serving intermittently in the Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707).

(c) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Farmers Home Administration shall provide the Council with administrative services, facilities, staff, and other support services necessary for the performance of its functions. Funds for the operation of the Council shall be provided by the Department of Agriculture.

(d) Notwithstanding any other Executive order, the functions of the President under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, except that of reporting to the Congress, which are applicable to the Council, shall be performed by the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with guidelines issued by the Administrator of General Services.

(e) The Council shall terminate 2 years from the date of this order unless sooner extended.

The White House, July 16, 1990.

George Bush

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 4:36 p.m., July 16, 1990]

Statement on German Membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization July 16, 1990

I welcome President Gorbachev's statement, at his press conference with Chancellor Kohl [of the Federal Republic of Germany], accepting a united Germany's right to choose to remain a member of NATO. This comment demonstrates statesmanship and strengthens efforts to build enduring relationships based on cooperation. It can be seen as a response, perhaps in part, to the outcome of the NATO summit in London, where the alliance displayed its readiness to adapt to the new realities in Europe and reach out to former adversaries in the East. Five months ago, in February, Chancellor Kohl and I agreed that a united Germany should remain a full member of the North Atlantic alliance, including its military

structures. East German Prime Minister de Maiziere joins us in supporting continued German membership in NATO. The Helsinki Final Act guarantees Germany's right to make this choice. And we think this solution is in the best interests of all the countries of Europe, including the Soviet Union.

Nomination of Wayne Lee Berman To Be an Assistant Secretary of Commerce July 16, 1990

The President today announced his intention to nominate Wayne Lee Berman to be an Assistant Secretary of Commerce (Counselor). In this capacity, he will serve as the senior adviser on policy matters to the Secretary and will coordinate the external affairs of the Department of Commerce.

Since 1989 Mr. Berman has served as Counselor to the Secretary of Commerce in Washington, DC. Prior to this, he served as Director of the Commerce Department transition team; director of congressional relations for the Bush-Quayle 1988 campaign and for the George Bush for President campaign; and partner with the consulting firm of Berman, Bergner and Boyette, Inc., in Washington, DC. In addition, Mr. Berman has served as director of corporate and political affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and as deputy to the director of the resources group for the 1980 Reagan-Bush transition.

Mr. Berman graduated from the University of Buffalo (B.A., 1978). He was born November 8, 1956, in Rochester, NY. Mr. Berman is married, has one child, and resides in Washington, DC.

Letter to Leaders of the House of
Representatives on the Balanced
Budget Amendment
July 16, 1990

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. Leader:)

I am writing to urge prompt adoption of H.J. Res. 268, which proposes an amend

ment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for the United States Government and for greater accountability in the enactment of tax legislation. In order to help restore fiscal integrity to the Government, we need such a balanced budget amendment, along with a line-item veto constitutional amendment, and enhanced rescission authority for the President. Together with political courage and discipline, these tools are vital to solving the problem of budget deficits.

A constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget is the most fundamental change needed in the Federal budget process. A balanced budget amendment is both necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of citizens not now able to represent themselves: the citizens of future generations. The seriousness of this issue is reflect

ed in the fact that more than 30 State legislatures have already called for a constitutional convention for this purpose. As for alternatives that would require statutorily a balanced budget, such alternatives are an inadequate substitute for a constitutional amendment.

Sections 2 and 4 of H.J. Res. 268 raise technical concerns related to the public debt and taxes, respectively. These concerns are addressed separately in a Statement of Administration Policy on H.J. Res. 268.

I am prepared to continue working with the Congress to enact meaningful, credible, and effective budget reforms. Adoption of H.J. Res. 268 will be an important first step toward this goal, which is crucial to our Nation's long term economic health and prosperity. Sincerely,

George Bush

Note: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S. Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives; Richard A. Gephardt, House majority leader; and Robert H. Michel, House Republican leader.

Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With the Magazine Publishers of America

July 17, 1990

German Reunification and Membership in NATO

The President. Apologies for keeping you waiting. Let me just open with a brief-I don't want to filibuster-but open with a brief statement on a word about Germany. And then I'll be glad to respond to your questions.

I talked this morning with both Chancellor Kohl and Mikhail Gorbachev and had a fairly long conversations-about 30 or 40 minutes-with each one. I feel that the agreement that was announced yesterday between Gorbachev and Kohl is very, very significant and very important, and I'd like to reflect on how we got-I say "we" because the U.S. has been in the forefront of suggesting the best way for stabilization and peace would be a united Germany, a unified Germany as a full-fledged member of NATO. So, let me reflect on how we got here.

First, everybody had to recognize that this unification was going to take place, was going to happen, and that it was right. And you don't have to go very far back in your minds to remember there was some debate about the speed of unification and whether a unified Germany indeed would be a factor for peace. I remember telling the press last October, before the Berlin Wall came down, that when we said we supported German unity we really meant that, and we meant it without qualifications. After the East German elections in March, people began to realize that unification could actually occur this year, and my view was the sooner the better. And I know the German people have appreciated that stand by the United States.

