October 23, 1997 Press Conference--free trade, unilateral and economic trade sanctions

USA*ENGAGE October 23 Press Release
Photos from October 23 Press Conference

Hamilton-Crane-Lugar Sanctions Reform
Press Conference

The following is a complete transcript of statements, questions, and answers made at an October 23, 1997 press conference to introduce the Hamilton-Crane-Lugar Sanctions Reform legislation.
Use this inquiry form to request more detailed information.

Thursday, October 23, 1997
Longworth House Office Building Library
Washington, D.C.

P R O C E E D I N G S
(10:10 a.m.)
MR. CRANE:
Folks, I think we might get started because we're going to have a recorded vote, I've been told, at 10:30 and we've got a markup that starts at 10:30.
But thank you for coming to our press conference today. And it deals with the question of unilateral trade sanctions and I'm going to make a few introductory remarks and that'll be followed by Lee Hamilton when he gets there.
But Senator Dick Lugar will follow me in the interim and we're also joined today by representatives from the private sector including Mr. James Perella, chairman and CEO of Ingersoll-Rand company who represents USA Engage, and Charles Kruse, who's president of the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation.
We're joined today in an effort to establish some common sense reforms of the unilateral trade sanction policies. Shortly following this press conference, I'll be chairing a public hearing in the Ways and Means Committee on trade, on the use and effect of unilateral trade sanctions -- that's after our 10:30 markup which will start late.
And I think today's testimony will show the need to make some necessary changes to the current U.S. sanctions policy.
Put simply, the U.S. cannot successfully use unilateral trade sanctions to change the target country's behavior or to force a larger consensus against a rogue nation. Unilateral sanctions in the past have proven to be counterproductive, ineffective, and costly to U.S. competitiveness. As trade becomes more and more politicized, there's a growing fear among American companies and workers that unilateral sanctions may become a knee-jerk reaction to temporary conflicts, leading to job losses, a decline in U.S. exports, and retaliation against our companies.
At the same time, there's little evidence to suggest that such sanctions ever change the offending behavior we're trying to fix. In order to establish procedures for the careful consideration of sanctions and to avoid the negative consequences stemming from the premature use of sanctions, my colleague Mr. Hamilton and I will be introducing legislation today that will require more discipline and deliberative approach to implementing such sanctions.
I emphasize that this bill would not take away from Congress the ability to impose sanctions. Instead, it assures that we examine carefully whether the use of sanctions is the right thing to do under the circumstances, including the cost to businesses and workers as well as the likelihood of successfully pressuring a target nation into changing its offensive behavior.
Mr. Hamilton is the primary author of the bill, and he'll provide some details on the bill and Senator Lugar will discuss his Senate bill, which will be introduced at a later date. And Mr. Perella will speak following Senator Lugar and he's going to be representing a coalition of 652 small and large businesses, agriculture groups, and trade associations working to seek alternatives to the proliferation of unilateral U.S. foreign policy sanctions and to promote the benefits of the U.S. engagement aboard -- abroad, rather.
And our final speaker, Charles Kruse, who's the president as I indicated of the Missouri Farm Bureau which represents the farming community and is a strong supporter of the Sanction Reform bill. And I would like to yield to Senator Lugar now because Lee is running a little bit late and I know you've got a 10:30 deadline, too.
SENATOR LUGAR:
Thank you very much, Phil. It's a pleasure to be here with Phil Crane and Lee Hamilton, representatives of the business and farm communities.
Earlier this year, many of the same group gathered for a press conference in the Senate Agricultural Committee hearing room to discuss our concerns over the growing tendency to employ unilateral trade sanctions as a tool of American foreign policy.
We noted that between 1993 and 1996, there were some 63 instances involving 35 countries in which the United States imposed unilateral sanctions to achieve one or more foreign policy objectives. Our disquiet over this trend stems from the number of findings about the use of unilateral economic sanctions.
First, they are -- they rarely succeed in altering the behavior of the country or countries against whom they are aimed. And second, they do not always serve U.S. interests and may, in fact, inflict more harm on the United States than on the target country against whom the sanctions are directed. Third, unilateral sanctions frequently create the illusion of action by substituting for more decisive action or serving as a palliative for those who demand some action, any action, be taken by the United States against another country.
