treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) when imported from designated beneficiary developing countries. 2. Pursuant to section 504(c) of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2464(c)), beneficiary develop ing countries, except those designated as least-developed beneficiary developing countries pursuant to section 504(c)(6) of the 1974 Act, are subject to limitations on the preferential treatment afforded under the GSP. Pursuant to section 504(c)(5) of the 1974 Act, a country that is no longer treated as a beneficiary developing country with respect to an eligible article may be redesignated as a beneficiary developing country with respect to such article if imports of such article from such country did not exceed the limitations in section 504(c)(1) (after application of paragraph (c)(2)) during the preceding calendar year. 3. Pursuant to section 504(c)(5) of the 1974 Act, I have determined that Brazil should be redesignated as a beneficiary developing country with respect to specified previously designated eligible articles. Brazil has been previously excluded from benefits of the GSP with respect to such eligible articles pursuant to section 504(c)(1) of the 1974 Act. 4. Section 503(c)(1) of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2463(c)(1)) provides that the President may not designate certain specified categories of import-sensitive articles as eligible articles under the GSP. Section 503(c)1XA) of the 1974 Act provides that textile and apparel articles that are subject to textile agreements are import-sensitive. Pursuant to sections 504(a) and 604 of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2464(a) and 2483), I am acting to modify the HTS to remove from eligibility under the GSP those articles that have become subject to textile agreements and to make certain conforming changes in the HTS. 5. Pursuant to section 504(f) of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2464(f)), in Proclamation No. 5805 of April 29, 1988 (53 FR 15785), the President terminated the preferential tariff treatment under the GSP for articles eligible for such treatment that are imported from Bahrain. In light of revised statistics provided by the World Bank on the per capita gross national product of Bahrain for calendar year 1985, I have determined that the previous determination in Proclamation No. 5805 that the per capita gross national product of Bahrain for calendar year 1985 exceeded the applicable limit under section 504(f) of the 1974 Act was erroneous, and the restrictions of section 504(f)(1) of the 1974 Act are therefore inapplicable to Bahrain. I have further determined, pursuant to sections 502(a) and (c) of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2462(a) and (c)), and having due regard for the eligibility criteria set forth therein, that it is appropriate to designate Bahrain as a beneficiary developing country for purposes of the GSP. Pursuant to section 502(a)(1) of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2462(a)(1)), I have notified the House of Representatives and the Senate of this designation. 6. Pursuant to section 201(b) of the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement Implementation Act of 1988 (the Implementation Act) (Public Law 100-449, 102 Stat. 1851, 1855), the President in Proclamation No. 6142 of May 25, 1990 (55 FR 21835), implemented an accelerated schedule of duty elimination under the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement. I have determined that it is necessary to modify the HTS to correct a typographical error in Proclamation No. 6142. 7. Section 1204(b)1)C) of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (the 1988 Act) (19 U.S.C. 3004(bX1XC)) authorizes the President to proclaim such modifications to the HTS as are necessary or appropriate to implement such technical rectifications to the HTS as the President considers necessary. Pursuant to section 1204(bX1XC) of the 1988 Act, I have determined that certain technical rectifications to the HTS are necessary. 8. Section 604 of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2483) authorizes the President to embody in the HTS the substance of the provisions of that Act, and of other acts affecting import treatment, and actions thereunder. Now, Therefore, I, George Bush, President of the United States of America, acting under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including but not limited to Title V and section 604 of the 1974 Act, section 201 (b) of the Implementation Act, and section 1204(bX1XC) of the 1988 Act, do proclaim that: (1) In order to remove from eligibility under the GSP an article that has become subject to textile agreements, and to make certain conforming changes in the HTS, the HTS is modified as provided in Annex I to this proclamation. (2)(a) In order to terminate preferential tariff treatment under the GSP for an article imported from all designated beneficiary developing countries that has become subject to textile agreements, the Rates of Duty 1-Special subcolumn for the HTS subheading enumerated in Annex II(a) is modified by deleting the symbol "A," in the parentheses. (b) In order to provide preferential tariff treatment under the GSP to Brazil, which has been excluded from the benefits of the GSP for certain eligible articles imported from Brazil, and following my determination that a country not previously receiving such benefits should again be treated as a beneficiary developing country with respect to such articles, the Rates of Duty 1-Special subcolumn for each of the HTS provisions enumerated in Annex II(b) to this proclamation is modified: (i) by deleting from such subcolumn for such HTS provisions the symbol "A*" in parentheses, and (ii) by inserting in such subcolumn the symbol "A" in lieu thereof. (3) In order to provide that Bahrain is treated as a designated beneficiary developing country and to provide that Brazil, which has not been treated as a beneficiary developing country with respect to specified eligible articles, should be redesignated as a beneficiary developing country with respect to such articles for purposes of the GSP, general note 3(c)ii) to the HTS is