Continued progress on the Administration's "information
superhighway" agenda, including promotion of applications in
education, training, electronic commerce, health care, and
delivery of government services. (Kalil)
III. Markets/Regulatory Issues
Goal: Major financial services reform, including regulatory
relief and a solution to the structural problems of the Savings
Association Insurance Fund. (Seidman)
Objectives:
?
Ensure that legislation repealing Glass
-Steagall also
maintains the financial and structural integrity of the
financial system, and the Administration's role in its
regulation.
?
Take a constructive, catalytic role in helping Congress
structure and pass a long
-lasting SAIF fix.
?
See Home Loan Bank reorganization legislation through to a
successful conclusion.
Goal: Bring the work of the Advisory Committee on Greenhouse Gas
TOP EVEN
\p
Reduction from Personal Motor Vehicles to a successful
conclusion, on time (end of September). (Seidman)
Objectives:
? The committee's report should maximize the consensus
possible in the committee, even if the committee cannot
agree on strategies to fully return greenhouse gas emissions
to 1990 levels by 2005, 2015 or 2025.
Goal: Complete pension simplification legislation that (i)
increases funds available to plan participants; (ii) reduces plan
terminations; and (iii) increases plan coverage, with the
President getting credit, particularly with small business, for
proposing the package. (Seidman)
Goal: Keep the Administration well
-positioned in the debate
concerning disaster [earthquake] insurance. (Seidman)
Objectives:
?
Make certain that any legislation enacted by Congress meets
the principles enunciated in the Administration's policy
paper and, in particular, does not shift uncompensated
insurance risk to the federal government.
Goal: Achieve regulatory reform legislation in this Congress
that the President can sign. (Ross)
Objectives:
? Work within White House processes to maximize
Administration visibility and credibility on commitment to
reform. Champion reform in ongoing rulemakings and REGO II
deliberations; pursue major opportunities for reform
through administrative actions; excise language
antithetical to reform from Administration statements to the
public and the Hill.
?
Find and build Administration and ultimately Hill support
for a legislative position that actually does streamline and
lighten regulatory burdens. Reduce current 100+ page
procedural bills to circa ten
-page performance
-based
mandate.
IV. Human Capital
Goal: Assure acceptance of the major principles of the
President's G.I. Bill for American workers in legislation by the
end of this session of Congress. (Dimond)
Objectives:
?
Regardless of the legislative success, to implement these
basic principles as fully as possible through Administrative
action and Presidential leadership under existing authority.
?
Implement the Technology Learning Challenge throughout the
next year to demonstrate (1) the full potential of new,
interactive learning technology to improve lifelong learning
and (2) the extent of the market in schools, homes, and
workplaces for such interactive learning and communication.
Goal: Implement HUD Reinvention in support of the following
basic principles:
?
to end public and project
-based housing as we know it by
substituting a rapid transition to vouchers
?
to consolidate dozens of separate programs into two,
performance
-based, incentive block grants for community
development and housing
? to create a much more agile FHA to partner with other major
financing sources to expand home
-ownership opportunities in
underserved market niches. (Dimond)
Objectives:
?
provide support to enact major elements of these reforms in
this session of Congress
?
provide support to implement administratively as much of the
principles of this reform as possible
? support the revisions to HUD's Urban Report to make sure
that such New Covenant approaches (empowerment zones and
CDFIs, in addition to the HUD Reinvention) are highlighted.
V. Environment/Natural Resources
Goal: To enact legislation re
-authorizing and reforming the
Superfund program, while preserving its fundamental tenets.
(Holstein)
Objectives:
? To preserve the core liability concepts that are at the heart
of the Superfund program, while supporting reforms designed
to speed cleanups, reduce costs, and enhance state
participation.
Goal: To enact legislation lifting the 22
-year ban on exports of
Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude oil. (Holstein)
Objectives:
?
To influence the outcome of pending congressional action
relating to ANS exports so that it reflects the President's
concerns: environmental protection, preservation of West
Coast refinery employment, retention of Presidential energy
emergency authorities, and compliance with international
trade principles.
Goal: To respond to the national security need to purchase
uranium from decommissioned Russian missiles, coordinated with
the development of a plan to privatize U.S. uranium enrichment
services. (Holstein)
Objectives:
?
To develop options for the purchase of Russian uranium that
will provide acceptable cash flow to Russia in exchange for
uranium from dismantled nuclear weapons. To finalize the
privatization plan of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation to
create a viable private corporation while providing a
reasonable return to the Treasury.
VI. General Economy
Goal: Continue promoting outstanding Administration economic
initiatives, including the Middle Class Bill of Rights (Child Tax
Credit, Education tax deduction, IRA expansion and the G.I. Bill
for America's Workers) and increasing the Minimum Wage. (NEC)
Objectives:
?
To advance these issues with Congress as appropriate and
ensure that they continue to be in the forefront of the
Administration's economic planning and strategy.
Goal: To organize a continuing series of Presidential regional
economic conferences highlighting the Administration's economic
successes. (Lane/Holstein)
Objectives:
?
On June 27th, the Pacific Rim Economic Conference -- the
second in a series of regional economic conferences -- will
be held in Portland, OR. Additional conferences in the
Northeast, Mountain West, and Midwest will follow. The
objective is to maximize local and regional media attention
to the successes of the Clinton economic philosophy and
programs.
cc: Erskine Bowles, Harold Ickes
END ATTACHMENT
I
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (ALL-IN-1 MAIL)
CREATOR: Michael B. Froman (FROMAN_M) (OPD)
CREATION DATE/TIME:20-SEP-1995 16:26:55.62
SUBJECT: Fast Track Update
TO: Jennifer N. Palmieri
(PALMIERI_J) (OMB)
READ:20-SEP-1995 16:53:03.78
CC: Paul A. Deegan
(DEEGAN_P) (OPD)
READ:20-SEP-1995 16:45:53.37
TEXT:
For Chief of Staff's Report:
Fast Track: NEC Principals met today to discuss the Administration's position
on fast track. (The House Ways & Means Committee has now scheduled a mark-up of
Chairman Archer's bill on Thursday.) The Principals agreed at this stage to
support the House Democrats' efforts to seek a reauthorization of the 1991
version of fast-track authority, which would be more permissive on labor and
environment than Archer's bill. (The NAFTA side agreements were brought back on
the fast track under the 1991 authority.) Ambassador Kantor's positions will
be: 1) The Administration wants fast track; 2) The Archer bill is unacceptable;
3) We support reauthorization of the 1991 authority; and 4) The Administration
is committed to addressing labor and environmental issues in the context of
trade agreements.
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (ALL-IN-1 MAIL)
CREATOR: Elgie Holstein (HOLSTEIN_E) (OPD)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 1-NOV-1995 15:03:55.48
SUBJECT: HOUSE MAY CONSIDER LAST-MINUTE TRADE BILLS
TO: FAX (97035180276,P Eastman)
(TLXA1MAIL_\F:97035180276\C:P EastmanREAD:NOT READ
TEXT:
Date: 11/01/95 Time: 03:11
House May Consider Last-Minute Trade Bills
By Richard Lawrence, The Journal of Commerce
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
WASHINGTON--Nov. 1--A last-minute try to enact a series of trade proposals
this year will be made by senior Ways and Means Committee members,
Rep. Philip Crane, R-III., said Tuesday.
Rep. Crane, who chairs the Ways and Means trade subcommittee, said, "We hope
to put together a package (of trade initiatives) sometime after Thanksgiving."
Senior committee members plan to confer with House Republican leaders to clear
the way for the package, he told a Heritage Foundation conference.
The package, he said, would include new fast-track negotiating authority for
the president, provisions giving Caribbean Basin countries access to the U.S.
market similar to Mexico's, an international accord to remove shipbuilding
subsidies and new trade benefits for Bulgaria and Cambodia.
Rep. Crane has said elsewhere that the Republican-drafted fast-track bill
probably could not pass the House on its own, since it is opposed by the White
House and most Democrats. The Caribbean bill was stopped earlier this year by
apparel industry lobbyists but has broad bipartisan support on the Ways and
Means Committee.
The key to success for his trade bill, said Rep. Crane, is for the Clinton
administration to stop insisting that labor and environmental issues be part
of legislation giving the president fast-track authority to negotiate
international trade agreements.
Under fast track, the president may conclude trade agreements subject only to
an up-or-down vote by Congress. No amendments are permitted.
House Republicans strongly oppose including labor and environmental issues in
any new fast-track legislation. But the administration, said Rep. Crane, still
does not "seem to understand" that it is "exclusively Congress' prerogative"
to set fast-track negotiating rules.
Still, he said, Congress is unlikely to enact new fast-track legislation
unless it can reach an accord with the administration on exactly how the
process would apply.
Failing a broad fast-track agreement, Rep. Crane appeared to rule out that
Congress might enact a very limited fast-track bill to help Chile join the
North American Free Trade Agreement.
"It would be very difficult to target (fast track) for one party," he said.
Rep. Crane said that giving Caribbean Basin countries U.S. market access
similar to Mexico's raises the question of how to offset the tariff revenue
losses that the proposal would generate. That would require either a new
revenue-raising or spending-reduction measure, which Congress so far has not
agreed on.
Rep. Crane said the shipbuilding subsidy accord would be part of the proposed
trade package. It was negotiated last year at the 24-nation Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development meeting in Paris. It must be approved by
Congress for the United States to remove its remaining shipbuilding subsidies.
Unless the United States acts on the accord, other countries may hold back,
too, industry sources said. END!A9?JC-TRADE-BILLS
KBviaNewsEDGE
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (ALL-IN-1 MAIL)
CREATOR: Elgie Holstein (HOLSTEIN_E) (OPD)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 3-JUN-1996 14:14:47.61
SUBJECT: SHIPBUILDERS COUNCIL OPPOSES BILL ON SUBSIDIES AT ODDS WITH
TO: FAX (97035180276,PE; in BNA)
(TLXA1MAIL_\F:97035180276\C:PE; in BNAW)
READ:NOT READ
TEXT:
SHIPBUILDERS COUNCIL OPPOSES BILL ON SUBSIDIES AT ODDS WITH WORLD PACT
A Shipbuilders Council of America official May 31 told BNA that the SCA is
adamantly opposed to a substitute version of HR 2754--a bill aimed at
implementing a multinational agreement on shipbuilding subsidies--since SCA
believes changes adopted by the House National Security Committee violate the
agreement negotiated.
This position was echoed by a spokeswoman for the European Commission,
who said May 31 that the substitute bill was "very inconsistent" with the
agreement negotiated among the parties. The spokeswoman said that she could
not see how the signatories would be willing to reopen the pact,
characterizing the substitute as ``definitely unacceptable."
The National Security Committee May 29 favorably reported an amended
version of HR 2754 with changes that would extend the Title XI loan guarantee
program to provide U.S. shipyards with an additional transition period. The
bill approved by the committee was an amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by Rep. Herbert Bateman (R-Va), who said he would like to see the
agreement go forward as long as the other signatories accept the amendment's
terms for a transition period for Title XI.
The Shipbuilders Council of America--which had supported the original
version of the bill--` `absolutely opposes" the new substitute version,
Shipbuilders Council of America President Penny Eastman told BNA May 31. ``It
is not a reasonable alternative," she said, adding that the Title XI
provision violates the agreement negotiated. If the committee believes that
they can change the terms of the agreement and that other countries will go
along, "they are living in a vacuum," Eastman said. In effect, what the
committee did would kill the shipbuilding subsidies agreement if it were to
pass in its present form, she added.
The original target date for entry into force of the shipbuilding
subsidies agreement was Jan. 1, 1996. The pact is now scheduled to take effect
July 15-30 days after the ratification deadline of June 15.
The bill approved by the National Security Committee differs from the bill
reported by the House Ways and Means Committee in, among other matters, the
treatment of the Title XI loan guarantee program. Under the Bateman amendment,
the Title XI subsidized financing program could continue until Jan. 1, 1999
and the date that Title XI subsidized ships would have to be delivered would
be extended to Jan. 1, 2002 (from a delivery deadline of Jan. 1, 1999), a
committee staffer explained.
A House GOP aide told BNA that the question is whether other countries
will agree to have the agreement amended to reflect the Title XI changes made
by the National Security Committee. "Some of the provisions [adopted by the
National Security Committee] are inconsistent with the original agreement,"
the aide said. In her view, members of the House Ways and Means Committee will
not support a bill that is inconsistent with the agreement negotiated.
The bill could also be open to amendments once it reaches the floor since
it was not negotiated under fast-track authority, the aide said. However, the
Rules Committee will have the final say on this, the aide said, speculating
that it is likely that amendments would be allowed only under "strict
circumstances."
The shipbuilding subsidies agreement was signed in 1994 by the European
Union, Japan, Korea, Norway, and the United States after almost five years of
negotiations under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development.
Legislation (HR 2754) to implement the agreement was favorably reported
by the House Ways and Means Committee March 21 and similar legislation passed
the Senate Finance Committee in May.
The basic elements of the agreement are: (1) elimination of virtually
all subsidies granted either directly or indirectly to shipbuilders; (2) an
injurious pricing code; (3) a comprehensive discipline on government
financing for exports and domestic ship sales; and (4) an effective and
binding dispute settlement mechanism.
Insurance
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (ALL-IN-1 MAIL)
CREATOR: Jake Siewert (SIEWERT_J) (OPD)
CREATION DATE/TIME:17-APR-1997 19:08:40.71
SUBJECT: U.S. TRADE DEFICIT SHRINKS SLIGHTLY, BUT STILL BIG
TO: Peter R. Orszag
(ORSZAG_P) Autoforward to: Remote Addressee
(Peter R.
Orszag@eop@Ingtwy@eopmrx) (OPD)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Russell W. Horwitz
(Russell W. Horwitz@eop@LNGTWY@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: April K. Mellody
( April Mellody@eop@LNGTWY@EOPMRX).
READ:NOT READ
TEXT:
Date: 04/17/97 Time: 18:53
EU.S. trade deficit shrinks slightly, but still big
WASHINGTON America's trade deficit in February narrowed to
$10.4 billion, after setting a record the previous month, the
Commerce Department said late Thursday, after correcting a sizable
error that had overstated the trade gap.
The department had originally reported the February deficit was
$1.2 billion larger, at $11.6 billion, before discovering a major
miscalculation of oil imports.
Commerce Undersecretary Everett Ehrlich called the size of the
error unprecedented and blamed it on miscommunication between his
agency, which compiles the trade statistics and the Customs Bureau,
which gathers the raw data.
Customs, in an effort to get a handle on late reports of oil
shipments coming into the country, asked its agents to send in not
only the current month's data but data from previous months.
However, the Census Bureau, the arm of Commerce that tabulates
the trade statistics, was not alerted to separate the old data from
the current month, resulting in a $1.2 billion overstatement of oil
imports on a seasonally adjusted basis.
Red-faced Commerce officials said it would take at least a day
to come up with corrected tables for all the information contained
in the 29-page trade report.
Based on the corrected information, the department said the
February imbalance was an 18 percent improvement from January's
deficit of $12.7 billion. The January gap between imports and
exports had been the largest since the government switched to
tracking goods and services flows on a monthly basis.
Even with the lower figure for February, the deficit so far this
year is running at an annual rate of $139 billion, up sharply from
last year's $114.3 billion deficit.
Economists blamed the deterioration on two major factors the
surprisingly strong U.S. economy compared to much weaker growth
overseas, and the strength of the dollar, which is making foreign
goods cheaper for American consumers.
Asked about the Commerce error, economist Michael Penzer of the
Bank of America in San Francisco said the government was lucky the
trade deficit is not a current focus for financial markets.
He said even though the erroneous deficit number was $1 billion
higher than expected, the markets basically ignored the report and
focused instead on other reports Thursday.
Those reports, including an increase of 8,000 in the number of
weekly unemployment claims filed, signaled to investors that the
economy may be starting to slow, easing pressure on the Federal
Reserve to raise interest rates to fight inflation.
The Dow Jones industrial average finished the day down only
21.27 at 6,658.60. The trade error was not reported until after the
stock market had closed.
In a warning that President Clinton may adopt a more
protectionist stance in his second term in response to the growing
deficits, Commerce Secretary William Daley on Thursday pledged a
renewed push to attack unfair foreign trade barriers.
"We are happy to help break down barriers, happy to lead the
way in opening markets but we will not be a vehicle for one-way
trade," Daley said in what was billed as his first policy speech
on trade.
The higher deficits have spawned increased protectionist
sentiments in Congress, making it tougher for Clinton to win the
congressional fast-track authority he needs to negotiate new trade
pacts and to gain the annual approval for China's
most-favored-nation trade status.
During the first two months of this year, the deficits with both
Japan and China are running far beyond their levels of a year ago.
The two-month total for China was up a dramatic 37 percent from
a year ago, and the deficit for Japan for the year is 11.3 percent
higher. U.S. automakers are complaining that the strong dollar is
allowing Japanese competitors to regain market share in the United
States.
The dollar has risen 55 percent against the yen since hitting
its low point two years ago, and Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at
Norwest Corp., said the problems being faced by automakers were
already spreading to computer companies and other U.S.
manufacturers.
Last week, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin for the first time
voiced concern about the dollar's rise but so far the
administration has stopped short of mounting a coordinated market
intervention effort with U.S. allies to dampen the increase.
Total U.S. exports of goods and services in February were up 4
percent to an all-time high of $73.5 billion. Imports, after
correcting for the oil reporting error, totaled $83.9 billion, also
a record.
APNP-04-17-97 1905EDT
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Jake Siewert (CN=Jake Siewert/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-MAY-1997 17:53:58.00
SUBJECT: 1997-5-7 McCurry Briefing complete
TO: Robert D. Kyle ( CN=Robert D. Kyle/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: GRAY_W (GRAY_W @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY EOP 1) (NSC)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Malcolm R. Lee (CN=Malcolm R. Lee/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [OPD])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Bob, Malcolm, Dave:
Lots of trade Q & A in McCurry's briefing particularly on fast-track.
Jake
Forwarded by Jake Siewert/OPD/EOP on 05/07/97 05:56
PM
SUNTUM_M @ Al
05/07/97 01:29:00 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: 1997-5-7 McCurry Briefing complete
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Mexico City, Mexico)
For Immediate Release
May 7, 1997
PRESS BRIEFING BY
MIKE MCCURRY
J.W. Marriott Hotel
Mexico City, Mexico
10:22 A.M. (L)
MR. MCCURRY: We've got, I think, what is a reasonably
good
advance text that you can follow along with. He'll amend and revise as he
goes along. Obviously, the President will give a speech today that puts
out
the particulars of his vision of the U.S.-Mexican relationship, which is
being
redefined in very positive ways as a result not only of this meeting, but
the
ongoing relationship that we have with the government of Mexico.
He will today say in his speech that we seek a peaceful,
prosperous partnership filled with respect and dignity. He will talk
about
the enormous benefits on both sides of the border that have resulted from
the
NAFTA agreement and the impact that that's had on our trade relationship.
He'll talk a lot about the work that we've done over the last two days to
develop cooperation on issues related to migration and fighting drugs, and
on
balance, the speech will be a real, I think, positive statement to both
the
people of Mexico and the people of the United States about the benefits of
this very important bilateral relationship.
Q
Is it a NAFTA speech, or is it broader?
MR. MCCURRY: It's broader than that, but I think a
centerpiece of this speech is where he makes the economic argument that
free
trade is bringing benefits to both sides of this border. The President's
intent is to remind the American people that the Mexican economy which,
because of the peso crisis, really had a setback, has now prospered, come
out
of that setback, and the benefits to the people of both sides of the
borders
are growing almost daily because of the steps we took to
encourage free trade.
Q
How long will some of those in Mexico who have
not felt the improvement have to wait?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, economic modernization, economic
liberalization is a long-term process. And one of the things the
President is keen on seeing now are the benefits of economic
liberalization pushed down into the streets of Mexico so that the
people who are at the lowest income levels begin to see the
results. Now, some are, but we need to see continued progress as
economic growth takes hold and as modernization takes place.
Q Is NAFTA a good model to use when discussing fast
track trade with other countries? Shouldn't we be looking at
NAFTA?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, a structured free trade
environment is a good model. And the President, among other
things today, will say that opening up more markets to free trade
is important to the people of the United States; that people of
the United States run the risk of losing the benefits of
liberalized trade in this hemisphere if we don't act quickly to
establish free trade agreements in this hemisphere. And
obviously, there are some countries in which we can press forward
with sooner in achieving those agreements.
But the President again today will reiterate that he
will seek fast track authority from Congress and will work
closely with Congress to achieve that this year.
Q When is he going to do it? When is he going to
do it?
MR. MCCURRY: He'll do that in the course of this
year. We've got consultations going on with Congress about how
best to press forward on this agenda. It's important for us not
to overload the circuits on Capitol Hill. At the moment, we're
working hard to codify the balanced budget agreement recently
reached between the White House and key members of Congress. And
as we work through those issues and get in to later on this year,
we'll be able to structure the dialogue with Congress about
seeking fast track authority.
Q Mike, since the economy or economics is the focus
today, why did Bob Rubin rush home yesterday?
MR. MCCURRY: He just went back because there were
-- his work here had been completed in the context of the
Binational Commission meetings. There were some matters that he
wanted to attend to at the Treasury Department. But they were
the routine press of business at the Treasury Department, no
alarming developments that I am aware of that sent him home. He,
I think, just judged -- he came down with the President,
participated in a lot of very productive meetings with his
counterpart and with others who were here from the Cabinet and
elected to go home just to get back to work at the Treasury
Department.
Q
Mike, on The Washington Post story today, was the
White House aware of that before? And if it is true, does this
give the President any pause in U.S.-Israeli relations?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, I'm not going to comment in any
way, shape or form on that article. It contains information that
you know that we routinely do not comment upon in any setting.
The National Security Advisor, who has had discussions at senior
levels of our government, is confident the President has the
information he needs to conduct foreign policy.
Q
Secretary Daley mentioned that, without naming
Brazil directly, suggested that certain key elements of the free
-- the hemispheric immigration process would like to turn it back
or weaken it. How much ground has the administration lost absent
fast track in letting Brazil consolidate and slow the pace down?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, because of the aggressive export
promotions of Mercosur export promotions of Mercosur, we are
losing some opportunities. I think that, quite wisely,
governments in South America have taken advantage of the
liberalized trade environment and are pressing ahead with their
own free trade agreements. The European Union has moved swiftly
to take advantage of new market opportunities and new trade
opportunities, and the United States is concerned that we will
miss an historic opportunity to expand trade throughout our
hemisphere if we do not move forward on free trade agreements.
Q
Mr. McCurry, is there enough political capital
to put forward for the fast track, and then also to negotiate
something along the lines of changing the certification process
as has been hinted with Congress?
MR. MCCURRY: These are very difficult issues, to be
sure, and there are different points of view in Congress. But we
are pledged to work closely with our Congress on both of those
issues to make sure that U.S. interests are advanced both
economically and in our fight against drug trafficking, and doing
it in an environment of respect for the dignity of the sovereign
governments that we work closely with.
Q
You're saying that you will look for the fast
track this year. When and if you will be looking for a new
certificaiton process, more respectful of other countries?
MR. MCCURRY: It is too early based on our
discussions with members of Congress to predict timing on either
of those issues. But the President does intend to move forward
with fast track authority and certainly will continue
conversations about how best to reflect our own concerns about
fighting drugs as we look at the legal process that's used
annually for certification.
If I can follow up on that, there's been a lot
of hand-wringing about the delay or at least the fact that fast
track has not gone up to the Hill yet, and the business community
says this is going to be a tough fight, so we've got to get it up
there soon, and if we don't get a bill up until the fall, there
won't be enough time to do it and then it will be an election
year. Do you share that analysis from the business community?
Do you have to get it up really soon?
MR. MCCURRY: We've also had consultations with the
business community on this issue and we understand their desire
to move quickly because, as I said a moment ago, many in our
business community feel like they are missing opportunities that
they want to see available to pursue their own economic
transactions. We have to do this in a way that is careful, that
judges what pressure will come to bear on Congress as the debate
unfolds, and we'll do so in a way that we think maximizes our
opportunity to get the authority by the end of the year.
Q
Mike, the Central American countries originally
wanted NAFTA priority. They have told us many times now that
they would like to enter into a free trade agreement separate
with the United States. What is the position of the U.S. on
that?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, first and foremost, we need the
authority to negotiate those types of agreements. And that's
where our effort has to concentrate. Without fast track
authority, it would be impossible to enter into those type of
agreements. But we have had some discussions, as you know, with
various governments, including the government of Chile, and we
will continue to examine how best to advance our interests using
the success of NAFTA as a model for how we proceed.
Q But what would be the answer of President Clinton
-- response of President Clinton during this visit?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, our answer during this upcoming
visit will be the one that I just gave. He will reassure his
Central American counterparts and by indirection, of course,
those throughout the hemisphere that he will seek fast track
authority. He recognizes the important gains that will occur to
all countries in this hemisphere if we continue to liberalize
trade arrangements. And he will tell them that it is a high
priority of his to obtain that authority from Congress this year.
Q
One last question on that part of the trip. The
Central American countries also would like the United States to
give some amnesty to the illegal immigrants of Central America in
the United States. What is your position on that?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, the President has addressed that
himself. We are aware of concerns that arise from the
immigration bill related specifically to the cap that exists for
some of the countries that are most noticeably affected --
Nicaragua, Guatemala, in particular. And the President's view is
that immigration must be governed by the rule of law, that legal
immigration and the confidence that we can proceed with orderly
legal immigration must be the predicate for dealing with existing
cases.
Now, on deportation issues, I think the one thing
that the President will seek to do during his trip in the next
several days is to reassure the governments of Central America
that there will not be some hysterical effort to engage in mass
deportations; that's not foreseen under the immigration bill.
We are again consulting closely with Congress about
some of the concerns that arise from the immigration bill to see
if we can address some of those specific concerns. I think there
are an estimated 400,000 cases pending in the United States and
we need to look carefully at each of those individually, but
we'll do so in a way that respects both the principle of the law
that was passed, but also reflects our desire to deal with any
consequences of that law that would run counter to our concerns
about individual human issues that arise in any immigration case.
Q
Excuse me if you've answered either one of
these questions. Will the President be seeking parity for the
Caribbean Basin nations concurrently with fast track authority?
MR. MCCURRY: He will talk a little bit about ways
that we can build on the success of the CBI, but I'd like to hold
that and do that more closer to our arrival in Barbados. He
might generally discuss that and I don't want to rule out that
he'll discuss that with some of the Central American leaders that
he sees tomorrow. But in general, I think that will be an issue
that's more front and center for the President when he arrives in
Barbados.
Q
The second aspect of that question is also,
will he seek labor and environment provisions within the central
fast track authority, or will it be like NAFTA and consider it on
the side?
MR. MCCURRY: We have said and repeatedly said that
concerns about workers' rights and concerns about environmental
protection have to be addressed within the context of expanding
free trade arrangements. How you best do that and how you
consider the concerns that many of the stakeholders in free trade
have is one of the delicate issues that we have to consult
closely with Congress about. We will do so, but we'll do so with
the goal of concluding arrangements with Congress that give the
President the authority he needs to strike the right type of free
trade agreements.
Q
Mike, in Zaire, can you tell us whether Mobutu
has left for good?
MR. MCCURRY: I can tell you that we've got -- he
has left for Gabon for meetings with Presidents Bongo, Lissouba
and Eyadema. His aides have indicated that he's expected to
remain in Gabon only until Friday when he is to return to Zaire.
We have not received any indication that President Mobutu has
decided not to return to Zaire.
Q -- Gabon instead of returning -- Are you trying
to put pressure on him for that?
MR. MCCURRY: We've continued our conversations
about how to achieve an orderly transition to a political process
that will lead to free and fair elections. Ambassador Richardson
has been engaged -- I think he's on his way to Paris, if I'm not
mistaken, where he will consult closely with the French
government on these issues. We'll continue our diplomatic
support of the efforts that are underway by the United Nations
and the government of South Africa to achieve agreements that
will lead to both the cessation of hostilities in Zaire and the
type of orderly transition to a new government that the
international community seeks.
Q
Mike, would it help if Mobutu did not return,
if he stayed in Gabon --
MR. MCCURRY: I don't want to speculate on that. I
think we've received the indications I just suggested from the
government of Zaire and we will work in that context.
Q
Getting back to NAFTA, has there been any talk
of the trucking regulations during this visit? Are we any closer
to having them implemented?
MR. MCCURRY: That's an issue that may have been
broached during some of the Binational Commission discussions
that occurred on Monday with some of the trade officials who were
discussing those issues. That was not an issue that the
President's attempted to resolve yesterday. We'll have to
continue our dialogue on that. Obviously, our safety concerns
are well-known to the government of Mexico and will use the
mechanism of the NAFTA process to address those concerns.
Q
Has Erskine told the President that he'd like
to return to North Carolina soon now that the framework of the
balanced budget agreement is complete?