Such sanctions often give a competitive edge to foreign companies by taking U.S. firms out of the game. Their long-term effects make it likely that foreign competitors will solidify trade ties with the targeted country that may be difficult to reverse in the future and may make it difficult for U.S. firms to re-enter that market.
Sanctions, furthermore, make it difficult to engage foreign governments in seeking an opening or a change in policy. Serious trade sanctions can inhibit rather than facilitate the dialogue that could lead to changes and the policy that we seek.
We've learned in the past few years that sanctions create tensions with our friends and our lives and affect other issues of national interest. They often make it more difficult to forge joint and cooperative action with others against the country we wish to sanction. Sanctions should not be abandoned as a tool of foreign policy. There are clearly situations in which other options have been exhausted, where the behavior of another country is so outrageous or so threatening that our actions, short of the use of force, require strong and convincing response. And economic sanctions may be a useful tool under those conditions.
Today, we're introducing legislation which we believe will improve our procedures and achieve better results as we consider future trade sanctions in both the Congress and the Executive Branch. We hope to shape U.S. policy in a way that retains economic sanctions as a tool of American foreign policy, but our bill includes guidelines to help us understand better the likely effects of our sanctions and our actions and comprehend more fully the likelihood that sanctions will achieve the results we hope for.
We want to ensure at the bare minimum that U.S. sanctions do more harm to the target country than to the United States. Our bill will lead to a more deliberative process by requiring timely reports of the effect of which sanctions may have on these target countries and our allies and ourselves before the House or Senate votes, or before the President acts to implement executive actions.
These reports would also estimate the likelihood that the proposed sanctions will bring about changed behavior of the target country that we seek and we ought to know that before we act. We include a "sunset" provision which means new sanctions would expire after two years unless the Congress or the President reauthorizes them. To make this work, the bill requires periodic assessments on the effectiveness of the new sanctions in achieving our policy objectives as well as the effects that sanctions are having on the United States, our friends, and our allies once implemented. The bill includes presidential waiver authority, so that the President has adequate flexibility to enhance the chances of success of sanctions or so that he can remove them if they are more harmful than useful to the United States.
Finally, let me note that there is an agricultural compensation provision in the bill to take note of the disproportionate burden American farmers and ranchers bear under current sanctions. It authorizes additional agricultural export assistance to help offset any decline in exports due to markets closed to American agriculture.
I expect to introduce the Senate legislation in the Senate next week or clearly before the end of the session.
MR. CRANE:
Lee is not yet here and I apologize to my distinguished colleague and neighbor.
SENATOR LUGAR:
Touching districts.
MR. CRANE:
Uh-huh, we are in adjacent districts. And I would like to have Don Manzullo make a presentation, too.
MR. MANZULLO:
Thank you very much. I represent probably one of the most exporting Congressional districts in the country. It stretches across the top of the state of Illinois from the Mississippi to within one county of Lake Michigan. We have over 1600 industries. And we're heavy in exports of soybeans, pork, machine tools, fasteners -- you name it, it's coming out of the 16th district of Illinois. And wherever sanctions are imposed, there's always a face that's placed upon it.
But we have to go back to what happened back in the early '80's, during the worldwide slump. The city of Rockford, which has a thousand factories, a city of under 140,000 people -- we lost 100 factories and 10,000 highly paid jobs. And Rockford led the nation in unemployment at 26 percent, higher than many areas of the rate of unemployment during the Great Depression.
And the only thing that's going to make for a more stable economy in this country is the ability to reach outside of our borders and to extend our arms and embrace countries around the world involved in international commerce. That's the only way that we can do it -- we have to broaden our base.
But what is disingenuous to me is the fact that while the administration many times will talk about extension of foreign trade and what the Secretary of Commerce from my home State, talking about the trade imbalance with China, was still setting the policies for this administration, especially with respect to Three Gorges.
We are losing close to a billion dollars in generations -- or generation type of equipment. Caterpillar -- I can't name the number of companies that simply aren't doing business with the Three Gorges project in China. And why is it? Because there are two sides to the type of neo-protectionism that is taking place in this country.
The first is coming from the top, in the form of using some type of environmental regulations to stop the shipment of personal property to China to build a dam, and that personal property will end up going somewhere else. That's Caterpillar trucks and tractors.
