[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book II)]
[July 31, 2000]
[Pages 1528-1530]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks in Tampa, Florida, on Permanent Normal Trade Relations With 
China
July 31, 2000

    Thank you very much. First of all, let me say that I'm delighted to 
be back in Florida. I'm glad to be here with Jim Davis and my longtime friends Bill Nelson and Buddy MacKay, 
who is doing a wonderful job for the United States as our Special Envoy 
to the Americas. And he did spearhead the passage in the Congress 
earlier this year the Caribbean Basin trade initiative, which is one of 
the most important things Congress has done this year. It is something I 
know that will be of special benefit to Florida.
    I want to just say a few words about this China issue. First of all, 
it is part of an overall strategy we have followed for almost 8 years 
now. When I became President, it was obvious to me that to turn the 
economy around, we had to do three things: we had to get rid of the 
deficit and get interest rates down and get investments up; we had to 
invest in the new technologies of the future and in the educational 
capacity of our people and to create a whole network of lifetime 
learning in America; and we had to expand trade.
    Whether we like it or not, the economy of every country will become 
increasingly global, and we have to be in a position to take advantage 
of it. A lot of people who don't agree with my position say that, well, 
we've still got a big trade deficit. That's true. And the reason we do 
is because our economy has grown so much more rapidly than that of our 
major trading partners. A 5-year economic slowdown in Japan has 
contributed to our trade deficit. The collapse of the other Asian 
economies for a couple of years, and the problems that Russia had, all 
contributed to our trade deficit.
    But if you look to the long-term future, America has got--if we want 
to make things, we've got to sell them to somebody. We have 4 percent of 
the world's population and 22 percent of the world's income. So it's not 
rocket science to figure out that if you're going to produce this much 
wealth, you've got to sell it to somebody.
    And so I believe that--we have now about 300 trade agreements we've 
negotiated over 8 years under the leadership of Charlene 
Barshefsky and, before her, Mickey 
Kantor. I think they've done a great 
job, and as I said, Buddy MacKay 
has done a great job. We have enjoyed strong support in a bipartisan 
fashion from the Florida legislative delegation, and Senator 
Graham in particular has been very helpful, and 
I'm grateful for that.

[[Page 1529]]

    But this China issue is something special because it involves huge 
economics, but it goes beyond economics. And I'd just like to mention 
and make one or two points here. The agreement basically is not like 
other trade agreements. In all the other trade agreements, they really 
are trade--we get together, and we swap out. You give them something. 
They give you something, and you work out the best deal you possibly 
can. And not everybody's happy, but you do it because you think there 
will be more good than harm.
    This is really a membership agreement, and it's important that it be 
understood as that. That is, in order for China to get into the WTO, the 
members of the World Trading Organization have to agree that China will 
get in on reasonable commercial terms. So in order to do that, they have 
to start with the world's largest economy, the United States, and we 
work out what the reasonable terms would be.
    Since we have a very large trade deficit with China, which is 
typical for a country that's developing like that, their markets are 
more closed to us than our markets are to them. This agreement 
essentially involves opening China's markets for trade and for 
investment to an extent that would have been unimaginable even a year or 
a year-and-a-half ago. Phosphate fertilizer will be affected; citrus 
will be affected; automobiles and automobile parts and dealerships will 
be affected. It's all, in that sense, a one-way street in our favor.
    Now, China will also be able to sell more things to us as it grows 
more economically diverse and more powerful. So it's a good deal for 
them because they can modernize their economy.
    Beyond that, I have to tell you that, for me, while keeping this 
prosperity going is very important, and in some ways, and the great 
underlying issue that the American people have to decide in this 
election year, and I think a big part of it is paying off the debt, for 
example--we can be out of debt in 12 years. And if we do it, interest 
rates over the next decade will be at least a point lower than they 
otherwise would be, and that's lower business loans, $250 billion in 
lower home mortgage payments, $30 billion in car payments, $15 billion 
in college loan payments. I think that's very important. But this trade 
issue must be at the heart of that.
    Beyond that, as important as all the economics is, you should 
understand also that this is a big national security issue for the 
United States. In the last 50, 60 years, we fought three wars with Asia. 
A lot of blood was shed in World War II and Korea and Vietnam. Now we 
look to the future, and we don't know what the next 50 years will hold. 
And no one can guarantee the future, but we know this, that if we're 
trading with people and working with them, there's a lot better chance 
that we will find peaceful ways to work out whatever differences we 
have. And the more China is involved in the global economy, the global 
society, the more likely it is to change and become more democratic, to 
become more open, to become more transparent, and to become a better 
partner instead of a competitor with us in the Pacific region, and a 
better neighbor to all the other countries in that area.
    So I really believe that there are lives at stake here. I believe 
our futures' at stake. And I believe if we can--if you look at the two 
largest countries in the world in population, they are China and India. 
And the Indian subcontinent together actually has about the same 
population as China. And if we could affect a peaceful transition in 
both those places that have greater trade at its core and greater 
communications back and forth, the world would be a very different place 
in the next 50 years and a much better place for all of our children.
    So I want to tell you all, although I know your interest, properly, 
is in the benefits that will flow directly to your activities in this 
State and in this region, the truth is it's bigger than all that. And 
it's about what kind of future our kids and our grandkids are going to 
have.
    I just want to make one last point, a very practical one. Jim 
Davis was appropriately modest, but the truth is 
we had to fight like the devil to get things in the House. And we 
carried--and we had a pretty good vote, as it turned out. But it was a 
very, very hard fight. And it was a harder fight for members of our 
party. And he showed great courage and great leadership, and you should 
be very grateful to him because he really stuck it out there. He was 
very strong, unambiguous, saying we should do this, and it's the right 
thing for our country. And I'm really proud of him for doing it.
    Here's the practical issue. We got this bill through the House in a 
timely fashion. I had very much hoped that we would pass it through

