
For Immediate Release                               February 14, 1994


    PRESS BRIEFING
  BY
   LAURA TYSON, CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL
  OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS

  The Briefing Room
     I'm happy to answer questions on the report.  I also
want to introduce my colleagues, Joe Stiglitz and Alan Blinder, who
are also here to answer questions.  We wrote this report as a team
effort.  All the members of the CEA were involved until very late at
night.  And we want to make sure that all of the information here is
completely represented.  So Alan and Joe, as well as myself, are
available for questions.
     Q    Laura, how do you think the American consumers
would be affected if there was a trade war with Japan?
     DR. TYSON:  I don't think that -- I think, as the
President said on Friday, we are going to -- we are just in the
process of looking at various options and various ways of responding
to where we are in trade talks in Japan.  So I think it's a little
early to speculate on what will be done.
     Q    Well, there's talk that tomorrow there might be
some announcement on Motorola's inability to operate in Tokyo.
     DR. TYSON:  That case, the Motorola case, has an
extremely long history, which really dates back, if you look at
Motorola's efforts to sell cellular telephones into the Japanese
market, to before -- in the early 1980s when Motorola made the
decision to be involved in cellular technology and the decision to
try to sell in Japan.
     Thereafter, we followed a decade of efforts of Motorola
to sell into this market.  It happens to be that tomorrow is a
decision day for looking at where we are on that issue.  So I want to
indicate that this is a very long case with a decision date for
tomorrow.  And I think we should wait and see what happens tomorrow.
     Q    Dr. Tyson, if you read the report, the section on
Japan, the way I read it, and maybe I'm wrong, is even if you
eliminated all of the Japanese trade barriers tomorrow, it probably
would only boost U.S. exports to the country by $9 billion or a
little bit more than that.  It doesn't sound like it would solve the
trade deficit problem with Japan at all, even if you eliminated all
of the trade barriers.  So is the goal, the objective of eliminating
trade barriers really worth it -- worth a trade war?
     DR. TYSON:  First of all, I really do not think we
should be talking about a trade war at this point.  There has been no
action taken to indicate that we are the precipice of a trade war
with Japan, number one.  Number two, that $9 to $12 billion was an
estimate of the effects on the bilateral trade imbalance if you
eliminated formal and informal barriers to trade, many of which are
not quantifiable.  That does not include the effects on the U.S.-
Japan trade imbalance from an improvement in the macroeconomic
situation in Japan, something which was part of our framework
request.  Our framework request had both a macroeconomic component,
asking Japan to take action to stimulate domestic demand, not just
for the benefit of the United States, but for the benefit of the
global economy, and efforts to address structural or sectoral
barriers to import penetration in Japan -- again, not just for the
United States, but for the global economy.
     The $9 to $12 billion is an estimate of what might be
the effect on the U.S. bilateral balance from sectoral and structural
barriers.  It does not include a macroeconomic component.  That's
number one.  Number two, I would say that that estimate is an
estimate of what we think we might be able to quantify.  There is the
long-term dynamic effect on competition, which is not easily
quantifiable and not included in those numbers; which means, what is
the effect of American and foreign producers over a long period of
time from not being able to have access to one of the most
competitive, dynamically growing economies in the world, and that is
the Japanese economy.  True, right now they're in a very difficult
cyclical situation.  They're in the worst economic slowdown since
World War II.  But over a longer period of time, barriers to access
in that market are extremely costly to the competitive dynamics of
global industry.  And that has an effect on U.S. producers as well as
foreign producers.  And the $9 to $12 billion does not capture that
effect.
     Q    Normally in something like trade, you would expect
that the administration would strategically have planned, if we do
"X", we've got to be prepared to do "Y".  Why is it that in the talks
with Japan, the United States does not seem to have a plan that would
have been ready to be launched should the trade talks fall through,
since it seemed clear for sometime that they were in serious trouble?
And when you say, okay, we're not going to have an agreement with
them, don't you think you should be prepared with what the next step
is?
     DR. TYSON:  I think, first of all, I guess I disagree
with the premise to some extent.  I do not agree with the view that
it was apparent for quite sometime that the talks were going to end
in stalemate.
     Q    All you had to do was pick up the phone.
(Laughter.)
     DR. TYSON:  It's important -- well, for people who are
in the negotiations, I don't think that was the perspective.  In
addition, if you look at the history of U.S.-Japan trade talks, and
there have been many, they often have gone up right to the wire.  So
this was typical in that regard of a set of talks going right up to
the wire.  What was different in this case is that the U.S. decided
that rather than crossing the wire with a cosmetic agreement and
declaring that we had a set of agreements, we decided that we would
not do that -- that for the first time really, we would make it clear
to the American people that, we did not have an agreement that we
thought met our needs and Japan's international responsibilities.
     So that was what was different -- not that the talks
went up to the wire, but that how we concluded at the wire.
     Q    But the plan -- I mean, where was the plan for if
the talks fell through?
     DR. TYSON:  We are in the process of developing what --
look, we have many options.  The real question here is deciding which
of the many options we have to exercise.  So it's really an issue of
ranking and doing an orderly ranking and execution of the options we
have available.
     Q    When will we know those options?
     DR. TYSON:  Well, we actually -- I don't know if we will
have an official list of options.  I think there will be a series of
meetings and series of actions.  And I couldn't give you an exact
schedule.  I can tell you that there's a meeting in a few minutes
that Alan Blinder will run out to, but I cannot tell you any more
than that at this point.  That's the only thing I know in terms of a
time framework right now is the time of the first meeting.
     Q    Are you suggesting that if there's a decision on
Motorola -- a narrow decision on Motorola tomorrow, that is not
necessarily the start of a reaction on the bigger -- be seen as an
isolated --
     DR. TYSON:  I think you should see the decision on
Motorola as the culmina -- it was on a certain timetable, which
existed before the framework talks and continues to exist through
tomorrow.  And I think one should understand that action in terms of
the very long history of Motorola's efforts to sell cellular
telephones into Japan.
     Q    Dr. Tyson, the section on employment is optimistic,
but as recently as last week we saw a large corporate hit with --
AT&T.  What is the forecast for these huge downsizings that the
corporations continue to go through?
     DR. TYSON:  Well, I think one of the things we tried to
do in the employment chapter -- and it's really demonstrated probably
most effectively in the diagram on page 101 -- but there's also a
long discussion of this -- is to try to assess whether or not the
restructuring that's going on in the U.S. economy or the
technological changes going on in the U.S. economy have in some
significant way changed the relationship between output growth and
employment growth.
     Now, what we find and what this chart shows is that, in
fact, we don't see a significant break between those -- that
relationship.  That is, employment growth is on the low side of what
would be predicted from output growth, but not out of the bounds of
what would be predicted from the historical experience of the U.S.
economy during the post-war period.
     Now, that evidence suggests that even as companies are
restructuring, Americans are finding work at about the pace that
would be predicted by the aggregate growth in the economy.  They're
finding work in different kinds of firms; they're finding work in
firms that are restructuring but adding employment; or they're
finding work in the development of new firms or in those firms which
are not restructuring but are expanding.  We tend to hear about the
restructuring.  We don't tend to hear about the creation or the
development of new jobs in firms that are not restructuring or in
firms that are just starting up.
     Q    So is this trend of downsizing, though, going to
continue in the coming year?
     DR. TYSON:  It is hard to know that.  I don't think that
what -- I think one should understand downsizing as part of a series
of responses of the American business community to a couple -- to
maybe three factors.  One might be the balance sheet difficulties
that many of them found themselves in by the end of the 1980s.  Much
of that problem has now been addressed, so that incentive to
restructure may actually be weaker now than it was before.
     A second reason for restructuring simply is the slow-
down -- cyclical slow-down in the economy and the need to consolidate
when the economy is expanding slowly.  Well, now the economy's
expansion has picked up pace and looks to be sustainable, so that
incentive for restructuring may in fact be weaker.
     Finally, there was the incentive to restructure based on
the need to be more competitive internationally.  The truth is that
right now, U.S. companies look to be very competitive internationally
as a result of changes -- long-term effects of a change in the
exchange rate over time and as a result of the restructuring that has
already gone on.  So, again, it may be that we have seen much of the
restructuring and we're -- but it's too early to tell.  But the
factors that one might elucidate or enumerate for restructuring seem
to each have perhaps weakened.
     Q    You devote a number of pages to the notion that
higher tax rates, in fact, have not been much of a drag on the
economy, contrary to certain other views that are now in the process
of being retracted.  But those who hold those views go on to say,
yes, but this new employer mandates, including on health care, are
going to be a real drag on the economy.  Would you address that?
     DR. TYSON:  Well, first of all, I want to make sure that
people understand that if you move from one argument to the other
argument, it doesn't mean the first argument was correct.  The
argument we take on head-on here is, do increases in tax rates
increase or decrease the revenues from taxation?  And we conclude
that they increase the revenues from taxation.  So, if people want to
now move on to another issue because that issue is a dead issue,
well, then, fine let's move on to the other issue.  But we wanted to
talk about the evidence on that issue.
     As far as employer mandates are concerned, we reiterate
in chapter four here our basic conclusion which we drew actually last
August and September, which has since been verified -- or since been
supported by many private sector organizations.  And that is the view
that our health care proposal is unlikely to have a significant
effect on employment at the macroeconomic level.  We have here
repeated what we said last September, I believe, that the most one
could expect in terms of an effect on employment from our health care
proposal, is plus or minus a half a percentage point of employment --
plus or minus.  It's important -- sometimes our opponents will only
report the minus side of that.  But we actually feel that in model
runs we've done and others have done, there's at least the
possibility that our health care reform by slowing the rate of growth
of costs that the private sector pays for health care may, in fact,
generate additional employment opportunities.
     Probably, and this is what the overwhelming amount of
economic evidence suggests and this is what most economists believe,
probably as has been the case in the past, any change in -- whether
it's plus or minus -- in the amount that the business community pays
for health care will ultimately show up in a plus or minus on take-
home pay for workers.  That is, workers, if you look over time,
workers have tended to pay for their own health insurance by
variations in the amount of take-home pay available.
     Q    Let me go back to some of the Japanese issues.  You
talk about the $9 to $12 billion figure -- how would you characterize
that in terms of the impact on the job market?  How does that
translate?
     DR. TYSON:  I tend to think of -- I think one of the
things we try to make absolutely clear in our discussion of trade
here is that you can think the most important thing about trade is
the effect it has on economic specialization and productivity and
efficiency in the economy over time.  As the U.S. economy moves
towards fuller employment as a result of its own economic expansion,
the issue is really going to be -- we want to continue to liberalize
trade, regardless of how close the economy is full employment.
     The issue is not job creation per se, it's the quality
of jobs, it's the living standards of Americans, it's the
specialization and productivity of American producers and the kinds
of jobs that are available to American workers.  So, I think that's
really the issue for the long-term with Japan.  That's why it's so
important to open Japan's markets so that American producers who do
have high quality, highly competitive goods can sell in that market,
keep their competitive edge internationally and keep generating high
quality jobs for Americans.  So, I don't see it as simply a job count
issue, I see it as a quality of job --
     Q    Well, not simply, and I understand your point --but
what are the job numbers?
     DR. TYSON:  We didn't really calculate them that way,
because I think it's in -- I do think it's a misconception of why
trade policy is very important -- of why liberalization of trade is
very important -- to focus on the number of jobs.  I think one should
focus on the quality of jobs and sort of the ability of -- and the
living standards of Americans.
     So, I mean, we could do one.  You could do one on the
basis of the sort of standard calculations of a billion dollars of
exports creating somewhere between 17,000 and 20,000 American jobs.
You can apply that to the $9 to 12 billion, do the multiplication,
and figure out the number -- which I'm not going to do here because
I'll undoubtedly get it wrong.  (Laughter.)  But that 's how you do
it.  I mean, if we were going to put a number in here, what we would
have done is said a billion dollars of exports equals 17,000 to
20,000 American jobs; here's $9 to 12 billion of American exports,
here's the number of jobs.
     But I want to indicate also, we do point out -- and
maybe I should just point out where that is -- on page 212, we do
point out once the economy -- the American economy nears full
employment, additional net exports can create upward pressure on
prices as well.  Even when the economy is at full employment,
however, and even if trade liberalization increases both imports and
exports equally, leaving net exports unchanged, the American economy
will reap the benefits of freer trade in the form of greater
production efficiency, lower prices and higher living standards.  In
other words, even if our trade agreement with Japan were to succeed
when the economy were at full employment, and even if it meant both
an increase in our exports to Japan and an increase in our imports
from Japan, the U.S. economy would be better off.  That's the correct
way to think about the benefits of trade liberalization.
     Q    In the mean time, as the dollar declines in value
against the yen, what are your projections for the percentage of
increase it will mean in terms of the cost of Japanese products in
the U.S.?
     DR. TYSON:  I think for right now  I would prefer not to
answer any questions on the dollar-yen exchange rate.  Although I do
want to say that I think it's appropriate to think of this as a rise
in the value of the yen.
     Q    But does this factor in at all -- does it have any
impact on your projections, then, for inflation in the U.S. and --
     DR. TYSON:  This would not have an -- look, it's
important to emphasize here that the dollar has been relatively
strong against the exchange rates of all of our other major trading
partners.  This is one exchange rate among many -- we have not done
the -- I haven't done the calculations, but I would not anticipate it
to have a significant effect at all on U.S. prices.  This issue here
is what it would do to the bilateral trade imbalance between the U.S.
and Japan and also to the competitiveness of the U.S. and Japanese
producers in third country markets where they're competing against
one another and the relationship between the two exchange rates can
have an effect on their price competitiveness in third country
markets.
     Q       risks to the forecast, then, the probability of
stalling out consumer demand, what are the odds of that happening, do
you think, first of all?  And second, you also talked about the risk
of perhaps 4 percent economic growth, and what impact would that have
on your interest rate forecast?  Two-part question.
     DR. TYSON:  Well, what we were doing there is really
trying to identify for the -- for interested observers like yourself
what the possible risk to the forecasts are.  In point of fact, we
did not sit down and sort of assess or attach probabilities to any of
the individual risks.  I mean, right now we are -- we are quite
confident with our forecast.  It is very similar to the forecasts
that are out there throughout the private sector and through such
independent agencies as the Congressional Budget Office.  So we
really feel that the forecast is where we believe the economy will
be.  But we thought it was important to at least identify possible
risks.  There doesn't seem to be any evidence right now of any
flagging of consumer confidence, for example, which might be one
indicator that consumer spending might slow down.  All we know right
now is that the weather seems to be slowing consumers down.
     And as far as the economy growing faster than 3, 4
percent or so, it's again I think a little early to make that
conclusion.  There were special factors at play in the fourth quarter
of last year.  They're well recognized.  Everyone anticipates the
economy would, as a result of the dying out of those special factors,
settle down to a slower rate of growth, and we think that growth will
be in the neighborhood of 3 percent.
     Q    At one point in talking about the budget deficit --
suggest that additional aggressive further deficit cuts would be
risky.  In looking at the budget deficit forecast that came out last
week both either using, without health care reform or with health are
reform, the deficit by the end of the decade is still around $180 to
$200 billion -- about 2 percent of GDP.  If you get it down to that
level, can we then declare victory?  Is that enough?  Or even if you
do health care reform is another effort, another run going to have to
be made at the budget deficit -- in the long-term?
     DR. TYSON:  Well, I would say right now, our view --what
we were trying to argue here is that the economy seems to be on a
good expansionary growth path.  There is widespread agreement --
again, CBO mentions this, Alan Greenspan has mentioned it -- that the
fundamentals for the economy look particularly strong compared to the
past 20 to 30 years.  We have just gone through introducing and
putting in place a significant deficit reduction effort.
     Our view is, let the economy absorb this; let the
economy grow through this; and monitor it -- see where we are.  There
is no reason right now, it seems to me, to subject the economy to
additional contractionary risk.  We have the deficit going down
relatively to GDP, and then stabilizing at a level which is below
1979 -- the last time we had levels of the deficit GDP ratio as low
as this was 1979.  The debt to GDP ratio instead of rising is now
falling.  It started rising in 1981, it rose through 1994.  It's now
on a downward path.  So the economy's on the right path.  And our
view is we should let it continue on this path for sometime and deal
with what is the source of rising deficits after the end of this
century, which is health care.  So that the appropriate way to think
about the deficit problem is not as some abstract problem confronting
the economy, but to think about it in terms of the source of the
problem, which is health care.
     Q    Over the long-term, however you want to define it,
what is the biggest problem facing the U.S. economy?
     DR. TYSON:  The biggest problem.  Well, we try to
identify a number of problems in this report.  I think it's important
to emphasize that we think of the Clinton administration as having a
comprehensive strategy to deal with a number of problems.
     I think that as far as the deficit and debt problem,
we've put the economy on the right track.  And as I just said, I
think we should continue down that track for awhile and make sure
that we stay on that track, which is not an easy thing to do, and
will not be an easy thing to do year by year.  So I think that
problem we have gotten under control.