And the second step was to put together a solid Western position on the external aspects of German unification. In February Chancellor Kohl and I had a very long talk out there at Camp David about the alignment of a united Germany, and we came out after those meetings and agreed unequivocally that a united Germany needed

And the third step, though, was to persuade the Soviet Union. And President Gorbachev and I discussed this in Washington. We discussed it in considerable depth on that Saturday up at Camp David. And then in our joint press conference, I said that I thought we both agreed that Germany should be free to choose the alliance that it would belong to.

President Gorbachev, if you remember, didn't challenge that; and we all thought that that was a good sign then-the Soviet having been positioned, as you remember, against Germany and NATO. But he didn't challenge that idea that everybody ought to choose what alliance they want to be in. We also had to show him that the NATO alliance was not his enemy but was a force for stability that could, indeed, adaptcould, indeed, change-adapt to the new realities in Europe. And that's why the recently completed NATO summit was so important, where all of our colleagues agreed to our proposals for the transformed alliance. And I'm very proud of my collaborators here, the top foreign affairs and national security people, Jim Baker [Secretary of State], Brent Scowcroft [Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs], in formulating this position, this leadership position, on behalf of the United States.

I sent a paper around prior to the NATO meeting, and it was that paper from which everybody worked, and it became the basis for this agreement. Then yesterday, President Gorbachev commented that—and here's what he said—that without the "very important impulse" from the London Declaration it would have been difficult to make headway. So, the Soviets viewed the NATO agreement as something that was very important to them and demonstrated less of a threatening mode on the part of NATO.

Both Kohl and Gorbachev have displayed, I think, exceptional qualities of leadership during this challenging period. I commended-as a politician-commended President Gorbachev on the outcome of the Party

what's happening in this country.

So, anyway, I don't know-but I must say I take pride in the way Europe is moving into this new era of freedom. It's a goal that we Americans have long worked to achieve. We've still got some very important problems that lie out there ahead of us. But it's a challenging and very exciting time to be President of the United States, and I expect my other co-leaders in the alliance would feel that way. I'm not sure Mr. Gorbachev feels that way yet, but isn't it exciting when you think back a year and a half ago to where we stand today?

Now, with no further ado and without this opening designed to deflect you away from matters domestic, I'll be glad to respond to questions on any subject. Yes, sir?

Q. Mr. President, my name is Peter Diamandis, and I'm the chairman of the magazine publishers association. First of all, I'd like to thank you for spending some time with the representatives of the industry. We're planning a party next year-this is sort of a statement, not a question. [Laughter]

The President. All right, I'll take it. [Laughter]

Media Literacy Campaign

Q. Okay. We're going to plan a party next year. We're having a 250th anniversary of the first magazine in America. It started in 1741, appropriately titled the American Magazine. This industry has now grown to 10,000 titles on every conceivable subject. And in honor of that celebration, we're going to devote a big part of our budget and our time to fighting illiteracy-I know that's a big subject for you and your wife. I would just like for you to know that and hopefully support that in 1991.

And on that note, I'd like to introduce a fellow Texan, Mr. Reg Brack, who's the president of Time, Inc., magazine.

The President. Well, first, I'm delighted to hear that. And it is very important. This whole media support for the antinarcotics and for education, with literacy being in the forefront, has been dramatic. I will say

this not to avoid my responsibilities as President, but it couldn't be done the Federal Government-there are not enough chips around to do what your industry and others are doing on a pro bono, Thousand Points of Light basis.

Excuse me, Reg. Go ahead, sir.

Postal Service

Q. Well, Mr. President, first of all, I'd like to congratulate you on your most recent accomplishment regarding the German issue and the handling of NATO and the development of Europe in general.

I would like to take this opportunity, on the heels of yesterday's troublesome news about the deficit, to address some issues domestically. And in that respect, I hope you know that I'm sure all magazine publishers are supportive of the administration's apparent willingness to begin to seriously address the deficit crisis.

But in that respect, I'd like to just make a quick comment and then ask a question. The comment has to do with the fact that magazines are particularly dependent on two things if we're going to continue our contribution to America's knowledge and vitality and diversity. Those obviously are advertising and you just mentioned how advertising functions on some important national matters-the other is the United States Postal Service. And since advertising is, by a large measure, the machine or the engine that drives the consumer demand in this country, we would all hope that you would agree that anything that constrains or restricts advertising of any kind is actually a restriction, really, on the free enterprise system.

As you can imagine, as an industry we're more dependent than any part of the knowledge business on the United States Postal Service. Now, we know we have to pay more; and in fact, the Nation, next year I believe, will be confronted with a cost for its mail $7 billion greater than it pays this

year.

