> EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
>
> ANNUAL CONFERENCE
>
> MORNING SESSION
>
> Friday, May 3, 2002
>
> Omni Shoreham Hotel
>
> Washington, D.C.
>
> \[TRANSCRIPT PREPARED FROM A TAPE RECORDING.\]
>
> [C]{.underline} [O]{.underline} [N]{.underline} [T]{.underline}
> [E]{.underline} [N]{.underline} [T]{.underline} [S]{.underline}
>
> [AGENDA ITEM]{.underline} [PAGE]{.underline}
>
> **Morning Session**
>
> Speaker: Mr. Dan Renberg, Member, Board of
>
> Directors, Export Import Bank of
>
> the United States 3
>
> Representative Jennifer Dunn, State
>
> of Washington 6
>
> Mr. Joe Grand Maison, Member, Board of
>
> Directors, Export Import Bank of
>
> the United States 18
>
> Mr. Marek Belka, Deputy Prime Minister
>
> and Minister of Finance from Poland 22
>
> Mr. Eduardo Aguirre, Vice President of
>
> the Export-Import Bank of the United
>
> States 37
>
> [P]{.underline} [R]{.underline} [O]{.underline} [C]{.underline}
> [E]{.underline} [E]{.underline} [D]{.underline} [I]{.underline}
> [N]{.underline} [G]{.underline} [S]{.underline}
>
> MR. : Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Dan Renberg, Member of the
> Board of Directors of the Export Bank of the United States.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. RENBERG: Thank you. I\--in that announce, they just refer to us as
> the Export Bank of the United States, which some people have suggested
> we truly are. But we are still the Export Import Bank, no legislation
> was changed yesterday.
>
> Before I introduce our first speaker, I wanted to just make sure that
> everyone in the audience was aware that yesterday there was a little
> confusion. You might have heard about Congressman J.C. Watts\'s
> ability to appear here. We got a call during the lunch that he
> couldn\'t come, but it was for an incredibly great reason. The House
> was taking up passage of the Conference Report on the Farm Bill, which
> is every five or six years, this is even more critical to America than
> our little bill. This handles all the agriculture programs for the
> rest of the\--almost the rest of the decade. And Congressman Watts
> comes from Oklahoma and, as you know, Oklahoma is an impressively
> rural state and there was no way he could miss that important vote.
>
> We\'re thrilled today to have one of Congressman Watts\'s colleagues
> with us. Congressman Jennifer Dunn truly needs no introduction to
> anyone who has been following international trade over the past nine
> years since she came to Congress.
>
> Congresswoman Dunn is from Washington state, the eighth district, the
> area around Seattle. There\'s one mom-and-pop shop that uses us
> occasionally from that area that makes some airplanes. But
> Congresswoman Dunn is aware of how much else, EIM bank has been doing
> in the State of Washington. Congresswoman Dunn knows that one out of
> three jobs in her state depend on exports. She knows that one-third of
> the state\'s commodities are destined for international markets. So it
> is not a surprise to anyone who has followed her career that she
> gravitates towards trade issues.
>
> She is the fifth woman in history to serve on the Ways and Means
> Committee which has primary trade jurisdiction in the House of
> Representatives. She\'s also a noted expert on tax issues, because she
> serves on that committee, including an issue probably of some interest
> to all of you which is the possibilities of overhauling the tax code
> and providing tax relief to America\'s families. And maybe we\'ll hear
> from her a little bit about that, as well.
>
> She has been a staunch advocate of opening markets abroad, not just
> with NAFTA, but with other opportunities, as well, as she\'s actually
> participated in trade missions to Asia and Africa to open up markets,
> not just for exporters from Washington State, but, as you know,
> Congress people represent all of us, so she\'s been a tireless
> advocate for trying to help you, the exporters, in our audience.