The second is a group of people who think that the only principled approach for dealing with the savage persecution that is taking place in many countries in this world is for us to isolate ourselves, and that type of neo-protectionism won't work, either. What good does it do, for example, to ban the importation of gum from the Sudan, the only country that makes that type of product? And nobody can condone what's going on in the Sudan.
Then to have that gum not come to the United States but to go somewhere else and have gum manufactured overseas, exported to the United States, laid off thousands of workers in this country. Severely hurts not only sugar cane producers but people involved in corn syrup.
I mean, you would have to take a look at how each of these sanctions will impact the people. And we as Congressmen represent people. We don't represent labor unions, we don't represent companies. Our only purpose here is to make sure that this country does not lose sight of the fact that we are the leaders in international exports and for us to engage in the type of policy such as suggested as to which I'm a co-sponsor is really irresponsible because it says if there is going to be a sanction, let's take a good, hard, economic look at it to see how it impacts the people that we represent.
MR. CRANE:
Wait a second. Before you leave, will you explain gum? It's not Wrigley's.
[Laughter]
MR. CRANE:
It's not bubble gum.
MR. MANZULLO:
No, it's the gum abstract.
MR. CRANE:
Yeah.
MR. MANZULLO:
Extract, gum extract.
The Chairman: But it's used in pharmaceuticals, it's used in --
MR. MANZULLO:
Right.
MR. CRANE:
-- your local beer --
[Laughter]
MR. CRANE:
-- soda pop. Okay. And -- but I think 90 percent comes from Sudan.
MR. MANZULLO:
That's correct.
MR. CRANE:
Folks, let me now defer to my distinguished colleague I have known for 50 years. I started college at DePaul University and I yearned to be a basketball player and I went out and watched him perform and I gave up in despair.
[Laughter]
MR. CRANE:
That was before three-point shots but he could put a backward spin on a ball and almost hit the ceiling, snap the net every time, just beyond the center of the court. And so I've known Lee and it's been a valuable relationship. And Lee, as I indicated, was the original person to introduce the bill and I yield to my distinguished senior colleague, Lee Hamilton.
MR. HAMILTON:
Thank you, Phil. One thing about an athletic career is that the farther away you are from it, the better you were.
[Laughter]
MR. HAMILTON:
Phil, I'm now at a place where I never missed a shot.
[Laughter]
MR. HAMILTON:
I'm not sure what's gone on before here. I think my role is to kind of explain some of the features of this bill which I'm delighted to do. Let me thank Congressman Crane -- my friend Phil -- and Senator Lugar on the other side for their co-sponsorship of the bill. And I want to thank the USA Engage president, Mr. Jim Perella, and Mr. Charles Kruse, the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation president, and USA Engage for all the work they've done on the bill.
Phil Crane and I are introducing this bill, I think some time later today. I'll be testifying on it in a few minutes before his subcommittee. I think all of us understand that economic sanctions can be an important tool in the conduct of American foreign policy. When military action is not an option, when diplomacy has failed, we often turn to economic sanctions.
What brings us together here, however, is a feeling that we've simply been applying these unilateral sanctions too frequently, and we've done it at considerable cost to ourselves in terms of lost profits, lost exports, all kinds of problems that we get into with our allies and the other foreign policy interests that we have.
The purpose of the bill before us is really very simple. The purpose of it is simply to assure that the Congress and the President have better information about the likely consequences of a proposed sanction. We believe that both the Congress and the President should have in hand the best information that can be obtained before sanctions are imposed, and that's what this bill tries to do.
It seeks to reform the process by which the Congress and the President consider unilateral sanctions. That's all that it really does. Now, how does it do that? It does it in several ways.
One, it sets out in the bill a number of guidelines for the Congress and for the President. Before the Congress would enact a bill to impose sanctions, before the President would act by himself to impose sanctions, there are certain things that we recommend as guidelines.
One of these is that the proposal have a two-year sunset. Another is that you provide waiver authority for the President. You protect the sanctity of existing contracts. You target as narrowly and closely as you can on the -- on those who are responsible for the misconduct that you're aiming at.
And you try to minimize any interference with the humanitarian work that may be performed by non-governmental organizations. You include measures to address any costs incurred by U.S. agricultural interests, which are we believe especially vulnerable to sanctions and to foreign retaliation.
All of these guidelines would be mandatory for the President except the one on agriculture. But the President could waive most of them in the event of a national emergency.
