    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (1999, Book II)]
    [December 1, 1999]
    [Pages 2184-2188]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks to the Trade Community in Seattle, Washington
    December 1, 1999

        Thank you very much. Good afternoon. John,
    thank you for your introduction, and thank you for your example. I want
    to say a little more in a minute about the points that you made, but I
    thank you for being here.
        Thank you very much, Patricia Davis. And
    I'd also like to thank the other people from the port here and the
    American Presidents Line who gave me a tour earlier of the port and how
    it works, with the rail and the trucking systems of this area. I thank
    you, Secretary Glickman and Secretary
    Slater, who's also here, for your support
    of trade; and Senator Murray, who had to go
    give another speech; Congressman McDermott,
    Congressman Inslee, from here in Washington.
        We have a very large delegation from Congress. I'd like to ask all
    the Members of Congress who are here to please stand, so you'll see what
    the level of interest is. We have Representatives from the House and the
    Senate, from the Republican and the Democratic Parties here. And we're
    very glad to be in Washington State, Governor Locke, and in Seattle, Mayor Schell. We
    thank you for hosting us.
        I thank all the other farmers who are here. And I'd like to say a
    special word of welcome to the children who are here, who are part of
    the WTO Trade Winds program.
        Last year, Seattle sold $34 billion in exports to foreign markets,
    making it the largest exporter among all American cities, everything

    [[Page 2185]]

    from airplanes to apples. The control tower I just climbed, therefore,
    offers an interesting vantage point, not only of what was once a
    condemned toxic waste site and is now a wonderful, flourishing economic
    asset but, in a larger sense, a vantage point of the 21st century world
    that I think we ought to be building for our children.
        It's a perfect place to talk about what we came here to the WTO
    meeting in Seattle to do, to open markets and expand opportunities, not
    only for our people but for people all around the world, from the
    world's newest business, E-commerce, to the world's oldest business,
    farming. We came to talk about trade and to talk about trade in the
    context of an increasingly globalized society.
        Now, I want to say just a few words about all the rather interesting
    hoopla that's been going on here. We need to start and ask ourselves
    some basic questions: Do you believe that on balance, over the last 50
    years, the United States has benefited from world trade? I do.
        There wouldn't be nearly as many family farmers left in America as
    there are today, with all the mechanization and the modernization, if we
    hadn't been able to sell our products around the world, because we can
    produce more at higher quality and lower cost than any other country in
    the world in so many products. Today we have about 4 percent of the
    world's people. We enjoy about 22 percent of the world's income. It is
    pretty much elemental math that we can't continue to do that unless we
    sell something to the other 96 percent of the people that inhabit this
    increasingly interconnected planet of ours.
        Now, if you look at where the farmers in our country are today--
    whether they're row crop farmers like most of them in my home State of
    Arkansas, growing soybeans and rice and cotton and wheat or people who
    grow fruit in Washington State or vegetables here and on the east
    coast--one of the biggest problems we've got is low prices because of
    the Asian financial crisis. And it's been a terrible burden. In addition
    to low prices, many of our farmers have been victimized by terrible,
    terrible weather problems. And finally, they deal with market after
    market after market where they could sell even more than they do if the
    markets were more open.
        I personally believe, for the farmers that are in our national farm
    programs, we're going to have to adjust our national laws if we are
    going to stop having an annual appropriation of the surplus that's as
    big as what we've been doing the last couple of years. But over and
    above that, for the farmers, like the people that run our apple orchards
    that aren't in the farm programs, we've got to keep fighting to open
    these markets.
        Now, we do that against a background of people who are raising more
    and more questions about the global trading system and about the process
    of globalization in general.
        When I see all these people in the streets here, I'd like to point
    out that among--a lot of people who are peacefully protesting here in
    the best American tradition are protesting in part because the interests
    they represent have never been allowed inside the deliberations of the
    world trading system. And I went all the way to Geneva last year to talk
    to the WTO to tell them we had to change that; we needed to open this
    system up.
        For most of the last 50 years, trading issues, when they were
    finally decided, were the private province of CEO's, trade ministers,
    and the politicians who supported them. Now we know we have to continue
    to open markets, we're reaching out to places like China. We're trying
    to do more with developing nations. We're trying to build more
    partnerships with governments and industry and labor and management. But
    we can't do any of it unless there is a broader consensus on trade that
    reaches deep into our country and to other countries.
        So I say that for those who came here to peacefully make their
    point, I welcome them here because I want them to be integrated into the
    longer term debate. To those who came here to break windows and hurt
    small businesses or stop people from going to meetings or having their
    say, I condemn them, and I'm sorry that the mayor
    and the Governor and the police officers and
    others have had to go through this. But we need to make a clear
    distinction between that which we condemn and that which we welcome.
        I'm convinced we do have to open the WTO and the world trading
    system to greater public scrutiny and to greater public participation.
    Because unless real people, like this apple farmer from Washington, can
    say, ``This is how I fit in the global economy. This is why my family
    and I are better off than we otherwise would be,'' over the long run
    we're not going to be able to continue to bring the world together,