>
> In reviewing her bio, the most interesting thing I found of recent
> vintage is that she has been named one of \"Washingtonian\"
> magazine\'s 100 most powerful women in Washington. So with that I will
> quickly shut up and introduce, ladies and gentleman, Congresswoman
> Jennifer Dunn from the State of Washington.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> REPRESENTATIVE DUNN: Good morning, everybody. I am delighted to be
> with you here today. It\'s a quiet day on the Hill and I\'m so sorry
> about J.C. Watts not being able to come and visit with you yesterday.
> It wasn\'t by his choice, but when we have votes on the floor, some
> people think that\'s why we\'ve been sent to represent them in
> Washington, D.C., so he really had very little choice on his
> activities. The same thing has happened to me and I\'m sure you\'ve
> been in groups where members of Congress have not been able to show up
> even though they very much wanted to.
>
> I want to thank your Vice Chairman, Eduardo Aguirre, for having me
> here today. And also, I want to thank the Ex-Im Bank\'s Board of
> Directors for inviting me to speak to you.
>
> It\'s such a pleasure to be here to discuss our trade agenda and,
> particularly, during a week when we actually did complete passage of
> the Ex-Im Bank legislation on the floor of the House. And you will, by
> now, know that since it passed in the Senate about a month ago, we\'re
> at a point where we go into the Conference Committee, and very likely,
> possibly even before the Memorial Day break, we\'ll be able to have
> the predictability of those dollars set aside for such an important
> thing.
>
> A few days ago, the House of Representative passed legislation to
> reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank. Although the debate was very contentious
> at times, still, it had the full support of the House of
> Representatives. In fact, we passed that legislation on a voice vote,
> very unusual. And I think that that reflects a belief that the Ex-Im
> Bank plays a very important role in helping United States companies
> remain competitive overseas. For most American companies, access to
> foreign markets is no longer an optional business practice, but a
> necessity for our companies to survive.
>
> To compete and succeed in the global market, the United States must
> provide funding and access to financing for companies that are trying
> to compete with others and, while at the same time reducing barriers
> to trade. Simply stated, access to foreign markets without access to
> financial resources will not help United States companies expand
> overseas.
>
> While all businesses benefit from Ex-Im\'s financing, I want to
> highlight the very important of the Ex-Im Bank on behalf of a little
> company in my state, one that Dan mentioned, the Boeing Company. We
> still claim the Boeing Company, by the way, for the State of
> Washington, even though it has moved its corporate headquarters to
> Chicago, as you all know. But it wasn\'t a complete disaster because
> the company left 55 percent of it\'s operations\--the whole commercial
> line\--in Seattle, so I find myself continuing to represent the
> district in the United States with the largest number of Boeing
> employees. We have 25,000 Boeing employees who live in my district.
>
> Over the past five years, Boeing and its workers have benefitted from
> \$19.5 billion of loans from the Ex-Im Bank for the sale of aircraft
> overseas. Of the planes sold overseas, over 20 percent are financed by
> the Ex-Im Bank. The financing has been critical in keeping Puget Sound
> businesses competitive overseas, while creating jobs needed to
> stimulate our economic recovery.
>
> As some of you know the Boeing Corporation has laid off nearly 30,000
> employees. And it\'s a very difficult time for this company. I think
> they would claim that they would not have survived if it had not been
> for the Ex-Im Bank.
>
> Reducing trade barriers has never been more critical for the recovery
> of our Puget Sound economy. In my state, where, as Dan said, one out
> of three jobs is related to international trade. If we fail to expand
> overseas, if we fail to develop exports and to develop new markets
> where we can sell them for Boeing jets and for Microsoft
> software\--another one of the companies that I represent in Washington
> State\--then it\'s very simple, we simply lose jobs. My colleagues and
> I who are free trade supporters are focusing on the need to reassert
> American leadership in international trade.
>
> You might want to give some thought to where we stood on January 2001.
> During the last 10 years, the United States had signed only two trade
> agreements. The European Union, as a contrast, had signed 28 trade
> agreements with other countries.