MR. MCCURRY: Erskine Bowles has said publicly as
late as over the weekend on one of the shows that he was on that
he's not a permanent creature of Washington. His heart is in
North Carolina because that's where his family is. He is, as he
describes himself, a creature of the private sector and his
interest is eventually to return to private life. But he has a
job to do, and he is very satisfied with the role he's been able
to play in reaching the framework of an historic balanced budget
agreement. But there's a lot of work ahead on that front in
codifying that agreement and turning it into authorizations and
appropriations, and Erskine intends to plow ahead on that work.
Q
The conventional wisdom has been he's not going
to stay here for a full year, but maybe by the end of the year he
might decide to leave. Does that still appear to be --
MR. MCCURRY: I think Erskine Bowles is someone who
has got an exquisite sense of timing and also an exquisite sense
of duty, and he will make his timings in the best -- he'll make
his own personal decisions in the best interest of the President
and furtherance of his own personal commitment to achieving a
balanced budget and to doing the work that the President has laid
out for a second term.
Q
His departure is not imminent?
MR. MCCURRY: His departure, to my knowledge, is not
imminent.
Q
Mike, the President looked kind of beat last
night at the state dinner. Is the altitude here taking its toll?
MR. MCCURRY: No, I think it's the hours of work
that are probably taking a toll. I think it was a late evening
last night, but the President thoroughly enjoyed it. He had a
wonderful tour of the National Palace, which is an extraordinary
building, and the dinner ran late because the President was
enjoying the conversation and decided to stay at the dinner a
little bit later on. But this has been a fairly grueling
schedule and he's having a good time at it, but I think all of us
take our wear and tear on these trips.
Q
Mike, can you give us a little bit of a sense
of the relationship between Zedillo and the President on this
trip? They seem to be getting along well. Can you give us any
insight into how that's going?
MR. MCCURRY: Not only the two Presidents but the
two First Ladies as well have really struck up a very familiar
way of conversing. They do so with, I think, a lot of affection
for each other, but they do so with respect for the important
purposes that attach to the leadership of both countries.
We have been able to work through a number of
complicated issues on this trip and I think that the ability to
do so reflects the good working relationship that's developed
personally between President Clinton and President Zedillo.
But our long-term interests are not predicated on
personal relationships. They're predicated on advancing the
interests of the people of the United States. And in each and
every case on this trip -- whether it's migration, whether it's
economic and trade issues, whether it's the fight against drugs,
whether it's protecting the environment -- both Presidents have
been able to find ways to accommodate their own national
interests and do so in a way that expands opportunities for the
people on both sides of the border.
That's what has made this, I think, such a
successful visit to Mexico, because there is great respect for
the sovereignty of both peoples and yet a common ground and
certainly a great deal of cooperation in resolving questions that
would be important for both peoples as we plow ahead in our
relationship.
Q Did the President agree to meet more, more
frequently?
MR. MCCURRY: The President, both here in Mexico,
and I think you'll see him reaffirm to the leaders in Central
American tomorrow, will reaffirm the importance of these types of
high level exchanges.
Tomorrow will be the first time since 1968 that an
American President has met in Central America with his
counterparts, when President Johnson was in the region -- not the
first time in the region; of course, the President saw these
leaders, I think in 1993. And the value that attaches to these
types of exchanges as we take full benefit of the changes
occurring throughout Central America and throughout all of this
hemisphere are certainly enhanced by following up on the kind of
working relationships that we've established.
The Summit of the Americas in Miami leading to the
next Summit of the Americas in Santiago sketch out a framework of
high-level working relationships that are very important if we
are going to take advantage of the enormous changes occurring in
this hemisphere.
If you think about the incredible change that's
occurred in Central America since the 1980s when we were dealing
with the residue of Cold War, when we were dealing with conflict,
a lot of economic, political instability, when we were dealing
with military authoritarianism, a change that's occurred as these
countries liberalized both politically and economically is really
remarkable -- and that's one thing the President will certainly
celebrate during his visits tomorrow -- but it's a process of
change that the President seeks to nurture and deepen with some
of the ideas he advances.
Q
One of the things that in Guatamala, Mexico
played a very strong role ushering in the peace process. Is the
U.S. counting more on Mexico as a partner not only in economic,
but in foreign policy for the region?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, it's a good observation. The
Guatemala peace accords were critical, I think, to really
symbolically demonstrating to the world that's occurred in
Central America in last decade. The role the government of
Mexico played was indeed key. And Mexico as it prospers, as it
changes can indeed become more of a significant factor in the
foreign relations of this hemisphere, and that, while there is
not any structured discussion of that, I think as Mexico emerges,
as its economy comes out of the Peso crisis, it's clear that
Mexico is poised to play a more important role in the region and
indeed many of these countries -- Costa Rica's is another example
-- have the opportunity to really demonstrate a leadership role
as we work together on many of the issues that confront the
hemisphere.
Q
You said that the administration is going to be
talking with Congress about alleviating some of the concerns
about deportation. And one of the principle things that you have
to deal with is a cap that was in put in on suspensions of
deportations limiting them to 4,000. Are you going to be urging
Congress to scrap that cap or raise that cap?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't want to go beyond what
Commissioner Meissner said here yesterday. I thought she
provided a good answer to that. It was delicately phrased. She
said we are working closely with the Congress to address those
concerns. We understand that the way we structure a law can have
a real human impact in individual cases, and we need to deal with
the consequences of that law, but do so in a manner that respects
the integrity of the reform of legal immigration that we achieved
in the bill that was passed.
Q
Well, what she said was, she didn't want to
discuss it because to publicly discuss that might jeopardize the
chances of success. If this were a national security issue, I
could understand that. But it's a matter of immigration policy.
MR. MCCURRY: Well, it's also a matter of careful
discussions between the administration and Congress. It won't be
productive if we try to negotiate the issue in public.
Did Louis Freeh recommend that Janet Reno should
appoint a counsel?
MR. MCCURRY: I can't comment on that story other
than to say, as we have said consistently, that those decisions
have to be made by the Attorney General based on law, and she has
very carefully and very patiently, before Congress, explained her
reasoning. I don't have anything to add to what she said.
Q
At least one of the opposition parties with whom
President Clinton met yesterday is not very committed to NAFTA.
Is there any second thought - we were briefed yesterday was
there any second comment or any second thought about the meeting
with the opposition parties yesterday?
MR. MCCURRY: No, no follow-up on that other than to
say the President appreciated the opportunity to hear the views
of the political leaders he saw yesterday. He thinks that it is
important to recognize the political diversity that exists within
the political culture of Mexico. But our views of NAFTA are
those that President will articulate shortly in his speech.
Q Mike, do you have any color on the President and
the First Lady's tourism both today and while they've been here
prior to this?
MR. MCCURRY: Not yet.
Q -- honeymoon and that sort of thing.
MR. MCCURRY: I think the President will reference
his honeymoon in the speech coming up and he will talk about
their own enjoyment and enchantment with Mexico. The President
has talked a lot about his trip today to see some things that he
normally doesn't see. It's almost a regular complaint of the
President of the United States on foreign trips that some many
other members of the delegation get to see so much more of the
country than he does because he is confined, in many cases, to
hotel rooms having meetings.
And so the opportunity to visit a place that foreign
dignitaries normally wouldn't go to see a slice of average life
in Mexico, albeit a small one, and then to tour some of the
significant archeological wonders of Mexico is something the
President has very much looked forward to. Of course, he regrets
that he won't be able to climb to the top of the pyramid. He
would no doubt try if he could. But he is, I think, looking
forward to a day of really enjoying some of the splendors of
Mexico and also doing what the President often likes to do,
having more direct contact with the people of the country he's
visiting.
Q
Has the subject of Cuba come up between the
Presidents?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't recall seeing a specific
reference to it. I think there may have been a discussion
related to Helms-Burton, but maybe after I take off you can check
with David Johnson on that point. And I think there was some
general discussion about issues pertaining to Helms-Burton that
occurred yesterday, and certainly that is a feature of dialogue
that the Secretary of State has had with Foreign Secretary Gurria
in the past. So I can imagine that it did arise; I haven't heard
anything reported to me that it was a large part of their
discussion yesterday.
Going back again to a question I did before, is
the amnesty part of the request of the Central American
Presidents out of the question for now, or is it something that
the President can consider?
MR. MCCURRY: Again, we have got to deal with the
issues that derive from the immigration bill very carefully
because there are strong feelings in Congress on this, and I
don't want to suggest that we would not hear those concerns. We
certainly will hear those concerns expressed by the governments
of Central America, we expect that, but we will also explain that
we are trying to resolve some of these concerns in our very
patient dialogue with Congress.
Q
Why is the DEA nowhere to be seen if yesterday
was devoted to this alliance? And after you leave today, after
all is said and done, who is going to be taking care of this and
who is going to be following it?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, yesterday was devoted to a
considerable wealth of dialogue of which a large part was the
Alliance Against Drugs, but the administration's viewpoints were
effectively represented by the President and then by General
McCaffrey, who has responsibility for all the law enforcement
agencies in our government that contribute to his national drug
control strategy. He is the point man in working the interagency
process that brings so many agencies together in our fight
against drugs, not just the DEA but all of those that are
involved, from Justice to ATF to a lot of other agencies that
contribute resources to the fight against drugs. So it was
proper for him at this high level of dialogue to represent the
views. And as the General said yesterday, as a matter of
interagency commitment, all of the agencies of the government are
pledged to fulfill the commitments rendered by President Clinton
yesterday.
Q
Has the President talked about the human rights
situation in Mexico to Zedillo or did members of the Cabinet talk
about the human rights in Mexico?
MR. MCCURRY: Yes, that is a regular feature of our
dialogue. We report on it annually through the report of the
State Department, and the subject does come up regularly in our
bilateral dialogue.
Q
But yesterday did they talk about it?
MR. MCCURRY: They did, and it was to reference the
concerns that we've expressed in the past to attach the
importance that we bring to the subject of human rights and
individual liberties as we advance our dialogue, to do so in the
environment of respect that we have for the views of other
governments.
Was Chiapas mentioned in that conversation?
MR. MCCURRY: I'd have to check and see if Chiapas
as a specific issue arose. I know that we have inquired about
the status of conditions there and the status of any conflict
with rebel elements there in the past, I'd have to maybe go back
and double-check whether it specifically arose yesterday.
Q
Unless I missed it, I don't think the
President's made any public comment about the human rights
situation in Mexico.
MR. MCCURRY: I'd have to go back and look at
everything he said. I thought that he had, but I know that in
looking at the preparation for the presentations he was making
and others in our government were making, that they did devote
time to the subject.
Q
Did Mexico sign off on William Weld as the next
ambassador?
MR. MCCURRY: I do not know for certain. I do not
believe that we have presented a name to the government of Mexico
for agrement at this point.
Q The President yesterday said this was his fifth
trip to Mexico. Do you know when any of the other trips were?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't. I know that, obviously, his
honeymoon was one of them. And I believe as governor of Arkansas
he came here. But I don't have the -- I can't enumerate them
specifically.
Q
His honeymoon was --
MR. MCCURRY: Trick question -- '74? I'd have to
check. Wait, I can answer that easy. It's 22 years ago. Do the
math for me, because I'm dim-witted.
Q
How concerned is the White House about
opposition in conference to the growing opposition to NAFTA? And
are the Mexicans concerned about that, too? Have they brought
that up?
MR. MCCURRY: I think the government of Mexico
understands the complicated political dynamic that exists
pertaining to free trade issues in our Congress. They expressed
some concern about some statements that are made on our side of
the border about the free trade debate. But at the same time,
they recognize the fundamental merit of free trade, the
arrangements that we've reached. They appreciate the President's
resolve to press forward on those arrangements, and they
understand that the progress that the Mexican economy has
demonstrated over the last year is itself a strong argument in
favor of the free trade arrangements that have been achieved.
Q
But how much of a threat is that in Congress?
How strong is it growing, and is the White House --
MR. MCCURRY: Well, there are strong points of view
in our Congress, but that's one of the reasons why we are trying
to work closely with our Congress to resolve concerns, to
establish the right formula to proceed with an expansion of free
trade, because there is no question in the President's mind that
free trade arrangements have benefited the people of the United
States, just as they've benefited the people of Mexico, the
people of Canada. They have created more net economic
opportunity for people on both sides of the border.
This will be the last question. The President is
getting ready to talk. I think we've done all the issues that
I'm aware of. We will try to get you a little bit of color from
the trip, although I think the pool will be in a position to do
some of that. And David and Mary Ellen will be around for the
balance of the day if you need them for anything. And I'm going
to go sightseeing. You looked shocked.
All right, thank you.
END
10:55 A.M. (L)
Message Sent
To:
Mary E. Glynn
Julie E. Mason
April Mellody
Darby E. Stott
Julia R. Green
Laura D. Schwartz
Pauline M. Abernathy
Lori E. Abrams
Lori Anderson
Brenda M. Anders
Eli G. Attie
Kris M Balderston
Beverly J. Barnes
David S. Beaubaire
Marsha E. Berry
Lanny A. Breuer
Laura Capps
Joseph W. Cerrell @ OVP@EOP
Steven A. Cohen
Michelle Crisci
Carolyn Curiel
Suzanne Dale
Lanny J. Davis
Marilyn DiGiacobbe
James A. Dorskind
Jennifer D. Dudley
Christopher A. Dwan
Dorinda A. Salcido
James T. Edmonds
Anne M. Edwards
Rahm Emanuel
Karen E. Finney
Jay K. Footlik
Ben A. Freeland
Jeremy M. Gaines
Michael A. Gill @ OVP@EOP
Adam W. Goldberg
Jason S. Goldberg
Ricardo M. Gonzales
Donald Goldberg
Richard Hayes
Russell W. Horwitz
Thomas D. Janenda
Brian J. Johnson
James M. Teague
David E. Kalbaugh
William R. Kincaid
Angus S. King
Joshua A. King
Nicholas B. Kirkhorn
Catherine T. Kitchen
Jim Kohlenberger @ OVP@EOP
Heidi Kukis @ OVP@EOP
Sara M. Latham
G N. Lattimore
Christopher J. Lavery
Anne H. Lewis
Patricia F. Lewis
Michael D. Malone
Laura S. Marcus
Doris O. Matsui
Andrew J. Mayock
Anne E. McGuire
Cheryl D. Mills
Megan C. Moloney
Kevin Moran
Jonathan Murchinson
Peter Jonathan Carole Peter Brian Charles Sally R. P. O'Keefe A. A. F. Paxton Orszag Reich Prince Ruff
Parmelee
Virginia N. Rustique
Evan Ryan
Stuart Schear
Douglas S. Sheorn
David Shipley
Jake Siewert
Joshua Silverman
Brian D. Smith
Craig T. Smith
Richard Socarides
Douglas B. Sosnik
Todd Stern
Michael J. Sullivan
Sylvia M. Mathews
Lisa Tamagni
Virginia M. Terzano @ ovp@eop
terri tingen
Barry J. Toiv
Jodie R. Torkelson
June G. Turner
Dag Vega
Lorraine A. Voles @ ovp@eop
Michael Waldman
Angelina Walker@ovp@eop
Teresa Wildman
SUNTUM_M@A1@CD@LNGTWY
COGDELL_C@A1@CD@LNGTWY
MCHUGH_L@A1@CD@LNGTWY
backup @ wilson.ai.mit.edu@INET@LNGTWY
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY
BARBUSCHAK_K@A1@CD@LNGTWY
BARTHOLOME_M@A1@CD@LNGTWY
BARTHOLOW_T@A1@CD@LNGTWY
BLINKEN_A@A1@CD@LNGTWY
CAPLAN_P@A1@CD@LNGTWY
CUTLER_L@A1@CD@LNGTWY
GILLESPIE_C@A1@CD@LNGTWY
GRAY_W@A1@CD@LNGTWY
GRIBBEN_J@A1@CD@LNGTWY
HAAS_L@A1@CD@LNGTWY
HERMAN_A@A1@CD@LNGTVY
JOHNSON_DT@A1@CD@LNGTVY
JOHNSON_WC@A1@CD@LNGTWY
JOLIN_M@A1@CD@LNGTWY
LIZIK_C@A1@CD@LNGTWY
MOFFETT_J@A1@CD@LNGTWY
NAPLAN_S@A1@CD@LNGTWY
RILEY_R@A1@CD@LNGTWY
SAMBURG_T@A1@CD@LNGTWY
NAPLAN_S@A1@CD@LNGTWY
SHEPARD_S@A1@CD@LNGTWY
STUMPF_D@A1@CD@LNGTWY
WEINER_R@A1@CD@LNGTVY
WOZNIAK_N@A1@CD@LNGTWY
usia01 @ access.digex.com@INET@LNGTWY
1=US@2=WESTERN UNION@3=@5=ATT.COM@*ELN62955104@MRX@LNGTWY
62955104 @eln.attmail.com@INET@LNGTWY
73030.21 @ compuserve.com@INET@LNGTWY
INFOMGT @ A1@CD@LNGTWY
newsdesk @ usnewswire.com@INET@LNGTWY
usnwire @ access.digex.com@INET@LNGTWVY
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (ALL-IN-1 MAIL)
CREATOR: Jake Siewert (SIEWERT_J) (OPD)
CREATION DATE/TIME:15-MAY-1997 16:05:03.21
SUBJECT: WHITE HOUSE TO PUSH AHEAD FOR FAST-TRACK AUTHORITY IN
TO: Jake Siewert
(SIEWERT_J) Autoforward to: Remote Addressee
(Jake
Siewert@eop@Ingtwy@eopmrx ) (OPD)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Russell W. Horwitz
(Russell W. Horwitz@eop@LNGTWY@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TEXT:
Date: 05/15/97 Time: 10:42
CWhite House to push ahead for fast-track authority in trade talks
WASHINGTON (AP) After a key congressman accused President
Clinton of backpedaling, the White House today reaffirmed its
commitment to push Congress this year for authority to negotiate a
hemisphere-wide free trade agreement.
"We've always said we will try to get it this year, it's just
not clear when we're going to try to get it," White House
spokesman Mike McCurry said today.
A day earlier, McCurry had indicated that Clinton wants the
``fast-track" authority in place before he goes to Chile next
spring for the second Summit of the Americas. That remark prompted
Rep. Bill Archer, R-Texas, chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee, to accuse the administration of backpedaling on its
timetable.
``Many trade opportunities amounting to billions of dollars and
thousands of American jobs will be lost because the administration
has failed to pursue this vital legislation," Archer said.
McCurry said today that his comments on Chile had been
misinterpreted, and that fast-track trade negotiations had to be in
place well before that 1998 summit.
``In order to have that happen the president needs fast-track
authority and we're going to seek and hopefully obtain it this
year," he said.
Clinton has pledged to ask Congress for "`fast-track" authority
to negotiate trade agreements under expedited procedures that
require Congress to accept or reject them without amendments.
Asked on Wednesday why the administration was not pursing the
legislation right now, McCurry said, "Because we are frying a lot
of fish right now and the kettle is only so big."
APNP-05-15-97 1056EDT
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System
[EMAIL] and Tape Restoration Project [Email]
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies a responsive email, already made available
within another collection.
Collection: 2014-0550-F
Bucket: OPD
Creation Date: 1997-05-27
Subject: 1997-5-23 McCurry Briefing
Creator: William R. Kincaid CN=William R.
Kincaid/OU=OPD/O=EOP [OPD]
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Jake Siewert (CN=Jake Siewert/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD
CREATION DATE/TIME: 2-JUN-1997 15:51:35.00
SUBJECT: 1997-6-2 McCurry Briefing
TO: Russell W. Horwitz (CN=Russell W. Horwitz/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD D
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Sarah A. Bianchi (CN=Sarah A. Bianchi/OU=OMB/O=EOP @ EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
make sure gene sees the answers on msa's - pretty much as scripted
Forwarded by Jake Siewert/OPD/EOP on 06/02/97 03:42
PM
SUNTUM_M @ Al
06/02/97 02:28:00 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: 1997-6-2 McCurry Briefing
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 2, 1997
PRESS BRIEFING BY
MIKE MCCURRY
The Briefing Room
1:10 P.M. EDT
MR. MCCURRY: All right. Let's start the daily
briefing. Ladies and gentlemen, can I start with what I meant to say
this morning when I incorrectly led you on the health bill question?
I said this morning incorrectly that the President gets comped for
his health care service out at Bethesda National Naval Medical
Center. That is not correct. He pays what is called the regular DOD
flat rate, which is the same rate that they extend to other
dignitaries and members of Congress.
Q Is that $1.25 a day? (Laughter.)
MR. MCCURRY: It's a good deal. My understanding is
he's probably got, I think, bills for his knee surgery approaching
$7,000. They've been submitted to his health insurer and the
President does have a 20 percent co-pay under his health insurance
policy. He has a health insurance policy similar to those that are
extended to other federal employees.
Q You're talking about doctor's bills now? Because
the hospital doesn't get covered by the flat rate payment, right?
MR. MCCURRY: They think they pay the hospital bills,
and I guess -- I don't know what the portion of the additional bill
represents. DOD can tell you more about their billing rate for
Bethesda. And he is designated for that kind of treatment by the
Secretary of Defense.* (* The Secretary of Navy authorizes care at
Bethesda.)
Q
What is the $7,000 figure refer to? Is that the
doctor's fee -- you're not sure?
MR. MCCURRY: I'm not sure exactly what that --what
component costs that is.
Q
Thanks for clearing it up. (Laughter.)
MR. MCCURRY: It ain't free, in other words. But it's
next to.
Q -- round the clock therapist and the orthopedic
surgeon that went along on trips --
MR. MCCURRY: That's out-patient care which is extended
as part of the service they provide and there is no charge for that,
I am told. And that physical therapy is provided as part of the
service rendered by the White House Medical Unit.
Q So the 20 percent co-pay, does that mean that he
owes $1,400 on something?
MR. MCCURRY: Whatever the bills are that are submitted,
you get up to probably some annual deductible with a co-payment
requirement.
It seems to me the open question here is if he's
getting the DOD flat rate, what's the $7,000 for, and it's probably
for the surgery, but could you clear it up?
MR. MCCURRY: If you really need me to, I will. Or I
can try calling Public Affairs out at Bethesda, which maybe you would
like to try, too.
Q
Mike, there was some talk on the Hill this morning
about a letter from Janet Reno to the President recommending that he
veto the supplemental appropriations bill because of a provision that
would authorize individuals to sue the government -- something along
those lines. Do you know anything about that letter?
MR. MCCURRY: I have not heard anything. Have you heard
anything about that, a Reno letter? There are a lot of objectionable
features to the supplemental, several of which we've talked about
here, that would trigger the strongest possible opposition from the
President. But most of our attention is focused on the automatic CR
provision, which you know about already. I'll look into that; I
hadn't heard that.
Q
The Times Magazine reported over the weekend in a
lengthy article about Kenneth Starr that Kenneth Starr had sent a
letter to the President urging him to urge Susan McDougal to
cooperate. Do you know anything about that? Is this true?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, there was an awful lot of things
said anonymously by various prosecutors in that article, but you may
want to talk to Mr. Kendall; he would be the appropriate person to
respond.
Q
At the meeting tomorrow, do you have more details
yet on this meeting with the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee
on
MR. MCCURRY: We expect that at 11:45 a.m., it will be
chairs and ranking members of the two authorizing committees and the
subcommittees that deal with health related provisions of the
balanced budget agreement. So we've got Archer and Rangel, Thomas
and Stark from the Health subcommittee; Bliley and Dingell from the
Commerce side; and from the Health Environment subcommittee, the
ranking and chair there, too.
Q
At this meeting will the President ask Mr. Thomas
not to include MSAs for the Medicare population in his bill, or tell
him that he would veto it if he does include them?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, we have not extended a specific veto
threat with respect to medical savings accounts. We have raised our
concerns in the past about that and even just recently, Chris
Jennings, the President's health care advisor, met with members of
Congress and staff and detailed once again what our concerns are. We
just think that that is going to lead to inadvertent negative
consequences in the health insurance market. For all the reasons
that we've described in the past, we've got strong objections to it,
and we'll reiterate that. But we are still at the front end of
writing that legislation, and we'll approach the meeting tomorrow in
a positive spirit.
Q
Mike, last year you were amenable to some kind of
demonstration plan. Is that still the same position?
MR. MCCURRY: We were -- when pushed right up against it
last year, suggested if they want to explore that idea before you
mandate a savings account approach for all consumers, it would make
sense to try it and see what the utilities and efficiencies are. And
I guess we would still take that view that we don't want to see any
wholesale changes made in the provision of health insurance along
those lines, but we do want to see if we can't if the Republican
majority in Congress wants to press the idea, we at the very least
would want to see it confined to a set population for a set period of
time so it can be properly evaluated.
Q Is that the main purpose of the meeting tomorrow,
to talk about MSAs?
MR. MCCURRY: They've got Medicare provisions, Medicaid
provisions. They've got all the stuff related to covering uninsured
children, which will be part of the discussion tomorrow. So they've
got a lot of work to do, and this is one of the first of what we
anticipate being several working sessions as we now craft the
legislation that implements the balanced budget agreement.
And as I said, and as we've said in the past, there will
be moments along the way where we go through, back and forth with
Congress and flesh out the details. We know that that won't always
be a smooth process, but we think it will ultimately be an effective
one and codify the contours of the budget resolution which we expect
to be approved this week by Congress.
Q
This health insurance idea for children is not part
of the budget resolution now. Are you expecting a lot of difficulty
with that?
MR. MCCURRY: No, the coverage of the 5 million
uninsured kids is part of the balanced budget agreement. You mean
the specifics of how you do it and how you accomplish that? There
are some different ideas on how you would approach the central
question of extending that coverage, but that's the kind of thing
they will talk about tomorrow.
Q
What is he doing today, what's he preoccupied with?
MR. MCCURRY: He had a day off because he was busy on
Saturday. He's doing some paperwork and checked in with Mr. Bowles
and Mr. Berger, and I think was catching up on some loose ends that
are still left over from last week when he was traveling out of the
country.
Q
When is he going to veto the late-term abortion
procedure bill?
MR. MCCURRY: Has it even arrived here yet? We'll have
to check and see. I'm not even sure that we've received it yet.
We'll have to keep you posted.
Q
What's the status of your attempts to try and meet
our needs on Friday at the Sidwell Friends --
MR. MCCURRY: Ongoing, and we'll report to you when I
have something definitive.
Q
Mike, would the U.S. support the Nigeria-led
operation to put down the coup in Sierra Leone? And there are
reports that some 20 people have been killed there in Freetown today.
Are you concerned about that?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, there is continuing violence there
and we are interested in diminishing the violence and seeing if this
fragile cease-fire that they've been working on can't be fully
implemented. We are concerned for the safety of those who remain in
the capital city. We are monitoring very carefully the situation on
the ground, particularly around the hotel from which 300-plus
American citizens were evacuated over the weekend, along with
hundreds of third-country nationals. We continue to monitor the
efforts related
to remaining citizens who are innocently trapped in and around the
fighting.
Q
What about the operation, what about Nigeria and
neighboring African countries --
MR. MCCURRY: Well, we have been watching and consulting
closely with the so-called ECOMOG group, which is the consortium of
African countries that have offered to be of some assistance. We are
supporting efforts to deal directly with the parties -- both
factions, rebel factions -- to encourage the institution of a
cease-fire.
Q
Has the President expressed his sympathy to the
family of Betth Shabazz?
MR. MCCURRY: One of our staffers in the Political
Affairs division who personally knows the Shabazz family has been in
contact with the family and expressed our concern, yes.
Q
This meeting tomorrow, the Ways and Means Committee
is also scheduled to mark up the tax portion of its balanced budget
obligations next week, and Archer may unveil his mark sometime later
this week. Will that also be on the table. or is this strictly a
Medicare-Medicaid meeting tomorrow?
MR. MCCURRY: I think they are dealing with the health
related aspects of the legislation tomorrow, not the health financing
aspects. We will have other opportunities to be in contact with the
tax writing committees and look forward to doing that. I'm not aware
of anything tomorrow but --
Q
Do you expect another session later this week on --
MR. MCCURRY: I expect that we will have discussions
from time to time and I wouldn't rule out the idea that at some point
the President might be dealing more directly with the tax writing
committees. But, as you know, they've got a number of very difficult
issues that they will have to address. The President, for that
reason, but some of his starting principles on the table in the radio
address on Saturday, as you probably noticed. So we'll continue that
work, but I'm not aware that they're to the point where we're moving
into that kind of meeting format at this point.
Q
Mike, what's the state of play and White House
involvement in the tobacco negotiations?
MR. MCCURRY: No change.
Q
Do you have any meetings scheduled this week?