     We have, as far as the cyclical problem of the U.S.
economy -- that is, the see-saw economic recovery, which after the
1991 recession -- 1990, 1991 recession -- the economy now appears to
be on a sustained expansion path.  So the problem of the short-term
see-saw recovery seems to have been resolved.
     We also talk about longer-term problems.  And here I
would say we've had disappointing growth in compensation.  We've had
disappointing growth in per capita real incomes.  We've had
disappointing growth in median family incomes.  We've had absolute
declines in family incomes -- real family incomes at the bottom end
of the income distribution.  And we've had what we call "growing
disequalization" -- a growing earnings gap between those at that top
and those at the bottom.  We emphasized that the problem there is
that the rewards to work are weak at the bottom; that income growth
has been negative in real terms and that this is a real problem for
the U.S. economy.
     So I would say over the long-term, the fundamental
challenge is restoring brisker growth to the compensation that
Americans earn in their -- whatever occupation they have -- and to
help those at the bottom get the skills and training they need to
move up into higher quality jobs.  That should be matched, of course,
with a trade policy whose objective is, as I said earlier, to
increase the opportunities for the U.S. to realize the advantages of
a highly-skilled, technologically-advanced work force by moving
increasingly into those kinds of sectors and those kinds of
activities, which, in fact, generate high returns or high wages for
American workers.
     So those are the problems we really focus on.
     Q    As you know, there's a move in Congress to
resurrect the balanced budget amendment.  How will that, if it
passes, impact your projections?
     DR. TYSON:  Well, we have done a couple of things on
that.  As far as the economic report is concerned, we actually have
devoted a discussion to why we think the balanced budget amendment is
a bad idea for the U.S. economy, including the observation that if we
try to balance the budget by 1999, as the current amendment proposal
would have us, we do expose the economy to considerable downside
contractionary risk.  We estimate that long-term -- that it would
take a decline in long-term interest rates of roughly three
percentage points to offset the contractionary effect of such a large
fiscal package by 1999.
     Since a three percent long-term interest rate -- that's
what it would -- you would need to get a three percentage point
reduction, so you'd be down to three -- this seems quite unlikely.
Complying with a balanced budget amendment seems likely to harm the
economy, perhaps severely.  And that is our position.
     Q    Could you explain, in a bit more detail, the
justification as you see it for setting specific numerical targets,
or objective criteria, or whatever the specific -- I mean, isn't the
point that if Japan obeys international trade rules, if it obeys GATT
rules, isn't that essentially the end of the matter?  You're all part
of an international trading system -- if Japan obeys the
international rules, what right does the U.S. have to act like a sort
of schoolyard bully and simply say, you must meet this particular
goal which we unilaterally set?  And to put it into context, how
would you react, for example, if France were to say, we have done an
analysis, and we have found that the U.S. consumption of French wine
is far lower than it ought to be -- (laughter) -- and we unilaterally
set -- (inaudible) -- France unilaterally set a target of 25 percent
of U.S. consumption of wine must come from France -- now how would
you react to that?  Would that be sensible?  Would that be good
economics?