>
> The Seattle WTO ministerial meetings did not lead to a new round of
> trade liberalizations. In fact, although we\--I claim to be from the
> most beautiful city in the world, Seattle, and hated seeing that city
> defiled because of that WTO administration, it truly was a fiasco. It
> wasn\'t just the tempestuous environment you saw in that city during
> those terrible days, but it was the difficulty in going into a
> ministerial without an agenda set up ahead of time. And it was also,
> of course, as some of you who were involved know, was partly due to
> the green-room strategy which largely left developing nations out of
> putting together our agenda.
>
> And during that time, also, passage of trade promotion authority,
> which was called fast-track trade negotiating authority at that time,
> was illusive to us because of a lack of consensus in the Congress. And
> a President who was burdened with some alliances that were very
> important in keeping United States from getting TPA, environmental and
> labor constituencies, for example.
>
> Now, however, we\'re in a very fresh environment. With President Bush
> and Ambassador Bob Zellik\'s leadership, we\'ve taken steps to reverse
> this trend. So let me sum up what\'s happened for you since January 1,
> 2001.
>
> Congress and the Bush Administration have passed the United States
> Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement. The United States Jordan Free Trade
> Agreement has been passed by the Congress and signed with, by the way,
> some very interesting new language regarding labor and the environment
> that I think will become a standard for many of our agreements in the
> future.
>
> We hope to complete both the Singapore and the Chilean Free Trade
> Agreement. I as at a dinner the other night with Lee Kwan Yu, he says
> they are nearing the final point of being prepared to qualify for our
> free trade agreement.
>
> We begin consideration of other agreements with partners, such as
> Australia and, separate from them, New Zealand, very important
> countries for the United States to engage with.
>
> Furthermore, the House of Representatives has passed legislation to
> renew the Andean Trade Preference Act and the Trade Adjustment
> Assistance Program. Those are still being debated in the Senate. You
> may know that we hope to make progress here because much of that is
> related to TPA which is being considered in the Senate.
>
> We\'re continuing our efforts on the free trade are of the America\'s
> FTAA. As you know, Latin America is emerging as the fastest-growing
> United States regional trade partner. Between 1999 and 2000, total
> United States exports and imports with Latin America grew by 219
> percent. An increase much greater than with other regions in the
> world. Washington State, alone, exported \$1.5 billion worth of
> products to Latin American countries.
>
> Also the Do Ha Ministerial meetings were successful, not only in the
> smooth inclusion of China and Taiwan as members of the WTO but, also,
> in the agreement to complete a new round of trade liberalization by
> the year 2005.
>
> Most importantly, we passed trade promotion authority to grant
> President Bush authority to negotiate free-trade agreements. We are
> closer today than we have been in the last eight years to passing TPA.
> You will hear from some members of Congress disagreement with the idea
> of the President being able to negotiate free-trade agreements without
> the amendment by 535 members of Congress. I will tell you I do not
> believe it is usurping constitutional authority away from the Congress
> at all because we have very carefully written in Trade Promotion
> Authority the need for consultation all the way along the line. And at
> the end of the process, the Congress gets an up or down vote. If
> consultation hasn\'t been adequate, then they will vote it down. So
> they are very\--Congress is very well protected as we look at Trade
> Promotion Authority.
>
> In the Senate, the progress this week continues to be very slow. The
> Trade Promotion Authority is based on the Andean Preference Trade Act
> as the base bill. There is great discussion over issues like coverage
> for health care insurance in our Trade Adjustment Authority, which is
> our assistance to those who have lost jobs as a result of losing
> trade.
>
> I don\'t believe I\'m an optimist in all of this. I think I\'m quite
> realistic when I say despite the slow movement on TPA, I believe we
> will see a Trade Promotion Authority this year. And, certainly, all of
> United States who have an interest in free trade and, particularly in
> opening up markets for those companies in the United States will be
> very helpful in supporting this publicly and behind the scenes with
> our friends in the Senate.