MR. MCCURRY: I'd have to check. Last time I checked
with him was during the trip because we had some -- a flurry of
rumors that there was going to be some meeting at the end of last
week. As far as I know, Mr. Lindsey remains in telephone contact
with the parties. They are at a point where you've seen a lot of
public discussion in and amongst the attorneys general from the
states involved and some of the other plaintiff representatives. And
we're monitoring actively the discussions that they're having. But
I'm not aware of -- in the meetings that have been scheduled, I
haven't heard of any.
Q
Donna Shalala was quoted today as saying -- quoted
as telling the negotiators not to expect immediate White House
approval of any deal that's reached. Is the administration putting
daylight between itself and these negotiations?
MR. MCCURRY: No, it's only as we have consistently
said. We have very clear public health objectives here. We want to
formulate as quickly as possible a program that leads to the health
outcome the President seeks -- a reduction in the number of children
who start smoking. And we are continuing to pursue our regulatory
mechanisms to that effect, and we will, as we have said in the past,
evaluate any proposed settlement with exactly that criteria. That's
going to require very careful review, and I think Secretary Shalala
is probably reflecting the President's determination to make sure we
achieve the best possible public health outcome, irrespective of how
they deal with other issues that are on the table. But at the
moment, as near as we can tell publicly, judging from the comments of
the parties themselves, we are a long way from having that question
before us in any event.
Q
Mike, yesterday Mr. Bennett said he might be
willing to consider giving $600,000 to $700,000 to charity in the
Paula Jones case. Where would that money come from? Would that come
from the personal funds or insurance?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't have anything to add to what Mr.
Bennett had to say yesterday.
Q
Does the President have the money to come out of
the personal funds?
MR. MCCURRY: Mr. Bennett will be in a position to
address that, addressed most of those questions yesterday.
How frequently are they talking?
MR. MCCURRY: Mr. Bennett addressed that yesterday.
Do you have anything to add to what Mr. Bennett
said? (Laughter.)
MR. MCCURRY: As you correctly gather, I have nothing to
add to what Mr. Bennett said. He was quite available and quite
responsive to those questions yesterday.
Q
How much time does the President spend on all of
these cases?
MR. MCCURRY: A fractional amount.
Like what?
By definition -
MR. MCCURRY: Like a small fraction. (Laughter.)
Charlene Barshefsky will be on the Hill tomorrow -
Fifteen minutes?
-- to testify before the Senate Finance Committee.
Is there any chance that she'll will unveil any administration
position on fast track that many in Congress have been waiting for,
or is she going to delay again?
MR. MCCURRY: It's a very strong possibility she will
discuss that and talk about the broad parameters that the President
would seek in obtaining the fast track authority he would need to
advance our commitment to free trade in this hemisphere and
throughout the world. But I doubt that she would unveil any specific
legislation at this point.
Our view, as we've told you before, is that the best
time for that debate will be likely early this fall. I think that's
the point at which we would be best positioned to make a very strong
push for fast track authority.
Q
At what point does Gephardt's opposition to the
President's policies make it impossible for the President to continue
working with him?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, probably never, because given the
large volume of things that they agree upon and given the fondness
the President expressed for the Minority Leader last week and the
fondness the Minority Leader expressed for the President last week,
they're going to be working together in most instances and
disagreeing on a few cases. So I don't think that day will ever
arrive. At least not until 2000.
Are they going to bury the hatchet?
As the House begins work on the tax bill, does the
President have any warnings to them about what he might or might not
MR. MCCURRY: Just be very mindful of the agreements
that were reached and the specific promise that was extended by the
Speaker and by the Majority Leader as to the out-year size of any
proposed tax cuts. We are not at this point going to take any steps
that compound deficit problems in the future in how you structure tax
cuts and what the out-year effect of those tax cuts are something
that we will watch very carefully.
Q
Is that the criteria, rather than some kind of
distributional analysis?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, as to distribution of effects, the
single most important thing is to ensure that the $35 billion that's
earmarked for post-secondary education go for the type of education
tax relief that the President has talked about, which will
disproportionately help middle-income taxpayers. In fact, even now
with the change that we made in our HOPE Scholarship proposal over
the weekend will help lower income people.
Q
Mike, how go the efforts of the White House to get
Congress to pay up arrears to United Nations?
MR. MCCURRY: Ambassador Richardson has been making, I
think, a series of rounds on the Hill to press that case. We think
the work that we have done in New York to encourage administrative
reform at the United Nations has put us in a better position to make
the argument for paying up our bills. We think, as a matter of our
obligation in the world that we lead, we need to make good on our
promise to pay what we owe the United Nations.
But we also, simultaneously, have wanted to see changes
made there and the reform program that's underway now at the United
Nations looks promising, it has been briefed to relevant committee
chairs on the Hill and we think that adds to the argument. As more
and more people understand the role the United Nations productively
plays in many places around the world, the issues that it deals with,
the progress that we're seeing in making it a more effective tool for
the post-Cold War world, we think the support will be there both in
Congress and amongst the American people.
Well, why won't they pay their bills?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, partly because Congress has not
appropriated the funds in past budget years to pay.
But I mean, why? Why?
MR. MCCURRY: Because they had certain concerns, and
some well-founded concerns about the way the United Nations was being
run. And, if you recall, we took some fairly aggressive personnel
action with respect to that. So we hope that has changed the
climate. And the process of reform in the United Nations has moved
forward and we think that that makes the environment for passing that
payment of arrears more fortuitous.
Q
Mike, last year well, Boutros-Ghali, who's no
longer there -- but the representative to the U.N. and WTO and the
IMF and World Bank were at the Lyon Summit. Does the President have
any intention of bringing those people to the Denver Summit? Is
there any reason to bring them?
MR. MCCURRY: I'm sorry, which group?
Q
At the G-7 Summit last summer, the U.N. General
Secretary was there, the head of the WTO; there was some discussions
among the head of the IMF and the World Bank. Are these people going
to be attending again this year for any part of the summit?
MR. MCCURRY: There was in Lyon a very specific
discussion about global institutions that exist and the architecture
of those global institutions. That's followed up on a conversation
that began in Halifax the year before. I think that -- we've gone
from that general discussion about the architecture of the post Cold
War era down to more specific issues. And some of those same groups
may be there or be present for a discussion that I anticipate about
Africa and about sustaining economic development in Africa. So I
think they've moved now more from a general to a very specific.
Q
Mike, you kind of hinted on the fact that you're
concerned an automatic CR in the supplemental provision, supplemental
appropriations. Do you see any strategy for getting past that?
MR. MCCURRY: About getting past some of the
disagreements we have? Well, my guess is that in the week that
Congress has been gone they have heard a lot from constituents that
ask, what is the deal with this emergency aid for those suffering
from disasters and why did you guys leave town? We tried to turn up
the heat a little bit on that question, as you know. And our hope is
that Congress will come back to town looking for a way to move that
very important disaster relief forward and looking to resolve some of
these other issues in other ways so we don't hold up that assistance
any longer.
How do you plan to do it?
MR. MCCURRY: Through the same kind of close
consultation and occasional jawboning that we do to affect the
outcome of legislative fights on the Hill.
Q
Mike, does the White House have any reaction to the
class action suit filed by flight attendants today in Miami against
tobacco companies for second-hand smoke on airplanes?
MR. MCCURRY: Not any immediate reaction from the White
House. I'm not -- I'll have to check and see if anywhere else in
government there's been a comment, but not that I'm aware of.
Q
Mike, what's the White House saying in reference to
the price of a stamp possibly going up, especially since the economy
is supposedly, "so great" right now?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't know that we have evaluated that
and I don't know at what point the proposed postal rate increase is
-- whether it's come from the Commission, or not.
Q
In the radio address, the President said he wants
to reach as many working families possible with the $500 child tax
credit. Does that mean he's open to raising eligibility age from 13
to possibly as high as 18, as in the Republican --
MR. MCCURRY: Well, we have strong views about the age
13 as the eligibility date, as you know. But we will work with the
tax writing committees. They've got -- I think, as Chairman Archer
or someone said the other day -- a lot of wine to pour into the
bottle that has been built. And right now, it looks like they may
have some overflow that they have to deal with.
But we've got some pretty clear ideas on how expansive
the credit should be and how it should be available. And we'll fight
for our views in discussions with the tax writing committees. But
they clearly want to get done a lot of tax relief, but they have the
defined amount of tax relief that's available under the agreement.
Q
What does the President think of Secretary Reich's
memory? (Laughter.)
MR. MCCURRY: Secretary of who?
The former Labor Secretary.
The small guy.
MR. MCCURRY:
What was his name again?
(Laughter.)
Q
I don't know.
MR. MCCURRY: What does he think of his memory or his
book or his --
His memory.
Both.
MR. MCCURRY: What did he forget? I'm missing something
here.
Q
There's been some questions about whether
everything he recounted was accurate.
Q
Or any of it. (Laughter.)
MR. MCCURRY: I wasn't aware of that. It sounded
entertaining.
Q
He was supposed to have made a lot of misstatements
and attributed things to people who claimed it never happened.
MR. MCCURRY: Oh, boy. (Laughter.) Some of that stuff
was so good. How about the thing about getting caught in the little
dog door. That had to have happened. (Laughter.)
Q
Did you read it?
MR. MCCURRY: No, I've read -- I've heard about it. I
don't get to read books unless they are with big type and lots of
nice pictures and your kids are sitting on your lap. (Laughter.)
Q
Did the President read it?
MR. MCCURRY: Not to suggest that this was that kind of
book, but --
Q
Has the President read the book?
MR. MCCURRY: The last time I had asked him, he had not.
But my guess is he probably has by now.
Q
He probably has?
MR. MCCURRY: Yes.
But, yet, you don't -
MR. MCCURRY: I haven't had any reaction. I've never
talked to him about it.
Q Is the President going to have a news conference
anytime soon?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, we were trying to work on having one
some time next week, like a date that we can't announce, but sort of
June 10th. (Laughter.) We were talking about it. If we announce
that, I'll let you know.
That's Tuesday.
MR. MCCURRY: It's Tuesday.
Q
Is there going to be some kind of roll-out to this
race initiative or he just going to go to San Diego and give a
speech?
MR. MCCURRY: There will be some kind of roll-out. I
don't know what kind, but it will either be big wheel barrel or a
little wheelbarrow, one or the other.
Q
You mean before he does the speech he'll do
something else here?
MR. MCCURRY: We may talk about it or try to set it up
as we customarily do when we're trying to take the good, positive,
interesting ideas of the day and propel them forward into the
Zeitgeist. We'll try to figure out some way to do that for you,
Wolf.
Is Sidney Blumenthal going to be in charge of it?
MR. MCCURRY: I hope so. Who knows.
Q
When does he come on board?
MR. MCCURRY: I read in The Washington Post it was six
to eight weeks.
Q
What's he going to do when he gets here?
MR. MCCURRY: Be profound.
Q
You mean you're not profound enough?
MR. MCCURRY: Me? Absolutely not.
Will he announce the next ambassador to Japan?
MR. MCCURRY: Will he announce the next ambassador to
Japan? No. And we're not anywhere closer to announcing that Tom
Foley is an excellent guy that's going to get that job. (Laughter.)
Q
Mike, any contacts with Jospin or his people and
the White House?
MR. MCCURRY: Between --
Q
France, the French election.
MR. MCCURRY: No, we have not, to my knowledge, unless
-- I'm not even confident, Eric -- has he formally been asked now to
form a government? As of earlier today, that meeting had not
occurred with the President. But, as I said earlier, if he is asked
by President Chirac to form a government, we would work closely with
that government. We've got enduring interests that we explore
through our close and warm bilateral relationship with France. And
at a time when the future of Europe is very much on the minds of
those of us in the United States thinking about the future of that
continent, including the President, we would seek a very active,
productive, warm relationship with all elements of the French
government. And knowing something or two about cohabitating, we
think governments can be successful when they operate in that
fashion.
Q
Do you expect any changes on the policy in Bosnia
and the Middle East from France?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, we'll have to await any formal
declarations on the part of Prime Minister Jospin, but not that we
anticipate. We see some enduring elements to the ideas that have
been advanced by President Chirac and by the government, and we
suspect that there will be continuity more than change in the
presentation of their foreign policy.
Q
Do you have any indication from the Socialist Party
that that's --
MR. MCCURRY: There has been some from the dialogue that
occurred during the election period and then -- nothing formal yet,
although through our embassy in Paris, we have ongoing contacts with
representatives of the various parties, so we have some sense of
their preliminary thinking.
Q
Do you have any news at all today? (Laughter.)
MR. MCCURRY: It's a quiet day. Yes, I've got one
valuable piece of news, which is the President is announcing today
his intent to nominate Janice Lachance to serve as Deputy Director of
the Office of Personnel Management. We've got a piece of paper
available. And with the distribution of that piece of paper, the
news that you are looking for is that that's our full lid for the
day.
Q
Mike, Treasury has put out an environmental and
economic impact at the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue, and it shows
that the closing cost the city half a million dollars a year in lost
parking revenue and shifting bus routes. Is there any thought being
given to reimbursing the government, D.C. government, in any way for
that?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, we have, among other things, a quite
substantial economic assistance package that's available to the
District we're working to do that that would defray the costs
of many things. There are some aspects of this assessment that I'd
rather leave for the Treasury to review, but we will work with the
elected representatives of the District and those who are concerned
about the District to make sure that we find acceptable solutions to
questions that they care about.
But I remind you that in terms of off-setting aid, we've
got an assistance package that's quite generous and has got a number
of benefits available well beyond just the question of offsetting
costs for traffic closures.
Q
As far as the White House views it, does this more
or less continues the green light to keeping this closed and changing
it to a --
MR. MCCURRY: My understanding is Treasury can tell
you more, but I think this is an initial assessment that's provided
and I think they've got a ways to go before they finalize anything
with respect to the various options that were studied within the
assessment itself.
Q
There's an ongoing attempt to get some --
MR. MCCURRY: which goes into a comment period now,
right. So there will be an additional period for comment.
Q
In an ongoing attempt to get some news, is there
any reaction to the Commerce Department report today about personal
spending and retail spending only being up one-tenth of a percent in
April, which is widely being analyzed as the economy is starting to
slow up?
MR. MCCURRY: When the Chair of the President's Council
of Economic Advisors was here Friday, in an event that was
considerably more newsworthy than many of you here felt -- maybe we
should have saved and done that today but a lot of what she
projected as indicators for the second quarter were that we had seen
some moderation of growth and that that probably was a useful thing
because we are seeing certain growth patterns even out and continuing
out on a path of steady, disciplined growth in the economy,
continuing job creation without seeing any spike in inflation. So
that's largely good news. The fact that the economy would slow a
little bit is not seen as a negative thing here, given the very
strong performance that we talked about in the first quarter.
Q
If the McVeigh jury should come back, do you think
the President will want to comment?
MR. MCCURRY: I doubt it. We'll see where they are.
Regardless of what the jury is, there will be additional steps in the
litigation that I think the President would want to be careful about
not impinging upon.
Q Mike, the speaker of the Cuban National Assembly,
Mr. Ricardo Alarcon has been criticizing President Clinton's policy
to Cuba, claiming that it's being led totally by Congress, he's
playing more or less a passive role.
MR. MCCURRY: Well, his views in prior statements are
well-known and he's arguing that case from the ideological premise
that you would expect from someone who supports a totalitarian
dictator.
Q
Thank you.
END
1:39 P.M. EDT
Message Sent
To:
Mary E. Glynn
Julie E. Mason
April Mellody
Darby E. Stott
Julia R. Green
Lorraine L. Wytkind
Laura D. Schwartz
Lori E. Abrams
Lori Anderson
Brenda M. Anders
Eli G. Attie
Kris M Balderston
Beverly J. Barnes
David S. Beaubaire
Marsha E. Berry
Lanny A. Breuer
Laura Capps
Joseph W. Cerrell @ OVP@EOP
Steven A. Cohen
Michelle Crisci
Carolyn Curiel
Suzanne Dale
Lanny J. Davis
Marilyn DiGiacobbe
James A. Dorskind
Jennifer D. Dudley
Christopher A. Dwan
Dorinda A. Salcido
James T. Edmonds
Anne M. Edwards
Rahm Emanuel
Karen E. Finney
Jay K. Footlik
Ben A. Freeland
Jeremy M. Gaines
Michael A. Gill @ OVP@EOP
Adam W. Goldberg
Jason S. Goldberg
Ricardo M. Gonzales
Donald Goldberg
Richard Hayes
Russell W. Horwitz
Thomas D. Janenda
Brian J. Johnson
david t. johnson
Michele Jolin
James M. Teague
David E. Kalbaugh
William R. Kincaid
Angus S. King
Joshua A. King
Nicholas B. Kirkhorn
Catherine T. Kitchen
Jim Kohlenberger @ OVP@EOP
Heidi Kukis @ OVP@EOP
Sara M. Latham
G N. Lattimore
Christopher J. Lavery
Anne H. Lewis
Patricia F. Lewis
Michael D. Malone
Laura S. Marcus
Doris O. Matsui
Andrew J. Mayock
Anne E. McGuire
Cheryl D. Mills
Megan C. Moloney
Kevin Moran
Jonathan Murchinson
Elizabeth R. Newman
Peter R. Orszag
Carole A. Parmelee
Sally P. Paxton
Jonathan Prince
Peter O'Keefe
Brian A. Reich
Charles F. Ruff
Virginia N. Rustique
Evan Ryan
Stuart Schear
Douglas S. Sheorn
David Shipley
Robert M. Shireman
Jake Siewert
Joshua Silverman
Brian D. Smith
Craig T. Smith
Richard Socarides
Douglas B. Sosnik
Todd Stern
Michael J. Sullivan
Jonathan H. Schnur/OVP@OVP
Sylvia M. Mathews
Lisa Tamagni
Virginia M. Terzano @ ovp@eop
terri tingen
Barry J. Toiv
Jodie R. Torkelson
Serena C. Torrey
June G. Turner
Dag Vega
Lorraine A. Voles @ ovp@eop
Michael Waldman
Angelina Walker @ ovp@eop
Teresa Wildman
SUNTUM_M@A1@CD@LNGTWY
COGDELL_C@A1@CD@LNGTWY
backup @wilson.ai.mit.edu@INET@LNGTWY
wh-outbox-distr @ clinton.ai.mit.edu@INET@LNGTWY
BARBUSCHAK_K@A1@CD@LNGTWY
BARTHOLOME_M@A1@CD@LNGTWY
BARTHOLOW_T@A1@CD@LNGTWY
BLINKEN_A@A1@CD@LNGTWY
CAPLAN_P@ A1@CD@LNGTWY
CUTLER_L@A1@CD@LNGTWY
FULLER_W@A1@CD@LNGTVY
GILLESPIE_C@A1@CD@LNGTWY
GRAY_W@A1@CD@LNGTWY
GRIBBEN_J@A1@CD@LNGTWY
HAAS_L@A1@CD@LNGTWY
JOHNSON_WC@A1@CD@LNGTWY
LIZIK_C@A1@CD@LNGTWY
MOFFETT_J@A1@CD@LNGTWY
NAPLAN_S@A1@CD@LNGTWY
RILEY_R@A1@CD@LNGTWY
NAPLAN_S@A1@CD@LNGTWY
SMITH_BD@A1@CD@LNGTWY
STUMPF_D@A1@CD@LNGTVY
WEINER_R@A1@CD@LNGTWY
WOZNIAK_N@A1@CD@LNGTWY
usia01 @ access.digex.com@INET@LNGTWY
1=US@2=WESTERN UNION@3=@5=ATT.COM@*ELN\62955104@MRX@LNGTWY
62955104 @ eln.attmail.com@INET@LNGTVY
73030.21 @ compuserve.com@INET@LNGTWY
INFOMGT @ A1@CD@LNGTWY
newsdesk @ usnewswire.com@INET@LNGTWY
usnwire @ access.digex.com@INET@LNGTWY
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Daniel D. Heath (CN=Daniel D. Heath/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB
CREATION DATE/TIME:20-JUN-1997 17:59:58.00
SUBJECT: EEP Allocations and Reactivation: Decisions Process Underway
TO: Daniel K. Tarullo (CN=Daniel K. Tarullo/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Malcolm R. Lee (CN=Malcolm R. Lee/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Issue
As mentioned several weeks ago, USDA requests NEC and interagency
approval of its 1) proposed allocations of export subsidies, and 2)
intentions to use them, for the marketing year beginning July 1. A 6/24
TPSC meeting will consider the issue, and you had hoped to discuss it with
Peter Scher.
Background
The Export Enhancement Program (EEP) has been inoperative for nearly two
years because of high commodity prices and tight world supplies.
However, it has been Administration practice to announce "dry powder"
allocations by commodity and market, to ensure that EEP is ready for use
should it be needed. This is part of the Administration's "greenbox"
commitment. The dairy version of EEP, the Dairy Export Incentive Program
(DEIP), has been active as the need grows to support milk prices
(currently among the lowest in years) and combat EU subsidies. The FY
1997 funding level for EEP recently was reduced in the recent Emergency
Supplemental to $10 million. The FY 1998 level authorized at $500 million
is widely expected to be reduced by Appropriators.
1997/98 Allocation
USDA's proposals for EEP and DEIP are similar to last year's, only with
slightly lower commodity and regional ceilings as mandated by the Uruguay
Round. For nonfat dry milk DEIPs, individual country ceilings are
maintained within the Asian market because of Australian and New Zealand
sensitivities, i.e,. no more than 5,000 tons can be subsidized to any
individual country within the Asian regional destination, except for
Taiwan and Thailand that are limited to 10,000 tons each. USDA has also
agreed to renew last year ,S commitment to revisit the question of
whether individual country ceilings should be imposed for certain
commodities, especially for wheat, should the EEP program become active
in the future. This addresses the concern of certain agencies about the
regional allocations being so large in the case of wheat that one country
within a region could take the lion ,S share and we might inadvertently
displace a non-subsidizer in that market. (Note: Also, the NEC Deputies
decided to revisit the issue of auctioning export subsidies if the wheat
EEP, or any other significant commodity EEP, is reactivated.)
For this year ,S programs, USDA has added Paraguay as an eligible
destination within Latin America for subsidized sales of nonfat dry milk
powder and whole milk powder, Sri Lanka as a destination for wheat flour
and Belize as an eligible destination for barley malt. USDA also
proposes to combine last year ,S individual regional allocations for
wheat flour into a single allocation for Africa, Asia, Middle East,
Europe and FSU. None of these changes are of any significance.
Re-activation of Flour and Malt Subsidies
USDA also requests stand-by authority to activate EEP for wheat flour and
barley malt. USDA claims there are recent indications that the U.S. has
essentially withdrawn from export markets in those commodities in the
face of EU subsidies. U.S. commercial wheat flour exports in the
1996/97 marketing year are expected to total only about 200,000 tons, the
lowest since 1981/82. By comparison, EU commercial flour exports are
estimated to total 4.2 million tons, the highest yearly total in at least
the last 15 years. The EU enjoys a near monopoly position in the world
commercial flour market with 71 percent of the market. Over 50 percent
of world barley malt trade is subsidized by the EU.
Therefore, to maintain a presence in the world market and to win support
among farm state legislators for the President's request for fast track
authority, USDA is proposing to activate the wheat flour and barley malt
programs when the EU resumes export subsidizing--probably in July on wheat
flour and in September on malt-with small quantities (475,000 tons of
flour and 150,000 tons of malt). Such small sales should not have much
impact on domestic prices or aggravate the Canadian imports fracas. Per
unit subs idies might have to exceed EU levels, because of transport costs
to desirable markets, but overall the budget cost through the marketing
year should be about $12 million (manageable with the $10 million in FY
97 and $500 million in FY 98, even if the latter is reduced eventually).
USDA proposes to allocate 90,000 of the 150,000 tons of malt to the
Caribbean, 40,000 tons to Asia; 5,000 tons to the FSU, and 15,000 tons to
Africa. Recent USDA data shows displacement of U.S. malt exports in
Latin America by EU subsidized competition. Australia is the main
non-subsidizing exporter, primarily to Asian markets. While we have
sought assurances from the Philippines, Korea and Malaysia that they
would continue to buy traditional quantities of barley malt from
non-subsidizers, i.e., Australia, USDA feels the Asian market has
expansion potential and the EU has a significant market share, therefore,
Asia should be a prime candidate for our export subsidies on malt.
Analysis of Re-activation Proposal
The EEPs seem designed to help small US industries (flour and malt
processors are small export players at their best) and to maintain some
life in the Program itself. The EEPs would help utilize some of our
excess flour production capacity; there is little excess capacity in malt,
and Canadian imports are high already. Industry sources claim that over
1,200 jobs have been lost since the slow down in flour exports in July
1995. US flour millers and maltsters have a genuine complaint about EU
subsidies. But some of the EU practices are production subsidies, not
direct export subsidies, and not illegal or unfair trade practices in the
traditional sense. Will the EEPs be part of a strategy to elevate this
issue in the next Round or to raise it with the Europeans in bilateral
talks? The proposed EEPs will not boost farm income, or cause the EU
sufficient loss to "drive Europe to the negotiating table". They are
industrial policy tools flying under the agriculture banner. That is a
new use of EEP, in that it is not directly related to farming. On the
other hand, the GATT-permitted allocation is there for flour and malt,
and the Administration has promised to redress harm in trade relations and
to use EEP for market development.
Therefore, the remaining question is crucial: will approval of these
EEPs encourage other commodities to seek reactivation of EEP? USDA has
not articulated an effective "firewall" separating these EEPs for
others. The US remains in a tight stocks situation for wheat, but with
more optimistic crop projections, wheat region legislators and lobbyists
have renewed calls for reactivated EEP for wheat. With potential
pressure resulting from any reactivated EEP, the Administration needs to
clearly define the conditions and objectives for using EEP for flour and
malt. The "weaning" of US agriculture, as well as the EU, for export
subsidies over the past two years ought not to be undone casually.
Recommendations
Agency positions are not yet known. However, it seems likely that the
EEP/DEIP allocation levels for the marketing year will be regarded as
reasonable. I suggest going along with consensus and approving the
allocations, with the right for final review of markets in the event of a
request to use the subsidies.
Similarly, the case for reactivation of flour and malt deserves sympathy,
and since the flour exporters are feeling the distress, flour alone might
be approved for EEP. However, since it represents a change for subsidy
policy (use EEP as industrial policy), alternatives ought to be explored
in order to craft a policy (Is bailing out an industry segment sufficient
policy principle? What threshold must the next commodity requests meet?).
Assurances should be required for non-subsidizers, in keeping with the
President's 1996 statements to Australian Prime Minister Howard.
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (ALL-IN-1 MAIL)
CREATOR: Jake Siewert (SIEWERT_J) (OPD)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-JUL-1997 15:03:27.35
SUBJECT: FREE TRADE ACCORD BETWEEN CANADA, CHILE TAKES EFFECT
TO: Robert D. Kyle
(KYLE_R) Autoforward to: Remote Addressee
( Robert D.
Kyle@eop@Ingtwy@eopmrx] (OPD)
READ:NOT READ
TO: David C. Leavy
(LEAVY_D) (NSC)
READ:14-JUL-1997 08:13:52.31
TEXT:
Date: 07/07/97 Time: 14:22
Free Trade Accord Between Canada, Chile Takes Effect
By Charles Conner, The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, Tenn.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jul. 7--A free trade accord between Chile and Canada took effect Friday,
July 4, and officials in both countries expect it to help foster economic
growth and provide mutual gains over the next 10 years.
The agreement immediately eliminates tariffs on about 80 percent of the
products traded between the two countries and all tariffs will disappear by
the year 2004.
American companies are interested in the valuable Chilean marketplace
but so far the U.S. is without a similar free trade agreement despite
attempts by Clinton administration agriculture and trade officials to talk up
and push for "fast track" authority to negotiate trade agreements with other
countries in the Western Hemisphere, including Chile.
Because government figures show 95 percent of all consumers live outside
the United States, they argue, the U.S. must export to sustain economic
growth and must expand access to world markets is essential.
"We (U.S.) have a mature, domestic agricultural market," James S.
Gilliland, former Memphis attorney and now second-term U.S. Agriculture
Department general counsel, said in an interview.
"There is no sound reason for us not to negotiate a tready with Chile,"
Gilliland said.
The Agriculture Department credits the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) -- trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico -- with
boosting exports of U.S. agricultural products to a record level. Export
sales of agricultural products exceeded $60 billion last year dedicating
about one-third of the nation's cropland to consumers abroad.
The important figure for agricultural trade is the "net" and the U.S.
maintained a $27 billion favorable balance last year, Gilliland said.
Since the 15-year NAFTA process began Jan. 1, 1994, growing exports to
Canada and Mexico have benefited Mid-South agribusinesses. And despite the
collapse of the Mexican peso and subsequent 1995 recession trade with that
country has increased.
Though Mexico has had it ups and downs the economy has rebounded and the
3-year growth trend shows a 14-percent increase for U.S. agricultural exports
including crops and livestock, Gilliland said.
