[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 29, Number 39 (Monday, October 4, 1993)]
[Pages 1918-1921]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks Announcing a National Export Strategy and an Exchange With 
Reporters

 September 29, 1993

    The President. Thank you very much, and please be seated. I want to 
thank, first of all, the members of the Trade Promotion Coordinating 
Committee, all the members of my Cabinet and administration who are 
here, and especially the Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown, who did such a 
good job in chairing this effort.
    I'd also like to thank the people who are involved in our national 
security efforts who supported these changes, a marked change from times 
past. And I'd like to thank the Vice President and the people who worked 
on the National Performance Review for a lot of the work they did to 
reinforce our efforts to develop a meaningful national export strategy.
    Finally, I'd like to say a special word of thanks to people who are 
here and people all across this country who have talked to me about this 
issue for the last couple of years. Everywhere I went where there were 
people who were trying to create the American economy of the future, 
someone would take me aside and talk about the problems of the export 
control laws, which may have been needed in a former period when the 
technology was different and certainly the politics of the cold war were 
different but were clearly undermining our ability to be competitive 
today.
    If I might just by way of general introduction say that I don't 
believe a wealthy country can grow much richer in the world we're living 
in without expanding exports. I don't believe you can create jobs--and 
I'm absolutely convinced you can't change the job mix, which is 
something we have to do in America with so many people stuck in jobs 
that have had flat or declining real wages. I think we have to do that. 
And I don't think it can be done unless we can increase the volume of 
exports in this country.
    And therefore, I have wanted to have a new export strategy that 
would deal with a whole range of issues and that would galvanize the 
energy, the imagination of the American private sector, not only those 
who are waiting to export now and just held back by laws but those that 
we need to go out and cultivate, especially small and medium sized 
businesses that could be active in international markets--their 
counterparts in other countries are active--but because of the system 
or, if you will, the lack of the system that we have had in the past, 
have not been so engaged.
    So I want to emphasize that the announcements we make today are 
designed to create jobs for Americans, to increase incomes for 
Americans, and to create the future economy, even as we have to give up 
on much of the past.
    I also want to say that it's very important to see this announcement 
today in the context of our administration's support for the NAFTA 
agreement. It will also open up export opportunities, not just to Mexico 
but throughout all of Latin America.

[[Page 1919]]

    I just came from the United Nations earlier this week, where I had 
the opportunity to host meetings with the Latin American leaders who 
were there. The first thing every one of them asked me about was the 
NAFTA agreement. And every one of them said, ``Look, we want to do this, 
too. We want to lower our barriers to American products. We want more 
American products in our country.'' No one, even the most vociferous 
opponents of NAFTA, would seriously urge that the proposition that if we 
have lowered trade barriers with Chile or Argentina or any other 
country, that will lead to massive loss of American jobs. It will 
clearly lead to massive gains in American jobs.
    This is an important part of a strategy to build a hemispheric 
trading opportunity for Americans. I also would say that anyone who has 
seriously looked at the NAFTA dynamics, the specifics of the NAFTA 
agreement will actually alleviate all the complaints that people have 
who are attacking it. It will raise the cost of labor in Mexico. It will 
raise the cost of environmental protection in Mexico. It will lower the 
trade barriers in Mexico that are higher than American trade barriers. 
It will change domestic content rules in ways that will enable us to 
produce in America, sell in Mexico. And that country, with a low per 
capita income, already buys more American products per capita than any 
country in the world except for Canada.
    So I think that is a very important point to make. This export 
strategy we announced today assumes that we have people to sell to, and 
we have to also keep that in mind. We have to keep reaching out to tear 
down these barriers, to integrate our economies in ways that benefits 
Americans.
    Let me just basically outline in some greater detail the strategy 
that has been recommended by our counsel and that the Vice President 
summarized.
    As we all know, the export controls in American law today no longer 
reflect the realities of the economic marketplace or the political 
realities. The cold war is over, and the technologies have changed 
dramatically. Therefore, today I am ordering sweeping changes in our 
export controls that dramatically reduce controls on telecommunications 
technologies and computers. These reforms will eliminate or greatly 
reduce controls on $35 billion worth of high-tech products, ultimately 
70 percent of all the computers. This one step alone will decontrol the 
export of computers, the production of which support today--today--
600,000 American jobs and now more tomorrow.
    Let me be clear. As I said at the United Nations earlier this week, 
I am more concerned about proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 
than I was when I became President. Every day I have this job, I become 
more worried about it. And we do need effective export controls to fight 
that kind of proliferation. But streamlining unnecessary controls will 
make the rest of the system more responsive and efficient in combating 
proliferation. And we have on too many, many occasions, for too many 
years, not had a coordinated, effective strategy against proliferation 
but have had a broad-based, highly bureaucratic policy that, in effect, 
cut off our nose to spite our face.
    We also know we have to simplify the export process. There are 19 
different export-related agencies in this Government. To say that we 
need more effective coordination would be a dramatic understatement. The 
TPCC found this, as did the Vice President's National Performance 
Review.
    We propose to begin by creating one-stop shops in four cities, 
consolidating all Federal export promotion services in one place. And 
eventually, there will be a national network of shops linked together by 
computer technology. We also want to have one phone number that will 
serve as an information clearinghouse for any exporter of any size to 
learn about potential export markets.
    Now, let me say why I think this is so important. Most of the job 
growth in America is in small and medium sized companies. Now, many of 
those, to be sure, are supplying bigger companies; many of those are in 
high-tech areas where they're already attuned to exports. But many of 
them are basically stand-alone operations that sell to companies in 
America and could sell to companies overseas but don't know how to do 
it, think it's too much hassle, haven't really figured out the 
financing, the paperwork, the market-opening mechanisms.