>
> Let me give you a few examples of why TPA is important to the United
> States:
>
> For our farmers: TPA means more consumers will have access to more
> products and the finest products in the world. My state, Washington
> state, exports \$1.8 billion worth of agricultural products each year,
> that is a 1999 number. In fact, one-third of our commodities are bound
> for the international market.
>
> For our high-tech firms, TPA means strengthening intellectual property
> standards. The software industry loses \$12 billion annually due to
> counterfeiting and piracy in nations around the world. Reducing piracy
> in China, alone, could generate \$1 billion of revenue for the
> Northwest part of this country. Many nations have enacted laws dealing
> with intellectual property. And the problem is not that. The problem
> is with the enforcement of these laws. And, certainly, TPA will help
> United States to negotiate at least the beginning steps of that sort
> of legislation and enforcement.
>
> Take a look at women entrepreneurs. Many women around this country are
> leaving the corporate structure because it\'s not flexible enough. And
> they have the problems of balancing their lives with the lives of
> their families. And they are setting up business\--some of them in
> second bedrooms in their homes. But all of them with great idealism
> and hope. And, also, we find with women entrepreneurs, great interest
> in being\--in having access to foreign markets.
>
> TPA means succeeding in a global economy for women entrepreneurs. The
> entrepreneurial spirit knows no race or gender. In the United States,
> women are starting businesses at twice the rate of men. In Brazil,
> Mexico, Argentina\--20 to 30 percent of women business owners are
> involved in international trade. So it\'s not just limited to the
> United States. In several sub-Saharan countries where I have visited,
> women actually comprise a majority of total business ownership.
>
> No other factor contributes more mightily to the advancement of women
> around the world than the grasping of economic power and the
> educational opportunities that come with it.
>
> Today, the United States has two choices: To become protectionist and
> shy away from opening markets overseas or to meet the challenges of
> the new economy by expanding trade.
>
> America must choose to lead the world. We must be decisive in
> promoting global economic recovery through trade liberalization
> because we understand that a freer economy leads to freer society.
>
> So, in conclusion, I would simply say to you that with all the
> optimism that I am showing you and that I believe we see in the
> actions of the United States government today, I know that many
> challenges remain.
>
> Some people perceive that further trade liberalization is a threat to
> their jobs, to their communities, and to their values. I agree that
> there are legitimate concerns about labor, the environment, about
> gender equity, and about human rights.
>
> Nevertheless, we must address these issues, not through trade
> sanctions, but by working toward lowering tariffs, by working toward
> eliminating non-economic barriers, and by working toward developing
> greater aspects to markets. The best way to improve the lives of all
> the people is to build economies all over this world through more
> trade. Thank you very much.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. : Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Joe Grand Maison, Member of
> the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. GRAND MAISON: Thank you, thank you very much, Congresswoman. I
> wanted to point out that as a minority member of the Board of
> Directors, whenever I\'ve seen Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn on \"Meet
> the Press,\" or whatever, I\'ve thought to myself, well, you know, if
> she could just be a little less thoughtful, a little less articulate,
> she is an extraordinary representative of her party and its philosophy
> and I\'m very please on behalf of everyone to thank you very much for
> joining United States this morning for a great statement relative to
> the importance of international trade.
>
> It\'s my privilege to introduce our next speaker, Deputy Prime
> Minister and Minister of Finance from Poland, Marek Belka. Poland is
> one of the markets of Central Europe where Ex-Im has long been active
> on behalf of U.S. exporters.
>
> Our very first Polish transaction, cotton sales, was done in 1936,
> just two years after Ex-Im was charted. Since that first transaction,
> Ex-Im Bank has helped to finance more than \$1 billion of U.S. exports
> to Poland.
>
> Today, Poland is preparing, as you know, to enter the E.U.\--the
> European Union, and is focusing on building infrastructure and
> modernizing key economic sectors, such as transportation and
> information technology.