     DR. TYSON:  I guess I could answer this briefly by
saying, I would refer you to chapter six of the economic report,
which devotes -- let me count them, since you've asked this question
-- it devotes a considerable number of pages to demonstrating --let's
see, one, two, three, four, five -- seven pages, which is quite a lot
in this report, to identifying all of the reasons why we believe that
Japan is an outlier.  As you well know, the barriers to Japan's
markets in the sectors we have identified are not the kinds of
barriers which are currently covered by the multilateral system.  The
issue for the United States and other of Japan's trading partners is
whether to allow those kinds of barriers to go unaddressed to what
is, by some measures, the largest and usually is the most dynamic and
certainly is one of the most technologically advanced markets in the
world -- whether to just let that go because those barriers are not
currently covered by GATT; or whether the U.S. and the U.S. trading
partners should deal with Japan in a different way.  Japan is an
outlier in many respects, and the framework talks were an attempt to
deal with the barriers that are not currently covered by the GATT
system.
     I might also refer you to my earlier work on this
subject.
     Q    Wouldn't it be better to get a G-7 agreement --
(inaudible) -- unilateral U.S. approach?
     DR. TYSON:  The Japan talks was an effort to -- the
framework talks was clearly, in each step of the way, meant for
multilateral opening.  The U.S. never requested objective criteria as
a share for U.S. products, never requested objective criteria as a
share for anybody's products.  Objective criteria were a measure of
progress for multilateral opening to all of Japan's trading partners.
     Thank you.
     THE PRESS:  Thank you.
For Immediate Release                               February 16, 1994

    PRESS BRIEFING
  BY
   SECRETARY OF COMMERCE RON BROWN
  The Briefing Room

11:20 A.M. EST

     SECRETARY BROWN:  Well, obviously, as the President
said, this has been a good day for American business and industry, a
good day for American workers, a good day for the American economy.
We've worked hard on it for almost a year now, and obviously we're
very pleased with the announcement that was made today.
     Q    Mr. Secretary, is this a payback for the Gulf war?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  No, not at all.  What it represents is
hard work on the part of American companies and the American
government.  We've made a basic decision that if we're going to
compete and win in the global marketplace, it's going to take a real
partnership between business and industry.
     We have been locked in a time warp for several decades,
engaged in an ideological debate about the role of government, while
our international competitors figured that out a long time ago.
That's why they're doing better than they should be doing in
international competition.  And we're not doing as well as we should
be doing.  And so what this demonstrates is that we're serious about
opening markets; we're serious about competing effectively; we're
serious about working in conjunction with American business and
industry to win those battles.
     Q    But the Ambassador said that King Fahd was moved by
geopolitical concerns.  Isn't one of the large ones --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  That was the Ambassador -- you'll have
to direct those questions to the Saudis.  And it certainly wasn't a
part of our discussions --
     Q    But you negotiated with them.
     SECRETARY BROWN:  I did.
     Q    How much was the American role --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  It was not a part of the discussion
that we had.
     Q    Can you characterize the differences between the
financing arrangement that the Airbus Industries offered the Saudis,
and what the United States offered --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  I really can't.  I do know that the
Export-Import Bank, under the leadership of Ken Brody, stepped up to
the plate early in this game to indicate that they would be an
important part of this transaction, but I really can't speak to the
financing of Airbus.

     Q    But today there were no plane sales announced,
there were no -- breakdown of who was going to buy what or --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  This is not -- the issue is not
financing, the issue is really delivery dates, the sequencing of the
aircraft, those kinds of discussions.  This is not a set of
negotiations that might break down.  These are the final details of a
deal that has already been announced.
     Q    But what has been negotiated for the past year?  I
mean, specifically what was agreed to?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  Well, several things.  One, the number
of aircraft that would be bought.  The Saudis had to make a decision
about who they would buy them from -- whether they'd get them all
from Boeing or all from McDonnell Douglas or all from Airbus -- those
kinds of judgments were made.  They looked at quality of product.
They looked at servicing arrangements.  They made a judgment that
American products were the highest quality and therefore they made
the decision that they made today.
     Q    But was financing part of the negotiations?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  Yes, it certainly -- financing
discussions -- but my understanding is financing was not a major
factor in the decision.
     Q    Have they made a decision on the breakdown between
Boeing and McDonnell Douglas -- they're just not it yet, or is that
still being dickered on?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  I believe that that decision has been
made but has not been announced.
     Q    Do you know what types of planes they're buying?
Any specifics on --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  They're buying planes in the full
range of sizes that a commercial fleet would need.  And I guess the
best answer to that question is to look at what Saudi presently has
and look at what they are going to replenish.  So it'll be a full
range of aircraft.
     Q    Do you have any concerns about the cash flow and
the --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  None.
     Q       the ability of the Saudis to actually --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  None whatsoever.
     Q       their terms of this deal?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  None whatsoever.
     Q    And why not?  What have they --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  Well, first of all, this is a
transaction that'll take place over a series of years.  The
leadership of the Saudi government has taken appropriate steps -- a
reduction of the budget -- 20 percent across the board, all
departments -- a very responsible action.  We have full confidence in
the Saudi economy and their ability to meet their obligations.
     Q    Are you concerned about retaliation from European
industrialists since one point they were talking about splitting the
order between U.S. and European firms?