[[Page 1920]]

    We have not done nearly as good a job as some countries in 
mobilizing the energies of these countries. I have been immensely 
impressed, for example, at the organization in Germany of the medium and 
small sized companies to make them all automatically exporting. And 
there's no question that the effort that they have made in that country 
to mobilize small and medium sized companies for export is one reason 
they've been able to maintain by far the most open economy in Europe and 
the lowest unemployment rate at the same time. We must do the same 
thing.
    The third element of this strategy is meeting the challenge of tied 
aid. Now, for the benefit of those here covering this event who don't 
know what tied aid is, it basically is a strategy that many of our 
competitors have followed who say, if you want our aid you'll have to 
buy our products. We have worked hard to reach an agreement to limit the 
practice of tied aid, and we have had some success in the last few 
years. But unfortunately there is still way too much of it, in ways that 
cost Americans way too many dollars in jobs and export opportunities 
that we could win under any free market scenario imaginable.
    Therefore, we propose to create a modest $150 million fund within 
the Export-Import Bank, and with the support of Mr. Brody and others who 
are here today, to counter the tied aid practices of our competitors. By 
some estimates, our companies lose between $400 million and $800 million 
in export sales every year because of tied aid practices.
    Next, we want to focus the Government to promote private sector 
exports. We want an advocacy network within the Government to facilitate 
the efforts of our companies and to reinforce the one-stop shopping. We 
want a commercial strategic plan in key foreign markets to coordinate 
the work of Federal Agencies there, something I heard about over and 
over again from the U.S. business community, for example, in Japan and 
in Korea.
    We want to ensure that our embassies play a much more aggressive 
role in promoting our commercial interests in a uniform way around the 
world. Some of our embassies, to be fair, do a very good job of this. 
Some are not active at all. Most are somewhere in the middle. We need a 
uniform policy and a deliberate mission on this, and I am very pleased 
at the support the State Department has given to this effort.
    We want to unify the budget of all export promotion-related 
activities in the Government through a new process coordinated by the 
Economic Council, OMB, and the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee.
    Finally, let me say what we have today at long last is a 
coordinated, targeted, aggressive export strategy. It means growth and 
jobs and incomes for Americans. Compared to our competitors, we have for 
too long had a hands-off approach to exports. We have paid for it. We 
now will have a hands-on partnership, driven by the market, guided by 
the private sector, limited where appropriate by governmental policy, 
but clearly tailored to help Americans compete and win in the world of 
today and tomorrow.
    Many people when I started thought this would never happen, 
especially those frustrated computer companies who have labored under 
the burden of the past, because it required us to think and act anew. It 
required disparate agencies to cooperate that had never really spoken to 
each other about these matters. It required Congress to work with the 
executive branch. It required everyone in our Government to listen to 
our customers, in this case the American businesses who pay so much of 
the tax bill. But it is working. And we have laid the foundation for a 
future really worth having in this country. Now, you all have to go out 
and make this work. We intend to support it. We intend to do what needs 
to be done. And we believe that Government is now going to be a good 
partner with the private sector in making tomorrow's economy. Thank you 
very much.
    I want to take a question or two. But before I do, since we have a 
lot of folks from the private sector here, I just want to say that one 
of the things we have really worked hard on in Government is getting all 
these--look at all the Cabinet and agency heads we have here--we really 
try to work together. I won't say it never happens, but we have got less 
turfing and less infighting than any Government, I think, that's been in 
this town in a very long time. And it's a great tribute to them, and I 
want to thank them publicly