Figures compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau's foreign trade division
indicate that Mexico is a better agricultural trade partner for Arkansas,
Mississippi and Tennessee, while Canada is the larger market for all
Mid-South industries.
The administration's ability to negotiate trade treaties which can then
be voted up or down by the U.S. Senate is even more essential today because
of the rapidly expanding global economy. At stake for area farmers are
markets for cattle, cotton, corn, rice, soybeans, and wheat, among others,
Gilliland said.
Government economists project the increases in agricultural exports as a
result of NAFTA are 10 to 30 percent greater last year than would have
occured without the agreement. Still some products have not experienced
significant trade liberalization under NAFTA because of high tariffs that
remain.
All things considered, Gilliland said NAFTA has been good for U.S.
agriculture.
"All of those arguments once made against it (NAFTA), were bunk," he
said.
ON THE INTERNET:
Visit The Commercial Appeal on the World Wide Web at
http://www.gomemphis.com
-----
(c) 1997, The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, Tenn. Distributed by
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News.
KBviaNewsEDGE
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Daniel D. Heath (CN=Daniel D. Heath/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:21-JUL-1997 11:31:13.00
SUBJECT: EEP Decision Meeting This Afternoon - 7/21
TO: Daniel K. Tarullo (CN=Daniel K. Tarullo/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: MITSLER E (MITSLER_E @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY [ UNKNOWN (NSC)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Kristen E. Panerali (CN=Kristen E. Panerali/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
I just learned that the TPRG will meet today at 4PM to decide whether to
reactivate agriculture export subsidies after a two-year hiatus. This
should be a significant meeting, since much of USDA's argument for
reactivation rests on an interpretation of the Administration's 1994
"greenbox" commitment (bashing EU to the max on agriculture). Bob Kyle
probably will attend. You had wanted to talk with Peter Scher about this.
There is no paper yet. My June note to you is attached. I shall send a
page update on recent developments (great budget cuts to EEP), but a
central issue remains, "what is the broader policy purpose and strategy to
reactivation, beyond doing something for a tiny industry segment that does
not affect US farm incomes."
Forwarded by Daniel D. Heath/OMB/EOP on 07/21/97
11:21 AM
Daniel D. Heath
06/20/97 05:59:52 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Daniel K. Tarullo/OPD/EOP
cc: Malcolm R. Lee/OPD/EOP
Subject: EEP Allocations and Reactivation: Decisions Process Underway
Issue
As mentioned several weeks ago, USDA requests NEC and interagency
approval of its 1) proposed allocations of export subsidies, and 2)
intentions to use them, for the marketing year beginning July 1. A 6/24
TPSC meeting will consider the issue, and you had hoped to discuss it with
Peter Scher.
Background
The Export Enhancement Program (EEP) has been inoperative for nearly two
years because of high commodity prices and tight world supplies.
However, it has been Administration practice to announce "dry powder"
allocations by commodity and market, to ensure that EEP is ready for use
should it be needed. This is part of the Administration's "greenbox"
commitment. The dairy version of EEP, the Dairy Export Incentive Program
(DEIP), has been active as the need grows to support milk prices
(currently among the lowest in years) and combat EU subsidies. The FY
1997 funding level for EEP recently was reduced in the recent Emergency
Supplemental to $10 million. The FY 1998 level authorized at $500 million
is widely expected to be reduced by Appropriators.
1997/98 Allocation
USDA's proposals for EEP and DEIP are similar to last year's, only with
slightly lower commodity and regional ceilings as mandated by the Uruguay
Round. For nonfat dry milk DEIPs, individual country ceilings are
maintained within the Asian market because of Australian and New Zealand
sensitivities, i.e,. no more than 5,000 tons can be subsidized to any
individual country within the Asian regional destination, except for
Taiwan and Thailand that are limited to 10,000 tons each. USDA has also
agreed to renew last year ,S commitment to revisit the question of
whether individual country ceilings should be imposed for certain
commodities, especially for wheat, should the EEP program become active
in the future. This addresses the concern of certain agencies about the
regional allocations being so large in the case of wheat that one country
within a region could take the lion ,S share and we might inadvertently
displace a non-subsidizer in that market. (Note: Also, the NEC Deputies
decided to revisit the issue of auctioning export subsidies if the wheat
EEP, or any other significant commodity EEP, is reactivated.)
For this year ,S programs, USDA has added Paraguay as an eligible
destination within Latin America for subsidized sales of nonfat dry milk
powder and whole milk powder, Sri Lanka as a destination for wheat flour
and Belize as an eligible destination for barley malt. USDA also
proposes to combine last year ,S individual regional allocations for
wheat flour into a single allocation for Africa, Asia, Middle East,
Europe and FSU. None of these changes are of any significance.
Re-activation of Flour and Malt Subsidies
USDA also requests stand-by authority to activate EEP for wheat flour and
barley malt. USDA claims there are recent indications that the U.S. has
essentially withdrawn from export markets in those commodities in the
face of EU subsidies. U.S. commercial wheat flour exports in the
1996/97 marketing year are expected to total only about 200,000 tons, the
lowest since 1981/82. By comparison, EU commercial flour exports are
estimated to total 4.2 million tons, the highest yearly total in at least
the last 15 years. The EU enjoys a near monopoly position in the world
commercial flour market with 71 percent of the market. Over 50 percent
of world barley malt trade is subsidized by the EU.
Therefore, to maintain a presence in the world market and to win support
among farm state legislators for the President's request for fast track
authority, USDA is proposing to activate the wheat flour and barley malt
programs when the EU resumes export subsidizing--probably in July on wheat
flour and in September on malt--with small quantities (475,000 tons of
flour and 150,000 tons of malt). Such small sales should not have much
impact on domestic prices or aggravate the Canadian imports fracas. Per
unit subs idies might have to exceed EU levels, because of transport costs
to desirable markets, but overall the budget cost through the marketing
year should be about $12 million (manageable with the $10 million in FY
97 and $500 million in FY 98, even if the latter is reduced eventually).
USDA proposes to allocate 90,000 of the 150,000 tons of malt to the
Caribbean, 40,000 tons to Asia; 5,000 tons to the FSU, and 15,000 tons to
Africa. Recent USDA data shows displacement of U.S. malt exports in
Latin America by EU subsidized competition. Australia is the main
non-subsidizing exporter, primarily to Asian markets. While we have
sought assurances from the Philippines, Korea and Malaysia that they
would continue to buy traditional quantities of barley malt from
non-subsidizers, i.e., Australia, USDA feels the Asian market has
expansion potential and the EU has a significant market share, therefore,
Asia should be a prime candidate for our export subsidies on malt.
Analysis of Re-activation Proposal
The EEPs seem designed to help small US industries (flour and malt
processors are small export players at their best) and to maintain some
life in the Program itself. The EEPs would help utilize some of our
excess flour production capacity; there is little excess capacity in malt,
and Canadian imports are high already. Industry sources claim that over
1,200 jobs have been lost since the slow down in flour exports in July
1995. US flour millers and maltsters have a genuine complaint about EU
subsidies. But some of the EU practices are production subsidies, not
direct export subsidies, and not illegal or unfair trade practices in the
traditional sense. Will the EEPs be part of a strategy to elevate this
issue in the next Round or to raise it with the Europeans in bilateral
talks? The proposed EEPs will not boost farm income, or cause the EU
sufficient loss to "drive Europe to the negotiating table". They are
industrial policy tools flying under the agriculture banner. That is a
new use of EEP, in that it is not directly related to farming. On the
other hand, the GATT-permitted allocation is there for flour and malt,
and the Administration has promised to redress harm in trade relations and
to use EEP for market development.
Therefore, the remaining question is crucial: will approval of these
EEPs encourage other commodities to seek reactivation of EEP? USDA has
not articulated an effective "firewall" separating these EEPs for
others. The US remains in a tight stocks situation for wheat, but with
more optimistic crop projections, wheat region legislators and lobbyists
have renewed calls for reactivated EEP for wheat. With potential
pressure resulting from any reactivated EEP, the Administration needs to
clearly define the conditions and objectives for using EEP for flour and
malt. The "weaning" of US agriculture, as well as the EU, for export
subsidies over the past two years ought not to be undone casually.
Recommendations
Agency positions are not yet known. However, it seems likely that the
EEP/DEIP allocation levels for the marketing year will be regarded as
reasonable. I suggest going along with consensus and approving the
allocations, with the right for final review of markets in the event of a
request to use the subsidies.
Similarly, the case for reactivation of flour and malt deserves sympathy,
and since the flour exporters are feeling the distress, flour alone might
be approved for EEP. However, since it represents a change for subsidy
policy (use EEP as industrial policy), alternatives ought to be explored
in order to craft a policy (Is bailing out an industry segment sufficient
policy principle? What threshold must the next commodity requests meet?).
Assurances should be required for non-subsidizers, in keeping with the
President's 1996 statements to Australian Prime Minister Howard.
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Russell W. Horwitz (CN=Russell W. Horwitz/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-AUG-1997 14:39:50.00
SUBJECT: What do you think?
TO: Jake Siewert (CN=Jake Siewert/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
FAST TRACK ARTICLE FOR COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL JOURNAL
By Erskine B. Bowles
White House Chief of Staff
In the last four and a half years, we have forged new bonds of peace and
prosperity here in this hemisphere, and around the globe. We have
negotiated over 200 trade agreements - including NAFTA and the Uruguay
Round of the GATT- that have opened new markets and created 1.6 million
new jobs for America ,S workers. But, to maintain America ,S ability to
compete in the rapidly emerging markets of the global economy, Congress
must give the President the &fast track 8 authority that every President
has had for more than two decades to negotiate new trade agreements.
Fast Track Is an Indispensable Tool. More than any other time in our
history, America ,S economic strength and standard of living are linked to
breaking down trade barriers, exporting our goods and services and
creating more high-skilled jobs. Fast track is an indispensable tool to
help keep America the world ,S largest exporter, the largest producer of
semiconductors and the largest producer of automobiles.
Fast track gives us the credibility to negotiate tough trade deals because
our partners know any agreement will not be reopened
provision-by-provision by the Congress. Fast track also preserves for the
Congress the ultimate decision of whether any potential agreement is good
or bad for America. That assurance puts America in the best position to
negotiate major trade agreements and maintains a balance that has worked
for over 20 years.
Compete or Retreat? As the American people prepare for the challenges of
the 21st century, we face a critical choice: We can embrace the global
economy, write the trade rules, and continue America ,S economic expansion
-- or we can turn our back on the world and fail to compete for new
markets, new contracts, new business and new job opportunities.
Consider this: Over the past four years, more than 25% of our economic
growth has come from overseas trade. Eleven million total American jobs
are supported by exports -- including one in five manufacturing jobs. And
over the next decade, the global economy is expected to grow at triple the
rate of the U.S. economy.
Breaking Down Trade Barriers. Under President Clinton, we have opened
more foreign markets through more trade agreements than any other
administration in history. This is a record to build on, not to rest on.
The President would use fast track to negotiate agreements where the U.S.
is most competitive. From medical equipment and services, environmental
technology, telecommunications to computers, the President will tear down
barriers to American exports.
And if we don ,t aggressively negotiate to open emerging global markets,
someone else will. Asia has one of the fastest growing economies in the
world with nearly 3 billion consumers. Forecasters expect real growth
of 6-7% annually for the next 15 years. With our APEC partners, the
President is working to reach agreement in key sectors to open these
dynamic markets to American goods and services.
The Latin American market including Mexico is the fastest growing area for
U.S. exports. If this trend continues, Latin America and the Caribbean
will exceed the European Union as a market by 2000 and exceed Japan and
the EU combined by 2010. That ,S why the President is committed to moving
forward toward a Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005.
Fast track authority is crucial to these goals.
This debate must not be about the past, but about the opportunities for
the future. In a world where 96% of the world ,S consumers live outside
of the United States, we must export our goods and services to keep
America the strongest and most competitive economy in the world. To stay
on that global fast track, President Clinton needs fast track authority.
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Jake Siewert (CN=Jake Siewert/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:14-AUG-1997 19:05:13.00
SUBJECT: 1997-08/14 press briefing by mike mccurry
TO: David C. Leavy (CN=David C. Leavy/OU=NSC/O=EOP @ EOP [NSC])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Looks like there's some confusion about fast track in here vis-a-vis
State. How to proceed?
Forwarded by Jake Siewert/OPD/EOP on 08/14/97 07:09
PM
SUNTUM_M @ A1
08/14/97 02:18:00 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: 1997-08/14 press briefing by mike mccurry
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 14, 1997
PRESS BRIEFING BY
MIKE MCCURRY
The Briefing Room
1:07 P.M. EDT
MR. MCCURRY: You will recall, in April of 1995, the
President signed Executive Order 12958 - you'll recall that. It was
on classified national security information and essentially it was
the result of a lot of interagency work and established a new
classification protocol, new guidelines on classification for the
government. It really had the goal of both reducing the amount of
information that's classified in the first place by the United States
government, and also to accelerate the declassification of older
classified records, consistent with national security requirements.
There was a report, a new report by the Information
Security Oversight Office within the National Archives and Records
Administration, a new report to the President, available of you
contact the National Security Council press office -- and in it you
will learn the following facts.
In 1996, agencies declassified nearly 200 million pages
of historical records, which is close to one-half of the total number
of pages of classified material declassified in the 15 previous
years. In other words, almost eight just over eight times as many
documents as were declassified in any single year in any of the
period in the previous 15 years so, adding considerable volume to
the ability of the American public to understand historical
activities by the United States government that were previously
secrets.
And the President also - part of this declassification
order reduced - called on reducing the number of people who are
authorized to classify materials in the first place, and 1,000 fewer
people now are classifying secrets in our government. That's down 25
percent. And not surprisingly, because of this, the number of
overall secrets authorized by the United States government declined
by almost 37 percent last year. So we're becoming more open, more
accessible, and less secret. And I should think that you in the
press should applaud that.
Q
Why is the State Department complaining?
MR. MCCURRY: The State Department advisory board
historical advisory board has a longstanding dispute on a separate
set of records involving their Foreign Relations in the United States
series, the FRUS series. And that dispute is over documents related
to Guatemala, among other subjects. And the reasons for their
concern were set forth by a very prominent historian, Warren Kimball,
who read about that recently.
Well, is the President going to intervene to loosen
them up?
MR. MCCURRY: There is an interagency process that is
attempting to reconcile the differences that exist between the
agencies. That is a small subset, though, and should not cloud the
fact that 200 million pages of previously classified records have now
been declassified.
Q
But it isn't just Guatemala that the State
Department is complaining about.
MR. MCCURRY: They have some additional complaints, too,
about a specific series that they're encountering disagreements with
I think both with CIA and with DOD.
Q
How far back does this go, Mike? Does it include
any JFK assassination material?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't know. I don't have a breakout on
the substance of all 200 million pages.
Q
Just because a document has been declassified
doesn't mean it's available for public review, does it?
MR. MCCURRY: It's up to individual agencies, once it's
declassified, whether they make it public, whether they release it
publicly. Sometimes they are -- it frees these things up so they can
be available under Freedom of Information Act. One of the good
things about this declassification process is that when there are a
lot of FOIA requests pending on documents that in the past have been
turned down because of national security information reasons, this
then loosens the document up so it can be made available subject to
FOI requests.
Q
Did President Clinton meet with Governor Weld
yesterday?
MR. MCCURRY: No. Let me do one other item. I'll tell
you a little bit more about Governor Weld's activities yesterday.
We also have a written statement out shortly from the
President applauding a decision by the Smith & Wesson Company, which
is the world's largest manufacturer of handguns. They have
apparently forged a partnership with the Master Lock Company and in
the future will provide child safety locks with every handgun that
they sell for commercial use. And the President, obviously, being a
strong proponent of child safety locks on handguns and fighting to
get that included in the juvenile justice legislation that will make
its way through Congress later this year, we hope, naturally applauds
that decision and commends the company for taking an important
responsible step for children's safety.
Governor Weld. Governor Weld was here very briefly
yesterday morning, met with Erskine Bowles and John Podesta and some
others, and --
Q
Others on the White House staff?
MR. MCCURRY: Yes.
And what did they talk about?
MR. MCCURRY: His pending confirmation.
Q
Can you tell us, characterize in some better way --
MR. MCCURRY: No, he had -- he just stopped by here just
to have a check-in with us so that we could review some of the things
we have underway to continue to press for his -- the fair hearing he
deserves in front of the Foreign Relations Committee, and talked a
little bit about strategy for the fall and things that we can do to
loosen the confirmation process that's currently locked up.
Q
There has been some criticism of the White House
for not being more aggressive on the Weld nomination. Are things
going to get stepped up anytime soon?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't know on what basis there would be
criticism. We've been working very hard to get Governor Weld
confirmed, and continuing to find the right way to press the argument
for his confirmation on Capitol Hill. And he, meanwhile, is
continuing the preparatory work that goes into preparing for an
ambassadorial posting overseas.
Q
Mike, if you recall, Senator Lugar was very blunt
in saying recently he saw very little activity, if any, on behalf of
the White House --
MR. MCCURRY: Maybe he wasn't looking hard enough, but
there is a lot going on.
Q
Did Weld request this meeting, Mike?
MR. MCCURRY: No, he just -- I think we wanted to see
him. We've touched base with him from time to time, but he'd been
off the week before and he was kind of checking back in as he began
doing the work he's doing at the National Foreign Affairs Training
Center -- Foreign Affairs Training Institute.
Q
Was there any discussion whether he should be
willing to accept maybe the ambassadorship to India?
MR. MCCURRY: None whatsoever.
Q
Mike, has the President been in touch with Senator
Lott about the Weld nomination?
MR. MCCURRY: I wouldn't rule that out. I don't know
specifically that he has, but others at the White House have
certainly been in contact with the Majority Leader and I wouldn't
rule out that the President privately has discussed the matter with
him as well.
He already has?
MR. MCCURRY: I wouldn't rule that out, right. I don't
know for a fact that they have, but I suspect they may have.
Q Has he talked to Lugar at all, who seems very
supportive and trying to work out some sort of strategy?
MR. MCCURRY: We will consult with as many members of
the Foreign Relations Committee as we can -- not only allies, but
those that we want to have seriously consider the nomination. And
we'll address any concerns that they may have.
Q The Governor is telling friends that he thinks that
the Chairman is immovable and that if this is to work it will go
through the Majority Leader, much like chemical weapons. Does the
administration share that view?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, I wouldn't draw an analogy to those
two situations. A ratification fight is different from a
confirmation battle, and different sets of issues, different types of
arguments. It's kind of comparing apples and oranges.
Q
The Majority Leader had to intervene in that case
to move the treaty. Do you think the Majority Leader will have to
intervene to move the Chairman on the Weld nomination?
MR. MCCURRY: Not necessarily, if the Chairman's
thinking evolves or if other things happen. (Laughter.)
Q
If you could get Smith & Wesson -- (laughter.)
MR. MCCURRY: I think I'm putting a child safety lock on
my mouth right now. (Laughter.) Yep.
Claire, hi. How are you?
Q
Hi. How are you?
MR. MCCURRY: Doing great.
Q The Secretary of State's trip to the Middle East
has been delayed. Do you know why?
MR. MCCURRY: I'll let Jamie Rubin over at State talk
about that. I think they were working out schedules and she fully
intends to go, provided that we see the kinds of steps and progress
on security cooperation that she indicated were a necessary condition
for the trip. And I think they're just working to arrange schedules.
Q
So it hasn't been pushed back because none of that
was happening?
MR. MCCURRY: Not that I've been told, but I imagine
they're spending a fair amount of time on that over at the State
Department right at this moment.
Q
So, Mike, is the security apparatus in place for
her to make the trip?
MR. MCCURRY: They have a procedural mechanism in place.
I think there is some desire on the United States government, and no
doubt by the parties, too, to assure that it's working
satisfactorily.
Q
In the spirit of openness and declassifying
documents and all, could you share with us the administration's
internal estimate of the economic impact of the UPS strike?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't even know that we have one. I
don't know that there has been a formal economic analysis done by the
Council of Economic Advisors.
There were several
MR. MCCURRY: They were looking at it.
Q I know there are separate laws involved, but there
were several analyses available even before the American Airlines
strike started. I know labor has a different law, but --
MR. MCCURRY: I'll check. I know that some of the
economists on the CEA staff have been monitoring the impact of the
strike, but it's been also more directly the Labor Department and the
Transportation Department that have been examining that.
Has the President been updated on the UPS strike
today?
MR. MCCURRY: Only that Secretary Herman convened the
parties this morning and that they continue to talk. I think he was
told that.
Q
Mike, The Boston Herald has a story today about the
fact that Richard Friedman, the developer whose home the President is
staying at, has a couple of projects pending before federal agencies,
where federal agencies are on the opposite side of him. Is that
proper for the President? I mean, Mike Espy is threatened with jail
for taking Super Bowl tickets from a company that was doing business
with his department.
MR. MCCURRY: As far as I know, this matter was reviewed
and vetted by counsel, and he's stayed with Mr. Friedman at least two
times prior when he was there. Mr. Friedman has indicated to the
which that he has never had any contact with the White House pending
on any of the matters that have got any potential federal
involvement.
You don't see any I mean, a lot of the ethics
watchdog groups think that this smells.
MR. MCCURRY: We all have dealings with the federal
government in one way or another - if we drive on an interstate
highway or if we pay taxes. So just because someone has some issue
pending before the federal government doesn't rule him out as someone
who can grant an act of hospitality to the President of the United
States.
Mike, there have been some highly publicized racial
incidents throughout the country, especially in New York and the one
in Elk Creek, Virginia. With the President's dialogue on race, has
the White House thought about the fact that possibly this dialogue
could be helping to heighten some of this racial animosity?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't believe that anyone connected with
the President's initiative sees any correlation between hate crimes
or crimes that have a racial character to them and the effort to
create a dialogue in which Americans address some of the differences
that we have. In fact, because of incidents like that, the
President, among many reasons, opted to go forward with the
initiative.
Mike, on the religious freedom event the President
did today, a number of the groups that were here have proposed
legislation before Congress that would apply basically the same
guidelines the President set forth to the private sector. What's the
administration position on that? Are there any specific issues you
have with that legislation?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't know that we have taken a formal
position on the legislation. We've continued to discuss legislative
approaches with advocates of legislation in Congress. This is a step
that is well within the boundaries of the Supreme Court decision and
a proper one to take in the President's view, but we'll have to set
aside the question of legislation. I don't believe the
administration has taken a position.
Q
Do you think that the fact that the parties in the
UPS strike are talking today is a result of the fact that the White
House held off on getting involved?
MR. MCCURRY: I'm not going to speculate on that. I
think the important thing is that they are having discussions and we
hope the discussions go well.
Q
On today's event, why did the President feel it was
important to take this step at the federal workplace? Does he feel
there is a problem?
MR. MCCURRY: I think, as he did with clarifying what
schools can do in terms of allowing religious observances, the
President believes it's important in an area that is sometimes
contested or sometimes unclear to set forth very clearly what the
guidelines are and what's permissible and what is not permissible.
And so it is consistent, in fact, with what he did with respect to
observances in public schools, and we believe will be helpful to
those individual employees in the federal work force who want to
express their religious faith, and certainly was welcomed by the
groups that we work with closely to craft these guidelines.
Q
Mike, what did the President think the Ross visit
accomplished in the Middle East?
MR. MCCURRY: The slow, painstaking work of building
better confidence between the parties that they can resolve the
differences they have.
Q
Mike, you made a crack about Congressman Rangel
yesterday, and I'm wondering whether you want to --
MR. MCCURRY: I don't recall that it was about Rangel.
We went over that, and my memory was it was about the delegation
retaliating. But in any event, I've talked to Congressman Rangel and
I'll leave the matter there.
You have spoken to him?
MR. MCCURRY: Yes.
Mike, appropriations bills are going to start
making their way over here next month, and Treasury, Postal Service
is without money for the FEC enforcement provisions that the
President wanted extra money for in April. What is the White House
going to do to get that in there.
MR. MCCURRY: We'll continue to make the case that the
FEC needs to have the resources to administer the law. It's bad
enough that our campaign finance - the body of law governing
campaign finance is badly broken, but those laws that are on the
books need to be effectively administered, and we'll continue to make
the case that they need the resources to handle all the volume of
work that they have to conduct.
Q
What are these documents about? Everything that
deals in government, the whole range?
MR. MCCURRY: Everything that is properly classified
initially and now no longer requires classification.
But why were they classified, so many?
MR. MCCURRY: Many things are -- declassification occurs
for a lot of reasons, sometimes because documents are old or they
refer to things that are no longer - -- it's not longer necessary for
the United States to keep secret. The United States government does
have, for national security reasons, first and foremost, reasons to
keep some matters confidential.
Q
If it wasn't national security why were they
classified?
MR. MCCURRY: They were classified initially for
national security reasons --
All of them?
MR. MCCURRY: But that's under the act, they have to
be. But the point is that the use of classification in the past has
been too extensive in the view of the President and that's one of the
reasons why the initial order was signed.
Q
Mike, on the religious guidelines, why did they not
affect the military, and do they affect postal workers?
MR. MCCURRY: I do not know if they affect postal
workers, but the military is exempted because they have unique
requirements for safety, operational effectiveness, and good order
and discipline. And they often require a different type of approach
to personnel management. Obviously, the military is covered under
separate sets of personnel practices than the civil service, but
that's in recognition of the importance that religion can play in the
life of the military. The military also has the Uniformed Chaplin
Corps and it goes to some great length to protect the right of
members of the uniformed military and the civilian employees of the
Defense Department to worship.
Q
Would you consider developing separate guidelines
that would fit their context?
MR. MCCURRY: You would have to ask the Pentagon whether
they are or not.
Q
Where is the administration with regard to fast
track legislation that you want Congress to pass? Have you finished
work on the bill the President wants?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't believe that they have finished
work on it. I think that they are completing work on that so that
we'll be ready to present that in the early fall to Congress.
Q
Do you expect specific provisions in that bill for
both environmental and labor safeguards or do you expect the
President to sort of take care of those two issues in the subsequent
negotiations --
MR. MCCURRY: I think how we address labor issues and
environmental issues is part of what the administration is continuing
to work on.
Q
So that's still an open question then at this
point? I mean, it's not a done deal?
MR. MCCURRY: There has been considerable discussion on
both of those issues. And on the postal service, these guidelines do
apply to postal workers.
On that same subject, is there discussion in the
administration of having at least the initial legislative effort on
fast track be Chile only as opposed to other countries? There are
some on the Hill who say if you just mean Chile specifically --
MR. MCCURRY: That would not -- I don't imagine that
that is an approach that is seriously being considered given the
number of things that we need to do with fast track authority. It
would be difficult to imagine that you would confine the use of the
authority to just one particular negotiation given the large number
that the trade office would be handling during the period in which
you would need fast track authority.
Q
Could you also shed some light on the question that
was asked a day or two ago over at State and Jamie Rubin didn't have
the answer at the time, and that is whether the President intends in
his dealings with Chile to expand NAFTA to include Chile or to cut a
separate trade deal with Chile?
MR. MCCURRY: I'm not going to speculate how the
President would use fast track authority to reach free trade
agreements with any particular country.
Well, wait a minute.
MR. MCCURRY: Leo, that's a very specific and very
sensitive question and it goes really to the heart of the negotiating
process. I'm not going to answer the question, I'm sorry.
Q
But I'm trying to establish a matter of record
here.
MR. MCCURRY: I'm not going to help you.
Q
My memory is that sometime in the past, Mike, the
administration did say that you wanted NAFTA expanded to include
Chile. I'm basically asking whether that's still the case.
MR. MCCURRY: As a general premise or a general concept,
expanding free trade agreements in this hemisphere is a good idea,
yes.
On the religious guidelines, have you been able to
determine yet whether atheists and agnostics will be able to express
their views --
MR. MCCURRY: They would be covered by these guidelines.
Thank God. (Laughter.)
MR. MCCURRY: Yep. Next.
Q
There have been some reports recently coming from
India that the President would go to India next year. Can you
confirm that?
MR. MCCURRY: The President would very much like to, but
we're not in a position where we can confirm the precise time or
itinerary.
Q
Is he going to do anything to mark the 50th
anniversary of independence of India tomorrow?
MR. MCCURRY: He has done some things already. He has
prepared a congratulatory message. I believe the First Lady is
attending a dinner tomorrow night, along with the Secretary of State
and others, and the President will probably have -- may have another
way or two to observe the day tomorrow. As you know, it's a jubilee
and there's a whole year in which the celebratory activities will
occur.
With respect to the President's vacation, how bad
do you think he needs it?
MR. MCCURRY: I'll talk a little bit more about that
tomorrow because I imagine some people will do it -- he's ready for
one. I think he --- every other conversation you have with him it
seems to come up. So I think he's anxious to get on vacation.
What are your plans?
MR. MCCURRY: I'm going to go on vacation, too.
Q
Does the senior staff expect him to sit still for
three weeks on Martha's Vineyard?