So you have the guidelines on one hand, and secondly you have some procedural reforms that are recommended. Now, those reforms require simply an analysis of the impact that the sanctions will have, the impact on a range of U.S. foreign policy interests. It requires a report by the Congressional Budget Office on the bill's likely economic impact on the U.S. private sector.
With respect to the President, the bill requires the President to report to the Congress on the likely impact of the proposed sanctions on U.S. foreign policy, economic, and humanitarian interests. It does have a national emergency waiver in it, and the President is required to consult with the Congress.
Now, it's important to understand what the bill does not do. I've described basically what the bill does. But let me point out what it does not do.
The bill does not prevent the Congress or the President from imposing unilateral sanctions. The bill would not impact any sanctions that are currently in effect. The bill does reach, however, to future sanctions that might be imposed under existing law. It doesn't work backwards; it works forward with respect to existing law. The bill would impose no limitations on the foreign countries or the conduct that could be targeted by sanctions. The bill would have no impact on any of these measures that I now cite -- sanctions imposed under any multilateral agreement to address a foreign policy or a national security concern for liberation, human rights, terrorism, whatever it might be.
The bill would have no impact on restrictions or controls on the export of munitions. The bill would have no impact on the resolutions we have in the Congress from time to time, disapproving the President's decisions with regard to MFN trade privileges with China or with any other country.
The bill would have no impact on measures imposed under U.S. laws and regulations implementing trade agreements, combating unfair foreign trade practices, or safeguarding the domestic market. The bill would have no impact on import restrictions designed to protect food safety and health. The bill would have no impact on international environmental agreements and has no impact on import restrictions that are designed to protect the public health and safety.
To sum up, then, this bill is not a red light for sanctions, it's a yellow light, it's a caution light. It's a message that before we impose these sanctions, we look carefully of what the impact of the sanctions can be. That's basically the heart of the bill.
I don't think the Congress or the President should object to this bill because all we're seeking is better information before imposing sanctions. That's a position that both the Congress and the President ought to take.
It does seek to ensure that elected officials who have to vote on these measures and act on them are better informed about the potential consequences of a proposed measure. It's a common sense kind of reform that we are suggesting here, and of course, we strongly recommend that the Ways and Means Committee act on it.
Now, may I introduce next Mr. Perella, who is the chairman and the CEO of Ingersoll-Rand? We're delighted to have him and it's been a pleasure to work with him and his staff as we've developed this legislation.
MR. PERELLA:
Thank you, Congressman. Indeed, today, I'm serving a dual role -- as chairman of the National Foreign Trade Council and as chairman and CEO of Ingersoll-Rand company.
On behalf of the 650 members of the NFTC's coalition called USA Engage and Ingersoll-Rand's 25,000 American employees, I really want to congratulate you, Congressman Hamilton, on your legislation establishing a deliberative government process for imposing unilateral sanctions against any nation.
Your efforts have focused attention on the growing problem of unilateral sanctions that endanger billions of annual American exports and millions of American dollars -- American workers and their families.
The growing recognition by all sectors of the U.S. economy that sanctions hurt the reputation of the United States as a reliable trading partner has prompted the growth of USA Engage and has helped build momentum to change the way sanctions are imposed.
Our coalition now represents more than 650 members, including small and large businesses, leading trade associations, and the agricultural groups. I'm happy to note that Richard Albrecht, a former executive with Boeing and now a senior adviser on trade issues to the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, is with us today and will be representing USA Engage at the Ways and Means hearing immediately following this press conference.
Unilateral sanctions almost never help the people that we want to help, and almost always fail to bring about the actions we seek to promote. Despite this dismal fact, unilateral sanctions are increasingly America's weapon of choice when attempting to influence the behavior of other nations.
In a report issued this summer, the President's export council found that the United States has imposed or threatened to impose unilateral sanctions against 75 nations, representing 52 percent of the world's population. I mean, this is an incredible statistic, especially when combined with the recent findings of the Institute of International Economics that in 1995 alone, sanctions cost the United States up to $20 billion in lost export sales and up to 250,000 export-related jobs.
When U.S. business and agriculture are restricted from trading within a country, foreign competitors are given a huge, unearned advantage for increased market share. And that lost market share is difficult to regain, even if sanctions are lifted. By acting alone, America practically ensures that its response will be ineffective. Targeted countries can circumvent our sanctions by doing business with many, very willing international competitors.