My question really has to do with your view of the Postal Service in general and, specifically, your position on the Postmaster General's strategic initiative to address costs in general and reduce labor costs in particular because it's vital to the way the Nation gets its information.

The President. In the first place, I would obviously support bringing the Postal Service even more significantly into the end of this century. I mean, I think most people that look back historically have found that there are certain inefficiencies there. The whole concept of getting it more out of the political patronage business was to be able to overcome some of those inefficiencies. You people would probably be in a better position than I to judge how successful those efforts have been.

But certainly, I would be for encouraging the ultimate in that. I happen to not be fearful of the competition that has been brought to bear on the Postal Service. I know that some are critical of it, but on the other hand, I think it's a good thing. And I think if that's the way to stimulate efficiency, more efficiency on the part of the public side, the Postal Service itself, so much the better. So, it's a very general answer to a rather specific question, but clearly, I'd like to think the answer is in reducing costs through efficient management as opposed to raising more revenues to support what historically most people think has been politically abused and, to some degree, inefficient system. Who's next? Yes, sir?

International Competitiveness

Q. Ed Torrero, executive editor, IEEE Spectrum magazine. I'd like to change the topic to international competitiveness, if I might. There are three technologies which are generally agreed upon to be essential to the national security. They are electronics, computers, and telecommunications. Their vitality depends on a vibrant commercial industry. Sir, are there any conditions or scenario under which you would support a somewhat more focused support of critical technologies by a stronger buttressing of commercial activities?

The President. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "buttressing commercial activities." I mean, clearly, you put your finger on the future. And what we are trying to do, recognizing America's historic ability to lead in these areas, is to open up markets. But I'm not sure I understand what you mean in buttressing—

Q. If I might clarify. In the commercial area, there have been three specific examples in recent years where we may have been able to do something in terms of public policy, but thought better of doing it. One is in the supercomputer area, where we've lost some companies; another is in HDTV, where the former speaker gave some information; and a third is—if I may continue the specifics—in the area of semiconductor equipment manufacturers, which was almost lost to this country. A government agency recently predicted, therefore, that by 1994 the Japanese will, among other Asian technologies, dominate this particular area. So, the previous speaker outlined a very exciting program to help R&D and so on. The question is: Is that enough in time?

The President. I think it's enough in time for the Government. In other words, we are trying to take a look at antitrust to see that we're not giving our producers and our industries a disadvantage. We are trying to open up markets so that we can compete, and we are putting a lot of emphasis on research. I forget the total budget figure for research this year, but it's enormous, not just as it relates to electronics, computers, and telecommunications. But I think that I would draw the line in terms of R&D and then trade policies that give us a chance to compete.

I've just come from an appeal by a United States Senator for support on-this is a little off your question-for the textile industry, to protect the textile business further. And I can't do that. I can't say that I think the answer to the problem of textiles is further protection. Nor can I say that I think the answer to these three very important elements of our technology is further protection. So, that leads you then to R&D and to opening the markets abroad.

Fundamental Values

Q. Mr. President, I'm Jim Guthrie of the MPA. I'd like to address you as our spiritual leader who would like to keep us looking ahead. We're coming out of a decade that could probably be politely defined and characterized as one of self-indulgence and immediate gratification. There were inquisitive yuppies. There were junk bond LBO's that led to certain decrements in our own economic fabric. There were Wall Street

convictions. And now we're at the S&L crisis. Secretary [of Commerce] Mosbacher talked about the Baldrige Award. You've talked about a Thousand Points of Light. What else is going on that will keep us looking ahead to the quality and the value that we're talking about restoring to all areas of our life?

The President. You know, I've never been too pessimistic about America in this regard. I'll make you a slight confession: I still am trying to find the appropriate way to discuss, using the bully pulpit of the White House, these matters you talk about-talking about religious values, family values, or whatever. I think there is a danger that one can overdo it, and yet I think it's appropriate that the President try to not only adhere to those values but to discuss them.

Having said that, I'm not pessimistic about America. We go through cycles. We went through a cycle in the Vietnam war where our own sons and, to some degree, daughters were told that our cause was immoral-people feeling as strongly as they did. I was old enough or blind enough or whatever not to accept that view. I still don't accept that view, because when I look at Southeast Asia and I see a Vietnam where the charge was against us-if we'd only get out; this is an indigenous civil war; you'd have a little more democracy therethat hasn't worked out that way. And in your line of work, where there were many publications, there are now but a few. And you see, still, people going out in these boats.

But the point is, as it relates to your question, we had a generation of Americans that were taught about a deep conviction by professors and politicians and others that our purpose, our cause, was wrong. And then we condoned as a society certain excesses that we should have condemned. And I'm talking about an elevation of understanding about narcotics, for example, which gets right to the core of values.

Well, you've got to understand. I even think that we condoned graffiti as an expression of people's-wasn't this marvelous-creativity, when all it was was littering and cluttering up not exactly beautiful subway cars but-[laughter]—nevertheless,