MR. MCCURRY: Oh, we have some wagers underway on that,
but --
Are you going to be gone three weeks?
MR. MCCURRY: No.
Mike, you still seem to
be putting a
contingency on Secretary Albright's visit to the Middle East. What
are the odds she will not go?
MR. MCCURRY: I'm not putting any contingency other than
the one that she herself stated.
Which is?
MR. MCCURRY: Provided there is the kind of security
that the kind of progress on the security-related issues that she
identified in her speech, the same thing she stated in her speech.
Q
Mike, can you expand on the millennium event
tomorrow?
MR. MCCURRY: The President has a group of White House
aides who are working with others in the administration and some on
the outside to find appropriate ways to mark the change of the
calendar from 1999 to the year 2000. What that will mean both
symbolically and historically to the country, how we can take note of
that date, and participate in a range of activities both here at home
and abroad that usher in the new century and the new millennium.
What are some of those ideas that have been kicked
around?
MR. MCCURRY: Some of the things that the President will
talk about tomorrow.
Will he announce a new bridge? (Laughter.)
MR. MCCURRY: Build that bridge he'll lay out some of
the blueprints for the bridge to the 21st century tomorrow.
What time?
MR. MCCURRY: I think it's in the morning at one of the
museums. Which museum? American History? One of the Smithsonians.
Q
Will that include any reference to the problem of
the switch-over of the computers -
MR. MCCURRY: I'll have to check on that. At the
moment, it may - the President may reference some of the things that
the government is already doing with respect to that problem. That's
not the focus of these remarks, but he might touch on it.
Will they rename Renaissance Weekend Millennium
Weekend?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't know of any plans. Ask our new
Ambassador to London. (Laughter.)
Mike, does the administration realize that the 21st
century doesn't begin until January 1, 2001?
MR. MCCURRY: We're well aware of the great debate
underway about when the millennium actually begins. (Laughter.) And
maybe, like India, we'll make it a year-long celebration.
(Laughter.)
Q
Is he going to settle that debate tomorrow?
MR. MCCURRY: No. We'll have to figure out a way to
celebrate for a whole year.
All right, it's summer, isn't it?
Q
I'm sorry, one last one. The federal court last
week heard your appeal on the tobacco settlement, the tobacco rules
that the FDA -- much more skeptical than the trial court. Does that
affect your consideration of a settlement and how advantageous it is
given he may lose at that level?
MR. MCCURRY: No, we are doing, proceeding as we can on
both fronts. Litigation continues, but separately we have to
consider how to evaluate the proposed settlement and, as a good
lawyer will tell you, it's often important not to read too much into
oral argumentation.
National Archives, 9:00 a.m. -- early start tomorrow,
National Archives. Good, that means we can go for an early lid
tomorrow.
Q
Mike, is there a read out on that northeast group?
MR. MCCURRY: No. The meeting is still underway, I
believe -- unless they've ended while we've been here.
Q
On these guidelines, is there any penalties for
failure to comply?
MR. MCCURRY: I imagine individual human resource
managers or personnel managers in the federal system can take action
against anyone who specifically violates any employment guidelines
such as these that are established, but the OPM could probably tell
you more about that.
Q
Does this early event mean no gaggle tomorrow?
MR. MCCURRY: Probably -- I guess, maybe a late gaggle.
Maybe we could try a late gaggle, or early briefing, do one of our
combo platter things, mid-morning. (Laughter.)
Q
What's the radio address about?
MR. MCCURRY: Higher education.
Higher education, you said?
MR. MCCURRY: Radio address. Is he doing the radio
address live, or -- pretaping tomorrow?
MR. LOCKHART: Pretaping early in the day.
MR. MCCURRY: We are on that glide path to vacation now.
That's where we are.
Yes, ma'am.
Q
Can we come in Sunday -- Saturday and Sunday and
pick up our stuff off the floor?
MR. MCCURRY: I believe, if I'm not mistaken, they are
starting Sunday.
Q
So Friday and Saturday.
MR. MCCURRY: If you check in with Darby Stott up in my
office, they'll let you know. But my recommendation to everyone
would be to start clearing all your stuff out tomorrow and no later
than Saturday, because the workers are going to start in here, I
think, on Sunday.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
1:35 P.M. EDT
#398-08/14
Message Sent
To:
Julie E. Mason
April Mellody
Darby E. Stott
Julia R. Green
Lorraine L. Wytkind
Laura D. Schwartz
Lori E. Abrams
Lori Anderson
Brenda M. Anders
Eli G. Attie
Robin J. Bachman
Kris M Balderston
Beverly J. Barnes
David S. Beaubaire
Marsha E. Berry
antony j. blinken
Lanny A. Breuer
Robin J. Bachman
Laura Capps
Joseph W. Cerrell @ OVP@EOP
Steven A. Cohen
Michelle Crisci
Carolyn Curiel
Suzanne Dale
Lanny J. Davis
Marilyn DiGiacobbe
James A. Dorskind
Jennifer D. Dudley
Dorinda A. Salcido
James T. Edmonds
Anne M. Edwards
Rahm Emanuel
Karen E. Finney
Ben A. Freeland
Jeremy M. Gaines
Christopher J. Gillespie
Michael A. Gill @ OVP@EOP
Adam W. Goldberg
Jason S. Goldberg
Ricardo M. Gonzales
Donald Goldberg
Richard Hayes
Russell W. Horwitz
Thomas D. Janenda
david t. johnson
Michele Jolin
James M. Teague
Julia R. Green
David E. Kalbaugh
William R. Kincaid
Joshua A. King
Nicholas B. Kirkhorn
Catherine T. Kitchen
Jim Kohlenberger @ OVP@EOP
Heidi Kukis @ OVP@EOP
Sara M. Latham
GN. Lattimore
Christopher J. Lavery
Anne H. Lewis
Joseph P. Lockhart
Laura D. Schwartz
Michael D. Malone
Laura S. Marcus
Doris O. Matsui
Andrew J. Mayock
Anne E. McGuire
Estela Mendoza
Cheryl D. Mills
Megan C. Moloney
Kevin Moran
Jonathan Murchinson
steven j. naplan
Elizabeth R. Newman
Neera Tanden
Peter R. Orszag
Kristen E. Panerali
Carole A. Parmelee
Sally P. Paxton
Julia M. Payne
Jonathan Prince
Peter O'Keefe
Nicole R. Rabner
Victoria Radd
Jonathan P. Robell
Charles F. Ruff
Virginia N. Rustique
Evan Ryan
G. Timothy Saunders
Brooks Scoville
Ruby Shamir
Douglas S. Sheorn
June Shih
David Shipley
Robert M. Shireman
Jake Siewert
Joshua Silverman
Brian D. Smith
Craig T. Smith
Richard Socarides
Douglas B. Sosnik
Aviva Steinberg
Todd Stern
Michael J. Sullivan
Jonathan H. Schnur/OVP @ OVP
Sylvia M. Mathews
Lisa Tamagni
Virginia M. Terzano @ ovp@eop
terri tingen
Barry J. Toiv
Serena C. Torrey
June G. Turner
Dag Vega
Lorraine A. Voles @ ovp@eop
Michael Waldman
Angelina Walker @ ovp@eop
Lowell A. Weiss
William H. White Jr.
SUNTUM_M@A1@CD@LNGTWY
COGDELL_C@A1@CD@LNGTWY
backup @wilson.ai.mit.edu@INET@LNGTWY
wh-outbox-distr@ clinton.ai.mit.edu@INET@LNGTWY
BARBUSCHAK_K@A1@CD@LNGTVY
BARTHOLOME_M@A1@CD@LNGTWY
CAPLAN_P@A1@CD@LNGTWY
CUTLER_L@A1@CD@LNGTWY
[email protected]@CD@LNGTWY
GRAY_W@A1@CD@LNGTWY
GRIBBEN_J@A1@CD@LNGTVY
HAAS_L@A1@CD@LNGTWY
JOHNSON_WC@A1@CD@LNGTWY
LIZIK_C@A1@CD@LNGTWY
MOFFETT_J@A1@CD@LNGTWY
RILEY_R@A1@CD@LNGTWY
NAPLAN_S@A1@CD@LNGTWY
SMITH_BD@A1@CD@LNGTWY
STUMPF_D@A1@CD@LNGTWY
TCSmith @ dol.gov@INET@LNGTVY
WOZNIAK_N@A1@CD@LNGTWY
[email protected]@CD@LNGTWY
glynnm @ panet.us-state.gov@INET@LNGTVY
usia01 @ access.digex.com@INET@LNGTWY
1=US@2=WESTERN UNION@3=@5=ATT.COM@ELN62955104@MRX@LNGTWY
62955104 @ eln.attmail.com@INET@LNGTWY
73030.21 @ compuserve.com@INET@LNGTWY
INFOMGT @ A1@CD@LNGTWY
newsdesk @ usnewswire.com@INET@LNGTVY
usnwire @ access.digex.com@INET@LNGTWY
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: SIEWERT_J@A1@CD@LNGTWY (SIEWERT_J@A1@CD@LNGTWY UNKNOWN (OPD)
CREATION DATE/TIME:18-SEP-1997 12:37:40.00
SUBJECT: ALBRIGHT SAYS ADDED NEGOTIATING POWERS WOULD BOOST
TO: LEAVY_D@A1@CD@LNGTWY (LEAVY_D@A1@CD@LNGTWY UNKNOWN (NSC)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: antony j. blinken@eop ( antony j. blinken@eop NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Russell W. Horwitz@eop (Russell W. Horwitz@eop [ OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jake Siewert@eop (Jake Siewert@eop [ OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Date: 09/18/97 Time: 11:51
CAlbright says added negotiating powers would boost diplomatic
WASHINGTON (AP) American leadership in world diplomacy would
be bolstered if Congress approved new trade negotiating authority
for President Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said
today.
The added power would also improve the quality of people's
lives, Albright told the American Business Conference and the
Institute for International Economics.
"Open economies are more likely to lift people out of poverty
than economies that are stagnant and closed," she said.
The administration is urging Congress to move quickly on
expanding the president's authority, but many Republicans are
unhappy that the administration's proposal would also allow him to
negotiate protections for workers rights and the environment.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, joined by a number of other
GOP senators, said Wednesday that Clinton's request would have to
be changed if he hoped to win passage before Congress adjourns next
month.
Lott said that since fast-track proposals can only be approved
and rejected by Congress, without a chance for amendments, the
authority should be strictly limited to negotiations aimed at
lowering trade barriers and not expanded into other areas.
"We must make sure that the administration will not succumb to
using fast track as a vehicle for special-interest agendas," Lott
said. He said the administration's request "clearly introduces
brand new labor and environmental elements into the process. This
is clearly disturbing."
Every president since Gerald Ford in the mid-1970s has had
fast-track authority until it lapsed in 1994. Clinton has failed
for the past two years to get the Republican-controlled Congress to
renew it.
Clinton needs fast-track authority to pursue a variety of
economic goals in his second term including creation of a
free-trade area covering the entire Western Hemisphere by 2005 and
completion of free-trade deals with major Asian countries by 2010.
But he is being buffeted by liberals in his own party who think
his proposal goes too far in promoting free trade and Republicans
who object to adding the labor and environmental provisions.
"As I read your proposal, it is totally and absolutely
unacceptable," Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, told Treasury Secretary
Robert Rubin and U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky at a
hearing Wednesday. ``It will never be accepted in its present
form."
The president, in the version he unveiled on Tuesday, bowed to
Republican demands and gave up insistence that fast-track authority
allow him to negotiate protections for workers rights and the
environment in the core part of future free-trade agreements.
But in an effort to sway moderate Democrats, Clinton's proposal
would seek to pursue labor and environmental side agreements and it
also sought authority to negotiate global agreements in these areas
through agencies such as the World Trade Organization.
Republicans let the administration know at Wednesday's hearing
that this also was unacceptable.
Gramm said such language could force Congress to approve
pollution taxes on an up-or-down vote as part of some future trade
deal or force lawmakers to vote on repealing states' right-to-work
laws, the prohibition 21 states have against mandatory union
membership.
Barshefsky refused to tell reporters after the hearing whether
the administration would jettison the provisions on worker and
environmental protections to satisfy Republican demands. But she
stressed that the administration was willing to work with both
Republicans and Democrats to build the majority needed for passage.
``Everybody is putting their concerns on the table," she said.
"We will work with the Senate Finance Committee. We will work with
the House Ways and Means Committee and see if we can reach a common
understanding."
The entire fast-track debate is shaping up to be a replay of the
bruising 1993 battle Clinton won to approve NAFTA, which opponents
charge has cost thousands of lost jobs that have gone to low-wage
factories in Mexico.
APNP-09-18-97 1153EDT
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Dorothy Robyn (CN=Dorothy Robyn/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 1-OCT-1997 12:27:15.00
SUBJECT: UAW proposal
TO: Randolph M. Lyon CN=Randolph M. Lyon/OU=OMB/O=EOP @ EOP [ OMB
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robert M. Shireman (CN=Robert M. Shireman/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph J. Minarik (CN=Joseph J. Minarik/OU=OMB/O=EOP @ EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
In a mtg. w/ the POTUS tomorrow, UAW President Stephen Yokich will propose
preferential tax treatment for tuition assistance for workers' CHILDREN.
See attached description. What shld POTUS say? I need your input ASAP.
Thx.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
PRINTER FONT 12_POINT_ROMAN
UAW Concerns
October 1, 1997
Fast Track
Contrary to the Administration, the UAW does not believe Fast
Track would be good for the auto industry. Labor officials point
to the increase in the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico since the
passage of NAFTA. Although exports are up, they note that
imports of parts and assembled autos and trucks are up as well,
contributing to the higher trade deficit. Moreover, although
overall employment in the auto industry is up -- reflecting the
health of the overall economy - 200,000 jobs have left because
of NAFTA.
Fast Track will mean more investment by U.S. automakers in Brazil
and Argentina. The UAW fears that when the economy slows down,
the Big 3 will shut down plants in the U.S. rather than reduce
their investment abroad.
If Republicans succeed in moving the Fast Track bill to the
right, it will be worse than the Fast Track authority President
Bush had, in UAW President Yokich's view. He believes the
President would be ill
-advised to demand a vote on such a bill,
because it would be damaging to freshmen Democrats and the
Democratic party overall.
Talking Points:
NLRB Appointments
Yokich will urge you to move quickly to fill vacancies on the
National Labor Relations Board. Currently, three seats are
vacant, and a fourth seat will open up if our recess appointment
(Sarah Fox) is not confirmed before the end of the year.
Talking Point:
?
We have an agreement with congressional Republicans to move
four nominees -- two Democrats and two Republicans. We are
doing everything we can to get the nominees vetted before
Congress recesses later this year. (The two Democrats are
vetted, and the vetting process has begun for the two
Republicans.) We are committed to getting this done if it
is at all possible.
Tuition Assistance for Workers' Children
The Administration has worked with the UAW and other groups to
ensure that tuition assistance paid for by the employer remains
[non
-taxable]. The UAW would like to take that another step and
provide a tax incentive for tuition assistance for workers'
children.
The UAW recently negotiated tuition assistance for workers'
children in two of its collective bargaining agreements: 10,000
children will receive education assistance under the Ford/UAW
agreement and 20,000 under the GM/UAW agreement. However, this
assistance is fully taxable. The UAW believes preferential tax
treatment would encourage broader provision of tuition
assistance.
Talking Points:
END ATTACHMENT 1
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System
[EMAIL] and Tape Restoration Project [Email]
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies a responsive email, already made available
within another collection.
Collection: 2017-1073-F
Bucket: OPD
Creation Date: 1997-10-14
Subject: draft fast track message documents for your review
Creator: Russell W. Horwitz CN=Russell W.
Horwitz/OU=OPD/O=EOP [OPD]
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Russell W. Horwitz (CN=Russell W. Horwitz/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME:14-OCT-1997 15:17:41.00
SUBJECT: 1997-10-14 press conference
TO: Peter R. Orszag (CN=Peter R. Orszag/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
POTUS made extensive comments on climate change.
Forwarded by Russell W. Horwitz/OPD/EOP on 10/14/97
03:16 PM
SUNTUM_M@A1
10/14/97 03:04:00 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: 1997-10-14 press conference
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brasilia, Brazil)
For Immediate Release
October
14, 1997
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT CLINTON
AND PRESIDENT CARDOSO
AT SIGNING OF DECLARATION ON EDUCATION
Garden of Alvorada Palace
Brasilia, Brazil
1:40 P.M. (L)
PRESIDENT CARDOSO: Mr. President of the United
States of America, William Clinton, ladies and gentlemen, may I
say to you first what a pleasure it is, Mr. President, for me and
for Ruth, my wife, to welcome both you and Mrs. Clinton. And I'd
like to take advantage of this opportunity to state our pleasure,
and I'm quite sure the pleasure of the Brazilian people as a
whole. This is particularly due to the excellent relations
between the two of us, which I think makes it obvious to everyone
that there is a friendship that joins these two Presidents, and
that we share a great many interests and by "we," I mean our
two peoples.
On both sides, we are interested in ensuring that we
will draw closer together and bring our societies closer together
as well in very practical ways. We've had a number of
opportunities in which to chat. We've covered, I think, just
about every problem that was on our agenda before this meeting,
including the most general problems, such as peace throughout the
world; including the possibility of working together in a number
of situations which might require more direct action on the part
of the United States or Brazil not just in our region, of
course, but also views were exchanged, opinions were exchanged
about a number of international problems as well. And I can
assure you that we both agree with regard to the overall
objective, which is to increase the prosperity of people on the
Earth as a whole.
It is also our conviction that prosperity is
something that needs to be made a general phenomenon. The
prosperity of one nation should not harm the prosperity of any
other nation, and nothing leads us to believe this. On the
contrary; we feel that what's good for Brazil is good for the
United States, and what's good for the United States is good for
Brazil as well.
Just in terms of commercial relations, for example,
the United States is our number one trading partner. But Brazil,
as we like to say, is also a major global trader. We have
excellent relations with the Mercosur countries, other countries
in Latin America, with Europe and Asia, not to mention Africa.
And it is with a full understanding of the comprehensive nature,
the global nature of our relationships that we, in turn, have
been able to reach a closer relationship.
We have underscored our commitment to the sort of
endeavor that we have embarked upon, for example, in Mercosur,
which is a very important part of our foreign policy in Brazil,
which we feel to be an example of the success of the work of
these four countries -- Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, and
now Chile as well.
Much agreement has been reached with regard to
trade, democracy, keeping peace. And we also believe that by
working together we can move towards the integration of the
Americas as a whole in such a way as to avoid harming our
Mercosur interests and in such a way as to avoid harming the
interests of the NAFTA countries. But we should integrate the
hemisphere as a whole in the line with the view that has already
been expressed just a moment ago in other words, prosperity
for all is best for each and every one.
On the other hand, it also became quite clear that
we agree on a number of other issues, even at a personal level.
For example, our take on problems is quite similar in our two
countries. An example of that fact can be seen via the
declaration that we are now signing in the area of education, one
of the social area endeavors. I was extremely pleased when I
heard President Clinton's State of the Union address, because he
spoke about education and what he said certainly made me feel
quite enthusiastic. What he said moved us. As a former
professor and as two human beings, I'm sure that we agree that
education is an instrument which will allow us to equalize
relations within a society and to do away with SO many of the
differences and asymmetries that can exist among countries as
well.
In this meeting we would like to reaffirm our full
commitment to all the programs in the educational field as a
symbol of our concern of the social issues. The integration that
we are seeking to pursue as the regional, sub-regional and even
at a broader level, as soon as that becomes timely, is going to
be integration that will exclude no countries, no fragments
within countries, either. Integration is designed to improve the
standard of living of the peoples who integrate.
Another thing that we can go over is a list of key
issues that have to do with, for example, the climate change.
President Clinton, for example, holds the view that I think is
quite proper vis a vis climate change. He talks about shared
responsibility. He talks about the fact that responsibility
should exclude no segment of humanity because the climate is
something that involves the preservation of the conditions of
life for future generations throughout the planet. So we must
come up with mechanisms which will allow us to reduce the
greenhouse gas effect. We should reduce the greenhouse gases,
but in such a way as to ensure that we're not harming the
interests or the development of any country the United States,
Brazil or developing countries. These things should be done in a
balanced way to ensure that we will solve the problems and do so
in the best way for our countries, which is what we're going to
try to do in Kyoto in December.
Another thing that we're doing is broadening our
cooperation in the field of space studies in a clear
demonstration of a number of possibilities that exist for
cooperation between Brazil and the United States, certainly in
terms of advanced technology.
I don't want to take up too much time, but may I
reaffirm the fact that -- very simply, because we did cover such
a broad range of topics -- the fact that we avoided no single
topic is a clear sign that we can reach an understanding even
upon those things that we have some slight misunderstandings on.
And, of course, misunderstandings usually just reflect the
interests of our individual countries that we, of course, must
defend properly, but at the same time in a way which shows that
we have an old friendship, a long-term friendship and this
friendship allows us to deal with these issues in such a way.
I'd like to repeat something I said in the Panalto
Palace. Since the second world war never have we seen so many
possibilities for cooperation in so many broad fields --
certainly nothing compared to the many opportunities that are
opening up for Brazil and the United States right now, which is
why I'm particularly pleased to speak via the media to the
peoples of our countries to reaffirm the tremendous satisfaction
that I feel in being able to welcome this great President, Bill
Clinton, in our country.
Thank you so much. (Applause.)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you very much, Mr.
President. Let me begin by thanking you and Mrs. Cardoso and the
representatives of your government for the warm welcome you have
given to us, including our very large delegation, the senior
members of our administration, a big percentage of our Cabinet
and the distinguished delegation from Congress. We are delighted
to be here.
I believe this visit marks a new phase in the long
friendship between the United States and Brazil. This is clearly
a unique moment of opportunity in the Americas. A quiet
revolution is bringing our hemisphere together around common
values of democracy, free markets, mutual respect and
cooperation. It gives us the opportunity to advance the welfare,
the freedom and the security of all of our people in a way that
has not been possible before.
Because we have the largest economies and the most
diverse populations in the hemisphere, Brazil and the United
States have both a special ability and a special responsibility
to help lead the Americas into the 21st century. Under President
Cardoso's leadership, Brazil clearly is meeting that challenge in
fulfilling its destiny as a great nation. Through your own
remarkable economic reforms, your strategic partnership with
Argentina, your leadership in Mercosur and throughout the
hemisphere, and increasingly on the wider international stage,
Brazil has helped to consolidate peace and democracy and to
promote prosperity and stability.
Brazil and the United States share a fundamental
belief that opening the markets of our hemisphere to trade and
investment is the best way to create good jobs and strengthen
democracy and cooperation in all our countries.
Three years ago, when we met at the Summit of the
Americas in Miami, we pledged to pursue a free trade area of the
Americas by early in the next century. Today, the President and
I agreed that at the next Summit of the Americas in Santiago, we
should launch comprehensive and balanced negotiations to achieve
that goal, turning our common agenda into a common plan of
action.
If I might, I'd like to just speak a moment about
what I think has been the cause of some misunderstanding between
our two countries, which is the question of what the American
attitude toward Mercosur is and what its relationship to our
support for a free trade area of the Americas is.
I support Mercosur. I think it has been a good
thing for Brazil, a good thing for all the member nations, a good
thing for stability, for growth and cooperation in the region,
and quite a good thing for the United States. Our exports to the
Mercosur countries have grown substantially since 1991. And we
believe that these sort of regional trade arrangements everywhere
-- if they serve to open borders, to increase economic activities
and to promote growth, promote stability and opportunity that
benefit Americans.
We believe that we can create a free trade area of
the Americas consistent with Mercosur and the leadership and role
of Brazil and the other members in it. So to me, this is a false
choice that we don't intend to ask the Brazilians, the
Argentineans, or the other members of Mercosur to make. We
believe we can build on this and go forward to a free trade area
of the Americas.
Trade has produced about a third of the economic
growth the United States has enjoyed since I became President in
January of 1993. And I'm working hard to continue to expand our
capacity to trade and to create good high-wage jobs in our own
country by securing the presidential negotiating authority
necessary to tear down more of the trade barriers of the past so
that we can open wider the doors of the future to good jobs and
higher incomes.
Now, let me say that as we promote more free markets
and more free trade, I believe that all of us must work harder to
extend their benefits to all citizens. No great democracy has
succeeded in doing that so far. We know we have to begin by
ensuring that all of our citizens receive the education and
training they need to succeed in this new economy. And I applaud
the President's emphasis on education. The education declaration
we have just signed focuses on what I believe the keys to making
education work in both our countries are.
First, high standards for what children must learn
and testing to measure their progress. Second, training our
teachers so that those to whom we entrust our children's future
are, themselves, well-prepared. Third, intensive parent and
community involvement. And fourthly, something the President has
worked very hard on, access to technology to realize the
possibilities of the information age for all our children.
In the United States we're working hard to make sure
that every classroom and library in our country is hooked up to
the Internet by the year 2000. We're giving discounted rates to
our schools so that they can afford to be on the Internet. And
we are finding something I am certain will be the experience in
Brazil as well, and that is that very often the largest benefit
of this technology revolution will flow to the children who are
most in need, who tend to be in isolated rural or urban school
districts where they have not had the chances and the
opportunities many of our other children have. So I think that
the Internet can be an instrument by which we democratize as well
as increase the excellence of educational opportunity.
We've also agreed that we can't have today's
progress at tomorrow's expense. The President talked a little
bit about our common commitment to the environment. The clean
energy agreement we have signed will help Brazil to continue to
grow, fueled by renewable and efficient energy technologies. Our
park services will work together to protect wetlands like the
Everglades and the Pantanal Park in Brazil. We share Brazil's
determination to conserve the Amazon, one of the most wondrous
and biologically diverse environmental habitats in the world.
The United States will contribute another $10 million to the
G-7's cooperative program with Brazil to sustain the rainforests.
And we will help Brazil to put 21st century technology into this
effort, including research done by Brazilians in space.
The fires throughout the Amazon have added urgency
to these efforts, and the uncertainties about the climatic
effects of this El Nino, both in South America and in the United
States, have also added urgency to our efforts.
We did, as the President said, discuss the challenge
of climate change. Five years ago in Rio, the world community
began to chart a common course to reduce the greenhouse gas
emissions that lead to global warming. Developed countries have
a special responsibility to lead. I told President Cardoso that
the United States will meet that responsibility with a commitment
to limit our emissions when we meet in Kyoto on December the 6th.
But as we do our part, I believe so, too, must the developing
world. Climate change, after all, is a global problem that
requires a global solution.
So here is the question, it seems to me and I
would like to talk a little about this because I think it's quite
important I think it's very important that the people of
Brazil understand that just as with the trade issue and Mercosur,
the United States would never knowingly make any suggestion that
would undermine the growth of Brazil or any other country. It is
not in our interest. We, after all, only have 4 percent of
world's people. We enjoy a very high standard of living. We can
only maintain our own standard of living if you grow. If there
are more good jobs for Brazilians, higher incomes, more people
are brought into the social compact in this country, then you can
be a stronger partner, not only for us, but for your neighbors in
this continent and throughout the world.
So our strategy is to aggressively support the
growth of the emerging economies of the world, the strength of
their democracies, and our capacity to cooperate together. I do
not believe that any reasonable person can look at the world of
today and imagine the world of tomorrow and believe that America
can gain by someone else's economic loss. We have an interest in
finding a way to grow together.
By the same token, the world will not gain if some
countries limit their greenhouse gas emissions and other
countries grow in the same old way with the same old energy base
so that the climate continues to warm more rapidly than it has at
any time in the last 10,000 years.
So what we want to do is to find a way for the
developing countries to fulfill their responsibilities within the
framework of Kyoto, recognizing that those of us in developed
countries must do more, but that we must all participate. And we
want to be very explicit that any participation on your part
would not come at the expense of economic growth.
Developing nations have an opportunity to chart a
different energy future than some of the developed countries.
And if we share our technology and we share our knowledge, then
we can achieve that. This is very important.
Brazil has already gone a long way toward proving
this point, because you have developed so many non-traditional
fuels, biologically-based fuels, for running your vehicles. So
you have given evidence to the general point that I hope will be
embraced by all the countries of the developing world. And I
encourage that.
Finally, let me say, we talked about expanding our
cooperation in regional and global security, and I want to say a
word of appreciation to Brazil as the guarantor of the
Peru-Ecuador peace process, and appreciation for its historic
decision to join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and to sign
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. In all these actions, Brazil
has taken its place as a world leader for peace and security.
Today, the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty we signed
will help us to crack down on drug production and trafficking and
fight transnational crime in a way that benefits all of our
people.
President Cardoso said two years ago when he visited
me at the White House -- and I quote - "The vocation of Brazil
and the United States is to stand together." I believe we stand
together today as never before. The issues we face are central
to the well-being of both our peoples. The fate of our
hemisphere, with strong democracies, a commitment to fight crime
and drugs, to work for lasting peace, the future of the new
economy, preparing our people for the 21st century - that's what
this trip is all about. These are all objectives we share, and
they really matter to ordinary citizens in both our nations and
throughout this hemisphere.