As CEO of a major American company with global operations, I see firsthand the impact sanctions have had on international sales, which today account for 43 percent of Ingersoll-Rand's total business. I and other business executives must regularly assure our foreign customers that we are reliable suppliers.
Now, while businesses have control over price and quality and availability of products, we cannot control Washington's ability to undermine our company's reliability by imposing unilateral sanctions. This legislation is about creating a more deliberative, disciplines process for U.S. sanctions policy.
To put this in business terms, we seek a processing group. And business employees in management recognize that process improvement is critical for global competitiveness. And we are pleased that Congress, too, is willing to improve its own process. With the strong leadership of Congressman Lee Hamilton, Phil Crane, Jim Kolbe, and Dan Manzullo, and Senator Richard Lugar, we are taking really today a giant step towards bringing an end to the harmful proliferation of U.S. unilateral sanctions. Thank you.
MR. HAMILTON:
Mr. Kruse, the president of the Missouri Farm Bureau. Mr. Kruse, we're delighted to have you with us.
MR. KRUSE:
Thank you, Congressman Hamilton. I am delighted to be here as president of the Missouri Farm Bureau and representing American Farm Bureau and the 4.7 million members of American Farm Bureau to indicate our strong support for the Hamilton-Crane-Lugar Sanctions Reform bill.
I think it's been made abundantly clear by Congressman Crane and Congressman Hamilton and Senator Lugar that this legislation absolutely does not say that there will never be unilateral trade sanctions imposed, but rather this legislation develops a process, develops a mechanism, a disciplined, deliberative approach with common sense to evaluate the circumstances as they exist and what the outcome could well be if trade sanctions were imposed.
I think another good way to put this is that this legislation would provide that unilateral trade sanctions would be the last tool out of the toolbox rather than the first. There certainly may well be times when those sanctions need to be imposed, but we need to understand what the outcome might well be.
We in agriculture know all too well from past experience what happens when we impose without a lot of forethought unilateral trade sanctions or embargoes. We farmers and ranchers in this country aren't the only ones who produce corn and wheat and soybeans and beef and pork. And so when we impose an embargo on these goods to other countries, our competitors gladly step in and provide these goods.
And the people who are punished the most and the people who suffer the most are, yes, the farmers and ranchers in this country, but also those people involved in this huge industry of agriculture, the people who make the equipment, the people who work at jobs all over this country providing the inputs -- the feed, the seed, the fertilizer, the veterinary medical supplies. These people are all impacted.
And too many times we don't ever regain back the market share that we enjoyed prior to these embargoes or trade sanctions. So I -- I'm delighted to be here today to represent our membership and to say to Congressman Hamilton and Congressman Crane and Senator Lugar we applaud your efforts and we join with you and look forward, all of us in the Farm Bureau, in working with you on this very important legislation. Thank you.
MR. HAMILTON:
I think we're ready for questions.
VOICE ONE:
One quick question. Will this have any impact on the State and local government's use of unilateral sanctions?
MR. HAMILTON:
No. It has no direct impact on that. That's becoming a serious concern. I think all of us recognize why state and local governments might want to express themselves with respect to actions by a foreign country. But this bill does not reach local and state action.
VOICE TWO:
Senator Lugar, you talk about agricultural compensation. How would that work? You know, Richard Nixon had a soybean action Japan, and that market share went to Brazil; we still don't have that back.
I mean, so -- so how long -- I mean, since we lose market share forever, how does the compensation work?
SENATOR LUGAR:
I think, pragmatically, we'll have to work it out, depending upon the nature of the sanction and the size and scope of it. And I know of no other way to express it, but we did want to recognize in this legislation that farmers and ranchers are frequently the first victims, and most comprehensively because this is a fairly easy way for other countries to retaliate, so they're hurt and displeasured.
VOICE THREE:
Are there any estimates as to how many co-sponsors in the House and Senate the bill might gather?
SENATOR LUGAR:
I have no idea. In the House and in the Senate side, one reason for not dropping the bill in today is to make certain we have a very good group of co-sponsors, and so we're in the process of working that out and we will report shortly. Maybe Lee has an idea on the House side.
MR. HAMILTON:
The bill was just completed a few days ago. As a matter of fact, I saw the first final draft here just yesterday, I think, or maybe the day before. So we have not yet begun the effort to get co-sponsors. That will get under way very shortly. We've got a lot of strong support here, and I think we'll have a large number of co-sponsors. But we can't give you the number today.