[[Page 1530]]

the Senate, where it's an easier bill to pass. We've got way more votes 
than we need to pass it. But we couldn't get it through all the 
procedural and substantive business of the Senate before the Fourth of 
July and then before the August recess. That means that we have to pass 
it early in September, as soon as they come back, after both parties 
have their conventions and the August recess is over.
    We had a very encouraging vote on procedure that got over 80 votes 
in the Senate, basically to take it up early. But it is absolutely 
imperative that this bill be voted in early September. The longer they 
take to vote on it, the more likely it could be caught up in procedural 
wrangling in the Senate. The people who are against the bill, and there 
are people in both parties that are against the bill, interestingly, 
though they tend to be, ironically, the most conservative members of the 
Republican caucus and the most liberal members of the Democratic caucus.
    But the Senate is set up--the Senate is set up and was set up by the 
Founders to slow things down. And one Member can cause a world of 
trouble if there are a whole lot of other things going on at the same 
time. So this is not a done deal. We had 60 people who--I think there 
are probably 70 Senators for this. And I know that it may be hard for 
you to imagine that if that's the case that we would have some trouble 
bringing this up in early September. But in fact, it is true.
    I am very grateful to Senator Lott, the 
Republican leader in the Senate, the majority leader, for his amendment 
to bring this up in early September. This is really an American issue. 
This should not be a partisan issue. It is a very important economic and 
a national security issue.
    But one of the things that I hope to come out at this meeting is 
that either as an organization or individually, you will make it clear 
both to your Senators, Senator Mack and Senator 
Graham, but also insofar as you can to the Senate 
hierarchy, that it is imperative that this be brought up early. The 
Senate--the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, is also strongly in support of what we're doing.
    But the only worry I have now is that with all the business they 
still have to do, with all the budgetary issues, and the controversy 
that inevitably attends the closing weeks of a congressional session in 
an election year, something procedural could happen that would delay 
this, and you just don't know what's going to happen. And I can tell you 
that it is profoundly important to our country.
    So anything you can do to make your voices heard as ordinary 
Americans on behalf of voting this quickly in September, that's the key. 
If they vote it early in September, it will pass quick, and we will have 
a better future.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President spoke at 11:07 a.m. at the Airport Hilton. In his 
remarks, he referred to Bill Nelson, Democratic candidate for U.S. 
Senate in Florida; and former U.S. Trade Representative Michael (Mickey) 
Kantor. The President's remarks were part of the ``China: Florida's New 
Market of Opportunity'' program. A tape was not available for 
verification of the content of these remarks.