     SECRETARY BROWN:  Retaliation because we won and they
lost?  No, I can't imagine -- I can't imagine that that would be the
case.  I assume -- but we're happy that they're not happy.  But we
deserved to win.  We did win.  And I can't really speak to the
psychological impact that's had on our competitors.
     Q    What is the Export-Import Bank's role?  What's the
financing --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  In financing.
     Q    And what will they do?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  Well, they are determining that role.
They've indicated that they could handle the full level of this
transaction.  The transaction initially was talked about in terms of
a $6 billion to $9 billion.  It looks like it's somewhere in the area
of $6 billion.
     Q    But is there role strictly loan guarantees or --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  Yes, their --
     Q       what exactly do they do?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  -- typical role is loan guarantees.
     Q    So they will guarantee the loan --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  It frankly depends on Boeing and
McDonnell Douglas, what their needs are in order to complete this
transaction.  And since the split has not been announced, it's
impossible to determine exactly what role Ex-Im will play.  Ex-Im was
prepared to play a full and complete role in guaranteeing loans for
the full deal.
     Q    Are you suggesting that the split has been
negotiated, because the other people have suggested that that's still
to be negotiated?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  My understand is that they have made a
determination of the split; they're not prepared to announce that as
yet.
     Q    Would you expect it to be or -- can we expect it to
be about 50-50?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  I can't comment on that.  And the fact
that you had the top executives of both companies here, which
certainly indicate that they both get substantial orders from this
transaction.
     Q    Mr. Secretary, what kind of message do you want to
be sending to U.S. exporters by talking about a more active
government role?  Can anybody sort of walk into your office these
days and expect you to go to bat for them?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  Well, we've been doing that for the
last year, through the work of the Trade Promotion Coordinating
Committee, which I had the privilege to chair.  We've brought
together the 19 agencies of the federal government involved in
promoting exports.  And through that work we've come up with a
national export strategy, which the President has approved and which
we have embarked on.  It's a new strategy for the United States.  The
United States government has generally not been proactive in helping
American business and industry compete in this tough global
marketplace.  We have found that this is not a one-way street.  Not
only are we reaching out to the business community indicating that
this is pro-business administration.  We're pro-growth, we're pro-
worker, and we've got to prove it.  We think this is an important
vehicle for demonstrating our commitment to promoting exports.  The
fact is that every billion dollar increase in exports means 20,000
new jobs for the American people.  It seems like a pretty good way
for an administration to spend its time.
     Q    Secretary Brown, along those lines, has the
President determined to restore the Super 301 -- (inaudible) -- if
not, when is it --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  We have indicated that we are looking
at all options.  We're very dissatisfied with our present imbalance
of trade with Japan.  We have taken an aggressive, proactive approach
since this administration came to office.  We have said it would be
unacceptable and irresponsible for us to sit on our hands and do
nothing in the face of a $60 billion trade deficit with one country.
And the fact is that that trade deficit is increasing rather than
narrowing.  So we have indicated that we want a results-oriented
approach.  We want measurable, monitorable results.  And we continue
to press in that direction.
     Q    No decision on Super 301 --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  No decision on anything yet.  We're
reviewing, as the President has said, a full range of options.  So
everything is on the table.
     Q    How many jobs specifically will the $6 billion
Saudi sale create -- new jobs, old jobs?  And where will they mostly
be?  Can you break them down --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  We believe it will create at least
100,000 jobs.  Now, whether they're new or old depends on what the
companies do with other sales.  For example, just yesterday
Kazakhstan announced the purchased of six Boeing aircraft.  If all
things were equal, this would create 100,000 new jobs.  Obviously if
the company continues to do business elsewhere, you have to make
judgments about how many new jobs those additional sales create.
     Q       aerospace or in all fields?  Is that just
aerospace or --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  No, that's just in the aerospace
industry.
     Q    There have been a lot of numbers thrown around --
20,000 jobs for every $1 billion in exports; 10,000 jobs for every
billion -- for every billion dollars in planes.  How do you quantify
these jobs?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  No, no -- a lot of numbers haven't
been thrown around --
     Q    By other officials --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  We've said $1 billion increase in
exports equals 20,000 jobs.  If, in fact, this is a $5 billion
transaction, that's 100,000 jobs.  It is likely that it might be a $6
billion transaction.
     Q    It is a $5 billion or a $6 billion?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  It's $5 billion to $6 billion.
     Q    It's $5 billion to $6 billion, not $6 billion?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  Until they complete the time of
delivery, the specific aircraft that they're going to be purchasing,
and when those aircraft will be delivered, you won't know the exact
cost.  Financing has some impact on the cost.  So cost might be
different if you receive a plane this year than if you receive it in
1989.  So we believe it's going to be $6 billion.  We said $5 billion
to $6 billion earlier.  It might be more than that, depending on
delivery date.
     Q    Secretary Brown, I'd like to go back to Japan for
just a minute.  Some trade analysts say that by taking the first
steps toward imposing sanctions the administration could trigger a
trade war that could wind up hurting American companies as much or
more than Japan's.  Are you concerned about that, and are you going
to be taking steps --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  Certainly -- we're not interested in a
fight just to have a fight.  But we are committed -- we are resolute
in our desire to open markets that are closed to American products
and services.  The fact is that the Japanese market is not an open
market.  There has been some modest progress made just as there was
some modest progress made by Motorola -- notwithstanding the decision
that was announced by Ambassador Kantor yesterday -- but much of that
market is still closed to American products and services.  We believe
we have to do everything we can to remove those barriers.  If
American products and goods and services are the products of choice
in every country in the world but one, common sense ought to tell us
that there is something wrong in that marketplace, and we're going to
do everything we can to correct that situation.
     Q    You don't believe that this is putting American
firms at risk in any way?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  Well, that's one of the reasons why we
evaluate our options -- to make a determination about how, in fact,
we open markets and not do damage to the American economy.  That's
one of the things you evaluate in all of these decisions.
     Q    What is the total number of planes in the sale?
And is there also a commitment to buy U.S-made engines?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  This would include the commitment to
engines, yes.  We believe the number is about 50.  And those engines
are principally Pratt and Whitney and G.E. engines.
     Q    The Saudis have been concerned about flying two-
engine planes across the water.  Was that a major part -- and I think
the United States government still hasn't certified them to fly over
open water.  Did that come into the negotiations at all?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  I never heard the discussion in
relationship to flying over water.  I did hear discussions about two
engines versus three or four, but not in reference to your question
about flying over water.
     Q    What was the personal contact or involvement of the
President?  Did he speak to the King?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  One telephone conversation with the
King.  But he's been involved -- I have talked with the President
many times on this issue.  He was very familiar with everything that
we were doing.  I reported to him both before my -- each of my trips
to Saudi Arabia and upon my return.  This has been a transaction that
he's been very interested in.
     Q    And when was that conversation with the King?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  I don't know the timing of the
conversation -- several months ago.  It was in between my two trips.
So my guess is it was probably last fall.

     Q    There also have been letters -- the President -- at
that level?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  No, there haven't been letters.  There
have been -- there have been letters accompanying me on each of my
trips to Saudi Arabia to the King that involved the aircraft sale as
well as other commercial matters.
     Q    Does this presage any involvement with other
industries down the road?  And if so, where should we be looking for
--
     SECRETARY BROWN:  That involvement is ongoing.  That
involvement is ongoing.  As part of my visits to Saudi Arabia, I've
also talked about telecommunications and the fact that they're about
to put in 1.5 million new lines.  That would be probably a $4 billion
transaction.  I certainly would like that to be AT&T and not our
foreign competitors.
     So we're doing this all over the world.  We think it is
a very, very important focal point for the work of the Commerce
Department and this entire administration, committed to economic
growth and job creation.  And one way to do it is to increase United
States exports.
     Q    But how does the Commerce Department or the
government decide whether to promote AT&T or some competitor to AT&T?
How do you get into the business of picking and choosing --
     SECRETARY BROWN:  Oh, we don't.  We don't.  Just as we,
in this case, we didn't promote McDonnell Douglas or Boeing, we
promoted them both.  We were in there standing with American business
and industry.  If there are two or three or four American companies
competing against foreign competitors, we're going to support all of
the American companies that are competing.  We're not going to choose
among, between American companies.
     Q    Why do you think that despite the fact that
President Mitterrand went personally that they rejected the French?
     SECRETARY BROWN:  I think they thought the American
products were better products.  And I honestly believe that American
products are the best, that our industry and our workers are the best
and they produce the best products.  The Saudis made that judgment,
too.  Not only did President Mitterrand went, but Prime Major went,
the Germans were very involved.  This was a very tough international
competition.  We won.  We're certainly heartened by that victory.  We
expect many more in the future.
     Thank you.
     THE PRESS:  Thank you.
For Immediate Release                               February 17, 1994

    PRESS BRIEFING
   BY DEE DEE MYERS

  The Briefing Room

1:41 P.M. EST

     MS. MYERS:  Good afternoon.  A quick statement:  The
President spoke yesterday with Canadian Prime Minister Chretien and
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl.  The Chretien call lasted about 10
minutes; the Kohl call lasted about 20 minutes.  The leaders
discussed the developing situation in Bosnia, and the U.N. and NATO
efforts to stem the bloodshed in Sarajevo and achieve a settlement.
The President also discussed Canadian participation in the space
station with Prime Minister Chretien.
     That's it.
     Q    Is there any reaction to Vitaly Churkin's statement
that Russia is prepared to send 400 troops to serve as peacekeepers,
and Radovan Karadzic statement that the war in Sarajevo is over?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, if this means that the Serbs are
complying with the NATO decision, then it is a positive step and
we'll have to see how things transpire on the ground.  Again, I would
just point out that the NATO decision stands; that all of the heavy
artillery and mortars have to be pulled out of the exclusion zone by
the deadline or they will be subject -- or put under U.N. control or
they will be subject to air strikes.
     Q    Was there any conflict or disagreement during the
conversations with Chretien and Kohl regarding the deadline and what
should take place if the ultimatum is not met?
     MS. MYERS:  No, the allies remain committed to the
deadline, and there was just a discussion about transpiring from the
-- let me just point out that the Kohl call was this morning, the
Chretien was last night.  I don't think I was clear on that.
     Q    Getting back to Wolf's question, what would the
ramifications be of the Russians, as Churkin put it, bringing in
several hundred troops into that area?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, that's something that would have to be
worked out on the ground by the Russians and the U.N.  I would say
that there have been a number of conversations between the Russians
and the Americans where the Russians have said they would do what
they could to get the Serbs to comply, and that includes the
conversation between President Clinton and President Yeltsin.  They
didn't discuss the specifics, but President Yeltsin said he would do
what he could to get the Serbs to comply.
     Q    Do you feel that this is a part of that move?
     Q    Would that be a positive step to bring the troops
in?
     MS. MYERS:  If this means that the Serbs will comply
with the NATO decision, then it could be a positive step, yes.