modified as provided in Annex III to this proclamation. (4) Effective with respect to goods originating in the territory of Canada which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after May 1, 1990, for HTS subheading 1102.90.60, in the Rates of Duty 1-Special subcolumn, strike the symbol "(CA)" and the duty rate preceding it, and in lieu thereof insert in the parentheses following the "Free" rate of duty the symbol "CA," in alphabetical order. (5) In order to provide for the continuation of previously proclaimed staged reductions on Canadian goods in the HTS provisions modified in Annex I to this proclamation, effective with respect to goods originating in the territory of Canada which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the dates specified in Annex IV to this proclamation, the rate of duty in the HTS that is followed by the symbol "CA" in parentheses set forth in the Rates of Duty 1-Special subcolumn for each of the HTS subheadings enumerated in such Annex shall be deleted and the rate of duty provided in such Annex inserted in lieu thereof. (6) In order to make technical rectifications in particular provisions, the HTS is modified as set forth in Annex V to this proclamation. (7) Any provisions of previous proclamations and Executive orders inconsistent with the provisions of this proclamation are hereby superseded to the extent of such inconsistency. (8) Except as provided for in paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of this proclamation, the amendments made by this proclamation shall be effective with respect to articles both: (i) imported on or after January 1, 1976, and (ii) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after July 1, 1990. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of June, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fourteenth. George Bush [Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 12:26 p.m., June 29, 1990] Note: The annexes to the proclamation were printed in the "Federal Register" of July 3. Letter to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate on the Designation of Bahrain as a Beneficiary Developing Country June 29, 1990 Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) I am writing to inform you of my intent to add Bahrain to the list of beneficiary de veloping countries under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). The GSP program is authorized by the Trade Act of 1974, as amended ("the 1974 Act"). Bahrain was a GSP beneficiary from the inception of the program in 1976 to July 1, 1988. Proclamation No. 5805 of April 29, 1988, terminated Bahrain as a designated beneficiary developing country under the GSP pursuant to section 504(f) of the 1974 Act. Section 504(f) provides that if the President determines that the per capita gross national product (calculated on the basis of the best available information, including that of the World Bank) for any beneficiary country for a calendar year subsequent to 1984 exceeds the applicable limit for the determination year in question, such country shall not be treated as a beneficiary developing country under this Act after the close of a 2-year period. Based on the best available information, it was determined that Bahrain's per capita gross national product for the calendar year 1985 had exceeded the applicable limit provided in section 504(f). The World Bank has now revised its per capita GNP statistics for Bahrain, indicating that Bahrain did not exceed the GSP statutory limit for 1985 or succeeding years. On the basis of these revised statistics, I have determined that the previous determination in Proclamation No. 5805 that the per capita gross national product of Bahrain for calendar year 1985 exceeded the applicable limit under section 504(f) of the 1974 Act was erroneous, and the restrictions of section 504(f)(1) of the 1974 Act are therefore inapplicable to Bahrain. I have further determined, pursuant to sections 502(a) and (c) of the 1974 Act and having due regard for the eligibility criteria set forth therein, that it is appropriate to designate Bahrain as a beneficiary developing country for purposes of the GSP. This notice is submitted in accordance with section 502(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Sincerely, George Bush Note: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S. Foley, Speaker of the House of Represent atives, and Dan Quayle, President of the Senate. Executive Order 12718-President's Advisory Commission on the Public Service June 29, 1990 By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), and in order to provide a continuing source of advice on the public service from outstanding leaders in various walks of private life, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Establishment. The President's Advisory Commission on the Public Service ("Commission") is hereby established. The Commission shall be comprised of 13 members to be appointed by the President from among leading citizens in private life. The members shall be appointed for 2-year terms, except that initial appointments shall include six members appointed to serve 1year terms. Any vacancy in the Commission shall be filled by an appointment for the remainder of the term for which the original appointment was made, and a member whose term has expired may serve until his or her successor has been appointed. The President shall designate one of the members of the Commission to serve as Chairperson. Sec. 2. Functions. (a) The Commission shall meet from time to time at the request of the Chairperson and shall consider ways to enhance the public service in American life, including: (1) improving the efficiency and attractiveness of the Federal civil service; (2) increasing the interest among American students in pursuing careers in the public service; and (3) strengthening the image of the public service in American life. (b) The Commission shall submit a report on its activities to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the President each year. Sec. 3. Administrative Provisions. (a) The members of the Commission shall serve without compensation, but may receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United