>
> Notwithstanding the tough competition from our West European
> competitors , we\'re looking\--Ex-Im is looking\--to do more in this
> emerging market. Deputy Prime Minister Belka is an international
> economist who has a deep understanding of the importance of
> international trade. He has served as Deputy Prime Minister of Finance
> in the Cabinet of Polish Prime Minister Leszek Miller, since October
> 2001. He also held the same position in \'97 in the government of the
> previous Prime Minister. From 1997 until 2001, he served as an
> economic advisor to the President.
>
> In the early to mid-1990s, Mr. Belka was an advisor and a consultant
> to the Polish government in the ministries of finance and
> privatization.
>
> Prior to his career in government, Professor Belka had a long and
> distinguished career in academia. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from
> the University of Wudka and has also studied at Columbia and the
> University of Chicago, the London School of Economics. For many years
> he taught at the University of Wudka and at the Institute of Economics
> in Polish Academy of Sciences. He served as Director at the Institute
> of Economics from \'93 to \'97. He\'s also the author of numerous
> books and articles and is an expert on anti-inflation policy in
> developed countries, macroeconomic policy and the socioeconomic
> doctrine of Milton Friedman.
>
> His range in depth and experience in international economics and trade
> issues is truly impressive.
>
> I might point out, on a personal note, that one of the most exciting
> things about doing in business in Poland has everything to do with the
> Polish people. There\'s a genuine bond that can be established between
> United States, as Americans, and these wonderful friends of ours. They
> make you feel welcome. It\'s a very, very, very special feeling. So,
> it\'s my great honor to introduce to you, the Deputy Prime Minister
> and the Minister of Finance of the great nation of Poland, Mr. Marek
> Belka. Mr. Minister.
>
> MINISTER BELKA: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Thank you for
> inviting me to this meeting. Thank you for having the opportunity to
> talk to such a distinguished audience. Also, thank you for this
> extraordinary introduction of mine. If for nothing, I would be wiling
> to come over to America to hear such things, which I never hear in
> Poland. \[Laughter.\] You know, ministers of finance are never sort of
> bathing in popularity and\--and sympathy of the rest of the government
> and the society.
>
> As a minister of finance, I\'d like to congratulate you of having your
> budget adopted, as I was told yesterday. Well, this is\--this means
> for every organization, we survive the next year, as I always try to
> survive with the early budgets for the country.
>
> I\'d like to tell you basically three things about Poland. First, let
> me make a, well, a few remarks on the character of transition. Now, we
> are in the second decade of transition and it\'s time to reflect on
> the character of this process. then I will dwell briefly on the
> current situation of the Polish economy, important for those of you
> who do business in the region. And then I\'ll say something about the
> general strategy of Poland concerning the accession to the European
> Union. But, also to other international organizations that Poland
> either has become member of or aspires to become.
>
> Well, transition from a centrally planned, distorted\--and, yes,
> destabilized economy to a market democratic society is a difficult and
> turbulent process. Why? Well, because in about 15 years, we had to do
> what took decades or even centuries for countries in Western Europe or
> for your country.
>
> It\'s also difficult because we combined this catching up
> process\--this process of building up institutions with the process of
> economic and political integration with the European Union. It is
> difficult because European Union is not just a\--well a group of
> mature market economies, but it\'s also a group of, probably, most
> established democratic societies were very frequently over-regulated
> economic life, not extremely well adapted for the needs of a
> catching-up country, like Poland. So, this is a difficult process.
>
> This is a bumpy road in which the people have to adjust to constant
> change. As a matter of fact, if there is something constant in a
> country like Poland or other countries of the region, it\'s change.
> And a change at a very intense pace.
>
> Well, but after 12 years, because we think the transition officially
> started in 1989\--it probably started a little bit earlier\--but in
> this last 12, 13 years, we proved that the process could be
> successful. Why so? Why did it prove to be a success?
>
> I think there are three, four main reasons, main sources of this
> relative success:
>
> Number one, it was a determination to change the system, a
> determination to change reform the country. Well, you may say we had
> nothing to leave behind, I mean nothing attractive to leave behind.