     Q    There's been a lot of talk about the President's
plan for health care being in trouble one way or another -- lobbying
senior citizens and things.  But leaving aside his plan, is the White
House confident that some form of health care is going to passed
whether it's the Clinton plan or somebody else's?  Have you passed
the mark where nothing is going to happen and something is going to
happen, it's just a question of what now?
     MS. MYERS:  I think there's a commitment in Congress
among the leadership and among many of the committee chairs and
members of the committees, and certainly among -- by the President
that a comprehensive health care reform bill will be passed this year
before the 103rd Congress adjourns.  The President has said that
repeatedly.  I think congressional leaders and committee chairs have
confirmed that commitment.  So I think that there's a definite move
towards that;
     I think there's growing pressure, continued pressure
from the American people, who recognize that there is a health care
crisis, that there is a tremendous problem in the way our health care
system is structured and they want to see a new system that
guarantees private insurance for every American.  Obviously, there's
going to be an ongoing debate about how that's structured, but I
think we will see health reform this year.
     Q    The President's left eye seems to be kind of puffy
and inflamed.  Is there something wrong with it?
     MS. MYERS:  The President has an eye infection.  It's
conjunctivitis, which is a fairly normal condition.  He has seen the
doctor, Dr. Cavanah, who is one of the White House physicians.  He is
taking an eye drop with antibiotics in it every three to four hours.
And it's something they think is normal, should be gone within three
or four days.
     Q    When did he start taking it?
     MS. MYERS:  He saw one of the White House nurses last
night, who I think rinsed his eye out with a saline solution and gave
him drops.  So it was some time during the Arkansas basketball game
last night.  (Laughter.)
     Q    I'm a little confused by what Dr. Tyson was saying
earlier.  What is the administration's view on how the framework
talks stand right now?  And how does the administration evaluate some
of the overtures being made in Tokyo with regards to market opening
--
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think -- I'm sorry I missed most of
what she said.  But my understanding is that there has been no direct
contact with the Japanese since Friday when the Prime Minister was
here.  There has been no change in our position.  We certainly expect
the markets open; we expect the Japanese to live up to the
commitments that they have made.  And at this point, the President's
economic advisors are reviewing options with respect to next steps.
At some point, they will go through those with the President and he
will make a decision.
     Q    When do you think a decision will be made?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't want to give a hard time line to it,
but I think the process is ongoing.
     Q    What was the outcome, if anything, of the talks
with Chretien on the space station?

     MS. MYERS:  They discussed it and I don't have any
specific to give you on that.
     Q    Could there be a downside to the Russians coming to
Bosnia if the Bosnian Serbs don't turn over all their heavy equipment
to the U.N.?  Wouldn't you have a situation where NATO could be
bombing Russians?
     MS. MYERS:  No, because the Russians we're talking about
here are U.N. troops, so they would be blue-helmut UNPROFOR troops.
If this means that the Serbs are going to comply, if the Russians do,
in fact, come and can help either move the Serb and Bosnian, for that
matter, weapons into the containment areas, or to help put those
weapons under U.N. control, then it could actually facilitate the
process of meeting the U.N. objective -- the NATO objective.  I just
want to be very clear, that this in no way changes the NATO
objective.
     Q    Well, the way Karadzic was talking today, it seems
that one possibility for the Russian presence might be for the
Russian so-called peacekeepers to interpose themselves between the
Bosnian Serbs and the U.N. forces on the ground.  If that were the
case, would you oppose that kind of Russian action?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, again, those kinds of details have to
be worked out by the commanders on the ground.  Let me just point out
that what General Rose is in the process of doing is putting
additional UNPROFOR forces between the Bosnians and the Muslims in
Sarajevo as part of the NATO declaration in order to try to
facilitate ending the siege of Sarajevo, try to end the violence
there, and try to facilitate the implementation of the outlines of
the NATO agreement.
     So I think if it's consistent with what we've said,
which this certainly sounds like it could be, then it may help the
Serbs meet our objectives, which would be potentially a good thing.
     Q    Does this come as a surprise to you?  Were you
surprised by this?
     MS. MYERS:  We weren't notified in advance.  But, again,
the Russians had indicated they would do what they could to help get
the Serbs to comply.
     Q    So you haven't heard anything directly from the
Russians as to their intentions?
     MS. MYERS:  No.
     Q    Is the U.S. still committed to committing ground
troops to enforce any peace agreement?  And does the number 25,000
still stand?
     MS. MYERS:  There's been no change in our position on
that.  What we said was that if there was a negotiated settlement
that all the parties agreed to that we thought was reasonable, that
we would commit -- would consider committing ground troops to the --
that's the only situation we would consider committing ground troops
to -- but we would consider committing ground troops to enforcing an
agreement; that we would, in fact, do that.
     The number, I think, will depend on what the agreement
is.  What we have said is that it would be no more than 50 percent.
So it would depend on the details of the agreement.  It would depend
on what the U.N. commanders on the ground determine was necessary and
something that we would work out.

     Q    The President said this morning something to the
effect that he was going to be talking more about the situation in
Bosnia as the deadline gets closer.  Do you all have something
specific in mind of a slightly more specific nature --
     MS. MYERS:  No.
     Q       and what's he doing tomorrow?
     MS. MYERS:  Nothing of a specific -- I don't think he
meant to imply something of a specific nature as being planned.  But
I think, almost on a daily basis since last week, the President has
said something either in response to a question or in the form of a
statement about the situation there.  It's something that certainly
we've talked about on a fairly regular basis over the course of the
past year.  I think he believes it's important.  The American people
understand what's at stake, why the U.S. and, in fact, NATO is
getting involved in this.  And there seems to be, if you believe
polls, a fair amount of, I think, support for an allied use of air
strikes as opposed to an American use of air strikes.
     Q    How do you know that?  I mean, what's your --
     MS. MYERS:  I'm just referring to some public polls.
     Q    In the homelessness draft report, can you confirm
that the administration is going with that figure of seven million
homeless over the course of the 1980s?
     MS. MYERS:  The report is still in draft form.  As you
know, I guess it was March 19th, the President signed an executive
order which called for a coordinated federal response to attack
homelessness.  What has happened now is a draft has gone to OMB for
the OMB process where it's distributed to different agencies for
their comment.  They will, sometime in the near future, put together
a final draft which will then go to the President.
     I think the one thing that is significant about this
report, irregardless of how the details get worked out, is that it is
a fundamentally different view of homelessness than we've seen over
the past 12 years.  I think it's more comprehensive and it
acknowledges a wider problem than perhaps has been done in the past.
     Q    What figure, though, does the administration go
with on this --
     MS. MYERS:  Well, we don't have one.  I mean, that's
part of what the process of the report will determine.  So when the
report is final I think we can talk about specific numbers.
     Q    Did the President initiate these calls to Canada
and Germany?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes.
     Q    And on what basis?  For what reason?  Just to
coordinate?  What does the President do every day to try to get a
policy?  Because sometimes when we talk to the State Department
people, they have sort of a different view, a little different angle.
And I'm not saying 180 degrees, but is there any coordination in this
administration on what is going on?
     MS. MYERS:  We try.  I think that--
     Q    Because I think that, as we get closer to this
deadline, we'd like to know who's speaking.

     MS. MYERS:  I think that there has been a good degree of
coordination on this.  I think some of the details are being worked
out on the ground -- exactly how we go about achieving the objectives
of UNPROFOR control, for example, or things that we'll have to work
out on the ground.  And so I think that as these things get worked
out there's been some bit of confusion, but I think there's been no
confusion in the overall objective of the policy, whether you're
talking to the State Department or to the White House or to the
Defense Department; that we want -- we insist that the weapons be
moved out of the exclusion zone or put under UNPROFOR control.
     Q    And the power now for air strikes is right in the
hands of NATO; they don't have to come back to the White House; they
just --
     MS. MYERS:  They don't have to come back to the White
House, but the process still requires one of two ways:  either the
UNPROFOR commanders on the ground, which, ultimately, I guess is
General Rose, would request it to the U.N., to Boutros-Ghali; and
then Boutros-Ghali would have to determine whether he or somebody
else -- it's unclear at this point whether Akashi is the point person
or not -- would have to authorize or actually give approval to the
first strike, the ice breaker.  Or request could come from the NAC,
from NATO itself.  So it's basically the same structure as existed
for close air support.
     Q    So Boutros-Ghali is still --
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, the U.N. still -- all of this will be
coordinated closely with the U.N., and all of it is permissible under
existing U.N. resolutions.  We expect all of it to be carried out
closely with them.
     Q    As the Sunday deadline approaches and the
possibility that U.S. forces might be engaged in bombing, is the
President devoting more time to foreign policy on a daily basis --
briefings about the progress of all of this?  And on Sunday, can we
expect a statement from you that the President or some senior figure
either explaining that the Bosnians have complied with the ultimatum
or say that they have not, and bombs away?
     MS. MYERS:  In response to the -- let me answer the
second part first.  I think there's a briefing today at DOD to
explain the process of disseminating information should there be air
strikes, just as a point of fact.  So you may check with the folks
over there.
     I think that the information will come first out of
Naples, is their feeling, since Admiral Borda and the NATO forces are
being coordinated out of Naples.  We haven't made a decision about
specifically whether we would have a statement on Sunday or not.  I
think as things get a little bit closer, we can probably give you a
little bit better guidance.  The President is expected to be here in
Washington over the weekend.
     On the first part, the President has spent a good deal
of time over the course of the last several weeks on this, on the
Bosnian problem in particular, stepping up a bit with the attacks on
the open air market a week ago Saturday.  He has kept in close
contact on this, as you know.  The NATO decision was reached, I
think, largely as a result of his personal involvement.  And he
directed the activities all along.  And he's kept, I think, very
close watch on events as they've developed, and I expect him to
continue to do that.
     Q    Is it a good idea for him, Dee Dee, to do an Oval
Office address to the American people in advance of any possible air
strikes?