States Code. (b) All executive agencies are directed, to the extent permitted by law, to provide such information, advice, and assistance to the Commission as the Commission may request. (c) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of funds, provide the Commission with administrative services, staff support, and neces Conference in Copenhagen adopted a document laying precisely that foundation for freedom. I commend the U.S. delegation, under the direction of Ambassador Max M. Kampelman, for its major role in that historic achievement. With the Copenhagen Declaration, the CSCE has sought and reached an historic new consensus. The nations of Europealong with the United States, Canada, and the Soviet Union-have now committed themselves to the path of democracy based on justice, peace, security, and cooperation. The promise of the 1975 Helsinki accords now has become a program of democratic action. This is the most significant step forward that the CSCE has taken since the inception of the Helsinki process. This program of action has been shaped and embraced by our NATO allies, the neutral and nonaligned European States, the Soviet Union, and the emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe. It brings together nations, large and small, and opens the house of democracy-the commonwealth of free nations I have spoken about-to all of Europe's peoples. Together, the CSCE signatory nations now stand before their own peoples and before the world community on the solid ground of shared democratic values. Together, we now must put our program of democratic action to work fulfilling the promise of a Europe whole and free. Message to the House of Representatives Returning Without Approval the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1990 June 29, 1990 To the House of Representatives: I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 770, the "Family and Medical Leave Act of 1990." This bill would mandate that public and private employers with 50 or more employees, and the Federal Government, provide their employees with leave under specified circumstances. In vetoing this legislation with its rigid, federally imposed requirements, I want to emphasize my belief that time off for a child's birth or adoption or for family illness is an important benefit for employers to offer employees. I strongly object, however, to the Federal Government mandating leave policies for America's employers and work force. H.R. 770 would do just that. America faces its stiffest economic competition in history. If our Nation's employers are to succeed in an increasingly complex and competitive global marketplace, they must have the flexibility to meet both this challenge and the needs of their employees. We must ensure that Federal policies do not stifle the creation of new jobs, nor result in the elimination of existing jobs. The Administration is committed to policies that create jobs throughout the economyserving the most fundamental need of working families. The strong American labor market of the past decade is a sign of how effectively our current labor policies work. Between 1980 and 1989, the United States created more than 18 million new jobs. In contrast, within European countries, where mandated benefits are more extensive and labor markets less flexible, job growth has been weak. Between 1980 and 1989, all of Europe generated only 5 million new jobs. As a Nation, we must continue the policies that have been so effective in fostering the creation of jobs throughout our economy. H.R. 770 is fundamentally at odds with this crucial objective. H.R. 770 ignores the realities of today's work place and the diverse needs of workers. Some employees may believe that shorter paid leave is more important than the lengthy, unpaid leave mandated by this legislation. Caring for a sick friend, aunt, or brother might be just as critical to one employee as caring for a child is to another. In other cases, some employees may prefer increased health insurance or pension coverage rather than unpaid family and medical leave. Choosing among these options traditionally has been within the purview of employer-employee negotiation or the collective bargaining process. By substituting a "one size fits all" Government mandate for innovative individual agreements, this bill ignores the differing family needs and preferences of employees and unduly limits the role of labor-management negotiations. We must also recognize that mandated benefits may limit the ability of some employers to provide other benefits of importance to their employees. Over the past few years, we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of employers who are offering child care assistance, pregnancy leave, parental leave, flexible scheduling, and cafeteria benefits. The number of innovative benefit plans will continue to grow as employers endeavor to attract and keep skilled workers. Mandated benefits raise the risk of stifling the development of such innovative benefit plans. My Administration is strongly committed to policies that recognize that the relationship between work and family must be complementary, and not one that involves conflict. If these policies are to meet the diverse needs of our Nation, they must be carefully, flexibly, and sensitively crafted at the work place by employers and employees, and not through Government mandates imposed by legislation such as H.R. 770. The White House, June 29, 1990. George Bush Statement on Signing a Bill Calling I have today signed S.J. Res. 246, a joint resolution of Congress "calling upon the United Nations to repeal General Assembly Resolution 3379," which declared Zionism to be "a form of racism and racial discrimination." S.J. Res. 246 requests the President to report periodically to the Congress on progress made to repeal the resolution. The United States vigorously opposed the 1975 adoption of the pernicious proposition, in United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 3379, that Zionism is a form of racism. We continue to work actively for its renunciation. It is long overdue that all of the member states of the United Nations join us in renouncing UNGA Resolution 3379. |