> There was nothing to look back and with nostalgia. The system that we
> were leaving was inefficient, it was, in fact, hated and people were
> determined to pay a price to change it. So, determination of the
> people, but also of the early reformers was the number one reason why
> we succeeded to transform Poland.
>
> Number two, there was a lot of pragmatism. Not only determination and
> resolution of what to do but, also, pragmatism. Poland avoided
> pitfalls of looking for shortcuts. Well, it may be a self\--it may be
> a contradiction here, because on the one had we had to cram so much
> change into 15 years, but at the same time, we had to try to avoid
> shortcuts. We had to build up institutions, which is, by definition,
> time consuming, but we had to do it.
>
> For example, we avoided such mistakes as the Czechs did with
> massive\--mass privatization\--the famous kupenofka \[ph\], which
> brought about a lot of corporate mess\--corporate governance mess and
> really complicated the positive evolution of the Czech economy. Now
> they are overcoming it successfully, but certainly it was\--it was a
> barrier to growth for sometime.
>
> So, on the one hand we preached liberalists, we preached market
> mechanism. But at the same time we didn\'t lose\--we built up
> institutions of the market economy not looking for miraculous ways,
> miraculous quick-fix solutions.
>
> Reason number three or source number three of this relative success
> was a broad political consensus. We had, like, eight governments in
> this last 12 and probably the same number of ministers of finance but,
> yes, we had a lot\--well, it\'s a seasonal job anyway
> so\--\[Laughter.\] But we have\--we had a lot of continuity in
> economic policy.
>
> And this broad political consensus\--a lot of continuity in the
> economic policy but, also, very solid political stability. Why so? Why
> did it happen in a new democracy.
>
> I think the reason was a very early strategic pro-Western orientation
> that Poland took from the very beginning of transition. Just to remind
> you, as early as 1991, Poland signed association agreement with the
> European Union. For United States, it was the first step to the
> accession. For our European partners, it was probably a loser concept,
> probably, well, with the benefit of hind-sight, we may say, they must
> have looked upon Poland with some disbelief that we were introducing
> ourselves to them as future member of the European Union just two
> years after beginning of transition.
>
> But this association agreement provided for a discipline in the reform
> process; for policy-related know-how that we got from Europe. And,
> well, just take the following think, every piece of legislation
> enacted after 1991 had to be confronted and conform to the standards
> of Western Europe. So we lost our sovereignty to make mistakes in the
> reform process, if I may say so.
>
> And the first source of success was a huge support\--a huge and
> uniform support from the international community. From the very
> beginning of the process, we enjoyed support from\--from our neighbors
> but, also, from America\--from American government, from American
> companies, from American institutions. And, yes, also from American
> people. Americans and, also, your institution, was in the first line
> of those who brought faith in what we were doing and this was most
> important.
>
> Well, in 1996, Poland joined OICD. Not easy\--not easy at all. The
> rather exclusive club of most developed countries\--30 by now\--I
> think it was like a trial before the real thing\--the real
> negotiations and the real adjustment process to the European Union.
>
> In 1999, Poland became a member of NATO with the full support of the
> United States. Since then, we began as an agent for the rest of the
> region. Poland consistently supports the aspirations of other Central
> European countries\--Central and East European countries to become
> members of NATO. We hope that on the upcoming summit of NATO in
> Prague, in November this year, new countries will be invited to join
> NATO, thus extending the area of stability\--the area of democracy in
> our part of the\--of the world.
>
> Most important and most complex task that lies ahead is, of course,
> the accession to the European Union. The negotiations are underway.
> They are set to be concluded by the end of this year. And we hope that
> by the end of next year, so from the\--from the early \'90s\--2004
> we\'ll become full members\--full member of the European Union.
>
> Now a few remarks on the current situation of the Polish economy.
> Well, if you look back at the whole decade of transition, Poland was
> the fastest growing economy in the region, with over 5 percent growth
> on average.