     MS. MYERS:  It's not something that's being considered
at this point.  Again, it is a NATO operation.  It's something that
will -- hopefully, if the Serbs comply, it won't be necessary.  But
we will insist that the Serbs comply and that the Bosnia Muslims
comply as well.  But --
     Q    The U.N. is now saying in Sarajevo, according to
this Reuters report that has just moved, that convoys of Serbian guns
have started moving out from the hills.  "And we have news of a very
significant withdrawal of Serb forces from the hills around
Sarajevo."
     MS. MYERS:  Thank you for that update.  (Laughter.)
     Q    Is it something that you know about?
     MS. MYERS:  I didn't have that specific report, but that
-- obviously, if the Serbs comply, that will be good news.  That is
-- the intention of the NATO decision is to get the heavy weapons out
of the exclusion zone or to put them under UNPROFOR control, to try
to stop the violence in Sarajevo.  Now, air strikes alone won't be
enough to break the siege of Sarajevo or to get the peace process
completely on track.  But we hope that it will be an impetus to move
toward the only viable long-term solution which is a negotiated
settlement.
     Q    Has the President moved -- is the air strike
threat, does it hold beyond Sunday --
     MS. MYERS:  Of course.  Of course.
     Q    So this has to be a permanent move out of the --
     MS. MYERS:  That's correct.  There is no end date to the
NATO decision.  And there has been absolutely no change in the 10-day
period.  It ends as of Sunday night, 7:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time,
or is daylight time?  Daylight time.
     Q    Standard.
     Q    In terms of the conditions under which you commit
ground troops, is there a settlement?  You said earlier, we'd
consider committing them if there was a negotiated settlement.  I
thought the President has always said as long as all of the parties
agree and --
     MS. MYERS:  I think that's generally it.  I think we
reserve the right to review whatever decision is made.  And if it's
one that we feel is reached in good faith, negotiated by the parties,
then we would commit ground troops.  But we reserve the right
certainly to review any agreement that is reached and make sure that
it meets our criteria.
     Q    Dee Dee, do you reply to the U.N. request for the
U.S to send peacekeepers?
     MS. MYERS:  There's been no change in our position on
that issue, which is that the only circumstances under which we would
send peacekeepers would be if a negotiated settlement was reached.
     Q    I know, but did you officially reply to the U.N.
request?  There was a request.
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, there was an official request.  I'm not
sure -- I know that Ambassador Albright had a conversation.  There
were two parts to that request.  One was for troops, and one was for
counter-battery radar.  The additional radar request, I think, is
being handled through military channels and is still under review
with NATO generally, not just the United States.
     Q    And the first part?
     MS. MYERS:  I assume it's been done formally.   I can
double-check that.  But there is no change in our position.  We will
not send additional -- the United States will not send peacekeepers
to Bosnia at this time.
     Q    The agreement between -- and North Korea, what is
the status of Patriot and Team Spirit?
     MS. MYERS:  There has been no change in the status on
Patriots or Team Spirit.  Again, we've looked favorably on sending
Patriot missiles to South Korea.  The technical details have not been
worked out.  On Team Spirit, planning proceeds decision on how to --
we're moving forward with that and any decisions on that will be
based solely on our security concerns for the Peninsula.
     Q    Dee Dee, is the administration planning to charge
aliens who are seeking political asylum for asking for asylum and
prevent them from working and --
     MS. MYERS:  There is a proposal which is going to be
published in the Federal Registry to that effect, that would charge,
I believe it's $130 fee.  But it would waive the fee in cases where
people were unable to pay.  And the objective is not to, as was
stated in the article, not to keep people from applying, but to help
to defray the cost of asylum application.  Again, it's going to the
Federal Register.  It will be published and, I think, reviewed.
     Q    Has the President --
     MS. MYERS:  I don't know that he's commented on it yet.
It's something that came out of INS.  It's an INS proposal.  I just
don't know whether he's had any comment on it.  I can take that.  I
don't think he has a comment on it.
     Q    How is it determined whether they can pay?
     MS. MYERS:  How is it determined?  You have to check
with INS for the specifics on how they would determine whether
somebody could come up with the $130.
     Q    There's also preventing them from working, from
having work permits for some period of time.  What's the purpose of
that?  It sounds like it's all designed to deter people from seeking
asylum.
     MS. MYERS:  I'll have to take that part of the question.
I'm not sure what the answer is.
     Q    Do you have any comment on whether Mark Gearan has
ever seen a country and western singer?  (Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  There's reported sightings of Mark Gearan at
a country-western bar in Little Rock, Arkansas, but they have been
unconfirmed.  He swears his hair cut is early 1960s, too.
     Q    Dee Dee, what's the status of Super 301?
     MS. MYERS:  It's under review.  I mean, we haven't ruled
anything out in terms of additional steps that could be taken in
response to the collapse of the framework.  But we don't have
anything more on that.

     Q    Dee Dee, there have been a lot of reports about the
relations are not very good between the White House and President
Aristide.  Would you care to comment on the differences -- the White
House seems to be asking for a naming of a new prime minister?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, we're still committed to restoring
democracy to Haiti and to reinstating Father Aristide.  Now, we've
looked at a number of options -- a number of options have been
proposed, which we're reviewing, I think, and looking favorably on
some to expand the base of the government in Haiti and to get back to
some of the objectives that were outlined in the Governors Island
Accord last July.  That discussion is ongoing.  But I think we still
have a working relationship with Father Aristide.  Again, we believe
he's the democratically-elected president of Haiti, and our policy
still is to restore a democratically elected government, which is
headed by Father Aristide.
     Q    The Tyson briefing was about the 20th that we've
had in the past several months in which the economy has been
described as robust, or at least coming on strong.  If that's true,
what's the status of the middle income tax cut?  When can Americans
expect to get something out of this?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think Americans are getting a lot
out of it.  For example, low interest rates have allowed millions to
refinance or buy homes.  Nearly two million new jobs have been
created.  I think, generally, consumer confidence is up.  So the
Americans --  middle income Americans have gotten a lot out of this
improving economy already.  The President said that if the economy
strengthened he would review that, and I'm sure that we'll review it
as time goes forward.
     Q    Well, what's the degree of strength it has to reach
before --
     MS. MYERS:  I'm not going to set any specific criteria,
other than to say that while the economy is improving and I think,
again, consumer confidence and other indicators are up, not everybody
has felt the benefits of the growing economy.  And the President and
others in this administration remain committed to continuing to spur
economic growth until the benefits are even more broadly felt.
     Q    Does that remain a live option over the next two or
three years?
     MS. MYERS:  What, middle-class tax cut?
     Q    Right.
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, the President said if the economy
improved, he would like to take another look at it.  And I think that
at some point we hope the economy is strong enough that we could do
that.
     Q?     A former -- recently former high-ranking member
of this administration, who now no longer is in it has been on kind
of a concert tour -- (laughter) -- talking about how this White House
is cynically embracing a crime bill which has measures in it that are
empty and a sham and won't work.  Do you have any reaction to that?
     MS. MYERS:  We simply disagree with him.
     Q    Had he expressed before he left his objections to
the White House, do you know?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't know whether he did to the White
House, and I certainly can't speak for Justice.  I don't know of any
direct conversations about that, but I wouldn't rule it out.