    [[Page 2186]]

    which I think is important to America economically, and I think it is
    very important politically that we continue to work closely with
    countries and encourage them to follow good rules of law and adopt good
    economic policies and to be good neighbors and not hostile neighbors.
        There are a lot of opinions being expressed here among a lot of the
    folks that are out in the streets, and representatives of groups that I
    will meet with later today, that I do not agree with. But I am glad that
    there is such intense interest in this meeting, because it shows that
    people really do care about this now, and therefore, trade decisions,
    like other decisions we make in the Congress and in Washington and in
    the statehouses around the country, have to become part of the
    democratic process.
        You know, every elected official here will tell you that there are
    some decisions that you really have to consult heavily with the people
    you represent before you make, and other decisions you know they've just
    sort of given you a contract on. They say, ``Oh, well''--the people in
    North Dakota--``I know Congressman Pomeroy or
    Senator Conrad, and I don't understand that
    issue very much, but whatever decision they make is okay with me because
    I trust them.''
        And it's not that way any more here with trade. We have to bring
    people into this tent, and we have to do it in an effective way. But I
    think, at least for people like me--and I haven't even succeeded in
    bringing harmony, I know, within my own party about this--but I do not
    see how we can have the country and the future we want unless America
    continues to be a leading force for expanding trade, expanding markets
    for goods and services, expanding the reach of international commerce,
    doing it on fair and decent terms, being sensitive to the burdens that
    the poorest countries have, and understanding that, while a concern for
    labor or the environment could be twisted to be an excuse for
    protectionism, it is not wrong for the United States to say we don't
    believe in child labor or forced labor or the oppression of our brothers
    and sisters who work for a living around the world. And we don't believe
    that growing the economy requires us to undermine the environment.
        You know, you just look at this port here. What they're doing with
    multimodal transportation here is saving huge amounts of energy,
    dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as it promotes economic
    growth. You're going to see the growth, in my opinion, in the next
    several years of alternative fuels, much of it coming out of America's
    farming areas, which will dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
    reduce global warming, and accelerate economic growth. So I strongly
    believe, if we want to get everybody together and move forward, we are
    going to have to listen to people who have legitimate economic concerns,
    legitimate environmental concerns, legitimate labor concerns.
        So one of the things that I think we've got to be clear on,
    everybody has to decide: Do you think we are better off or worse off
    with an increasingly integrated global economy where productive
    Americans have a chance to sell their goods and services and skills
    around the world? I think we're better off. That's the number one core
    decision we ought to make up our mind as a country we agree about.
        Now, I want this new trade round at the WTO to be about jobs,
    development, and broadly shared prosperity and about improving the
    quality of life and work for ordinary people all around the world. It
    isn't right for me to ask for the good things I want for America's
    working families without wanting to provide those opportunities for
    others who are willing to work for them.
        The impact of this round could be quite profound. Since the first
    trade round 50 years ago, we've cut major nations' tariffs on
    manufactured goods by 90 percent. During the same period, global trade
    has grown fifteen-fold, and we've seen the most rapid, sustained
    economic growth, not just in the United States but throughout the world,
    in any period of human history because we're working together.
        Are there difficulties? Are there problems? Are there disagreements?
    Of course, and there always will be. That's why you have to have some
    system to resolve them. Whatever system you adopt, will there always be
    a mistake made by somebody, somewhere, sometime? Of course. We're all
    human.
        But we need to keep our eyes on the objective, and increasing
    economic cooperation is in the interest of the ordinary citizens of the
    United States and the rest of the world. If we expand access and we do
    it on fair terms and we're sensitive to the legitimate difficulties
    these poor countries face, we can also advance the cause of the
    environment and labor conditions without it becoming a shield for
    protectionism