Thank you. (Applause.)
PRESIDENT CARDOSO: President Clinton, I'd like to
ask you to begin if you don't mind.
Q Mr. President, Attorney General Reno has made
her decision and will extend her inquiry into your telephone
fundraising to determine whether a special counsel should be
named. How do you feel about that hanging over you for another
60 days at least?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I feel nothing about it. There
is a law and there are facts. And I feel that it would be much
better is she were permitted to do her job. I know I didn't do
anything wrong. I did everything I could to comply with the law.
I feel good about it. But I told you yesterday, the thing I
don't feel good about is the overt, explicit, overbearing attempt
to politicize this whole process and to put pressure on more than
one actor in it. That's wrong. There's a law. There's a
fact-finding process. And I'm going to cooperate with it in
every way I possibly can.
Q
Mr. Clinton, will the recent -- between the
European Union and Mercosur affect how you formulate your
strategy for commerce in the Americas?
And for President Fernando Enrique, the question is,
what is the relative importance of Europe as far as Brazil's
commercial strategy or trade strategies concerned, especially vis
a vis the United States?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, if I were in
Brazil I would be trying to sell as much as I could to America
and to Europe. I think that's the way this market works. Both
the European Union and the United States have increased our
exports to Brazil and to the Mercosur countries in the last few
years markedly. So I don't feel threatened by it, I just want to
make sure we're fully competing. And if we don't fully compete,
it will be our fault, not yours and not Europe's.
That's one of the reasons that I'm seeking fast
track authority. It's up to the United States to decide whether
it's going to be a fully competitive nation, but we have - in
the last two years, for the first time in a long time, more than
half our new jobs have come in the higher wage categories. And
it's the direct result of our aggressive pursuit of trade
opportunities.
So I'm prepared to compete and all I want is a fair
chance to compete with the Europeans here or anywhere else. But
I don't see that as a bad thing. If I were in your position, I'd
be trying to sell more to everybody.
PRESIDENT CARDOSO: Well, I believe that what
President Clinton said is most helpful to us. The more
competition we have between the United States and Europe for
trade, the better it is for us because it makes our products much
cheaper. So I agree with President Clinton. It is true that
Brazil's number one individual client is the United States today.
But the European Union, as a whole, or taken as a whole, imports
and exports a bit more than the United States, actually. We are
now, as I said before and I'm going to repeat this, global
traders. We actually trade with a number of countries and areas
throughout the world and we're very interested in increasing
these trade flows.
With regard to the United States, we have increased
such trade flows. Unfortunately, we have an increasing trade
deficit as a result of the increased trade with the United
States. So we have to review this situation and try to balance
it better to the benefit of both. We want to increase imports
and exports. We don't want a zero-sum game and we don't want a
game in which one loses and the other wins. We want a win-win
situation in the trade arena.
That is why we say that our trade policy with Europe
is very active. It will continue to be very active. But I agree
wholeheartedly with President Clinton - we cannot think about
such economic blocks as isolated fortresses. They have been
designed to increase trade, and we're going to take advantage of
every opportunity that we can find to intensify our trade abroad,
to sell things abroad. We will do so whenever we can. We're not
going to close off our economy because our competitiveness, our
progress in the area of technology and the cheapening of the
products for own people depend on such trade.
Thank you
Q
Mr. President, in Venezuela your discussions
included alternative energy sources. Here you've also discussed
safe or clean energy sources. I wonder, given that in the United
States there is opportunity for improvement in the area of both
energy incentives and also reducing the amount of emissions, do
you find it difficult to discuss this topic while abroad?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, because I don't think the
two things are inconsistent. I think we are -- a real
responsibility in the United States to do energy conversion. We
were on that path, ironically, 20 years ago, when our experts
underestimated the amount of natural gas reserves that would be
available to us in the United States and throughout the world.
And we thought we could move to a clean coal technology and do
the job. We now know that that decision was not accurate. But
the people who made the decisions 20 years ago did it based on
the best evidence they had at the time.
So I think we're going to have more reliance on
natural gas and other forms of energy that are even cleaner. And
we have to do more conservation. If you were there at the
climate change conference we had at Georgetown a couple of weeks
ago, we learned, among other things, that two-thirds of all the
heat generated in the production of electricity is wasted. If we
can recover half of that waste heat, we will generate enormous
new capacity for growth without adding one single pollutant in
the form of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. So we've got a
lot to do on our own account.
But as I said -- let me reiterate what I said. What
I want to do is to try to help the developing countries grow
their economy just as fast as would otherwise be the case, but
chart a different energy future than the one we charted in the
past when we were at the same stage of development. And the
question is, can they do that. I think it's absolutely clear,
crystal clear that they can.
And this is a big problem. In China today,
bronchial disease is, among children, the number one health
problem for kids in the country already. So I want the Chinese
economy to grow and the Chinese people to prosper, but I think
they should choose a different energy course for the same growth.
And I think they can and we should be trying to help them. If we
don't do it, then no matter what we in the developed countries
do, within 30 to 40 years we'll be right back in the same pickle
we're in today, except worse.
Q
I have two questions for both Presidents. For
President Clinton, since 1995 both governments have worked on the
bilateral trade with you, but so far they have no concrete
results. And the perception is that Brazil is still complaining
about trade barriers and better access to the U.S. market. So
I'd like to know if both Presidents have now a new orientation
toward a new phase in the trade bilateral relationship.
For President Fernando Enrique, my question is, if
there is no fast track authority, if this is not granted, would
Brazil be willing to negotiate - if there is no fast track, do
you believe that there will be an continuity in the negotiations
of FTAA? And if there isn't, would Mercosur take on this role --
in other words, the role of the principal protagonist in terms of
trade in the region?
PRESIDENT CARDOSO: I don't want to make any bets on
American policy. If there is going to be this sort of a policy
or not is the United States' problem. I think that President
Clinton is going to be in a position to get the fast track
authority he wants.
But integration, whether we're talking about
integration throughout the hemisphere or Mercosur, are two
processes that are very interesting to our economies, quite apart
from any political issues, which will simply decide the speed at
which such issues are decided. So what President Clinton said
was crystal clear when he talked about his view of Mercosur and
FTAA. He said there is no clash between the two; there is no
opposition. There is simply a situation, and we have to give
ourselves enough time so that we will be in a position to prepare
for increased competition. It's just a matter of time,
procedures, so that we will be in a position to participate fully
in conversations and understandings.
So with or without a fast track authority, the
question is, is it good or bad for us to increase international
trade, and the answer is always the same -- it's always good to
increase international trade. So I would say that the other
factors are just conditioning factors, but the key objectives are
out there and they're unchanging.
We will continue to work to our utmost to
consolidate Mercosur, but simultaneously to work on the FTAA. We
signed an agreement in Miami -- I didn't sign it myself
personally, but I was just the President-elect, but President
Clinton was kind enough to ask me to come and observe. And this
is not just a commitment on paper. It's a real commitment -- we
really want to increase our trade foundation.
Now, people are talking about the United States,
Europe and so forth - trade is trade. We have to look at things
one question at a time, how we're going to deal with the
interests that are being affected, how can we build bridges in
such a way as to benefit the parties involved. All of this
involves a long construction process.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me say, first of all, I
would only add to what the President said that I believe, and I
think he believes, as well, that if we can proceed with this free
trade area of the Americas, it's also a way of stabilizing the
democratic governments of many smaller countries in our
hemisphere and giving them some assurance that, if they stay with
democracy and reform, their people will also be able to reap some
economic benefit from it.
So I think it is important that Brazil assume a
leadership role in this fashioning of this whole agreement. And
I hope they will, because I think what we're trying to do is to
say, this is, first and foremost, about economics, but economics
supports freedom and democracy and stability if we do it
properly.
Now, on the question you asked me, the trade
question, let me just briefly say, we went over the specific
trade issues that Brazil has with the United States and the
specific trade issues the United States has with Brazil. And we
-- obviously, neither one of us are trade negotiators and these
are somewhat specific and, in some cases, almost arcane issues
involved, but what we did do is we resolved that we would give
both sides instruction that we want these matters resolved if at
all possible and as quickly as possible. They're dragging on,
they're an irritant to our relationship. And they're, in the
context of our larger objective, a negative rather than a
positive force and we'd like to have them resolved. And that's
basically the decision we made.
Q
Mr. President, just to go back for a moment to
Janet Reno and her investigation - I'm wondering if you can tell
us, has this whole affair complicated your relationship with her
and your ability to actually function with your highest ranking
law enforcement official? For instance, do you find yourself not
talking to her because you're hesitant to have too much contact
with the Attorney General?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I don't really have
anything to add to what I said yesterday about that. I think you
all are perfectly capable of drawing your own conclusions and
evaluating whether this puts our political system in balance or
out of balance, and I don't think that we should discuss it here.
The most important thing is we've got a law; we've
got a fact-finding process. The fact-finding process should
proceed with integrity; the law should be implemented without
pressure either way. I am doing my part. I wish others were
doing as well.
Q Mr. Fernando Enrique, I hope you don't mind if
I ask Mr. Clinton the question. Mr. President, your visit was
preceded by diplomatic turmoil. A document was disseminated that
said that Brazilian corruption was endemic. This was commented
on by the American Ambassador and his comments made things worse.
The head of the Supreme Tribunal, the Superior Court in Brazil
reacted badly, as did some other people in the federal government
-- even a governor of a federal district. And they also reacted
not just to this issue, but to a number of other issues in which
excess security was demanded by some of your advisors.
Brazilian authorities called this people's attitude
rather aggressive. Not only authorities, but people as a whole
in Brazil felt that they had been badly mistreated. I would like
to know your view, sir. Do you think there was any exaggeration?
Do you think there were any diplomatic mishaps in this situation?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, I became
aware of this document and the characterization of the Brazilian
culture after it had been released. The document was wrong and
it represented an appalling error of judgment for anybody to
write such a thing. It has been decisively rejected by every
American authority, beginning with the Ambassador here now. And
it has been excised from the document.
So I regret very much that it happened, but once in
a while such a thing may even happen in Brazil, where someone who
works for some agency will put out something in printing which
shouldn't happen. I can only ask the Brazilian people not to
infer that that is the feeling of either the government or, more
importantly, the people of the United States toward Brazil. I
assure you that no Brazilian could have been any more upset about
it than I was. I thought it was terrible and I did everything I
could to correct it.
Now, in terms of the trip here, I just don't have
enough facts to know. I know that our people historically,
because of the problems that have periodically affected our
Presidents -- always on our own home turf, I might add, always
when we're at home -- that the security for an American President
often seems to others to be too rigid and too uncompromising.
But, as I said, we've never had problems with our Presidents'
security in a foreign country, but we've had enough problems at
home over the last 35 years and before that I hope you will at
least understand that. But I try to make sure that our people
are as understanding and cooperative with the people in every
country and community they visit as possible, and I hope they
have been. That's all I can say. I don't know the facts.
Q
Sir, does it embarrass you when these questions
about fundraising follow you on foreign trips, as they have on
this one, or does it embarrass the country?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I can't be embarrassed by
other people's judgment. I have no control over what you decide
to ask about. That's your decision, not mine. That's a question
you should ask somebody besides me. I didn't have anything to do
with what was asked. I think other people sometimes in other
countries wonder what it's all about, especially when everyone
concedes that there was no request or improper public action in
any way, nor did any occur as a result of whatever communications
are in dispute.
But that's a decision for you. You have to decide
what questions you're going to ask. I can't be embarrassed about
how you decide to do your job.
I have a question that I want to ask both
Presidents. People who monitor relations between Brazil and the
United States feel that the problems that we have had most
recently are often exacerbated by the bureaucracies of our two
countries simply because there's not enough involvement of the
Presidents and the leaders of the two countries. This is
criticism that's been leveled against our countries. I wonder if
you would agree.
The United States has a difficulty being a
superpower, and the only superpower, to deal with an emerging
power in the Americas that is asserting its leadership as a
democracy as a freer market. Former Secretary Kissinger told me
recently that he believed that really you have to adapt, because
you are not used to that. You have to adapt intellectually to
that. I'd like you to talk about this issue. Does our emerging
role bother Americans or the United States of America?
PRESIDENT CARDOSO: Well, at least as far as the
Brazilian side is concerned, I was so very pleased because the
touchiest issues are always being brought up for President
Clinton. No one is asking me these touchy questions. I was so
pleased up until now.
However, my involvement and President Clinton's
involvement can only be that of people who are involved at a very
general level involving problems between our two countries. Of
course, there are always going to be some sort of bureaucratic
problems, but I'm quite sure that we can deal with them quite
easily. I think bureaucratic problems and red tape dissolve as
soon as people see the warmth of our warm and direct personal
relations, which are much more important than any bureaucratic
entanglement.
Now, of course, we do understand fully that for
security reasons, you do have some problems of your own. Luckily
enough, we in Brazil don't have to face these major threats.
It's not the case of every country. The United States
particularly has had to face some very difficult situations. Of
course, our security forces try to pay attention at all times in
Brazil. But I'm always breaking the rules in Brazil and so far
nothing has ever happened and things are very tranquil and I'm
sure they'll continue to be so in the future.
But I'm quite sure that anything that comes up can
be dealt with quite easily because of the warmth and the openness
that President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton have shown to us in
Brazil at all times. They have shown to all Brazilians that
their trip is an open-hearted visit.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I'd actually like to respond, if
I might, to both your questions. Because the question you asked
the President, I think the answer to your question is a lot of --
people who work in government bureaucracies the world over are
following established policies, and they tend to acquire an
interest in maintaining the established policies, and most of
them don't have the authority to change it, which is why these
kind of personal relationships are so important. Because it's
our responsibility if we want to change the direction of the
country not to blame the people who work for us -- and
particularly the people who many not even be political
appointees, they work through from one administration to another
-- but to try to give different instructions, to send different
messages down there.
And that's why sometimes I think, with all
respect, sometimes members of the press and even our own publics
say, well, why did they spend all that money and do that foreign
trip, all the money we spent to come here, all the money we spent
to entertain us -- why did they do all that? There didn't seem
to be an great earth-shaking specific agreement. And the main
reason is the very thing you said that we have to increase
understanding, we have to increase sensitivity. And even subtle
shifts in our position can send a different message to those down
in the governmental hierarchies that have to implement these
decisions on a daily basis. So I think that's a very good
question.
The second thing is, does the United States, at the
end of the Cold War left as being the world's only superpower,
feel threatened by the emergence of Brazil or any other country.
The answer to that is, I actually support the emergence of
countries to a greater role of influence and responsibilities, as
long as they share our basic values -- not agree with us on
everything, but share our basic values.
If they're committed to freedom and democracy, if
they're committed to open trading systems, if they're committed
to giving all their people a chance to participate in the wealth
that the global economy generates, if they're committed to a
responsible global approach on the environment, if they're
committed to working with us against threats that cross national
borders terrorism, weapons proliferation, criminal syndicates
and drug trafficking if they're committed to those things,
then I don't see this as competition. I see this as people
emerging to take on more responsibility. And if we work
together, more good will happen.
I'll give you another example. When I became
President, there was the question of whether the United States
would object if, in addition to NATO in Europe, there were an
independent European security force working with NATO. And I
made it clear from the beginning, I support this. I don't see
these things as competing.
We have to change because most of the threats to
nations in the years ahead will come not from other nations, but
from threats that cross national borders -- guerrillas,
terrorists, weapons proliferation, drugs, crime, environmental
and disease problems -- number one. And because most of the
benefits that nations can derive for their people require them to
cooperate with people beyond their borders, we will have to
change our conception of how national power and influence is
acquired.
National power and influence is acquired,
ironically, by becoming more interdependent and cooperative with
others who are strong and self-sufficient and self-reliant, but
need to be allied with you. And I do believe, frankly, that this
will require a big change in the way people look at politics --
not just in the United States, but elsewhere.
Q
Since you spoke yesterday on Air Force One,
it's been reported that the White House and the Justice
Department have been negotiating to figure out a way that you
could speak to investigators about campaign finance. Have you
reached such an agreement? And under what conditions would you
speak to the Justice Department?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I know nothing about that I
didn't say yesterday. I literally no one has talked to me
about it and I know nothing to add to what I said yesterday.
Q
Mr. President, Mr. President of Brazil,
Fernando Enrique Cardoso, Brazil defends negotiations with the
FTAA in complementation to tariff laws. Now, what complements
are we talking about specifically as long as Brazil adheres to
the calendar?
And for President Bill Clinton, last night, Mr.
Clinton, you said that you felt touched by Brazil and had felt
touched by Brazil for over 30 years. Have you been touched
enough to say that you're going to give support to Brazil's
candidacy on the Security Council so that Brazil will become a
full member of the Group of Nine as well next year?
PRESIDENT CARDOSO: Okay, I'm going to break a
couple of the rules here once again. Go ahead, one last
additional question, very, very quickly before we answer.
Q
The United States government wants that Brazil
open the Brazilian market, but there are many restrictions
against Brazilian products, like oranges. My question is, why
not the USA don't change the situation, keep the situation and
allow the free commerce for many Brazilian companies?
Fernando Cardoso, I would like to know what the
Brazilian government's view on these non-tariff barriers against
a number of Brazilian products that are trying to get into the
U.S. market.
PRESIDENT CARDOSO: All right, I'm going to begin by
answering the question on the additional agreements or side
agreements to the FTAA. I think that President Clinton talked
about his views very clearly when he talked about the meaning of
the overall proposal for hemisphere-wide integration. And he
made his comments in a way that I think was quite proper.
He said it's not just a matter of tariffs - I'm
going to talk about the tariffs in a minute but it's not just
a matter of tariffs. It's a much broader concept that we're
fighting for here, because we're talking about the fact that
there are some political considerations that come into play.
And, of course, political considerations are based on values -- a
common desire, a shared desire to keep the peace, to control drug
trafficking, to avoid criminal activities on the international
level or in the international sphere.
So we're not just talking about trade here, so much
so that what we proposed in the meetings that we've had thus far
and that we're going to continue to have over the next few days,
is that the key topic be education. And in Santiago, we're going
to keep insisting on education as the key issue, because people
can say, all right, very generously, let's talk about something
that will move people, but that means that we have to talk about
something that goes beyond tariffs.
Tariffs, of course, are very important to countries
and their economies and especially interesting to specialists.
But countries have much more that they talk about and disagree
with in the area of international relations aside from tariffs.
And so we have to talk about things that will bring our people
closer together.
Education is ideal because the basic tenet of
education is equality, and I think that what President Clinton
said here pretty much follows along the same line of thought.
And we do not want to limit our relationship to issues that don't
even require a meeting between Presidents, because
technical-level meetings will be enough.
What we are here to express and symbolize is
something far greater than this. It's the desire for democracy
and greater equality. A country such as Brazil that has no
reason to hide its problems, especially our social problems,
which are so great in nature, is in a position to want very much
to improve the standard of living of its people. Within
Mercosur, outside of Mercosur, we're very interested in seeing
that all agreements be broader in scope, just as President
Clinton just said.
So with regard to the specific issues that were
brought up you talked about steel and orange juice and
footwear and everywhere throughout Latin America where
President Clinton goes, he's going to hear the same issues being
brought up. And elsewhere as well, because the French, the
Japanese, the British, they all have the same problems. To the
degree that our countries move forward and progress, especially
Brazil, where the industry sector is growing rapidly, of course
we're going to begin to compete and problems and are going to
crop up. And, of course, some moment in time is going to require
arbitration of some nature, which is not meant to be just
political in nature. But the greater our understanding is, the
better our possibilities will be of reaching an understanding as
to these issues.
Now, there are specific points on the agenda of
demands of our two countries that neither one of us have really
talked about them much. Some were brought up now, but we both
know what they are. And when President Clinton goes back to the
United States, people are going to ask him, did they ask you
about this, that, or the other. I'm not even going to mention
what they are. He's going to say, yes, I did talk to President
Cardoso about it. What did he say? Well, President Cardoso said
he's going to give utmost consideration to these issues. And
that's what I'm going to say to you. We're both going to work
hard to try to solve these issues.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me say again, on balance,
the United States has a lower tariff structure than virtually any
country in the world, and fewer restrictions on trade than the
European Union, for example. And I hope we can work these last
remaining areas out. If you think about how big and complicated
our countries are and the fact that we have now two-way trade in
the neighborhood of $23 billion a year. The number of disputes
is actually relatively small and I'm encouraged by that.
I'm not going to ignore the gentleman's clever
question on the United Nations. First of all, you should know
that today Brazil has been elected't to a two-year term on the
Security Council. Congratulations, Mr. President, that's a very
good thing for the United Nations, as well as for Brazil.
The United States' position has been that the
Security Council ought to be expanded, that a permanent seat
ought to be given to Latin America, and that the Latin American
nations themselves should resolve how that permanent seat should
be filled. This really is one of those areas where I don't think
it's our place to tell the people of Latin America how to proceed
here. I hope we will proceed and give a permanent seat on the
Security Council to Latin America, because I think that the
actions of the last several years clearly warrant that. And,
again, that's another one of those questions like the gentleman
who asked me about Brazil's emergence. The more there is a
stable, constructive presence in global affairs presented by
Latin America, the better off the world's going to be.
Q Thank you, Mr. President, and good afternoon.
Based on your comments yesterday on Air Force One, sir, it would
seem that you've been briefed on the videotapes that are soon to
be released. What is your understanding of what's on them? And
is there anything on them that causes you any concern?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, I think it's the same old
stuff. As I said, those of you who have been going to the
fundraisers with me, you've already seen it live so the replay
will probably be boring for you. That's what I understand and
I'm not worried about it.
Q
Mr. President are already saying that --
(inaudible.)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I've not made a decision yet
about what to do. But let me say this, I intend to take a strong
position there and I expect to probably be criticized by all
sides. The United States, as our friends in Europe are well
aware, is in a particularly difficult position when the benchmark
is 1990, for three reasons.
Number one, we've had economic growth since 1990 far
greater than Europe, so our greenhouse gas emissions have gone up
more, which means we have more to do to go down. Number two, the
Europeans are particularly if they're treated together
--benefit from the incorporation of East Germany into Germany and
the dramatic drop in production in East Germany, which has a high
level of pollution. Therefore, they get a big reduction in
pollution for something that not because of any independent
policy action taken, but because of the incorporation of East
Germany into Germany.
And, thirdly, the presence of the North Sea oil for
Great Britain gave Britain the ability to sell the oil, which is
relatively polluting to other countries and keep the natural gas,
which is quite clean, and substitute that for coal. So using the
1990 base mark, they have a lot of inherent advantages over the
United States in terms of the degree of rigor required to meet
any given target.
Nonetheless, I think there's so much we can do
through technology and different purchasing patterns and
conservation patterns, that I think that we can do quite a great
deal. And I intend to propose that we do a great deal. What I'm
trying to do is to put together a comprehensive agreement in
Kyoto that will actually do what everybody wants, which is do
reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere substantially
in the next century.
Right now we're at about double the volume of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that existed before the dawn
of the Industrial Age. If we don't do something we'll be triple
the volume by the middle of the next century. And we know that
something bad will happen. Even though the skeptics on the other
side say we don't know exactly what and when, we know enough to
know it's not going to be good, and we've seen enough evidence of
that so far.
So I'm going to have a credible plan. I'm going to
do my best to get everybody involved in it. I hope I'll even
have some success at selling it to the Congress. Right now, it
may be a lot easier to sell it to the environmentalists and to
the business community than to sell it to the Congress, but I'll
do my best.
Q Mr. President, have you decided against using
your line item veto authority? And am I mistaken, or is this
becoming habit forming?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, it's not habit forming
but, yes, I used it again today as I told you yesterday I
would - on I can't remember how many projects, but more than a
dozen worth more than $140 million that were not either in my
budget or recommended by the Department of Defense. I thought it
was appropriate.
I know that a lot of members that voted for the line
item veto in Congress now wonder whether they did the right
thing, now that I'm exercising it. But I'd like to remind you
that, again, I have deferred, in great measure, to Congress.
Congress put in 750 projects not requested in our budget or in
the Defense Department plan, and reduced overall weapons
procurement, reduced overall research and development to pay for
virtually all of them.
And I'm hoping that in the years ahead I won't be
using it as much and future Presidents won't use it as much
because it will lead to a different kind of negotiation in the
budgeting process.
But I think what I did today was responsible and
quite restrained. And I believe that it's important to send a
signal to the American people that we're going to stay on the
budget track we started on, and we're going to stay within these
numbers and balance the budget. That's one of the things that's
given us the big economy we've got.
PRESIDENT CARDOSO: I'd like to thank all the
Brazilian and American journalists for having joined us and for
being so good about answering all our questions. And may I say
that the emphasis that President Clinton has put on the
environmental issue is one that I would like to bring up for
Brazil as well. We have an energy matrix that is very, very
clean. We use hydro power and now gas, natural gas. And we are
strengthening our links with regard to the energy matrix
throughout the rest of Latin America. So I think that our
dialogue in terms of climate has been extremely positive.
Thank you to everyone.
END
2:35 P.M. (L)
Message Sent
To:
Sharolyn A. Rosier
Lori E. Abrams
Jeannetta P. Allen
Lori Anderson
Brenda M. Anders
Eli G. Attie @ OVP@EOP
Robin J. Bachman
Kyle M. Baker
Kris M Balderston
Beverly J. Barnes
David S. Beaubaire
Marsha E. Berry
antony j. blinken
Lanny A. Breuer
Patrick E. Briggs
Katharine Button
Robin J. Bachman
Barbara D. Woolley
Laura Capps
Joseph W. Cerrell @ OVP@EOP
David K. Chai
Steven A. Cohen
Julianne B. Corbett
Michelle Crisci
Carolyn Curiel
Anna E. Cushing
Suzanne Dale
Lanny J. Davis
James A. Dorskind
Jennifer D. Dudley
Daniel W. Burkhardt
Diane Ikemiyashiro
Dorian V. Weaver
Dorinda A. Salcido
James T. Edmonds
Anne M. Edwards
Rahm Emanuel
Karen C. Fahle
Karen E. Finney
Carmen B. Fowler
Ben A. Freeland
Jeremy M. Gaines
Jessica L. Gibson
Adam W. Goldberg
Jason S. Goldberg
Donald Goldberg
Richard Hayes
Russell W. Horwitz
Maureen A. Hudson
Thomas D. Janenda
david t. johnson
Leanne I. Johnson
Michele Jolin
James M. Teague
Julia R. Green
Julie E. Mason
David E. Kalbaugh
William R. Kincaid
Allison J. King
Joshua A. King
Catherine T. Kitchen
Sarah S. Freeman
Jim Kohlenberger @ OVP@EOP
Heidi Kukis @ OVP@EOP
Sara M. Latham
GN. Lattimore
Christopher J. Lavery
Anne H. Lewis
Joseph P. Lockhart
Laura D. Schwartz
Michael D. Malone
Laura S. Marcus
Tanya E. Martin
Doris O. Matsui
Andrew J. Mayock
Anne E. McGuire
Estela Mendoza
R. Scott Michaud
Elisa Millsap
Cheryl D. Mills
Megan C. Moloney
Tamara Monosoff
Kevin Moran
Jonathan Murchinson
Reuben L. Musgrave Jr.