     Let me just say that the President does remain committed
to a crime bill that includes 100,000 new police officers, a three
strikes and you're out proposal -- which is still being shaped, more
money for prisons and a number of other things that you've heard him
talk about a number of times.  And we just disagree with some people
who don't think we need additional measures to fight crime.
     Q    I don't think that's what he says, but is he
committed to a -- and you know that -- is he committed to a crime
bill -- is the President committed to a crime bill that expands the
number of minimum mandatory sentences, that relaxes habeas corpus
rules, and that expands the number of federal penalties punishable by
death?
     MS. MYERS:  We haven't taken a position on the first two
that I know of.  I'll double check that -- on habeas and mandatory
minimums.  I'll have to double check that, I don't think that we
have.  He is committed to a crime bill that includes the proposals
that he's outlined.  It is up to Congress to work out all of the
details.  I mean, the President has said there may be some things in
there with which he doesn't agree, but that alone might not be the
basis for fighting the bill.  He believes that if we have a crime
bill that includes a ban on assault weapons, 100,000 new officers on
the streets, more prisons and three strikes, you're out and a couple
other things that he's talked about, that that is a good thing and
that the country should implement it.
     Q    The President said the other day that he didn't
think the crime bill should be littered with a whole lot of
provisions.  What did he mean by that?
     MS. MYERS:  I think that there are a number of --there's
literally, I think, dozens of amendments that are pending.  I think,
again, he has outlined the things that he thinks are most important
to it.  Those are the things that he has emphasized, those are the
things that he'll continue to talk about.  It is up to the Senate and
the House to both finalized their bills, to work out a conference
report.  And I think the President's going to continue to try to keep
the focus on the things that he cares about.
     Q    One more thing -- if all those other things that I
cited that the President hasn't taken a position on are included in
this crime bill, will it be called the President's crime bill?
     MS. MYERS:  I think, again, if it is something we're
working on with Congress.  But, yet, I think the President has
outlined the things that he cares about.  And those are the major
components of the bills.  Now, there may be some other things which
he hasn't taken a position on.   That is their legislative
prerogative.  But it is certainly he has talked about, pushed and
helped pass and eventually will sign.
     Q    Dee Dee, what does three strikes and you're out
mean to him?  In other words, it's just the concept he supports, or
what kind of a three strikes?
     MS. MYERS:  Correct.  It's a concept which essentially
says that people who commit a third violent felony -- and within a
federal bill, it has to meet specific federal requirements -- would
get life without the possibility of parole.  Now, specifically how
that is structured -- I mean, what the President has said is that he
would like to see it structured narrowly enough so that it does
target the 9 percent of recidivous* criminals who commit 70 percent
of the violent crimes.
     Exactly how that is structured, exactly what the
language is, is something that has to be worked out in Congress.  But
the President remains committed to the concept narrowly defined or
defined in such a way that it really does target those violent, most
likely repeat offenders.
     Q    Who in the White House is taking the lead on this
issue, working out this issue?
     MS. MYERS:  Bruce Reed.
     Q    Bruce?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes.
     Q    He's the top official up here who's --
     MS. MYERS:  He's the domestic policy official who works
most closely on this issue, yes.
     Q    Dee Dee, is the President happy with the -- I think
there's a three strikes and you're out proposal contained in the
Senate version.
     MS. MYERS:  There's two.  There are two different
amendments that contain slightly different versions, and he has not
taken a position specifically on either.
     Q    Which amendments are you talking about?
     MS. MYERS:  The amendments -- there's a couple three
strike proposals in the form of amendments to the Senate bill.
     Q    One of the knocks that Phil Heymann has talked
about is his concern that there hasn't been enough thought put into
the long-term ramifications of this, particularly cost -- cost of new
prison space, cost of keeping these officers on the street after a
set number of years.  How do you all respond to that?
     MS. MYERS:  I think there's been a great deal of thought
given to all of those issues.  And there's been a great deal of
thought given to how best to keep violent repeat offenders off the
streets and away from the American people.
     Q    Given the current situation of the budget, where
does the money come from?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, as you know, anything that is proposed
and passed will have to be paid for.  The Senate is paid for with $22
billion, including 252,000 reductions in full-time employees and
other things.
     Q    When does the President decide on the concept of
the policy of commercialization of satellite images and related
remote products -- sensing products?
     MS. MYERS:  What is the President's position?
     Q    No, he has to decide on national policy on the
commercialization of satellite images and remote sensing products.
     MS. MYERS:  I will have to take that question.  We'll
take it and try to get back to you.
     Q    Dee Dee, according to The New York Times, this
homeless report suggests that the deduction for interest rates paid
on home mortgages is a possible source of income to pay for the
homeless.  Is that under consideration by the White House to reduce
the amount of deductions that a person can take for interest paying
on home mortgages to either pay for the homeless problem or any
other?
     MS. MYERS:  Again, it's a draft report.  But that is not
under consideration.
     Q    Well, I'm speaking about -- is the administration
eyeing the home interest rate reduction as any possible source of
income?
     MS. MYERS:  That is not under consideration.
     Q    The homeless report is only a draft, but it's
sounded in a comment that he made to the pool this morning that a
sort of underlying decision to expand the homelessness, the anti-
homelessness effort have already been made.  I'm talking about beyond
Cisneros --
     MS. MYERS:  Sure, I think that's already reflected in a
number of ways.  One, Secretary Cisneros said fighting homelessness
was his top priority as HUD Secretary.  Two, there's been a large
increase, and nearly a tripling in the homeless budget at HUD.
Three, I just think there's a broader commitment among the different
Cabinet agencies to doing something about the homeless problem which
is reflected in the fact that the President requested this report and
is something that has been worked out through an interagency process.
     Now, exactly how the program is structured and what the
money is used for, I think, will be reflected in the final report.
But I think, clearly, the actions already taken in the first year
reflect an expanded commitment to fighting homelessness.
     Q    Is the draft in his hands?
     MS. MYERS:  No.
     Q    Is this report to decide how to spend the
additional money that is already committed, or is their consideration
being given for a further expansion of spending?
     MS. MYERS:  No, it's not -- this is not something to
spend the money, but I think it's consistent with increased budgets.
A new look at homelessness will be a coordinated effort.  And, again,
we'll wait until we see the final details of the report, but any
additional spending would have to be offset by cuts someplace else in
the budget.  I'm not saying one way or anther whether this will cost
additional money or not.  We'll have to wait for the final report.
     Q    Is there anything on his schedule for tomorrow of
consequence?
     MS. MYERS:  The only thing on the public schedule for
tomorrow is the lunch with CEOs, which is at 12:30 p.m. in the Map
Room of the residence.  And it's bringing in a group of CEOs from
around the country to discuss the President's health care plan.
     Q?     You've taken a pretty strong position, a firm
position against deflecting questions on Whitewater from the podium,
saying that it's under investigation and will have no comment.  Yet
twice today the President was asked questions on it and he talked
about it at length.  What is the policy to answering questions on
Whitewater?  Are you going to address every issue that we ask, or
not?
     MS. MYERS:  No.
     Q    In your dreams.  (Laughter.)

     MS. MYERS:  And I think that from time to time, since
the President is personally involved he may choose to answer a
question.  I think generally the policy is that the Whitewater issue
is being looked into by a special counsel, and we're not going to
comment on it.
     Q    So it's up to him if he feels like it, but
otherwise it's off --
     MS. MYERS:  He's the President.
     THE PRESS:  Thank you.
For Immediate Release                              February 17, 1994

    PRESS BRIEFING
  BY
  LAURA TYSON, CHAIR OF COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS
  The Briefing Room
     Q    On the merchandise trade report while the monthly
total U.S. number looked okay, the bilateral deficit with Japan
looked bad.  And I was wondering, if we continue to have yen levels
like we've had in recent days, a strong yen level, could we expect a
certain percentage decline in that bilateral trade deficit just on
the yen level alone if we don't have further changes in Japan policy?
     DR. TYSON:  Well, let me first say something about the
overall trade deficit and then about the trade deficit with Japan.
The overall trade deficit for 1993 was $115.8 billion, which is
certainly more than it was in 1992 -- only $84.5 billion in 1992.
Most of that shift has to do with diverging macro circumstances
between the U.S. and its major trading partners.  We were in a
steadily increasing growth phase during this period.  And many of our
trading partners were not.  And as a consequence, one would see the
trade imbalance deteriorate.
     Certainly macroeconomic issues are part of the
explanation of the trade imbalance with Japan.  And macroeconomic
issues include the growth rate in Japan and the yen-dollar
relationship, so that any trade deficit number between the U.S. and
its trading partners is affected by those kinds of macro
circumstances.
     Q    But if continue just with the yen level, that's
kind of strong now, versus the dollar could you think that that
element alone, we can see a reduction in that trade deficit; or do
you see that, again, further policies have to be with that in order
to --
     DR. TYSON:  Well, look, the Clinton administration's
policy towards Japan is about opening markets in Japan.  And that can
be understood as an important policy that depends not just on macro-
economic circumstances in Japan; not just on macro-economic variables
between the U.S. and Japan such as the exchange rate, but also on
structural barriers to access to the Japanese market.
     So regardless of what happens to the U.S./Japan trade
deficit as a result of changes in macro-economic circumstances
between the two nations, what is on the agenda in the framework
discussions, the issue of structural barriers remains on the agenda
and will remain on the agenda.
     Q    But a strong yen impotent, then, as far as really
reducing that trade --
     DR. TYSON:  No, that isn't what I said.  What I said is
that the trade imbalance between the U.S. and Japan, like a trade
imbalance between the U.S. and any other country, is influenced in
part by macroeconomic variables, which include the rates of growth in
the U.S. and what ever country you're looking at and the exchange
rate between the U.S. and whatever country you're looking at.
     So it's not that the trade deficit is insensitive to
that, at all.  It's just that there are other issues on the table
besides those macroeconomic concerns.
     Q    Could you tell us, for those who don't cover this
all the time, is this fodder for people -- these trade deficit
figures with Japan -- is this fodder for people who say, get tougher
with Japan and continue perhaps with -- or institute sanctions?
     DR. TYSON:  I would say the following:  What was in the
framework discussions included a set of macroeconomic concerns.  That
is, we were asking the Japanese to do things to stimulate the rate of
growth of their economy and the rate of growth of domestic demand
because we know from empirical work done on Japan and any other
country around the world, that if Japan grows more rapidly, it will
buy more products from the U.S. and from all of its trading partners.
     So that was part of the framework discussion.  Other
things that are part of the framework discussions, or were part of
the framework discussions, had to do with impediments to selling
particular products in the Japanese market.  So all of these things
are on the table and will remain on the table.  And I'm not sure -- I
don't think that these numbers change the situation.
     Q       the President also suggested that the economy
would not recovery unless Congress adopted his stimulus package; it
did not do.  Does that imply that the economy was not in as bad shape
as you thought it was at the time, or that interest rates are the key
component of a recovery?
     DR. TYSON:  Well, I said here once before, and I
probably can't do it as well as I did it before, so I'm going to be
very short on this:  What we -- how we defended the stimulus package
a year ago was as an insurance policy.  It was to say that if the
economy did not respond as quickly as we hoped it would, if interest
rates did not fall as much or as fast as we thought they might in
response to our deficit reduction package, we would have an insurance
policy in place to help the economy get through that transition
period.  In the event we didn't need the insurance, but you never buy
insurance after the fact; you buy it before the fact not knowing what
will happen.
     Q    In regard to the structural impediments in Japan,
it seems to be -- you say several times in your report this week that
Japan presents a special case.  It seems to be saying, by the way,
we're approaching these framework discussions that we're accepting
the premise that they have a kind of a state-directed capitalism and
we're asking them in these areas to say, since you're directing your
markets in these areas, direct our companies in.  Is that correct?
     DR. TYSON:  I certainly wouldn't say -- what I would say
is that we can tell, both from a long history of anecdotes based on
the efforts of individual companies to sell in Japan, such as was
illustrated this Tuesday in the Motorola case, but also from very
careful empirical econometric work that has been done in a variety of
academics that relative to how other advanced industrial countries
behave in terms of import penetration, Japan looks different.  That's
sort of the characterization of Japan as an outlier.
     And what our trade talks are meant to do in part is to
identify those areas in the economy where there are barriers and to
work and negotiate with the Japanese for the removal of those
barriers; but to negotiate in such a way as we have some standards by
which we can measure whether progress is being made in reducing those
barriers.  And the dangers of negotiating without having standards of
measurement in place, I think are well exemplified by the Motorola
case that was discussed earlier this week.
     Q    But when you put a numerical target on how much you
want to increase the U.S. role in those markets, you are accepting
the premise that the government is the one that's going to --
     DR. TYSON:  No, but that has been, I think, a persistent
and almost willful misinterpretation by observers of what we're
doing.  We are not setting numerical targets for what the Japanese
should buy.  We are asking for -- and remember the framework asserted
we had an agreement that we would negotiate agreements and that we
would have quantitative or qualitative or both indicators to assess
whether these agreements were producing results.  That is not the
same thing as a target.  People want to shorthand that into a target,
but there were no targets.
     Q    There have been reports that you want 20 percent
increase in U.S. auto part exports each year for the next four years.
Is that incorrect -- we're not seeking that goal -- 20 percent auto
parts --
     DR. TYSON:  You see, the thing is, that the issue of a
target is whether or not the number that you set to assess progress
is a binding number.  And so that, I think the President said
absolutely clearly last Friday, we were asking for negotiations which
would lead to an agreement whereby over time the U.S. producers in
whatever sector we were talking about would have market opportunities
that were not otherwise available to them.  We were also asking for a
measure by which we could judge whether this process was underway.
We were not setting a numerical target to judge whether the process
was underway, but a measure by which we'd evaluate whether the
process was underway.
     And let me say again, the dangers to not doing that,
seem to me, to be quite well revealed by what happened in the
Motorola case, where we did not set such a standard.