[[Page 1921]]

in the presence of those of you who have complained about the 
inadequacies of the approach in the past.

Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown

    Q. Mr. President, are you satisfied with Secretary Brown's 
explanations about his relationship to Vietnam?
    The President. Well, let me say he's told me that he hadn't done 
anything wrong, and he's done just about everything right as Commerce 
Secretary. I think he's done a great job, and I have no reason not to 
believe him.
    Q. Mr. President, are you concerned that his effectiveness as 
Commerce Secretary in selling programs that you're pushing, like this 
one and NAFTA, are undermined by this grand jury investigation?
    The President. Not if he hadn't done anything wrong, I'm not. 
Business Week complimented him in an editorial today. I was glad to see 
a Democrat get complimented in Business Week. [Laughter]
    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Yes. I hope it will happen a lot more as we go along.

Russia

    Q. Mr. President, did the latest events in Moscow give you pause 
about your previous support that you've expressed for Mr. Yeltsin?
    The President. No. It is a tense and difficult issue, and how to 
defuse what I understand to have been the circumstances around the 
Moscow White House was a difficult call. I don't think that any of us 
should be here basically armchair quarterbacking the unfolding events.
    When I talked to Boris Yeltsin a few days ago, I told him very 
strongly that I hoped that he would be able to manage this transition in 
ways that really promoted democracy, respected human rights, and kept 
the peace. And he said that would be exactly his policy. And so far he 
has done that, under very, very difficult, intense circumstances. I 
mean, a lot of you have talked about just the difficulty of managing 
this and keeping up with what's going on in the countryside and the 
pressures and all the various interest groups. And I think so far 
they've done quite well.
    Now, I'm going to have a meeting with Mr. Kozyrev later today, and 
we'll have a chance to talk about this in greater detail. But he's 
already made a statement that they're still committed to a peaceful 
transition, and I have no reason to believe he's not. And I think that 
the United States and the free world ought to hang in there with a 
person that is clearly the most committed to democracy and market reform 
of all the people now operating in Russia. Until I have some reason to 
believe otherwise, I'm going to hang right where we are. I think we're 
in the right place.
    Q. What are your concerns about the human rights implications of 
having the Parliament building there surrounded by armed troops?
    The President. I think it depends on what the facts were. If there 
were a lot of people armed in there and he was worried about civil 
disorder and unrest and people being shot, I think that when you're in 
charge of a government, your first obligation is to try to keep the 
peace and keep order. So I think so far they seem to have acted with 
restraint but with dispatch in trying to defuse what otherwise might 
have become a very difficult situation.
    Now, I don't have all the facts, and neither does anyone else. But 
nothing has happened so far that has caused me to question the 
commitment that was made to me by the President and to his own people.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President spoke at 12:45 p.m. in the Roosevelt Room at the 
White House. In his remarks, he referred to Kenneth D. Brody, President, 
Export-Import Bank of the United States.