    [[Page 2187]]

    and trying to take unfair advantage of countries that are poorer than we
    are. I believe that.
        But again, let's keep our eyes on the big issue: We cannot grow the
    American economy in the 21st century unless we continue to sell more to
    a world that is prospering and that is more connected, increasingly, in
    information technology and travel, not only with us but with everyone
    else in the world.
        The typical American--let's just take apples, for example; the
    typical American eats 20 pounds of fresh apples each year. And this is a
    pander to Washington State, I am not the typical American; I eat more.
    [Laughter] This is a pander, I admit. But the typical European consumes
    about 46 pounds of apples a year. So America exported $353 million worth
    of apples last year. More than a quarter of the total, 46,000 metric
    tons, were shipped here, from Seattle: Red Delicious from the Lake
    Chelan region; Granny Smiths from the Columbia basin; Winesaps, Fujis,
    Galas grown in Washington State, boxed and bound for Mexico, Malaysia,
    and more than 40 other countries around the world.
        I have worked very hard to open these markets. We opened the
    Japanese market for the first time to Washington State's apples in our
    administration. Then we fought to get the barriers down in Washington,
    in Mexico and elsewhere. And we're making some progress.
        But it is very important to recognize--go back to John or go back to--those of us who come from farming States.
    Farmers are the lifeblood of our country. They are better at what they
    do, thank goodness, than any group of people on Earth. But we cannot
    preserve family farms unless we sell more of what we grow to more people
    around the world, because the structure of agriculture we have, to make
    a living, has to produce a lot more food than all of us can consume.
        And that is a good thing. That can be a gift to the rest of the
    world. It can free other countries to work on what they need to do to
    develop the capacities of their people, to focus on diversifying their
    own economies. And we have to find a way to reach agreements to do that.
        Five years ago we joined with our trading partners to put
    agriculture on the WTO agenda. We made some progress then; we pledged to
    come back and do more. Today, our agenda here is to fight and win for
    the family farmers of the United States. We want to level the playing
    field. We don't want any special preferences. We just want agriculture
    to be treated as fairly as any other sector in the global economy.
        I know that's long overdue, and I believe it is the due of every
    farm family in America, whether an apple farmer in the Cascades, a
    banana farmer in the Cameroon, any farmer deserves a chance to compete.
    It is not just American farmers that would be benefited from this. Some
    of the poorest countries in the world would get the biggest benefits out
    of this trade round if we continue to tear down barriers to agricultural
    exports. They shouldn't have to compete against state-owned enterprises,
    restrictive regulations, the size of other countries' Government grants.
        In the European Union, for example, which accounts for 85 percent of
    the world's agricultural export subsidies, half of the overall budget is
    spent on agriculture. Now, I appreciate their support for their rural
    communities. We've always wanted to support our rural communities. But
    we have to work out a system going forward where everybody can do what
    they do best. And then people have to be given time and support and
    investment to make the transitions into the new economy. That's all I'm
    asking for, and that's all I would ever ask for, for people here in the
    United States.
        We have to lower tariff barriers; they're too high. On average,
    official rates abroad are 5 times as high as they are here in America.
    Taking apples as an example, it was just mentioned tariff rates are 45
    percent in Korea and 30 percent in China. One of the reasons that our
    people in our economic team, Charlene Barshefsky and her group and Gene Sperling when they went to China, they negotiated a steep cut in
    the tariff in China to 10 percent by the year 2004. That's more apple
    sales from Washington. It will help more family farmers.
        We will also work to reduce domestic supports that don't support
    trade, so much as distort it by paying farmers to overproduce and drive
    prices down, and we see that in a lot of places in the world. That
    should not be the case. We know that our farms can produce a vast and
    varied supply of food at affordable prices in a way that helps to reduce
    hunger and malnutrition around the world. We also should see that the
    promise of biotechnology is realized by consumers as well as producers
    in the environment, ensuring that the safety of our food is guaranteed
    by science-based and