     Q    Why do you need that?  You're already in a
situation where you've been able to say to us any one of a number of
times that Japanese market "X" is thus and such percentage closed to
us; this one is more open to us.  You obviously have numbers and ways
of measuring openness of Japanese markets already.  Why do you need
something else?
     DR. TYSON:  The ones we have are the ones that we were
discussing with the Japanese.  I'm not sure -- what do you mean, why
do we need something else?
     Q    I don't understand what it is that you feel you
need, that you feel you have to talk to the Japanese about that you
don't already have.
     DR. TYSON:  Oh, we certainly have the -- you're
absolutely right -- we certainly have and can judge on our own
whether we feel progress is being made.  Remember, the Japanese
agreed with us last summer to negotiate a series of agreements in
which we would agree together on the standards by which success or
results would be measured.  So we agreed with the Japanese we were
going to do this.  And then we were unable to come to an agreement on
exactly which -- and by the end it was, if any such measures would be
used.  That was a clear move away from what we had agreed upon in the
summer.  Yes, we could have gone on and just said -- not had the
framework.  But, remember, we're talking about a framework
negotiation which ended with both sides saying we failed to reach an
agreement.  That is right -- we reached an agreement on the
framework; and then we were unable to reach an agreement on which,
and I would say if any, because by the end the Japanese position was
pretty much none -- which, if any, indicators would be used to judge
success.
     Q    Do you know about how nervous the Japanese stock
market reacted to -- (inaudible) -- news?  How about the possibility
that you are asking too much too fast and by doing -- (inaudible) --
you push the Japanese economy over the cliff, which would be heavily
counterproductive given the extent to which both economies, the
Japanese and the American one, are intertwined.
     DR. TYSON:  I think that what -- if you actually look at
the kinds of indicators we proposed, we were proposing trends over
several years.  Even in the case of the macroeconomic elements on the
table, we were proposing trends for actions which would gradually
reduce their global current account surplus.  It would not do it
overnight -- would do it in ways which were perfectly consistent with
a continued improvement in the Japanese macroeconomic situation.  We
are cognizant that countries like Japan and ourselves and Europe go
through cyclical ups and downs and difficult periods.  We proposed
qualitative and quantitative measures which were gradual and they had
to do with trends, many of which we were simply asking the trend
which had been in place to continue.  We were actually not asking for
an improvement in trend, but simply for a continuation of a trend
which had recently developed.  So I don't think there's any sense
that we had that we were jeopardizing in any way the cyclical
circumstances that Japan finds itself in.
     Q    Before you leave, what kind of logical conclusions
do you think the Federal Reserve should be drawing from today's
economic data with regard to monetary policy?
     DR. TYSON:  Well, finally a question -- (laughter).
Well, no, this is actually a double-edged sword since I rarely
comment, if at all, on the Federal Reserve.  I will simply say that I
thought what was important to emphasize today was that we had two
numbers here -- one number basically suggesting that if anything the
fourth quarter of last year might be stronger than an already strong
number that came in in a preliminary fashion; another number which
says that going into the new year, inflation remains at bay.
Inflation remains tame -- inflation remains tame.  And I think that
if you look at these two numbers together, it suggests that we remain
on course for a sustainable recovery with tame inflation.  I assume
that others will look at the numbers in the same way.  I don't know,
but I assume that others will --
     Q    So you don't see any need to increase interest
rates?
     DR. TYSON:  So I think that that's where I'm going to
end.
For Immediate Release                               February 20, 1994

    PRESS BRIEFING
   BY DEE DEE MYERS

  The Briefing Room

8:24 P.M. EST

     MS. MYERS:  Good evening.  President Clinton spoke with
Secretary General Woerner from the residence about an hour ago, and
the President has issued the following statement.
     I have just been informed by NATO Secretary General
Manfred Woerner that NATO and the United Nations commanders have
concluded that all known heavy weapons of the parties have been
withdrawn from the exclusion zone around Sarajevo, or under the
control of the United Nations, or soon should be.  Therefore, they
have concluded that no air strikes in Bosnia by NATO air forces are
required at this time.
     This week's events clearly have given the residents of
Sarajevo a respite from the shelling and a measure of hope.  I want
to congratulate NATO and each of our NATO allies for the
demonstration of resolve that produced these results.  I want to
commend the high level of cooperation that has been demonstrated
between U.N. and NATO.
     As I told President Yeltsin in a call earlier today, I
want to congratulate the government of Russia for its contributions
to this effort.
     Finally, all Americans join in praising the courage and
skill of our service personnel and those of our NATO allies.  They
have been the muscle in NATO's ultimatum.
     Despite the significant events of the day, we must
remain vigilant.  All parties should be aware that the ultimatum
stands.  The deadline has not been extended.  Any heavy weapons in
the exclusion zone not under U.N. control are and will remain subject
to air strikes.  NATO's decision applies to any heavy weapons attacks
on Sarajevo from within or beyond the zone.
     NATO and the United Nations will continue to monitor
compliance extremely carefully.  The NATO decision and its results
provide new potential for progress toward an end to the tragic
conflict in Bosnia.  In the coming days, American diplomats will be
working with the parties to the conflict and our allies and partners
to transform this potential into reality.
     There will be a background briefing in a few minutes,
but I'll take a couple of questions in the meantime.
     Q    How many heavy Serbian gun positions are not yet
under U.N. control, and when do you expect they will be under U.N.
control?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, the vast majority of heavy weapons
have either been removed from the zone or placed under U.N. control.
Only a handful of areas remain outside of the U.N. control, and we
expect very soon that most of those will be -- or all of those will
be within U.N. control.  That's something that we'll have to monitor
continually; it's something that we're getting reports on from the
ground.
     Q    The Serbs have not complied with the U.N.
ultimatum, have they?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, as the President's statement points
out, all of the heavy weapons have either been removed, put under
U.N. control, or will soon be under U.N. control.  So at this time we
don't see any need for air strikes.
     Q    When you say "soon be" that means they have not
complied, have they?
     MS. MYERS:  We haven't been able to confirm compliance
at this point.  That's something, again, that we're going to continue
to monitor as events proceed.
     Q    When you say soon, is it a question of hours or
days, when you say they will be very soon under the U.N.'s control?
     MS. MYERS:  Soon.  I'm not going to put a time line on
it.  But again, it's a very small, just a handful of weapons that are
not yet under control and we do expect those to be under control
soon.  There's been tremendous progress today.  Clearly, there's been
a high level of weapons, a high number of weapons turned over; most
of those within the cantonment areas or outside of the exclusion
zone.  And again, there's been a lot of heavy weather there, a lot of
cloud cover.  So it's difficult to assess exactly what the situation
is on the ground, but we're quite confident that the vast majority of
weapons are now within the NATO ultimatum.
     Q    What do you mean when you say you can't confirm
compliance?  You can confirm what's already been done.
     MS. MYERS:  Right, with the exception of those handful
of areas where we don't believe that the weapons are under NATO
control -- I mean UNPROFOR control at this time.  But again, we
expect that to happen soon.
     Q    Did the President know all this, that there would
be no air strikes before 7:00 p.m.?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, he's been following events very
closely today, and he spoke, as you know, to a number of people
including the Secretary General of NATO, Manfred Woerner, twice --
most recently, at about 7:30 p.m.  And at that time, Secretary
General Woerner assured him that, again as the President's statement
says, that the weapons were either removed or under UNPROFOR control,
or would soon be under UNPROFOR control.  So it's been a good day.
     Q       can be construed as an extension of the deadline
technically?
     MS. MYERS:  Absolutely not.  The deadline is firm and