Sean P. Maloney
Steven J. Naplan
Mark D. Neschis
Elizabeth R. Newman
Neera Tanden
Michael A. O'Mary
Jonathan Orszag
Peter R. Orszag
Kristen E. Panerali
Carole A. Parmelee
Sally P. Paxton
Julia M. Payne
Jonathan Prince
Peter O'Keefe
Nicole R. Rabner
Victoria Radd
Nelson Reyneri
Charles F. Ruff
Peter Rundlet
Virginia N. Rustique
Evan Ryan
Roger V. Salazar
G. Timothy Saunders
Judithanne V. Scourfield
Brooks Scoville
Ruby Shamir
Douglas S. Sheorn
June Shih
David Shipley
Robert M. Shireman
Jake Siewert
Joshua Silverman
Brian D. Smith
Craig T. Smith
Richard Socarides
Douglas B. Sosnik
Maria E. Soto
Aviva Steinberg
Todd Stern
Darby E. Stott
Michael J. Sullivan
Jonathan H. Schnur/OVP @ OVP
Tracy F. Sisser
Sylvia M. Mathews
Lisa Tamagni
Virginia M. Terzano @ ovp@eop
terri tingen
Barry J. Toiv
Serena C. Torrey
June G. Turner
Dag Vega
Lorraine A. Voles @ ovp@eop
Michael Waldman
Angelina Walker @ ovp@eop
Glen M. Weiner
Lowell A. Weiss
Woyneab M. Wondwossen
Debra S. Wood
William H. White Jr.
meglynn @usia.gov@INET@LNGTWY
SUNTUM_M@A1@CD@LNGTWY
SUNTUM_M@A1@CD@LNGTWY
COGDELL_C@A1@CD@LNGTVY
backup @wilson.ai.mit.edu@INET@LNGTWY
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY
BARBUSCHAK_K@A1@CD@LNGTWY
BARTHOLOME_M@A1@CD@LNGTWY
BARTHOLOW_T@A1@CD@LNGTWY
BALDERSTON_A@A1@CD@LNGTWY
CAPLAN_P@ A1@CD@LNGTWY
CUTLER_L@A1@CD@LNGTVY
CUTLER_L@A1@CD@LNGTWY
DICKEY_L@A1@CD@LNGTWY
GRAY_W@A1@CD@LNGTWY
GRIBBEN_J@A1@CD@LNGTVY
HAAS_L@A1@CD@LNGTWY
JOHNSON_WC@A1@CD@LNGTWY
LIZIK_C@A1@CD@LNGTWY
MOFFETT_J@A1@CD@LNGTWY
PR_U=TDIXON@PR_L=AVUOEOB@MRP@LNGTWY
RILEY_R@A1@CD@LNGTWY
NAPLAN_S@A1@CD@LNGTWY
SMITH_BD@ A1@CD@LNGTWY
STUMPF_D@A1@CD@LNGTWY
TCSmith @dol.gov@INET@LNGTWY
WEINER_R@A1@CD@LNGTWY
WOZNIAK_N@A1@CD@LNGTWY
usia01 @ access.digex.com@INET@LNGTVY
1=US@2=WESTERN UNION@3=@5=ATT.COM@*ELN\62955104@MRX@LNGTWY
62955104 @eln.attmail.com@INET@LNGTWY
INFOMGT@A1@CD@LNGTVY
newsdesk @ usnewswire.com@INET@LNGTWY
usnwire @access.digex.com@INET@LNGTWY
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Russell W. Horwitz (CN=Russell W. Horwitz/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD
CREATION DATE/TIME: 5-NOV-1997 15:00:02.00
SUBJECT: "the sperling trade package"
TO: Anne H. Lewis (CN=Anne H. Lewis/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [OPD])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan Orszag (CN=Jonathan Orszag/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Q Just to follow up on a question earlier about the
Sperling trade package, how far do you think that goes toward
addressing Democratic concerns about the fast track authority? And
what other packages or inducements do you feel are ready that you
have to offer to get over the top?
MR. MCCURRY: I think it was important to address that
question of worker dislocation and how the administration would
define dealing with that problem. And as you heard Secretary Herman
say, there were some things being worked on that could be put
together that I think will be reassuring to some members. I suspect
you'll hear even later today that this has been compelling enough to
some members that they are willing not to declare their intentions
for the vote on Friday. But, ultimately, we'll know a lot better
Friday.
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Russell W. Horwitz CN=Russell W. Horwitz/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:27-JAN-1998 01:51:40.00
SUBJECT: sotu background
TO: Lael Brainard (CN=Lael Brainard/OU=CEA/O=EOP @ EOP [CEA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Lael, can you please get me those paragraphs by 9:00 this morning (fast
track and africa trade). We are trying to get the packet done for the
10a.m. pundit briefing. Thanks a lot.
How's this for f.t.?
America needs fast track to continue to create higher-paying jobs for more
Americans.
Without it, America ,S role as the largest exporter in the world will be
put in jeopardy. And with
new markets opening around the world, it is more important than ever to
give the President
traditional trade authority to break down trade barriers that put American
products made by
American workers at a disadvantage. Fast track legislation is
essentially an agreement between Congress and the president on how
Congress will
consider United States trade agreements negotiated by the President. As
part of that deal,
the President agrees to extensively consult and coordinate with Congress
throughout
trade negotiations. In return, Congress votes on legislation implementing
trade deals
within a fixed period of time, on a up or down basis, and with no
amendments.
Every president since 1974 has enjoyed fast track authority.
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Michael A. O'Mary (CN=Michael A. O'Mary/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD
CREATION DATE/TIME:25-FEB-1998 16:17:29.00
SUBJECT:
TO: Missy ( Missy @ 3957234 @ fax [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Hillary Rodham Clinton
First Lady of the United States
at the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum
Davos, Switzerland
February 2, 1998
(Begin transcript)
PROFESSOR KLAUS SCHWAB: Dear Madam First Lady, dear Mrs. Hillary Clinton,
it is with
purpose that I address you in those two forms, because we welcome you here
not only as the
representative of a country which is the greatest power in the world, but
we welcome you as a
personality who in her own right has won high recognition for the causes
you stand for as a relentless
advocate for those who are disadvantaged and who need to be integrated
into our efforts to improve
the state of the world.
We have launched here, in Davos, a comprehensive initiative Trustees 21,
to take on the challenges
in the transition of human kind into the 21st Century. We are eager to
hear from you. How you see
the individual and collective priorities for our common future. Ladies and
Gentlemen, let's welcome
again Mrs. Clinton, a most remarkable, a most courageous woman of our
times.
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Good evening, thank you very much
Professor
Schwab, and thank all of you for the invitation to address this forum. I
appreciated greatly the
opportunity to come and be part of these sessions, and to speak with you
about the priorities for the
21st Century, as seen perhaps from a slightly different perspective from
the one that brings many of
you here to this conference.
After having looked at the program, and seen some of the sessions, I think
it is probably more
appropriate to refer to this gathering as the World Economic, Political
and Social Forum, because
certainly in the discussions that I have been privileged to hear about and
to hear directly, it has struck
me that there is a very strong awareness of how interdependent the
economic, political and social
spheres of life happen to be. It is something that I think we need to pay
even closer attention to.
Certainly when one thinks about the economy, whether it is the economy of
a business, of a nation
state, or of our entire globe, one talks a great deal about the importance
of and the significance of
the free market. And I believe that as we end this century, any doubt
about the effectiveness of
organizing our economy along the lines of a free market, have finally been
put to rest. That is one of
the major accomplishments, perhaps, of this past century. That we now
understand that the greatest
capacity to create employment, income, wealth and investment is derived
from a free market.
At the same time, I hope we have also recognized as we end this century,
that we need effective,
functioning, competent governments. Governments that are neither
oppressive, nor too strong and
authoritarian, nor on the other hand, so weak that they can neither
deliver goods and services for the
public good to their citizenry or play the kind of partnership role that
they should in connection with a
vital free market.
But if that's all we were to speak about, the economy on the one hand, and
government on the other,
we would be leaving out one of the most important aspects of what we
should turn our attention to
as we move into this new century, that is society, civil society, because
between the marketplace and
the government, is what exists that makes life worth living. It is the
stuff of life. It is the family, it is the
religious belief and spirituality that guide us. It is the voluntary
association of which we are a member.
It is the art and culture that makes our spirits soar.
I think as we look at the end of this century and the beginning of the
next, it behooves all of us, no
matter what our perspective or experience, to think hard about how we
create conditions in which
the economy, governments and the civil society all flourish. Think of it,
if you will, as a three-legged
stool. We are not stable if we are only on one leg, no matter how strong
the economy might be, no
matter how strong a government might be. We are also not stable if we rest
merely on two legs of
the stool. Rather we need to see the independence and connection among the
economy, the
government and the civil society. And more than that, I think we need to
recognize the ways in which
each of those spheres of influence are affected by the other. I know there
has been a great deal of
useful conversation here about what needs to be done to help manage crises
such as the Asian crisis,
how to better provide technical assistance for banking supervision and the
regulation of markets in
many countries around the world, even suggestions as to what could be done
to create more of a
global regulator atmosphere along the lines perhaps of a new Bretton
Woods.
These are all very important conversations. And I hope that the economic
and political leaders
gathered here will certainly follow up on them through the various
entities that exist, and perhaps
some that are yet to be born, so that we can address these very important
problems that are posed
by the state of the economy today. We have also heard how important it is
for governments to work
with the economies of their countries and regions and globally, and how
significant it is to find the
right balance between regulation that permits real competition to flourish
and that which stifles
entrepreneurship. So there is much for governments also to ponder coming
out of this conference.
How can they do a better job to unleash the energies of their people to
provide environments in
which businesses can flourish? How do they become more transparent? How do
they stand against
corruption? How do they create the instruments that are needed for
governments today to provide
the kind of support for the economy at the same time that they provide the
sort of capacity for their
people to be able to thrive in this new economic environment? I will leave
it to others, many of
whom have addressed you, to speak about how we can do more to make sure
that our markets do
what they should do, and to make sure that our governments do likewise.
But what I want to address is this third leg of the stool. A leg of the
stool that I think is too often
given short shrift in such conversations as those that take place here, or
perhaps marginalized as
being something less than important to the significant business of
governing and creating economic
opportunity.
Our founders in the American republic at the end of the eighteenth century
left us with some very
good advice that they enshrined in our founding documents and which we
have over our centuries of
development attempted to adapt to modern conditions. They warned us about
unaccountable
power, they warned us about creating checks and balances, and they set up
a system that they
thought would create a balance of power. I think that is what we have to
see in creating such a
balance among our economic interests, our governmental and political
activities and the civil society.
One without the other will create an imbalance.
I have been privileged to travel over the past several years to many of
the new democracies around
the world, particularly in the former Soviet Union. I have seen what has
happened to people whose
spirits have been crushed, whose economies have been driven into the
ground, whose governments
were authoritarian, as they attempt to rebuild a sense of potential and
opportunity for themselves. It
is very clear if one visits these countries that economic opportunity will
certainly provide jobs and
income but not necessarily long-term stability or governments that
understand their duties to their
citizens. It is also clear that stable governments, as important as they
are, may not bring about those
conditions that are essential to creating long-term social stability.
So in my travels I have focused on this third leg of the stool, the civil
society, and I have seen many
changes within the last several years, as governments and economic
interests understand that there
must be created within society, the work ethic for capitalism to thrive
and continue, a sense of
citizenship for governments to be stable and succeed one another
peacefully. And so how do we
nurture this civil society? Why is it in the interest of business leaders,
such as many of you, to worry
about whether in the countries in which you do business there is an effort
being made to create these
civil society functions and institutions? Why should you care whether
women are given the
opportunity to go to school, or have health care, or vote? Why should you
worry whether or not
children are being taught basic lessons about democracy or not? Well, I
would argue again that it is
in your long term interests to do so: to have conditions in the countries
in which you do business
supportive over the medium and long term of what we mean by a free market,
and to have
governments that understand their appropriate roles.
So I would urge that as we look towards the end of this century, as many
of you work on the
important issues of helping to perfect the imperfect mechanism of a free
market, worrying about the
many inherent problems that have been pointed out, that lead often to
instability, particularly in
financial markets today. Those of you who are directly involved in helping
governments in Asia and
elsewhere understand why it is imperative that they reform themselves,
that you also think about
what we can do to strengthen civil society. How do we create conditions
for families to be strong in
an age where family values and where the kinds of ideas one would wish to
pass on to one's children
face very stiff competition from the consumer culture, from propaganda,
and from a media that
stresses short term gratification. How do we support religious freedom,
making it clear that we will
honor the spiritual beliefs and journeys of people different from
ourselves? How do we work
together to create conditions in which tribal and ethnic and racial and
other differences among
people can be controlled and kept in check. And how can we create
opportunities for common
enterprises that go beyond the differences that too often divide us? How
do we nurture
non-governmental organizations in societies have no history of voluntary
or charitable activity? How
do we create associations that stand between the marketplace and the
government, but give people
an opportunity to excersize their own skills to become good citizens?
All of these are questions that are being addressed in various ways by
many organizations around the
world. I have stood in barrios in Latin America and in villages in Asia
and Africa where I have seen
the effects of micro-enterprise on the capacity of women to make an income
for themselves, and not
only to make an income, but to feel empowered so that they can become
citizens of their village and
of their country, so that they can begin to understand not only how a
market works, but how a
society and a political democracy work as well. I have watched creative
projects all over the world
that have taken the very poorest of the poor, and empowered them to learn
about what it means to
live in a democracy. And I have talked with students on every continent
about their hopes and
aspirations that they will be able to navigate what to them seems like a
very difficult journey into the
next century. And they have asked for help and guidance, whether it is
mentoring or internships or
opportunities to work with businesses and government, so they can learn
from adults about what
works and what they can follow in their own lives and careers.
There are many large problems that confront us as a world. It is
impossible to think of any
corporation, no matter how large, or any government, no matter how
powerful, addressing these
alone. Whether we like it or not, we are more interdependent today than we
have ever been. I
believe that interdependence is a good development. And it should be
respected by governments
and businesses alike. Because through it we can meet mutual challenges of
environmental
degradation or security threats, and we can also work together to help
build up strong, functioning
markets, governments and civil societies.
I would just end these remarks by reminding us tonight that there isn't
any perfect human institution.
There is no perfect market except in the abstract theories of economists.
There is no perfect
government except in the dreams of political leaders. And there is no
perfect society. We have to
work with human beings as we find them. And we have learned a lot about
what works. And the
lesson of the global economy will certainly be that those who ignore the
lessons that we have learned
about effective functioning markets and political and governmental
leadership will pay a steep price.
That may be a necessary part of the learning curve. But as we go into the
21 st Century, if we can
keep in mind the balance of power among these three spheres that effect
all of our lives, and if we
can look for ways to work cooperatively together, then I think the
doomsayers and the pessimists
will be proven wrong. I wouldn't want to be more optimistic than
conditions warrant, but I think
based on the conversations that I've heard coming out of this conference,
from people in a position
to affect economic and governmental action, there is every reason to
believe that there is a new
awareness growing among the decision makers around the world about the
steps that must be taken
in order to ensure stability and sustained growth. I'll only ask that in
that calculus, we remember the
billions of men, women and children who are effectively without a voice,
often without a vote, and
that we understand that our long-term success, either economically or
governmentally, will ultimately
depend upon wether we empower them as well, to take their rightful places
in forums around the
world where they plan their own futures. Thank you very much.
SCHWAB: Mrs. Hillary Clinton, you have reminded us of our obligations, of
our obligations toward
society. As the First Lady, you have pursued an incredible active agenda
to promote the social
progress. Now, looking at the future, and I may ask you a very personnal
question, what is your
personnal priority for the remainder of the 21st Century in this respect.
CLINTON: You mean what will I do for the next three years?
SCHWAB: What will you in your own work put emphasis on?
CLINTON: I think I will continue to emphasize the issues that I have tried
to speak out about,
worked on, and addressed in my writing, and that is the need to invest in
the future of children
around the world. I don't know how many Americans in the audience heard
Larry Summers say
yesterday as it was reported to me that a child in Shanghai has a better
chance of living to the age of
five than a child born in New York City. But I hope if you did hear it, it
caused some pause among
you.
Of course it is not only in our own country where we have not done all we
should to provide the
opportunities for health and education and well-being for our children. It
is certainly a problem that
affects most if not all the nations of the world. And I believe it is the
best investment we can make in
long-term stability to provide opportunities for education, and
healthcare, to work on thorny issues
like family planning and environmental degredation that affect the
well-being of children, and to do all
we can to provide the best possible beginning for as many children as we
can reach, and that is what
I will continue to work on and speak out about.
SCHWAB: In this context, you have hear in front of you many of the CEOs of
leading American
companies, and you have been a proponent of moving toward the program of
universal health
coverage. The program to date has met mixed success, and generally little
enthusiasm from the
business community. So my question would be, why should the business
community have this
program as a priority? What would you tell the business leaders here in
this respect?
CLINTON: Well I think your characterization of it meeting with mixed
success was too kind. I still
believe that economically, politically, socially, and morally, the United
States would be better off if it
provided universal health care coverage for all of its citizens.
I think the economic arguments will again come to the fore. There was a
pullback in the cost of
health insurance to the major providers of it in our country, which our
employers during the last
several years but that apparently is about to turn around, and the
cost of insurance will once again
begin to rise. There has been, since 1993, an increase in the number of
uninsured Americans, and an
increase in the number of underinsured Americans. I believe that should
pose a question for all of us
as to whether or not we think it is appropriate for our country, as rich
and powerful as it is, to be
denying access to the kind of preventive and chronic health care coverage
that many people miss out
on .
It is true that most people will be taken in by an emergency room, perhaps
not the first one they visit,
if they are not insured, but perhaps the second or third one if they are
lucky enough to still be around
by the time they arrive. And that if that were the only assessment we
would make, we would say,
well eventually everyone gets care. But we are paying a very big price for
those who do not get
timely or preventive care.
In addition, there is another problem, which is that there are many
functions of the American medical
system which have helped us to attain the high level of quality that it
currently enjoys, which can
never be profitable. There is no way for most research to be profitable.
There is no way for the
education and training of young physicians or nurses to be profitable. And
there is no way for charity
care to be profitable. And those functions are primarily performed in our
country by our great
medical schools and medical centers. Because they cannot turn a profit on
performing those
functions which are performed to the benefit of our entire system, they
are at great financial risk.
They are being forced into mergers, and they are finding themselves in a
position of having to cut
back on those functions. That is like eating the seed corn of the American
health care system, in my
view.
So there are a number of problems in my view, and I think that there is an
ideological opposition
among many in the American business community to the American government
being any part of
providing universal care. But of course we provide universal care to our
citizens over the age of 65
through Medicare. And we provide it at the cheapest overhead and
administrative cost of any
insurance program in the United States. I daresay if you went back and you
talked to your benefits
people or your CFOs, and you asked them what percentage of the health care
dollar you were
spending on your employees, that went to administration and overhead and
profit, compared with
the two cents out of the dollar that goes to Medicare, you would have to
ask yourself, is this an
ideological opposition that no longer makes economic sense, or shall I
hang on to it while I find my
capacity to provide health insurance for my employees further diminished,
thereby creating more
instability in the system. So I hope that we will continue to address
these issues in the future.
SCHWAB: Under your husband's leadership, the US has emerged as a world
leader in technology,
finance, military power. What are the domestic key factors and priorities
that you believe are
required to maintain this leadership in the long run.
CLINTON: Well, I think my husband very well outlined those priorirites in
his State of the Union
last Tuesday evening. He was able to address the remaining issues that he
believes should be at the
forefront of the American political debate, both domestically and
internationally. And I think that if
one were to look at them they would fall roughly into the categories that
he has already outlined and
has been speaking about for many years.
The first is to provide conditions that offer economic opportunity to as
many of our people as
possibly can be reached, and that has been I think very effectively
accomplished during my
husband's administration. We are very lucky, I believe, in having a pr
esident who understands not
only politics, but economics, and has a very experienced, seasoned team,
which is able to implement
that policy. And the result is that we have, as you all know, reversed
some rather disturbing trends
that we saw in the late eighties and early nineties and emerged very
strong economically.
But it is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job
that has begun, and the
President spoke about providing better educational opportunities, so that
we have more of our
people trained so that they can take the jobs that are available in the
global economy. He has
continued to press for more trade agreements and opening markets because
he believes that
America can compete and do very well internationally and he will continue
to press that arguement in
the future. He has also spoken about trying to make it possible to put a
floor, a social safety net,
under some of our people, who are poorly educated, who are left out of the
global economy through
increasing the minimum wage again, and he has also talked about providing
economic support for
social security, child care, which is a very big issue in our country,
with so many women working,
and single women who are the sole support of their families, and our two
parent families.
So I think he has outlined a very clear agenda for trying to provide more
opportunity. At the same
time, he has asked for more responsibility. Probably the clearest example
of what that responsibility
means is our continuing effort to reform our welfare system, to move
people from welfare to work.
He has also advocated strongly that Americans must be prepared to take
their responsiblity as
citizens seriously and has advocated campaign finance reform so that our
electoral system can have
the confidence of the people, which it should.
Finally, he sees very clearly the role of the United States in building a
community within our country
and being part of building a community around the world. He has put on the
table a race initiative to
address the still unfinished business of race in the United States. It is
controversial. It is challenging
many people to think hard about what they believe. But it is very
important if we are to try to create,
among our very diverse population, a sense of common destiny and shared
purpose.
He has also tried to help the American people understand why the United
States must remain
engaged around the world. And here I would also address the American
business leaders in this
audience. It is imperative that those of you who understand the global
economy, who visit and do
business in many countries, share your knowledge of what you see occuring
around the world with
members of Congress, with leaders of your community, with anyone who you
can reach, because
we cannot build a public consensus for American engagement if the American
business community is
not a strong supporter of that engagement. And I would just ask that you
think hard about what you
can do to try to have your voices heard. One quick example, during the
last session of Congress,
when the President's plan for the United States to pay its debts to the
United Nations, and to
replenish our commitment to the IMF, came before the House of
Representatives, it was not voted
on because of a debate over whether or not the United States should co
ntinue to give family planning
aid around the world to any organization that had anything however
remotely to do with abortion. It
was voted down. There was a coalition among people who believe the United
States should not be
engaged in the world, as well as those who are against abortion. There was
a deafening silence from
the American business community. I saw no press conferences. I saw no ads
in newspapers. I saw
no signed joint statements saying "we know what faces the United States
around the world and we
understand how important it is for America to lead and be engaged and we
therefore raise our
voices on behalf of American support for the United Nations, IMF and other
multilateral institutions."
So I think the President has outlined a very clear agenda for where we go
in the future. But it is not
just the President's agenda. It has to be adopted and promoted by any who
believe all or part of it in
order for it to come to pass.
SCHWAB: In the same context, the fast-track trade legislation is very much
at the top of the
priorities of your husbands administration. What can you say also to the
business community here to
give the active and effective support for this legislative measure?
CLINTON: Well, I would probably just echo what I already said, at the risk
of being repetitive.
There was a very effective business effort in the United States on behalf
of NAFTA. There was a
very limited and ineffective effort on behalf of fast track. I don't know
all the reasons for that. Some
of them suggested, but I have no basis for any first-hand knowledge or any
analysis that I find
convincing. The bottom line is, however, that no one in Congress felt any
particular pressure, or
demand, by any business interest about giving the President the authority
that other presidents have
had to negotiate trade agreements.
Now again, I have to conclude that either American business doesn't care
about opening markets
around the world but I find that very hard to believe -- or they feel
that their involvement in
politics is something that they wish to minimize or steer clear of and
don't want to become
participants in any effort to pass such legislation, or some other reason
that I have yet to understand.
But the effect was the same. For whatever reason, the fact that the
American business community
made a very limited effort on behalf of the fast track, left the field
completely clear to the rather
unusual alliance between the right of the Republican party which is
isolationist, anti-American
engagement, quite critical and not supportive of the United Nations, IMF
or any multilateral group,
and the left of the Democratic party that believes that trade authority,
and trade agreements are not
in the interests of American workers. So that alliance carried the day.
Now when the President
comes back to the Congress with a request for fast track authority I hope
that American business
voices will be heard.
Having said that, I would add that there does need to be sensitivity to
worker and environmental
concerns in trade agreements going forward in the future. Certainly if
they are going to be
agreements that are negotiated with the United States government and
require the consent of the
United States Congress. So I think that there may be some good reason for
business to engage early
with labor and with political leadership in Congress and the
Administration to try to hammer out a
consensus about the kind of fast track authority and the sort of
agreements that we want our
President to be negotiating. But certainly that will not happen in the
absence of some very stated and
obvious business concern.
SCHWAB: I have here a question from the floor. What do you think about the
impact of American
culture on the civil societies of the rest of the world, especially with
regard to language, publicity,
media, and the right of difference for all cultures of the world?
CLINTON: Well, I think that is a very important question. If I may, let me
just start by talking about
something which I think I know a little bit more about which I think is
the impact of American culture
on America, and then expanding that beyond our borders.
American culture is America's biggest export. We export our fashions, our
music, our movies. We
export our technology, which comes, as you know, with a bias towards
English. That is our biggest
export, if one were try to add up all of our GDP that could be attributed
directly or indirectly to
culture. And on the whole I think it has been a positive development for
my own country, that we
have the kind of culture and cultural institutions and the messages that
are conveyed from them.
I remember so well during the tumult of the years of the Velvet Revolution
in the Czech Republic or
the fall of the Berlin Wall, hearing story after story about how
influential and important American
culture was behind the Iron Curtain in giving people a sense of freedom
and human potential and the
idea that there was a bigger World out there. So I think on balance,
American culture and its effects
have been positive both in my country and elsewhere.
Having said that, I have long worried and continue to worry and am
becoming more worried, not
only about the messages of American culture, but the medium in which they
are delivered. Let me
explain. There is no doubt that we are creating a consumer-driven culture
that promotes values and
ethics that undermine both capitalism and democracy. In fact, I think you
could argue that the kind of
work ethic, postponement of gratification, and other attributes that are
historically associated with
capitalism, are being undermined by consumer capitalism. And I think you
could also argue that the
same relentless pressure for instant, simultaneous judgment and for people
judging themselves based
on their consumer materialistic attributes, is also turning people away fro
m being citizens into being
consumers. I think these are two very troubling trends.
In my own country, because we have a very broad understanding of our first
ammendment, because
we are dominated by commercial television, we have a relentless,
unstopping, message of consumer,
materialistic pleasure, combined with instant gratification that surely
affects our children if not our
adults. We combine that with the kind of programming that is popular on
American television and we
are beginning now to have research which demonstrates that the level of
violence that our children
see desensitizes them, affects how they view the world, decreases their
empathy, makes them more
apathetic, less likely to assess their lives in terms other than the
purely materialistic. Exporting that
cannot be good for any culture. And I hope that there will be ways for
individual societies to cherry
pick, perhaps, and try to take what is best about American culture, but
mitigate against the effects of
the undermining, damaging aspects of it as well. That too, is part of the
role of the civil society. To
mitigate against the excesses of both the market and the government. And
it will be critically
important for schools, for families, for religious organizations, for
associations like scouting, for
example, to try to help balance the messages of the materialistic culture.
And I think it is one of the
biggest challenges we will face in the next century, because certainly
there is no stopping the
information explosion. There is no turning back the clock on what will be
delivered through
televisions and computers into the homes of people throughout our world,
but we are going to have
to think very hard about our responsiblity as business leaders, political
leaders, parents and others in
our socities, about how to mitigate against the excesses of that culture.
SCHWAB: Mrs. Clinton, I have three questions which seem to be very
appropriate to conclude our
sesssion. The first question is the following. If you had three concrete
wishes to be shared here with
the business community, actually which you want to be seen executed by the
business community,
what would be those wishes. In really concrete form, what would you wish
the audience to do over
the next year or going away from Davos.
CLINTON: That is an impossible question, and I will do my best to answer
it. I think that I would
hope that going away from Davos, the leaders who have gathered here, both
from business and
government, will take seriously the challenges that many have issued from
this and other stages to
look for ways to try to make sure that our markets function effectively
and we do what we can
through individual businesses, nation states and globally, to ensure that
that comes to pass, whether it
is being part of providing technical assistance to governments and
businesses that need to learn how
to be transparent, how to be able to operate in a regulated environment to
their benefit, and there is
much work that can be and I hope is done and I hope business leaders will
urge government leaders
through entities like the G-8 and the IMF and others, to try to move
towards some kind of
consensus about how we need to address these issues that the market has
presented us with.
Similarly I hope that governments will be encouraged to be as transparent,
as reform-minded as
possible, wherever necessary, and that business leaders will support
government reform in doing so,
and that we will have the kind of functioning partnership that is so
necessary for the next century,
between business and government throughout the world, and that we will do
away with the false
debate and the false choice that too often dominates our debate in
America, where there is an
unnecessary and I believe false antagonism created between business and
government. They need
each other, they need to support each other for the kind of long-term
stability that both require to
function well.
And finally I hope that business and government leaders will do more to
support the civil society. In
your own countries, and throughout the world, wherever it is possible.
There are many good ideas
and programs that are working. I wish everyone of you could have been with
me at a village in
Bangladesh, or at a women's bank in India, or at a lending project in
Africa, or in a very poor
neighborhood in South America, to hear what a difference a little bit of
credit makes in the lives of
the poor. We now have a proven track record from institutions such as the
Grameen Bank in
Bangladesh, that the poor, if given credit to buy another milk cow or a
goat, or hire a rickshaw to go
into business, are the best credit risks in the world. Most commercial
banks particularly in today's
environment, would die for a repayment rate of 96 to 98 percent, and that
is what the poorest of the
poor in these countries and in these programs have proven themselves
capable of doing, at market
interest rates.
Secondly, invest in opportunities for women around the world. If you look
at any developing society
that is making progress, there is a correlation between those societies
that invest in women and those
that are demonstration economic and political development and stability.
In many instances women
are still left out or shut out. We cannot go into this new century with
half the world's population not
empowered to act in their own best interests and in the best interests of
their families. And that is
what you will get when you invest in women. The investment will be very
well taken care of, based
on all we know, because it will in turn be invested in the community and
in the family, and particularly
in the children.