>
> In the last one year and a-half, Poland go through a slow-down, the
> economy is growing just at the rate of 1, 1.5 percent, which of course
> for a catching-up country like Poland is\--is a quasi recession and we
> are all unhappy about this situation. Partially, it is due to the
> other slowdown in the European economy, which we very much depend on.
> Partially, it is the product of, let\'s say redefinition of our
> internal\--of our internal economic aims\--economic goals to become a
> member of the European Union and then, after some delay, of the
> European Monetary Union, you have to fulfill certain criteria. These
> are both fiscal and monetary criteria.
>
> Poland was usually a high-inflation country, a laggard on the monetary
> criteria. And a few years ago, we decided to change the priories, so
> to say, and deal more seriously with our inflationary\--with the
> inflation and interest rates\--part of the so-called master criteria.
> And, in a sense, we are paying the price of getting inflation down to
> about 3 percent by slowing the business activity.
>
> Now we are on the way to recovery. The government that I represent,
> that took over six months ago has adopted a comprehensive economic
> program, based on the following three pillars:
>
> Number 1 is sound finance. We have adopted a medium-term plan to
> restrict both the rate of growth of public expenditure and the fiscal
> deficit.
>
> Pillar number 2, is regulatory reform, aiming at improving business
> climate. Just recently we have produced a cluster of about 30
> (inaudible) improving or diminishing bureaucracy, improving tax code
> and labor code\--liberalizing labor code\--all to you can say, to use
> the slowdown for speeding up reforms.
>
> Pillar number 3, is development of infrastructure. Poland has to
> invest a lot in roads, in railways, in telecommunication. Not
> everything is done by the private sector. Most or it, yes, it\'s done
> by the private sector, but not everything. And at least in Central
> Europe, private capital is not enough to build up sufficient road
> network. Those of you who are more familiar with the situation in
> Central European countries know the unlucky experience of the
> Hungarians to finance the highway from Vienna to Budapest solely from
> the private sources. And we have decided to involve the institutions
> of the state, including guarantees to speed up the process of
> infrastructure\--of road infrastructure development. And here, any
> possible participation of Ex-Im Bank would be more than welcome.
>
> We plan that the Polish economy will come back to a 5 percent growth
> path by the year 2004, which is now only about 18 months away. With
> inflation staying, remaining at the level of 3 percent and all this
> will make it possible for United States not only to smoothly join the
> European Union, smoothly absorb the structural funds\--the financial
> assistance that the European Union provides for new members but, also,
> to enter the European Monetary Union as early as possible. Possibly,
> in the years 2006 or 2007.
>
> Joining the European Monetary Union would mean introducing the joint
> European currency, the Euro, into Poland. The big benefits coming with
> it to Poland is, of course, the low level of interest rates and
> increased credibility as a location for indirect investment.
>
> To conclude my remarks, I would like to sort of summarize what I have
> said before and look at this economic process from a more general
> political or geopolitical perspective.
>
> I\'m not exaggerating if I say that\--that this is one of the most
> exciting periods in the Polish history. And also one of the most
> successful periods in the Polish history.
>
> We are coming back to the West but, also, we are coming back to the
> West trying not to lose anything from the experience that we\'ve
> gained in the last 50 or so years.
>
> Our aim is to become members of the European Union but, also, to
> become a meaningful, powerful player in this group\--in the European
> Union. Politically, it\'s easy, well, it is possible, it\'s visible.
> Our voting weight will be big enough. We\'ll be the sixth most
> important country in the European Union of Spain, close to the level
> of Italy. But, of course, we have a long way to go in terms of
> economic weight.
>
> If we look at the GDP volume, Poland is now ranked only as the tenth
> biggest economy in the European Union. But soon we\'ll become the
> seventh European\--the seventh biggest European economy. Why so?