VOICE THREE:
Have you gotten any administration reaction so far, however tentative?
MR. HAMILTON:
I'm going to get it in a few minutes out here.
[Laughter]
MR. HAMILTON:
I have -- we've discussed with the administration the bill. I don't whether they've actually seen a copy of the bill at this point or not. Stu Eizenstadt is testifying right after me, this morning, and we will press the administration for a response. I have no word from them.
VOICE FOUR:
Just to understand how the bill works -- would legislation such as the D'Amato bill on Iran and Libya have been subject to the procedures that are laid in the bill, had this been the law during that period? And the Cubans --
MR. HAMILTON:
It -- any bill that would apply unilateral sanctions would be subject to the processes and the procedures of this bill. And I want to emphasize that we're not trying to change those laws at this point. They're on the books, and they're being applied. This does -- this bill does not go to those two bills.
But your question, I think, was would they have been covered by a bill like this and the answer is yes.
VOICE FIVE:
The Department of Commerce now does an annual report assessing the economic impact and effectiveness of U.S. unilateral export controls. And every year -- and their purpose is to sort of say whether they're justified. And every year they come back with a statement saying "They don't work but we're going to maintain them, anyway."
What's to prevent, even if this bill were to pass, you to get this information and the administration to get this information and still say, "Well, we still want these controls?"
MR. HAMILTON:
We put into the bill guidelines for the Congress to follow. With respect to the Congress, those guidelines are not mandatory, though we would expect them to be followed.
With respect to the President, the guidelines are mandatory and they are required. All we're trying to do here is -- we're not trying to penalize anybody or move into anybody's jurisdiction. We're simply trying to put in place a process by which to consider a very, very important act -- the application of unilateral sanctions and via the better information base for any action that is taken.
SENATOR LUGAR:
Let me follow up with just one more comment about that. Clearly, much debate that has taken place in the Congress on sanctions may have some information behind it that has been sponsored to those who feel most aggrieved and emotionally involved.
But I cannot recall many times, speaking of the 63 instances in the last three years or so, in which there has been an informed judgment of precisely what the cost would be or anyone's estimate to citizens of this country from the activities, nor of any quarterly reports quite apart from annual reports as to whether, in fact, anything happened or whether there were any visible effects in the target country, quite apart from whether there were visible effects with our allies, whether our security alliances were jeopardized in the process as the people began to split off from us who had other interests.
In other words, what we're talking about is a more sober type of foreign policy formulation and which before very substantial actions are taken, members of Congress and the President, and then the public, weigh this.
Now, for example, if we have this debate and we have these reports and those of you in the press point out that one effect of this might be 25,000 jobs lost in the state of Indiana. And another effect might be several businesses going out of business. There begins to be some weighing of this in the public realm in a way clearly there is not now.
And in my comments, I said again and again when we have these debates, and I think very often rapid debates which in committee and on the floor people say, "Do something! Do anything! Sock it to them!" So we really feel strongly about this.
Well, fair enough.
But the victims of all this, hundreds, thousands of Americans, may not understand really who is being socked and to what extent. And they will, I think, under these circumstances. So we begin to lay together a much more sober analysis of how we ought to proceed.
MR. HAMILTON:
Dick, may I just add? We have dozens of laws on the books today that permit the President to impose unilateral sanctions. If you exclude the laws relating to trade, I don't think there's any process or procedure in those laws which tells the President how he should analyze it. He can just do it. He doesn't need to explain it. He doesn't need to follow any rules or guidelines or principles. He just puts the sanction on.
Now, we're trying to get away from that in this bill, and we're trying to say that's not the way a responsible power ought to act in the world today. If we're going to take a step like putting unilateral sanctions on, we ought to think it through very carefully and we ought to do it on the best information available.
And the President of the United States or the Congress ought not just to slap a sanction on there.
VOICE FIVE:
Does the bill have any advanced time period for considering whether to impose the sanction -- in other words, so many months are given for the review in advance of a possible action?
MR. HAMILTON:
There is a emergency clause in it that permits the President to act in the event of a national emergency. Otherwise, you do have a time period within which the assessments have to be considered. I think it's a 60-day time period.
Thank you very much. Pleasure to see you again.
[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m. the Press Conference Concluded.]

Return to Top