    [[Page 2188]]

    absolutely open domestic regulations. And we should maintain market
    access based on sound science.
        I want to say to the people of Europe and all around the world, I
    would never knowingly permit a single pound of any American food product
    to leave this country if I had a shred of evidence that it was unsafe
    and neither would any farmer in the United States of America. I say to
    people around the world, we eat this food, too, and we eat more of it
    than you do. Now, if there's something wrong with anything we do, we
    want to know about it first. But we need to handle this in an open,
    honest way.
        It shouldn't be just about politics and emotionalism and short-term
    advantage. We need an open system. There is a reason we have confidence
    in the Federal bodies that analyze the safety of our food. They may not
    be perfect, but nobody believes they are in anybody's hip pocket. They
    are the world's best experts. We have an orderly, disciplined system
    here for evaluating the safety of not only our food but our medicine.
    And we ask all of our trading partners to do the same and to deal with
    us in a straightforward manner about this.
        But everybody must understand we have nothing to hide, and we are
    eating this food, too. Nobody is trying to do anything under the table,
    in secret, in an inappropriate way. But neither should our farmers be
    subject to unrealistic delays and unfair discrimination based on
    suspicion unsupported by the latest scientific examination. Let's handle
    this in an open, fair, scientific way. That's the right way to do this.
        Now after I leave you, I am going to go meet with the trade
    ministers that are here from more than 100 countries. It's a great honor
    for Seattle, for the State of Washington, and for the United States to
    have these people come here and to try to come to terms with a lot of
    these very difficult issues. I want to talk about how we can make sure
    that ordinary working people all across the world feel that they have a
    stake in an improving global economic system. I want to assure them that
    we have to do what is necessary to make sure that economic competition
    lifts people up everywhere.
        Now there are people, again I say, who honestly believe that open
    trade stacks the deck against ordinary people. Thirty percent of the
    growth we've gotten in this country, 30 percent, between 1993 and the
    time of the Asian financial crisis, came because of expanding trade. We
    had pretty good farm years in there, too, folks. It's hard to remember
    it's been so bad the last year or so, but we had some pretty good years.
        And we have got to figure out a way not only to sell the idea but to
    make it real, that we can continue to pursue these objectives in a way
    that lifts people's quality of life up and lifts the ordinary living
    standards up for people throughout the world. We can do that.
        Now let me finally say that I know these questions won't be easy.
    One of the things I've learned in all trade cases is that it once again
    reaffirms the wisdom of the Italian Renaissance political philosopher
    Machiavelli, who said--I'm paraphrasing here, but this is almost exactly
    right--he said there is nothing so difficult in all of human affairs as
    to change the established order of things, because the people that are
    going to win will always be somewhat uncertain of their gain; whereas
    the people who will lose are absolutely sure of what they are going to
    lose.
        So this will require some amount of imagination and trust and
    humility and flexibility. But if we're going to have a world, rule-based
    trading system, then we have got to make it work for ordinary folks. But
    we in America, we have to take the lead in continuing to make the main
    point. The world is a better place today after 50 years of more open
    trade than it would have been if we hadn't had it. Americans are better
    off today after 50 years of open trade than they would have been if we
    hadn't had it.
        And what has helped us will help the poorest countries in the world,
    the wealthy countries, and the countries in-between if we find a way to
    continue to draw together and to deal with the legitimate concerns of
    the legitimate protesters in the streets of Seattle.
        And you know, to me it is a very exciting time. This is a high-class
    problem, and we ought to treat it as a 21st century challenge, worth our
    best efforts. If we do, I think we'll get a good result.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President spoke at 12:37 p.m. in the Weyerhauser Facility at
    Terminal 5 at the Port of Seattle. In his remarks, he referred to John
    Butler, apple grower, who introduced the President; Patricia Davis,
    president, Seattle Port Commission, and president, Washington Council on
    International Trade; Gov. Gary Locke of Washington; and Mayor Paul
    Schell of Seattle.