[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 30, Number 16 (Monday, April 25, 1994)]
[Pages 873-874]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Message to Congress Reporting on Trade With China

April 21, 1994

To the Congress of the United States:

    Pursuant to section 406 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2436) 
and sections 202 and 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 (as those sections 
were in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the 
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988), I have determined the 
action I will take with respect to the affirmative determination of the 
United States International Trade Commission (USITC), on the basis of 
its investigation (No. TA-406-13), that market disruption exists with 
respect to imports from China of honey provided for in heading 0409 and 
subheadings 1702.90 and 2106.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States.
    After considering all relevant aspects of the investigation, 
including those set forth in section 202(c) of the Trade Act of 1974, I 
have determined that import relief for honey is not in the national 
economic interest of the United States. However, I am directing the 
United States Trade Representative (USTR), in consultation with the 
appropriate agencies to develop a plan to monitor imports

[[Page 874]]

of honey from China. The monitoring program is to be developed within 
thirty days of this determination.
    Since I have determined that the provision of import relief is not 
in the national economic interest of the United States, I am required by 
that section 203(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 to report to Congress on 
the reasons underlying this determination.
    In determining not to provide import relief, I considered its 
overall costs to the U.S. economy. The USITC majority recommendation for 
a quarterly tariff rate quota (a 25 percent ad valorem charge on the 
first 12.5 million pounds each quarter, increasing to 50 percent on 
amounts above that level), to be applied for three years, would cost 
consumers about $7 million while increasing producers' income by just 
$1.9 million. The other forms of relief recommended by other 
Commissioners would also result in substantial costs to consumers while 
offering little benefit to producers.
    In addition, the gap between production and consumption in the 
United States is approximately 100 million pounds, with imports of honey 
from China helping to fill that gap at the low end for industrial use. 
Any restrictions on imports of honey from China would likely lead to 
increased imports from other countries rather than significantly 
increased market share for U.S. producers.
    Although rising somewhat since 1991, U.S. honey inventories are not 
large by historical experience, either in absolute amounts or relative 
to consumption. Honey stocks reported by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture were much higher in the mid-1980's (about 75 percent of 
consumption in 1985 and 1986), before falling to their lowest level in a 
decade in 1991 (26.6 percent of consumption). The 1993 stocks were 37.8 
percent of consumption, well below the 1980-1993 average level of 46.4 
percent.
    The U.S. government has supported honey producers since 1950, in 
part, to ensure enough honeybees would be available for crop 
pollination. This is an important national interest. I believe that 
current trends in the provision of pollination and honey production will 
not be significantly affected by not providing relief. Crop producers 
indicate that they believe pollination will still be cost effective even 
if service prices rise.
    I have also concluded that, in this case, imposing trade 
restrictions on imports of honey would run counter to our policy of 
promoting an open and fair international trading system.
                                            William J. Clinton
The White House,
April 21, 1994.

Note: An original was not available for verification of the content of 
this message.