> Because of the inevitable appreciation of this (inaudible), if you
> compare the purchasing power of parity figures, we are number six,
> number seven economy in the European Union. In fact, we are one of the
> 10 countries aspiring members of the European Union, but we account
> for 54 percent in terms of the size of the economy. This is probably
> one of the explanations, one of the explanations, why\--why the
> negotiations with Poland are most difficult, both for us but, also,
> for the European Union. Sometimes I add that we have an impression
> that we are the only country that negotiates.
>
> But our geopolitical strategy is to become a member of the European
> Union but, also, to become a gravitating point of gravity of the
> region, of the countries around United States. That is why we are so
> very much interested in countries like the Baltic states\--Lithuania,
> Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia and other countries to the south, to become
> members of the\--of NATO\--to become members of the European Union
> later, because we think this is in the interest, not only of Poland
> but, also, of Europe\--also of the world, to extend the sphere of
> stability of democracy. And to be able to export our good experience
> to the East.
>
> And this is the next point in this strategy. We want to remain a
> bridge between Western Europe and Eastern Europe. We work hard to
> improve our relations with Russia. We think that becoming a NATO
> member, becoming an EU member, it\'s also\--it\'s almost automatic,
> you improve your relations with Russia. And this is\--you become
> normal partners and the Russians are more and more realizing that
> Poland is not only a transit country for them but, also, a meaningful
> partner, a place to invest and a place from where capital can be
> invested.
>
> We are very much interested and we support all the efforts of the
> Russian government to stabilize the country.
>
> Now, on Polish/American relations. We are proud to become members of
> NATO. We are proud to become one of the best allies of America in
> Europe. This is our\--this is not just an incident. This is our
> strategy. I think that it\'s in the best interest of Poland to bring
> to the European community our best relations with America.
>
> Sometimes we hear that, in the West, well\--Poland is like a, quote,
> \"Trojan Horse,\" unquote, of America in the European Union. I have
> not invented this. Neither did Homer. It\'s\--it\'s some of the West
> European members of the parliament that use this term, when it went to
> ratification of the Polish membership in NATO.
>
> I think it\'s totally wrong. I think Polish strength is stimulated
> when it\'s backed by very good relations with America\--with the
> United States. And I think that this is one of the assets that our
> country can bring to the European community; that we have both a
> unique expertise in our relations with the Eastern\--with our Eastern
> neighbors. And our privileged, very good relations with America.
>
> So, we have a plan here. It\'s not only about economics. It\'s not
> only about economic policy. But it\'s about the future of our country
> and the future of Europe. And if Ex-Im Bank can help in it\--and we
> have just been talking about new proposals to involve Ex-Im Bank in
> Polish economy, then, please, be aware, you are taking part in a much
> bigger game than you think. Thank you.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> MR. : Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome the Vice President of the
> Export-Import Bank of the United States, Eduardo Aguirre.
>
> MR. AGUIRRE: Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister for your very insightful
> comments. I think we both recognize the very strong bonds of
> friendship and mutual security and business that exists between our
> two countries and the Export-Import Bank looks forward to partner with
> the exporters wand the rest of the U.S. government to continue to work
> with Poland in the years ahead.
>
> I know that as you sometimes feel like the negotiator of one, with
> others, we look forward to working with you because I think our
> exporters want to participate in the continuing of your country. And
> we\'re going to be there for them. So, thank you very much, I look
> forward working with you in the future.
>
> Now, just a few housekeeping issues for the rest of the morning. The
> breakout sessions are going to begin promptly at 10:30, which is about
> a half an hour from now and are going to conclude no later than 11:45.
>
> Now, I need your help on something. Lunch is going to begin today at
> 12:00 o\'clock sharp. We expect Secretary Evans here right at 12:00,
> traffic in D.C. permitting, et cetera. And we\'re going to be on
> somewhat of a tight schedule. I know you want to hear his remarks,
> which will begin before lunch. So being here and seated by noon will
> be somewhat important to the logistics.
>
> So I really ask for your cooperation. And with that, that concludes
> our morning session and we move on to the break-out sessions. Thank
> you very much.
>
> \[Applause.\]
>
> \- - -