Thirdly, do not think of education, health care, and other issues as
tangential or marginal. In many
respects they will determine the long-term stability of the countries in
which you do business, in the
quality of the workforce that you employ, in the capacity of the consumers
to whom you wish to sell
your goods. It is in all of our interests to be more effective in
investing in education and health care
throughout the world, and wherever there is a particular pocket of poverty
in an advanced economy,
to take what we have learned about welfare reform and other strategies,
and attack them through
empowerment zones or tax credits or breaks for investment that can begin
to provide opportunity in
even the most destitute of communities.
And finally, I guess I would ask that we all be more thoughtful in looking
at the world in which we
live. That we work very hard to rid ourselves of preconceptions and
assumptions and stereotypes.
That we shelve our ideologies, whether it is of a conservative or a
liberal bent. That we realize that
conditions have changed, and with it must change also how we see the
world, and how we interact
politically, economically and socially. So not to rest on old conventions,
but instead to be questioning
them as well.
We have a great opportunity, as all of you know or you would not be here,
to be, as Professor
Schwab has titled it, trustees for the 2 st Century. But we can only
fulfill that responsibility if we
understand that we are doing it not for ourselves but for generations to
come. And so those, in a
very general way, would be my three wishes.
SCHWAB: That was the best answer and the best end of such a highlight of
our annual meeting.
Nevertheless, nevertheless, I would take on one other question which came
from the audience, and
it says, don't you think it is time at the beginning of the next century
for the U.S. to elect and support
a strong, brilliant, woman for the job of the President?
CLINTON: Yes, and I look forward to voting for her!
(End transcript)
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY ([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY
UNKNOWN
CREATION DATE/TIME:26-FEB-1998 16:41:43.00
SUBJECT: Bentsen Commission
TO: Cecilia E. Rouse@eop ( Cecilia E. Rouse@eop [ OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Previously sent message on coversations with Rep. Bentsen's staff.
Since then we have talked about a "Managing Change" umbrella for this
work.
At Anne Lewis's request, I contacted Rep. Ken Bentsen's office
regarding their ideas for the "Bentsen Commission" which the President
commited to in his 11/5/97 list of items pursuandt to a vote on Fast
Track authority.
First, Bentsen is very focused on trade adjustment -- he wants to
literally respond to the DLC theme of expanding the winner's circle on
trade and thinks that a concerted effort to improve current trade
adjustment programs is necessary.
To that end, he would like to see the Commission conduct an analysis
of the existing TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs and collect examples of the
best practices in states and localities. He has the impression that
in some areas these programs are working, but in others the program
falls short. He's therefore want us to look at what works and what
doesn't (ie Texas imposing ESL requirement hampered adjustment while
another state did something more innovative). That's where the
Federal-State relatonship item came in.
In particular, he's focused on lack of outreach and believes that many
workers affected by trade don't know about the program and that others
negatively affected by trade opt out -- and is particularly troubled
by a low "take-up" rate for retraining. This was what sparked his
interest in the wage insurance idea -- he hasn't endorsed it but saw
it as another tool that might help those who are not participating in
what we have to offer now -- retraining.
I specifically asked whether they felt we could bring in other
programs and cast a wider net. The answer I got was that if other
best practices for dislocated workers could be lessons on how to
improve the trade programs (such as the role of business-led boards in
Title III; use of vouchers or perhaps the access issue in UI), then a
broader mission would be OK. But they do see this as a trade exercise
and moving beyond the needs of dislocated workers and what we know
works best for them, might be a problem.
I know this does not fit too nicely with discussions we've had about a
broader mission, but at least we now have an understanding of what
Bentsen is thinking. He's eager for a briefing on our thinking about
TAA; our legislative specs;any related Title III promises; and our
progress on the Commission. I did tell him our budget approach and
some of the realities of FACA and I think the staffer at least felt
that there was some thinking in DOL about this process. I think they
would be open to some fine-tuning, but some of the suggestions we've
batted around go pretty far afield of their thinking.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
RFC-822-headers:
Received: from conversion.pmdf.eop.gov by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879)
id <[email protected]> for [email protected]; Thu,
26 Feb 1998 16:40:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from storm.eop.gov (storm.eop.gov)
by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879) id <[email protected]> for
[email protected]; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:40:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dol.gov ([166.96.254.1]) by STORM.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.1-7 #6879)
with SMTP id <[email protected]> for [email protected]; Thu,
26 Feb 1998 16:39:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: by dol.gov (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA25683; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:29:42 -0500
Received: from unknown(166.96.250.72) by gatekeeper via smap (V1.3)
id sma025624; Thu Feb 26 16:29:38 1998
Received: by esfpb02.dol.gov with SMTP
(Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52)
id <[email protected]>; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:36:58 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52
END ATTACHMENT 1
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY economist-politics-
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY [ UNKNOWN])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-APR-1998 17:38:32.00
SUBJECT: Politics This Week (April 4th - April 10th 1998)
TO: Michael W. Williams@eop (Michael W. Williams@eop [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega@eop (Dag Vega@eop [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: John R. Pfeiffer@EOP (John R. Pfeiffer@EOP [ OMB 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan Orszag@eop ( Jonathan Orszag@eop [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christopher S. Johns@eop ( Christopher S. Johns@eop [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jozelyn R. Davis@eop ( Jozelyn R. Davis@eop [ OMB 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Allan Villabroza@eop ( Allan Villabroza@eop [ OMB 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: catherine a. poynton@eop (catherine a. poynton@eop [ OMB 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Peter R. Orszag@eop (Peter R. Orszag@eop [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christine J. Lindsey@eop ( Christine J. Lindsey@eop [ OMB 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ana Duque@eop ( Ana Duque@eop [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: james boden@eop (james boden@eop [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Welcome to Politics This Week
A summary of the world's main events from The Economist
Also available at http://www.economist.com
IN THE ECONOMIST THIS WEEK
The creation of Citigroup will fuel yet more financial consolidation. But
will shareholders be grateful? * Why America and Iran cannot learn to get
along * Ten years of the Big Mac index (only in the Web Edition) * Seinfeld
may be the quintessential New York show, but it is also LA's Trojan horse
*
The disguised liberal agenda of Britain's home secretary * Swathes of
Japanese companies are insolvent in all but name * How to assess scare
stories about vaccines * Thelonius Monk unfrocked *
You can read these articles, and many more, in the free area of The
Economist Web Edition, at http://www.economist.com
SEEKING PEACE
+ NORTHERN IRELAND's peace talks entered their final phase, as the
British and Irish governments struggled to get the various factions to
agree on a blueprint for peace before an Easter deadline.
+ France and Britain ratified a treaty banning the testing of NUCLEAR
WEAPONS, the first nuclear-armed countries to do so.
+ The French government denied reports that WIM DUISENBERG, the Dutchman
who runs the European Monetary Institute, will become the head of the
European Central Bank and will serve a full eight years in the job. The
French say their own central bank's head, Jean-Claude Trichet, is still
in the running.
+ BORIS BEREZOVSKY, perhaps Russia's most powerful tycoon, said he would
support Viktor Chernomyrdin, recently sacked as prime minister, when he
runs for president in 2000.
+ At least 63 UKRAINIANS died in an accident in a coal mine in Donetsk.
+ In GEORGIA, five supporters of a former president, the late Zviad
Gamsakhurdia, were killed in an attack on a funeral march. In February,
the current president, Edward Shevardnadze, survived an assassination
attempt.
+ Tension rose between RUSSIA AND LATVIA after a bomb exploded near the
Russian embassy in Riga. President Yeltsin proposed diverting Russian
oil exports away from Latvian ports. Russia says civil rights are
denied to Latvia's large Russian-speaking immigrant population.
+ The leaders of Serbia's separatist province of KOSOVO boycotted talks
with Serbia's president, saying they would negotiate only under
international mediation. Serbia, which opposes mediation, said it would
hold a referendum on the issue.
+ There was sympathy for East Asian leaders at the second annual EUROPE-
ASIA MEETING in London, but no extra money to help them cope with the
region's economic crisis, beyond what Europe already contributes to
the
IMF.
NO PEACE IN SIGHT
+ Claiming that it was dissident members of HAMAS'S MILITARY WING who
killed a Hamas bomb maker in Ramallah last week, not Israelis, the
Palestinian Authority arrested five Hamas activists. Hamas rejected the
PA's finding, claiming that confessions had been extracted by torture.
It continued to threaten revenge against Israel.
+ The arrest of Gholam-Hossein Karbaschi, TEHRAN'S MAYOR, on charges of
corruption polarised Iran's establishment. Some believe that his real
crime was his closeness to the reformist president.
+ General Georg Meiring, head of South Africa's defence forces, resigned
under pressure after a judicial inquiry found that his recent
allegations of a COUP PLOT were groundless.
+ Bombs in two hotels in Uganda's capital, Kampala, killed four people.
The government blamed the country's SUDAN-BACKED REBELS for them.
WAR-LIKE
+ Pakistan successfully tested a surface-to-surface MISSILE with a range
of 1,500km (930 miles). India said in response that it had a missile
that could reach anywhere in Pakistan. The United States said it was
investigating whether China had helped Pakistan to make the missile.
+ For the first time since 1994, NORTH KOREA agreed to direct talks with
South Korea. Talks had been broken off after the South declined to
express regrets for the death of the North's leader, Kim Il Sung.
+ As part of a new agreement with the IMF, INDONESIA closed seven
troubled banks and placed seven others under official supervision.
+ Australia was edging towards an early general election as a bill
limiting ABORIGINE LAND RIGHTS faced defeat in the federal Parliament.
+ A court blocked for a week an anti-union move to sack about 1,400
dockers at AUSTRALIA'S PORTS.
DOWN TO BUSINESS
+ President Clinton, in bouncy mood after the dismissal of the Paula
Jones case, went to Kansas City to take part in the first of several
"national forums" to discuss the future of SOCIAL SECURITY, the federal
pensions system.
+ In response to the Arkansas school shootings, Mr Clinton announced a
permanent ban on the import of 58 different kinds of ASSAULT WEAPONS.
+ Leaders from North and South America prepared for a 34-COUNTRY SUMMIT
in Santiago. They will talk about education, poverty, democracy and
drugs. They will formally launch negotiations on a free-trade area of
the Americas, but without the fanfare once foreseen: Bill Clinton still
lacks fast-track authority.
+ COLOMBIA's second-largest guerrilla movement, the ELN, revealed that
its leader, Manuel Perez, had died (in February) of hepatitis. Spanish-
born, he was once a priest.
+ BRAZIL's coalition parties reacted uneasily to an extensive pre-
electoral cabinet shuffle, but found something in it for all their
needs. Not for Brazil's, said critics.
+ A general strike in BOLIVIA went into its second week. Few workers were
taking part, but some main roads were repeatedly blocked, and seven
people died in clashes with the police.
ADVERTISEMENT
Get tomorrow's headlines today!
--- Free 2-week trial offer ---
click here: http://www.hubcom.com/cgi-win/fensnews.exe/13
Future Events News Service
If you find our summaries service useful, please tell your friends.
Invite them to subscribe by forwarding this e-mail to them.
This is a free newsletter published by The Economist newspaper.
To find out where best to direct queries to The Economist, send a
blank e-mail message to [email protected]
If you are having problems receiving this list, send an e-mail
explaining the difficulty you are having to
[email protected]
To cancel your subscription, send an e-mail with the
message "leave economist-polities" to [email protected]
To start receiving Politics This Week, send an e-mail with the
message "join economist-politics" to [email protected]
Alternatively, you can cancel your subscription (or subscribe at
any time)by visiting:
http://www.postbox.co.uk/economist.htm
ATTACHMENT 1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
RFC-822-headers:
Received: from conversion.pmdf.eop.gov by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.1-9 #22921)
id <[email protected]>; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 17:30:54 EDT
Received: from Storm.EOP.GOV by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.1-9 #22921)
with ESMTP id <[email protected]>; Wed,
08 Apr 1998 17:30:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from postbox.co.uk ([194.205.1.110])
by STORM.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.1-10 #22921)
with SMTP id <[email protected]>; Wed,
08 Apr 1998 17:30:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [195.50.91.40] by postbox.co.uk (NTList 3.03.12)
id ha987019; Wed, 08 Apr 1998 21:25:32 +0100
Received: from nobody by stingray.ivision.co.uk with local (Exim 1.62 #2)
id 0yN1Tw-0005St-00; Wed, 08 Apr 1998 21:30:04 +0100
Errors-to: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
X-List: [email protected]
END ATTACHMENT 1
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Robert D. Kyle CN=Robert D. Kyle/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD
CREATION DATE/TIME:17-APR-1998 20:24:33.00
SUBJECT: Re: Weekly Report - Reminder
TO: Brian A. Barreto ( Brian A. Barreto @ EOP @ LNGTWY [ OPD])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
NEC International Principals Meeting: Gene Sperling chaired an NEC
Principals meeting to reach agreement on an Administration position toward
important new global trade negotiations in the WTO. We are preparing a
memo on this subject, which we will send to you soon. Principals also
discussed the current status of efforts to launch a new US-EU Trade
Initiative. Finally, NEC prepared a two-page document setting forth the
artgument that the Administration continues a robust trade agenda, even
without fast track authority. This has been circulated to Principals and
is being used on the Santiago trip and elsewhere.
Africa Trade Bill: Gene and Sandy co-chaired a small meeting this week to
plot strategy for advancing the Africa trade bill in the Senate. The bill
currently is being help up by Lott, who would like the Administration's
support for attaching the Caribbean Basin Initiative legislation to the
Africa bill before he encourages Sen. Roth to move it. NEC/NSC is working
closely with Larry Stein to advance the bill.
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Lael Brainard (CN=Lael Brainard/OU=CEA/O=EOP [ CEA
CREATION DATE/TIME:20-APR-1998 20:50:05.00
SUBJECT: WTO Memo
TO: Malcolm R. Lee ( CN=Malcolm R. Lee/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robert D. Kyle (CN=Robert D. Kyle/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa G. Green CN=Melissa G. Green/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [OPD])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
ATTACHMENT I
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
GENE SPERLING
SAMUEL BERGER
SUBJECT:
WTO Strategy
New global trade negotiations are now being planned in the WTO that will define
much of the multilateral trade agenda in the coming years, making it imperativ
e that we put our imprint on these negotiations as they take shape. The next S
et of negotiations are the historic successor to a series of three global tradi
ng "rounds" in the post-World War II period: the Kennedy Round (1960's); the To
kyo Round (1970's) and the Uruguay Round (1980-90's). Leaders, including Pri
me Ministers Blair, Hashimoto and Chretien will travel to the 50th Anniversary
of the WTO from May 18-20 to set forth their visions regarding the shape and st
ructure of these negotiations. Their ideas and others will be debated over the
next year, then the negotiations will be formally launched next year at a WTO
ministerial, which the U.S. could offer to host.
This memorandum recommends a U.S. strategy for driving the future WTO agenda en
compassing 1) the scope and structure of negotiations; 2) the U.S. role in nex
t year's ministerial; and 3) U.S. participation in the 50th Anniversary of the
WTO.
Strategy for the WTO
a.
Structure: a New "Round" or a New Architecture?
New Round: A major issue is whether or not the United States should call for a
new "round" of trade negotiations, which would entail taking the traditional a
pproach of bundling together a comprehensive set of negotiations as one single
agreement. There are two sets of considerations in calling for a new round:
Substantive: Critics contend comprehensive negotiations with uniform start an
d finish dates for all issues tend to hold up concrete progress on all issues u
ntil the most difficult ones are fully resolved. The Uruguay Round, originally
slated to conclude in four years, ultimately took eight. In recent years, we
have concluded important agreements in three separate sectors (information tech
nology, financial services, telecommunications) outside a round structure. Pro
ponents counter that rounds are necessary to achieve requisite trade-offs betwe
en sectors (e.g., developing countries give intellectual property protection in
return for developed country textile tariff cuts) and that without a round the
most difficult issues may never be resolved. In particular, domestic farm gr
oups -- a critical pro-trade constituency -- fear that other countries will not
be able to justify lowering farm barriers unless it is done as part of a broad
, compelling package.
Political: A call for a new round could elicit a political backlash from the H
ill and important constituencies, in part because we did not include a new "rou
nd" in our fast track agenda last year (even though we did highlight the negoti
ations themselves). In addition, although several trade partners (EU, Japan an
di Canada) are leaning in this direction, many nations are skeptical and are fin
ding Uruguay Round implementation difficult in itself.
New Architecture: Most agencies recommend instead that we instead pursue an
alternative approach that goes some distance in addressing the above concerns.
Instead of launching a round, we would instead propose a new architecture for
global negotiations in the 21st century. Negotiations would be structured to k
eep pace with rapid technological change, yielding early agreements when possib
le. The idea would be to start with sufficient breadth to permit tradeoffs, bu
t allow individual issues or groups of issues to be finalized and implemented o
n their own timetables, in order to produce results more rapidly.
This is not a smaller proposal than a round, but a new vision that fits the tim
es. We cannot afford to wait a decade or more between rounds when product cycl
es are now measured in months. Politically, this approach is less likely than
a traditional round to elicit a negative reaction from Congressional trade oppo
nents and trade partners who are not ready. Secondly, because it is a new appr
oach, it would preserve considerable flexibility, permitting us to wait until a
fter any possible fast track bid and the elections to specify the full scope of
the negotiations. On the other hand, U.S. farm groups will likely criticize
anything short of a traditional round because of the fear that our leverage wil
I be inadequate to address the toughest agricultural barriers.
b.
Scope of Negotiations
The Uruguay Round went far to reduced important trade barriers, but left much u
ndone. Even as the Uruguay Round negotiations were being completed, WTO members
agreed to a future agenda of negotiations set to start in 1999-2000 which wo
uld further reduce barriers in large areas key to trade in the 21st Century.
We want to build on those commitments to develop an ambitious WTO negotiating
agenda that addresses key American priorities and values, including opening sec
tors where American producers are strong, building the electronic infrastructur
e of the 21st century century, and addressing the concerns of stakeholders, inc
luding labor and environmental groups, in a more forthright, direct and transpa
rent manner.
Agriculture: One out of every three acres of America's farms is dedicated to e
xports, supporting nearly one million jobs and the United States is the world's
largest agriculture exporting country. Despite progress in previous trade rou
nds, our exports continue to face some of the highest tariffs and most trade di
storting government subsidy practices of any sector. For example the EU budge
t for export subsidies was $6.1 billion, as compared to the U.S. budget of $0.1
2 billion in FY '97. Regulatory restrictions (SPS) cost U.S. exporters $5 bill
ion annually (USDA). We will attempt to address these in negotiations that wil
I begin in late 1999. World demand for food will triple in the next 50 years.
Services: The United States is the world's largest services exporter, with a g
lobal market share of 20 percent. U.S. exports have more than doubled over th
e past ten years, totaling $254 billion in 1996 (against imports of $169 billio
n) supporting an estimated 4 million U.S. jobs. Yet the preponderance of glob
al services trade is not subject to WTO rules. A new set of negotiations sched
uled to begin in 2000 is intended to tackle new areas and expand existing commi
tments in such areas as audiovisual and multimedia services, satellite, telecom
munications and professional services.
Government Procurement: The U.S. will seek to level the playing field for U.S.
firms to compete in government procurement though WTO negotiations to combat b
ribery in foreign government bids. U.S. exports associated with foreign govern
ment contracts in 1996 totaled $200 billion in a world market of $600 billion,
supporting 2.4 million jobs.
Tariff Reductions: The U.S. maintains one of the lowest tariff rates in the W
orld, while many of our trading partners in Asia, Latin America and the develop
ing world maintain much higher tariffs. We will seek to eliminate industrial t
ariffs through the WTO.
Labor and the Environment: We will seek to make the WTO more open and accessi
ble to ordinary citizens, rather than the domain of business and government eli
tes, by establishing a formal consultation mechanism for labor and environmenta
I groups and by opening to the public the dispute settlement system.
Electronic Commerce: We will continue to expand the information infrastructure
around the world by seeking a follow-on agreement on information technology th
is year and by developing a work program on electronic commerce, starting with
a commitment to keep cyberspace duty free.
WTO Ministerial
We also recommend that the United States should seek to host the next WTO trade
ministerial (in September or October of 1999), where the new negotiations woul
d be launched. Launching negotiations in the United States would put you in a
strong position to be the chief architect of the multilateral trade system goin
g in to the next century, which should be part of your trade legacy. You shoul
d know this also holds some risks. Failure to secure fast track by then could
subject us to charges the U.S. cannot lead. Sovereigntists and others could us
e the ministerial to launch demonstrations, and it could be further politicized
as presidential politics begin to emerge in late 1999. It would also cost sev
eral million dollars, but these costs could be defrayed by private sector contr
ibutions, as we did when hosting APEC in Seattle and the G-7 in Denver.
50th Anniversary
As you will see in the attached memorandum, all of your international economic
advisers advocate you stop in Geneva on your way home from Europe on May 19th o
Γ 20th to speak at the WTO's 50th Anniversary celebration. This venue provide
S the best opportunity to articulate the vision outlined above. The WTO 50th
celebration uniquely presents a world stage for you to lay out your views on th
e 21st century economy and present your blueprint for the architecture of the W
orld trading system. Moreover, with Prime Ministers Blair, Hashimoto and Chre
tien planning to participate in the celebration, along with various other leade
rs, your absence could be interpreted as a sign we are in retreat and have aban
doned leadership in world trade.
There is also the risk that Blair, in his EU capacity, intends to call for a ro
und. We will work with UK and EU officials to discourage this. However, ther
e are other pressures within the EU favoring a round. Sir Leon Brittan is an a
ctive advocate, seeing it as his legacy. Some EU countries favor it as a way t
o postpone agricultural liberalization far in the future, and others see it as
favorable to developing country interests.
We believe you can demonstrate leadership by calling for the bold new approach
on the structure and content of global trade negotiations that is outlined abov
e. Your WTO speech would set forth your vision for the global economy of the
21st Century and how the WTO should help create it. You would outline an ambi
tious international agenda that enhances prosperity, protects the environment,
promotes worker rights and protects U.S. sovereignty. You could call for the W
TO to pursue an Open Agenda including:
Open Process: Giving stakeholders a greater voice in the WTO system by creatin
g a consultative forum with labor and environmental groups and by increasing th
e accountability and transparency of WTO proceedings.
Open Books: Complementing our efforts elsewhere to combat bribery and corrupti
on by adopting WTO rules on good governance.
Open Communications: Providing the foundations for an electronic marketplace S
panning the globe, starting with a pledge to keep the Internet free of tariffs.
Open Markets: Continue WTO progress in key U.S. sectors such as agriculture, i
ndustrial tariffs and services.
Simply put, the 50th Anniversary marks the first step in new global trade negot
iations with historic importance. Your presence in Geneva would put an America
n imprint on this effort at its inception and help ensure American leadership
in the years ahead..
RECOMMENDATIONS
Strategy: State, Commerce, Treasury, USTR, Labor, CEA, NEC and [NSC] recommend
that we seek to develop a new architecture for global negotiations as outlined
above. USDA recommends that we instead support a new round.
New architecture
New round
Let's discuss
Ministerial: State, Commerce, Treasury, USTR, Labor, CEA, Agriculture, NEC and
[NSC] recommend that we should seek to host the 1999 WTO ministerial.
Agree
Let's discuss
50th Anniversary
State, Commerce, Treasury, USTR, Labor, CEA, Agriculture and NEC recommend tha
t you should give a speech laying out your vision for the world trading system
at the WTO 50th. [NSC disagrees, citing the risk that your attendance would se
rve to highlight our lack of fast track authority and concerns about scheduling
conflicts].
Explore possibility of attending
Decline to attend
cc: Vice President
Chief of Staff
END ATTACHMENT 1
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: SIEWERT_J@A1@CD@LNGTWY (SIEWERT_J@A1@CD@LNGTWY (OPD)
CREATION DATE/TIME:20-APR-1998 09:39:09.00
SUBJECT: Another good trade story
TO: Jonathan Orszag@eop (Jonathan Orszag@eop [ OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Peter A. Weissman@eop Peter A. Weissman@eop [ OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jake Siewert@eop (Jake Siewert@eop OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan A. Kaplan@EOP Jonathan A. Kaplan@EOP [ OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robert D. Kyle@eop (Robert D. Kyle@eop OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Date: 04/17/98 Time: 15:23
AClinton comes to summit empty-handed on trade powers
SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) Four years ago, President Clinton stood
with 33 fellow Western Hemisphere leaders on the steps of a stately
Miami mansion and celebrated "a moment when the course of history
in the Americas changed for the better."
But at the second Summit of the Americas this weekend, Clinton
has little to show for his vision of a free-trade zone by 2005
stretching from Alaska's North Slope to Argentina's Tierra del
Fuego.
The course of history may have to wait a little longer.
Not only has the zeal for jettisoning all trade barriers cooled
in some Latin American countries, but the "fast-track" authority
Clinton needs to seal such agreements is stalled in an
election-year Congress.
Some analysts suggest the time for the United States to seize
the free-trade initiative may have passed, with Latin American
countries forming other economic alliances instead with each
other and with markets in Asia and Europe.
``It will take place eventually, but you've had some roadblocks
in the way," said Paul Sigmund, professor of politics at Princeton
University and former director of its Latin American studies
program. "The administration did not push hard enough and fast
enough when there was momentum."
The host of the summit, Chile's President Eduardo Frei, said
"Latin America will continue advancing" with or without
fast-track.
Indeed, on the eve of the summit several Latin American nations
sealed their own trade pacts. Chile and Mexico on Friday expanded a
1991 agreement that already exempted 98 percent of goods from
customs duties. And Thursday night six Central American and
Caribbean nations agreed to create a $50 million market to
strengthen their hand in the hemisphere-wide trade region to come.
Centerpiece of the 1994 Miami summit was a U.S.-drafted
agreement to establish a hemisphere-wide free trade pact by 2005,
with ``concrete progress" toward that objective by 2000.
With its robust economy, Chile jumped in line first, but is
still waiting to join the agreement that already covers Canada, the
United States and Mexico.
But there's a limit to what he can deliver.
Administration officials had hoped that, after his productive
12-day trip to Africa, the president would go to Chile with
trade-negotiating authority under his belt.
"Certainly, in a better world, we would like to have fast-track
authority," said White House adviser Mack McLarty. "But I think
we can make significant progress in the near term without it."
Commerce Secretary William Daley said the lack of fast-track
won't stall free trade goals. "Some people are looking for
excuses not to move forward but in real terms, it should have
no effect," he said. But he acknowledged it would be difficult to
win congressional approval this year.
Chile and its neighbors are wary of dealing with the
administration minus congressional support. Non-trade issues such
as education, freedom of expression and the war against drugs are
expected to take a more prominent place on the agenda as a result.
Fast-track authority, which presidents since Gerald Ford have
exercised, enables U.S. negotiators to strike trade deals without
congressional interference. The finished agreements are then put on
a "fast track" to passage with Congress able to approve or
reject but not amend them.
Clinton had the authority but it lapsed.
In an embarrassing setback, he was forced to withdraw the bill
in the House last November when it became apparent he didn't have
enough Democratic votes. He vowed to fight again this year, but has
not yet mounted a new offensive. Administration officials privately
say it is not likely until 1999.
Environmental groups and organized labor oppose fast-track,
contending the existing North American Free Trade Agreement has
harmed the environment and cost American jobs. Some conservatives
oppose it on the grounds that it sets too many conditions unrelated
to trade.
``I think it's time to slow down on the question of fast track
until and unless we have a mechanism for correcting mistakes in
previous agreements," Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., a fast-track
opponent. He said grain farmers in the upper Midwest have been
battered by Canadian imports under the existing NAFTA.
``I hope we are undermining the president's position (at the
summit) on trade, because our trade policy is a disaster," said
Rep. Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent, contending U.S. wages
have gone down and the trade deficit has widened under NAFTA.
"I think we've lost the moment," said David Scott Palmer a
professor of international relations at Boston College. He noted
that Latin American countries, tired of waiting for U.S. action,
are seeking other trading opportunities. Argentina, Brazil,
Paraguay and Uruguay, for instance, have formed an economic
alliance, and Chile may soon join.
Not all students of Latin America are pessimistic.
"It's true that fast track was not granted," said Chilean-born
Claudio Grossman, dean of American University's law school. "But
it's also true that we have more consensus on economic and
political institutions than ever in the history of the region. I
would not sing a song of death here on free trade:"
"The moment has not passed," said Grossman, who is attending
the summit on behalf of the International Commission on Human
Rights.
APNP-04-17-98 1523EDT
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System
[EMAIL] and Tape Restoration Project [Email]
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies a responsive email, already made available
within another collection.
Collection: 2007-0143-F
Bucket: OPD
Creation Date: 1998-04-20
Subject: Clips
Creator: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN]
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System
[EMAIL] and Tape Restoration Project [Email]
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies a responsive email, already made available
within another collection.
Collection: 2007-0143-F
Bucket: OPD
Creation Date: 1998-04-21
Subject: Clips
Creator: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN]