-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/93ec9a3f950db75cc53bc9235b1b13c7.pdf
3f52d34e216c6ca69ea1956fd4f1e1a3
PDF Text
Text
·Case Number: 2008-0702-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the Clinton Presidential
Library Staff.
Folder Title:
[China] (Folder 4]
Staff Office-Individual:
Speechwriting-Orzulak, Paul
Original OAIID Number:
4022
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
Stack:
48
6
9
2
v
�(!) l,...f
·
2/23/00 Final
J
o~ jrow;JII
.Po, ~fOoi.V fl.
•
.
IJeiAJ M"',-~ ·,.... tf;""ti ve
f.( Of\
Orzulak
PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
REMARKS TO THE BUSINESS COUNCIL
ON CHINA
WASHINGTON, DC
FEBRUARY 24, 2000
Acknowledgments: Ralph Larsen; Phil Cassidy; Cindy Cassidy; ladies and gentlemen: earlier
today, you heard from Secretary Summers and Ambassador Barshefsky about the upcoming
debate over China's entry into the WTO. I want to spend a few minutes telling you why I think
this is o~e of the most important votes this Congress or any Congress will cast. i""' {i ..,f ( •lfJ
em
...
r. 1 tt-' t.f.:...t _ Jtts Iff"~
:J:'
1
of>
tt.1- , «,.
•,
For the past 30 years, every ose gfm.y Pea ssefS has worked for the emergence of a China
that contributes to peace in Asia; that is open to American products, farmers, and businesses; that
allows its people access to ideas -and information; ~ ~olds ~e rule of law at home and
adheres to global rules abroad. 'Ffte reason i&"'S'ifth~iMii~a Ras-a tremendous stake in how
China evolves. We are a Pacific nation that has fought three wars in Asia in the 20th Century. As
China develops, the path it illuminates or the shadow it casts will be felt very far from its own
borders. The more we can promote peace and stability in Asia, the more W't'premote odi ownb
pessi INlel stdtJlltty. Aw!'r/ c~ \ i
V~r (.... tf ,_: ( 1
fer V(/,1
""It'""" h .,.
Lt.
This WTO agreement with China helps to advance all of those goals in unprecedented new
ways. It is the kind of opportunity that emerges only once in a generation, and we should seize
it. If we turn our backs, we will regret it for a generation.
I don't believe there can be any serious question that this agreement is in America's economic
interest. This agreement requires China to · en~s markets on everything from agriculture to
1
manufacturing to high-tech products -·
simply to maintain the market access that
we already give China. For the first time,
companies will be able to competitively sell and
distribute in China products made by American workers here at home. ArtdJt strengthens our
response to unfair and market-distorting trade from China, from import surges to forced
technolog.Y transfer to protection of intellectual property. 1 • I. /
Ott o.Y t\s 11 '""' """ .,.c -~1 cJ... , }- ~~,., ".. b ,1 ,.,.
A..te
Think about what this agreement could mean ~far~. It c11ts tarif]$...on everything from
.
. ~~,;-t)•..,j_Jil.th Wttl'"li
corn to wheat to barley by two-thtrds, and gtves our farmers n~w acceBs to one,1nfth of the
world's population. Little wonder that paystubs at the Farmland Institute read: "Chin<_~. will
account for nearly 40 percent of the future growth of U.S. agricultural exports."
-
4',..
Thin~.v~at
f::::t tv ; K t<1..' J. lv
it sgul
o our telecommunications industry. China today already has
the largest potential telecommunications market in the world -- only five percent of it has been
tapped. This agreement will allow American firms - who already are leading the world -- to
compete in developing the other 95 percent.
1
�\)); Vh
'{f 1(r
~
1\1td think about what this agreem@R.t em:tla Hl:e8::B to our auto industry. Tariffs will fall by nearly
75 percent. The requirement that we rely on Chinese distribution is eliminated, as is the
requirement that we have to transfer our technology. American manufacturers will now, for the
first time, be able to sell American-made cars in China, to set up their own distr~utign centers,
to run their own service shops, and to provide their own financing to consumerS.Jil~neans that
we're going to sell more American cars ana a:ttte~s mChisa, which means more jobs here at
·
home.
1'}& It
·
·
Now, most Members of Congress don't even question those benefits. Critics are more likely to
say: China is a growing threat to Taiwan and its neighbors, and we shouldn't strengthen it. Or,
China is a drag on labor and environmental rights, and we shouldn't engage it. Or, China is an
offender of human rights, and we shouldn't reward it. Or, China is a dangerous proliferator, and
we should!l't empow~ it. And rll those C<j>nCems will.!l: ab1olutely legitimate. - «''-'J ~0'\, /J u,
~~ w• ll
Je
II\ till f\GCf
Oi
Vf\~.U•,"t.tJ 6~ f-e~h.tt:tk;~q /r-.1-o W/'().
1'
{ ";J •-4.
t,,..,
1 a~s., 1 'o"' ,.,
'l ,.,..
So, China's leaders face a dilemma: they realize tha fthey open China's antiquated market to
global competition, they risk unleashing forces be ond their control-: namely, unemployment,
social unrest, and demands for political freedom. But they have also concluded that without
competition from the outside, China will not be able to attract investment or build world-class
industries that ~f'r.i?Fe in the global economy.
1 ~,..,,( ;·"(r.f{,}-(4(. ik~ /
'·"t
u
,.
But this debate should not be defined as ~conomic rights vettus human rights - or economic
security versus national security. That is a trap, it's a false choice. This agreement is just as
vital- if not more vital- to our national security as it is to our economic security. It promotes
both jobs in America and P.fOgress toward change in China. .... ev~') .J1)k (o«< -t~'~ ""'(
7-row 1rr,,i}(,r t
'1-- want if' t><. do~f fwiak~.~ 1- Ck; "-C\ ill. ~ Ht U, TO.
Over the past 20 years, China has made a lot of progress in building a new economy, lifting
more than 200 million people out of absolute poverty. It is linking so many people through its
wireless communications network that it is adding the equivalent of a new Baby Bell every year.
But its system is still plagued by corruption. Less than one-third of its economy is private
enterprise. Meanwhile, its workforce is increasing by 12 million each year. At least 100 million
people in China are still looking for work. And economic growth has slo~ just when it needs
J_
/.1
.
[.,., 1 ~ •
/.' /A·n'~
to be rising to create new jobs.
'.;,> ,., w;o 1
/'t!
'1\t'\ ~~-7 rNr..J' hti·n cSo71
With this agreement, China has chosen to embrace change. despite the risks it entails. The real
question for America is: do we reall~.want tofeient~t choice? That w~uldlfbe a~~isaetro~sL,-hb/(
A.i'. •IO"'' w •
, ·~ ·--... "
II'(
mistake. We need to embrace~ an tnaVis 't• at t
TO agree ent 01 -~ t adv e-'es o r TC
s. c.
interests by encouraging China to meet, not muzzle, the growing emands of its people for
openness. Rather than working from the outside-in, it will work rom the inside-out to move
~ v..f
China in the_rig_ht direction, in at least three ways.
"'"ItNumber one, "'having China in a rules-based system increases the likelihood that China will
~ ~ r, ,. . .
.
follow the rules of the road in ter~s of the international economy.
Under this agreement, some of China's most important decisions, for the first time, will be
2
A.
'
r
�·,
LP/ LP\'0
0 tl.
~
ifO"
.v e~t' 1 ~ ~I r·.J ~ ~ ,, "" wo'k/w c""l tC..Jj.
1
~
'f '
tJ ~
".y c: l~..;1
./
e;
..
I
fk r .
\t\'t v<.
~d,., ~ ,.'(ubject to the review of an international body. It means that China is conceding that
J. •
governments cannot behave arbitrarily at home or abroad, that their actions are subject to
international rules. Opponents say that doesn't" matter because China will just break its
promises. But if China does, we're still in a better position, because it won't be able to ascribe
differences to U.S. bullying- its actions will be~tp judgm91ts backed by 135 .nations .
1
.____
·
55 ""f'lo""J ,.,.,.~ ~ c~tr '-d~:r cf,t~,.
Number two, this agreement will obligate China to deepen its market reforms, intensifying the
·
process of change.
A decade ago, China's best and brightest college graduates sought jobs in the government, in
large state-owned firms or universities. More and more, the best and brightest are either starting
their own companies or choosing to work for foreign-invested companies --where they
generally get higher pay, a better work environment, and a chance to get ahead based on merit,
not political connections. That process will only accelerate as China joins the WTO, and we
should do all we can to encourage it.
""lr-J
.
.
Number threi.I believe that this agreement has the potential to help open China's society. t "l .&-ff''f..-e co ~l o.t\r'c, """
Think about it: in the past, virtually every Chinese citizen woke up in the morning in an
apartment or house owned by their government, went to work in a factory or farm run by their
government, read newspapers written by t9(lU~pvernment. Their state-run workplaces also
operated the schools where they sent their~:'aw clinics where they got health care, the stores
where they bought their food. That system was a big source of the Communist Party's power;
the meager benefits.A.provided were a big source of the loyalty,¥ commandeq. ~ow, with
1
lower tariffs and greater competition, China's state sector is ~A:g tQ shrivel; !trprivate sector
will expand. In that way, this WTO agreement will speed a process that is removing
government from vast areas of people lives.
'tr·
It will also dramatic-crease access to communications. A Nt;;fJt~o, China had two million
1
'~bring the information
Internet addresses.
it has nine million. This agreement
revolution to cities and towns across China. As the Chinese people see how"fWople acmss +he /1(
world liv~I believe they will seek a greater voice in shaping their own lives.
t>cotlt fl. II •"er- ftt ~" 1 I J r:.-:t It~ rp
·
In the end, China is going to le~every other nation is.l0aHting as-v1e go through tb..
knowledge-based, information age: you can't expect people to be innovative economically
while being stifled politically. Bringing China into the WTO doesn't guarantee it will choose
political reform. By accelerating the process of economic change, it will force China to confront
that choice sooner, and make the imperative for that change much more powerful.
of co Coft"/8
-
•• '\ ....
''t """etl-
Cl...C. ""'• r(.
f~rt., ( -
Bwt-l0t's h#lear.-- bringing China into the WTO is not, by itself, a human rights policy for the
United States. The reality is that China continues today to suppress the voices of those who
challenge the rule of the Communist Party. It will change only by a combination of internal
pressures for change and external validation o~uman rights struggle. And we JllUSt maintain
our leadership in the latter, even as the WTO agreement contributes to the former.
3
�w',([ ~ () vo-11 'd• ._,·-d1v,
f (Nr},_rJ ~ r-8/ltriJ.s
roj~ O(A'Vwl-el'l;rA ;. fl:r - ~tj'O<.d Ir-ed~~~ -cJ.ot.e k~ 11
to
1\et-P
J
F&.
~, ~c~-(j} ..
IVt
~"'
'
r-rt,;w/.r ,e::yro r- L! L;,ry ~
That's why we sanctioned China as a "country of particular concern" under the International
Religious Freedom Act last year. It is why we are once again s~~qa1_1~a resolution in the UN
Human Rights Commission condemning ehimr' s human right§'~-w~ will continue to press
China to respect global norms o~~V-~roliferation. And we reje_ct the use of force as a means to
resolve the Taiwan question. We
"contiime to make absolutely clear that the issues between
Beijing and Taiwan must be resolved peacefully and with the assent of the people of Taiwan.
(e&IIMt.t
We must not and we "ill not rely on the invisible hand of the market to do our heavy lifting with
China, and neither should the private sector. For all of us-- including the business community-permanent NTR must mean a permanent commitment to 1
change in China.
·
po.s i-Hve
ell
But to even get that opportunity, we must firs~~his agreement through the United States
Congress. And we can't underestimate for a second how hard this is going to be. There are real
_a~ [v~~lz
differences.
w-f~ov'"" l..oll"
u.,·,( (
I'll promise you this: I MH gsiHgio push this as hard as I can to pass this agreement.\ I know
you heard ine talk about this in my State of the Union Address, and in my press conference last
week. I also talked about it in Davos. Last week, I started meetings with members of Congress,
and those meetings will continue this week. You can expect to see a full-court press from my
entire Administration. Those efforts are already underway.
tZJ
"1.' rJo.r.s;tll<.
~eft
fc&..iA~)
.
I know you realize the stakes .tftr;elvsd. If Cbngress C:loesn't approve PNTR, we risk losing the
full benefits of China's WTO membership. In a global economy, with global markets, your
companies will be shut off from cfie-fifth of the world- wh~ed.:q_yr r:J.lr2Pean, Japanese, and ·
other competitors will take advantage of the benefits wl~e~oliaG:''ifutfailure would also send
a signal to the r~s~ of the world that America has turned inward. ~hat would be a devastating
A1/ :
Wt Y
:IJ(....,~lJ f.c. I 4, 1 /:"";K"i~Aq, .•
oN(
setback to our VISIOn of the future.
We don't know what choices China will make- but we can control the choices we make. And
today, we have a clear choice: between Chinese market that is open to American products and
M
American services, or closed to us and only us. Between speeding the opening of China's
~
economy and society, or turning our backs. Between a China that is on the inside of the
v
· international system looking out, or on the outside looking i Between a China that is moving in'/?({,..., /the right direction, or in the wrong direction. Above all,
have a choice - at a moment of
~'
America's greatest strength and influence- to either le the world, or turn away from it. I am 1 f-- £ r
confident that we will make the right choice, becaus 1t ~s good for America, good for China,
1:1
·
g.ood for Asia, and good for the world. I look forw d to working with you t9 turn those worthlf,.e rt1~ (J
goals into reality. Thank you.
w~
,ev r
/f~
a
.J;i'
p\ 1 ..
•v
rfJ,.,
ult'
Ar-t.
It'
~-f.. i 'i ~ ~ ~.. H"jf \rLJ.:' y ~'"'-' v.-1-v. t
.
c\-_o . f { G~\ ·A.~ vv; lJ ~ fi 1\t. I V\tf (I,..;,....(._,... :
(t.
I
.
4. W•,..
ell."; r I"~.. ,. ...
- LA~,.,,rt,IJ. ~1 1 •"'d1" h.rJ.J((f ir- WTf}
'~~;"'"' ~ . . . . f-"r\. . . ~ l(t\, Jifft~'t,/.
i '\ l~"
.r cQ rl\11\ ' " '
f"
J
'\.,
4
�~
,.,-_....-·~·-·
:·~
..·,
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE
UNTIL 12:30 P.M. EST
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2000
As Prepared for Delivery
,I
REMARKS BY SAMUEL R. BERGER
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
ON CHINA
The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Washington, D.C.
1
February 2, 2000
. ·. Speaking to the Wilson Center is always a challenging prospect It brings to mind the story of
the man who lived through the famous Johnstown flood. All his life, this man would tell
everybody he.met the story of how he survived. When he died and went to heaven, he asked St
Peter to convene a crowd so he could tell them about the great flood. St Peter said, "I'd be
happy to. But you have to remember one thing-- Noah will be in the audience."
There's more than one foreign policy Noah in this distinguished audience. Indeed, Lee
Hamilton himself come~ with an entire Ark. For more than 30 years, Lee brought a steady hand
to foreign policy in Congress, with the emphasis always on patriotism, not partisanship. I thank
him for that
Last week in his State of the Union Address, the President gave a compelling summary of the
challenges America will face in the 21st Century. Looking ahead, there's good reason for
optimism. This month, America marks the longest economic expansion in our history. Our
military strength is unchallenged. Our alliances are strong. Our values are ascendant in the
world. Eighty years after Woodrow Wilson hoped American leadership would help make the
world safe for democracy, for the first time ever, more than half the world's people now live
under governments of their own choosing.
But as the President said, this is not a world without dangers to us. Our security can be
threatened by regional conflicts that pose the risk of a wider war. The march of technology can
give terrorists and hostile nations the means to undermine our defenses, and force us to once
againlive in fear. The stability of the 21st Century can be threatened by an ever-widening gap
between rich and poor. And of course, there is the possibility that our former adversaries Russia
and' China will fail to emerge in this century stable, prosperous, and democratic.
�. .
..
2 '
U;~j~~~.
President~xon
'
Today, I want to talk about China. Since
went to China in 1972, the United
States has sought to .clevelop-a constructive relationship with Beijing, initially as a
counterweight to the Soviet Union and later in recognition of China's growing importance in its
own right. We have worked for the emergence of a China that contributes to peace in Asia. A
China with an economy that is open to American products, {armers, and businesse}- A China
whose people have access to ideas and information, that upholds the rule of law at home and
adheres to global rules on everything from-ftt}slear non-proliferation to human rights to trade.
This year, we have an unprecedented opportunity to advance those goals. The opportunity is
China's entry into the World Trade Organization.
But before America can realize the full market-opening benefits of Chinese entry into the WTO,
Congress must answer a simple question: will it grant China permanent Normal Trade Relations
-stMt:ts,..~.-'fhic:tt-ts..the same arrangement we have ~ven tol.l.3( of the other 134 countries in the
WTO. Doing so is necessary to guaranteeihf'full'in~~M:.opening benefits of the agreement we
negotiated with China. Or will Congress turn its back on the sweeping chariges China has
agreed to make and fisk losing ground on the issues we all care about?
No01, e-very debate on trade must first.· answer the threshold questiqn: will our economy and ou~ ·
1 workforce benefit from the terms we've negotiat~d; or will~ suffer? From an economic
perspective, there is no denying that this agreement ~ benefits the United States.
\
For years, China has had open ac~t~~,Jo our markets, while its markets have been in many ways
closed to American products an&Servlt~~. This agreement requires China to make wide-ranging """
ne~ ~oncessions to open its m~ket, while_ we ha~e agree1~&Y to maintain th~ market ~ccess
}30h6Hi!S we already apply to Chma. Denymg Chma PNT1- s1mply would depnve Amencan
companies and workers of the full benefits of China's concessions -the favorable market access
and dispute settlement that our European, Japanese, and other competitors willJ.i.twe./c. k qcf"c' f
ft
This agreement will dramatically reduce China's tariffs on everything from agricultural and
industrial products to computers and semiconductors.· It directly responds to concerns about
unfair trade practices in China and allows our businesses to export to China from here at home,
and~ve their own distribution network in China, rather than being forced to set up factories
there 'te- sell products through Chinese partners.
O.t--~
~\v') ..\rhat is what this agreement means in principle. Here is what it means in practice.
Consider the auto industry. Right now, a car made in Dearborn faces an 80 to 100 percent tariff
before it can be sold in China --which prices us out of the market. If you.»:~t to sell cars in
China, you need to base your operations in China. To do that, you mustlf'dik a joint venture
with a Chinese state-rim enterprise and give it at least .a 51% stake·: You ·also must agree to
transfer a significant amount of your technology to China, and teach the Chinese how to use it -which means you are transferring both your product and expertise to~ ,e\Tentual competitors.
And because of local content requirements, most parts have to be made in China, too.
�3
In addition, Americans cannot now directly run parts distribution centers in China, so once your
parts are made, Chinese partners have to sell them for you. Americans are not allowed to
directly own service centers, either. And all this assumes that Chinese consumers can buy the
cars in the first place, because the only financing that is allowed in China is through state-run
banks-- and they don't make loans for cars. Little wonder that the:re.are many times more
bicycles in China than automobiles.
· Under the.new agreement, it's completely different. Tariffs on American cars will fall by nearly
75 percent, so we can compete in Chinese markets. The requirement that we have to link up
with Chinese enterprises is eliminated. So is the requirement that we have to transfer our
technology. And, American manufacturers will now be free to use parts made in America for
assembly in China, to set up their own distribution centers, to run their own service shops, ~ to
provide their own fillancing to consumers.
n+l ~er-e
From our perspective, it means th.LV:e're going to _sell a lot more American cars and auto parts
in China, which means more jobs ill America. In return, the Chinese people end up with much
better products at lower prices.~ke that example and multiply it across our other industries -~
from manufacturing to agriculture-- and you begin to get an idea of what this agteement~d
mean to both our economies.
~'
1/
For our part, we must grant China permanent normal trade relations ~ I(s important to
underst~~~hat that means: ~t si~ply means that we~ g_ive Ch_ina t~e ~~e tariff s~h~dule we
apply to~ every other nat10n ill the world, and Chilla will do hkewtse~ It would ehmillate
the annual vote on China's trade status, which we do not apply to any other WTO member.
Some have said we need the annual vote to address other concerns we have with China~
human rights, proliferation, or religious freedom. But Congress always has the authority to
address any part of out relationship with any nation, including China. The annual China trade
vote has not been an effective instrument. It simply has affirmed our trading relationship with
China for 20 years in a row. What permanent normal trade relations status for China will do is
get us out of the cycle we are now in, where the future of GhineM": trade comes up every single
C~;""' 'r
year for a divisive and not very effective vote.
The economic benefits of this deal to America are clear. If Congress votes no, we risk losing the
full;-enforeeabi@ market access benefits of the agreement, .as well a5 the special protections we
J).egotiated. In a global economy, where global markets are essential, American businesses and
workers would be put at an enormous disadvantage, essentially shut off from one fifth of the
world. It would be a self-inflicted wound for the economic health of Amer:r.· . .
c
f fJ, •
of Jer-io...J M.~.J''\; f-vd.Q
rj1t~tjltutf>o(
I'
'1fT(
But I believe the economic benefits are only the beginning of the argument. For I am convinced
that this agreement is as vital to our national security as it is to our economic security.
'"
her
·t-'· w
Our nation has a tremendous stake in how China evolves. We are a Pacific nation which./fought
three wars in Asia in the 20th Century. Our future is tied to Asia. And the stability of Asia-economically, politicall~ilitarily --is inextricably entwined with the stability and direction
of China. As China develops, the path it illuminates or the shadow it casts will be felt far from
its own borders.
J
�4
China will write that future as it answers some fundamental questions: It has extended some
freedoms -- but will it gairi the stability that can only come from respecting human rights and
permitting opposing political voices to be heard and felt? It is reforming its economy -- but will
it unleash the necessary ingredient of sustained growth in the information age- namely access
by its people to knowledge and unfettered thought? It has hecome deeply engaged in the
international community -- but will it make a broaq commitment to play by global rules and do
its part to address global challenges like the spread of weapons of mass destruction and climate
change? It is growing strong~r ..,-but will it use that strength-to build a more secure Asia, or to
threaten the freedom and security of its neighbors? Ultimately, the_ answers will come from
China. But we have a enormous stake in encouraging it to choose the path of integration and
reform, not confrontation and decline. Bringing China into the WTO will make a big difference.
To understand why, we needJ_o have a clear-eyeci view-of_China;neither looking through rosecolored.glasses or through tire glass darkly. We need to l~rogr·ess and its problems, its
1
system and its strains, its policies and its perceptions offue world. ffietf-·
In the last 20 years, China has made remarkable progress in building a new economy, lifting
more than :iOO million people out of absolute poverty. One incredible result is that China now
has the largest wireless communications network in the entire world, and is linking so many
people to one another that it is adding the equivalent of a~ Baby Bell every year.
0\ bo
.
But China faces daunting problems •ft'S ~ Its working age population is increasir~g by more
than 12 million people-- equal to the population of New England ~ery. year. Tens of'
millions of.peasants are migrating from the countryside, where they· see no future, to the city,
where only some find work China's political system is plagued by corruption. Its air is so dirty
that 25 percent of all deaths in China over the .age of five come from chronic respiratory disease,
four times the US. rate. And China's economic growth has slowed just when it needs to be
~ creatq jobs for the unemployed and maintain support for economic reform.
,~~
'
accoun~r
'
For all the I?rogress of China's reforms, private enterprise still
less than one-third of
its GDP. China's state banks still are making massive loans to struggling state firms, the sector
of the economy least likely to succeed. In other words, China cannot maintain stab:ility or ensure
prosperity by maintaining the status quo.
I
What does this mean for us? As the President said when Premier Zhu Rongji visited Washington
last year, "ifwe've learned anything in the last few years from Japan's long recession and
Russia's current economic troubles, it is that the weaknesses of great nations can pose as big a
challenge to America as their strengths." So as we focus on the potenthtl challenges that a :5trong
China could present to the United States in the future, let us not forget the risks that could be
posed by a weak China, beset by internal conflicts, social dislocation, criminal activity, and
large-scale illegal emigration -- a vast zone of instability in Asia.
Our interest lies in encouraging both stability and change in China by encouraging it to meet, not
stifle, the growing demands of its people for openness, accountability, freedom and reform.
Bringing China into the WTO will help in three ways.
�5 ..
First, this is not just an agreement to expand trade between our two countries.· It will obligate
China to deepen its market reforms and open its economy to the world. It will increase the pace
of change in China.
l
China's top leaders understand that economic change is both essential and risky. It is risky
because opening China's antiquated economy to global competition is likely to cause more
short-term unemployment and the specter of social unrest. But, interestingly, they also
understand that this change is essential because China cannot make the next leap in development
without world-class industries and products that can compete in the global economy. And the
only way to produce competitive industries is to open the country to outside competition. With
this WTO agreement, they have chosen to continue opening their economy, despite the risks that
path entails. Do we really want to reject that choice? .
The introduction of competition results in natural pressure for progress. A decade ago, China's
best and brightest college graduates sought jobs in the government, in large state-owned firms or
state-run research institutions or universities. More and more, the best and brightest either are
starting their own companies or choosing to work for foreign-invested companies -- where they
generally get higher pay, a better work environment, and a chance to get ahead based on merit,
not political connections.
U.S. companies are the leaders in the Chinese market in developing human resources-- by
emphasizing teamwork and respect for individual rights. In turn, more and more, Chinese firms
are learning that unless they change their working style and treat employees with respect, they
will lose out in the competition for top talent. This process will only accelerate as China joins
the WTO, and we should do al.l.we can to encourage it, because it will lift~ standards a£ C1
Chinese workers -- and their ~xpectations.
ever-\ 1-t-\l ~
.
.
Second, by accelerating economic change, the agreementwe reached also has the potential to \
encourage China to evolve into a more open society.
()1'\ COflv-p/Q, j(
.
.
In ways that are itw;amplt$ti;- but nonetheless real for millions of ordinary Chinese citizens,
China's economic opening already has given its people greater scope to live their lives. Take
Shanghai, for example, the city that has been most open to international influence. Ten years
ago, people in China did not own their own homes .. Today, 25 percent of Shanghai residents are
homeowners. When reforms began, there were no supermarkets, and citizens had to buy food
from state-run outlets using coupons. Today, there are more than 1,000 supermarkets and no
more rationing of food. A decade ago, Chinese citizens could rarely travel in or out of their own
country. Last year, on New Year's Day, airlines added more than 250 flights to international
destinations from Shanghai alone. Nationwide, China has seen the emergence of more than~tt...;
million nonprofit and social organizations -- professional associations, consumer groups, tenant
organizations, environmental groups; a 2,500 percent explosion of print and broadcast media;
and local elections in the vast majority of the country's 900,000 villages.
Let us understand: these changes do not mean that the people of China enjoy political freedom.
Chinese authorities still tolerate no organized political dissent or opposition, and no challenge to
the· Communist Party. Over the past year, we have see an increase in its crackdown on political
activities and dissent; stepped-up controls on unregistered churches; the suppression of ethnic
�6
~~
e\t'
i ·.3o
S"''- ~
-
.
'.
minority groups, especially Tibetans; and the imprisonment of even more dissidents whose only
crim~ is free speech. Because the Communist Party's ideology has largely been discredited in
China, and because it lacks the legitimacy that can only come from democratic choice, it seeks to
maintain its grip by suppressing other voices.
So let me make. very· clear: This agreement is not, by itself, a human rights policy for the United
States. We must and we will continue to speak out on behalf of people in China who are
persecuted for their political and religious beliefs. That is why we pushed for the release of
Dickinson College librarian Song Yongyi, who was released just last week. That's why we
sanctioned China as a "country of particular concern" under the International Religious Freedom
Act last year. That's why we sponsored a resolution last year in the UN Human Rights
Commission condemning China's human rights record and why we're doing it again this year.
We will continue to press China to respect global norms onlDD'n-proliferation; to encourage a;, be(/
peaceful resolution of issues with Taiwan; to urge China to be part of the solution to-the prdbfel:IlJ'
af globft.l climate change.
With or without this· WTO ·agreement, we will need to continue to work in all these areas. At the
same time, I believe this agreement will reinforce and complement these efforts, and help move
China in the right direction in fundamental ways.
For example, in the past, the. Chinese state was ev.ery citizens' employer, landlord, shopkeeper,
and news provider all rolled into one. By advancing privatization, this agreement will accelerate
a process that is removing government from vast areas of people's lives.
By giving investors and property owners IKediGt-a~·i!ity aRd- protection against arbitrary
government action, it reinforces the idea that individuals have rights. This will give added
impetus to those trying to strengthen the Chinese legal system in a way that allows citizens to
hold their government truly accountable.
Finally, by opening China's telecommunications market to cutting-edge American technology
and international firms, the WTO agreement will help bring the information revolution to cities
and towns across China. A year ago, China had two million Internet6,ddresseS) Today, it has
nine million. Soon, people in some of the most remote villages in interior China will have access
to CNN. And as they become more mobile, more prosperous, and more aware of alternative
ways of life, I believe they will seek a stronger voice in shaping their destiny.
Of course, just last week, Beijing announced that it was cracking down on the Internet. It's
outrageous-- but it's also futile. In this information age, cracking down on the Internet is like
King Canute trying to still the waters. Indeed, the fact that the Chinese government is pushing
back against the in-creasing flow of information to the Chinese people only proves that the
changes China is undergoing are real and threatening to the status quo. This kind of repression
is not an argument for slowing down the effort to bring China into the world; it's an argument
for accelerating it.
~
.
.
.
iII\. f.' IY-'>1 ,ol\
In the end, as China opens to the information economy, it/an succeed only as it liberates the
minds of its people and empowers the individual. In this age, you cannot expect people to be
creative economically and frozen politically. At the same time, China may piscover that people
are far more willing to tolerate wrenching economic change when they hav~ a say in the
ot.
lso
J
�7
. ve•fk
fate~~
laJf'2.cr~·.
decisions that affect their lives. Compare the
the governments of an autocratic Indonesia
and a democratic South Korea as they faced the Asian financial crisis o¥-er the past twa ye-at:S...Bringing China into the WTO ~b~n"t"~arantee it will make the right ch9.ice for political
reform. But by accelerating the process of economic change, it will force China to confront that
choice sooner, and make the imperative for th~t choice far more powerfuL
will1;;:~~mbination
of internal pressures for a greater
How will China change? I believe it
voice and external validation of the human rights struggle by the international community. The
WTO agreement will bolster the former while we maintain our leadership role in the latter. Our
policy should no more be measured week to week or year to year than you could have measured
Avw«(/;1~ -em policy toward the Soviet Union --with which we continued to engage; even though it posed
a much greater threat to us than China does today.
This agreement will advance our national security interests in a third way as-well: 1t mcreases
the chance that in the new century China will be on the inside of the international system,
playing by the rules; instead of on the outside, denying them.
,.,J 1/;'ikcl .
Under the terms of this agreement, the Chinese government is obliged to publish laws and
regulations. It subjects· some of its most important decisions, for the first time, to the review of
an international body. Why does that matter?
·
Quite simply, it applies to China the basic principle atthe heart of the concept of the rule oflaw:
that governments cannot behave arbitrarily at home or abroad, that their actions are subject to
rules consistently applied. Remember, China is choosing to embrace these obligations. As
China becomes a stakeholder in the WTO and other international regimes, it~ more likely
to accept the legitimacy of international norms, and define its future within the ibternational
community, not outside of it.
.
.
.
I know some say that if China is allowed to join the WTO, it actually will undermine our effort
to strengthen global norms in two very important areas: laborrights and the environment. But
the fact is, most of the members of the WTO already are developing countries, with the same
concerns that.trading rules not becom~ an instrument to restrict their growth. China's
membership won't change that equation. And considering the fact that China is home to onefifth of the world's people and the source of a rising share of greenhouse gas emissions, it is hard
to imagine ari.effective global effort to meet those environmental challenges without China.
It's fair to ask: how do we know China will do what it promised to do in the agreement we
signed? Of course, we cannot know for sure. But we do have reasons to believe that it will, and
mechanisms to reinforce that.
First, China is pledging to open its economy and its markets riot just as a· means of getting in the
WTO, but because most of its leaders believe reform is in China's interest. ·
Second, as a member ofthe WTO,non-compliance by China is subject to dispute resolution
under the WTO; like any other country, China will confront judgments hacked by a 135~
member body, rather than being able to .chalk~ friction to supposed U.S. bullying. ~,
l,f..ehina treats om=-pro9Ycts uRfairly, "We h~e no teeotirss,-short of pulligg.Jh@ J3lttg on bade. 1
d\)f'I'H~
�.
'~.
8
This agreement increases our leverage with Chiria in the event of a future trade dispute. If China
does not comply with adverse rulings by the WTO; we are entitled to take equivalent action
against China.
In the end, we must and will continue to protect our interests with firmness and candor. But we
must do so without isolating China from the global forces that can empower its people to build a
better future. That would leave the Chinese people with less access to information, less contact
with the democratic world, ctB:d mare resistance from their govsrninent to outsid0 influ0nce and_
~.No one could possibly benefit from that except for the mostrigid, anti-democratic
elements in China itself Let's not give them a victory by locking China out of the WTO .
. I
.
I\/~/"'" I.
1""" I COVthtv/1( 1 '~
The question is not whether or not this trade agreement by itselfwill cure serious and disturbing
issues of economic and political freedom in China; the issue is whether it will push things in the
right direction. President Clinton believes it will. Some of the most courageous proponents of
change in China agree. Martin Lee, leader of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, says that without
entry\~o the WTO, "any hope for the political and reform process would also recede." And
Chinese dissident Re~ Wanding said upon the dears completion: "Before, the sky was black.
now it is light. This can be a new beginning."
It is our shared conviction that supporting this agreement is a new beginning. It is the right thing
for America, for China, for Asia, and for th~ world. It will increase the chance that China will
define its future within the international' commu~ity, and move toward a more open soCiety tha,t;......~old~ tl:t0 fl:lh~ of law-. That is what is at stake in this debate. Let us have the wisdom to
choose wisely. Thank you.
###
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
February 16, 2000
For Immediate Release
PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRE.SIDENT
The East Room
2:25 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon.
I would like to cover
a couple of topics in an opening statement, and then I will take
your questions.
First, let me say that we all know that we're in the
midst of the longest and strongest economic expansion in our
history, with nearly 21 million new jobs, unemployment at 4
percent, and solid income growth across all income groups.
Americans in public service and in the private sector
must remember that our success in promoting peace and prosperity
is not·the result of complacency, but of our common commitment to
dynamic action rooted in enduring values.
If we want to continue
to enjoy success,· we must continue our commitment to dynamic
action.
There is important work to be done in America this
year, and in Washington, D.C. this year.
First, we must stay on
the path of fiscal discipline that got us to ~his point.
If we
stay on·that path, we can make America, in just 13 years, debt
free for the first time since 1835. Then we can use the benefits
of debt reduction to preserve two of the most important
guarantees we have m?-de to the American people -- Social Security
and Medicare -- something that will be a challenge as we see the
number of people over 65 double in the next 30 years with the
retirement of the baby boom ~eneration.
·
Specifically, we can make a bipartisan .down payment on
Social Security reform by crediting the interest savings from
debt reduction to the Social Security trust fund, to keep it
strong and sound foi 50 years, beyond the life span of all but
the most fortunate of the baby boom generation. As a first step
toward a comprehensive solution, I believe we should do something
I called for in my 1999 State of the Union address, to end the
earnings. limit for Social Security retirees between the ages of
65 and 69.
�2
' To strengthen and modernize Medicare, I propose to
implement important reforms and.to dedicate more than half the
non-Social Security sur~lus to Medicare, over $400 billion, to
keep it solvent for another decade, past 2025, and to add a
voluntary prescription drug benefit. I'm pleased Congress is
beginning to take up this issue, and I ask them to move quickly,
and to resist the temptation to spend large portions of the
surplus before we have lived up to our commitment toprepare for
the undeniable health and financing challenges that Medicare will
bring.
We should also move to complete the unfinished business
of the last Congress -- passing a real patients' bill of rights,
campaign finance reform, hate crimes legislation, an increase in
the minimum wage, and especially common-sense gun safety
legislation.
Guns· in the wrong hands continue to claim too many
young lives -- lives like those of Andre Wallace and Natasha
Marsh, the fine young D.C. residents who were gunned down in
front of Natasha's home last week, and were buried just
yesterday. We saw it also in Littleton just a few days ago, with
the shooting deaths ·of two teenage students from Columbine High
School.
Today, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development,·
Andrew Cuomo, who is with us today, released the first-ever
comprehensive analysis of gun-related violence in public housing
in America. The report shows that while crime in public housing
is declining, as it is in the rest of the country, gun-related
crime remains a serious problem there, with residents of public
housing more than twice as likely to be victims of gun violence
as other members of our society. More than a million children
and 360, 000 seniors live in public housing in the United States ..
They deserve to be as safe as the rest.of us. Ten months. after
the tragedy at Columbine, it is long past time for Congress to
pass this common-sense gun safety legislation.
I would also like to address the impact of rising oil
prices on American families.
In the Northeast, the impact has
been particularly harsh because, from the Mid-Atlantic states to
New England, many families still rely on home heating oil,· a
source of heating no longer used in the rest of the country.
These families have been especially hard-hit. Th~t is a serious
concern, especially because the winter months have been colder
this year than in the past few years.
Since January, we have released $i75 million. to help
lower-income families pay their heating bills. We have also
asked refiners to keep producing at full throttle until the
crisis is past. And we directed the Coast Guard to expedite
deliveries of home heating oil to affected areas. These actions
have helped to ease the· burden on the citizens who are most
vulnerable. Still, there are too many families with moderate
�3
incomes who have no option.other than heating their homes with
oil, _and they need help, too. There is more to do.
Secr~tary Richardson is· in New England today, holding a
summit with refiners, distributors and major users of home
heating oil to determine how government and industry can work
together to better meet the needs of consumers in the MidAtlantic and the New England states. Today, I'm announcing
additional steps to help families struggling to pay their heating
bills.
I directed my budget office and the Department qf Health
and Human Services to release right now the remainder of this
year's funding for emergency heating assistance, about $125
million more.
This money will be targeted toward the hardest-hit
states, those with the highest usage of home heating oil.
I will
be meeting with governors and members of.Congress in those states
to ask them to use all their authority to expand the pool of
people who receive those funds, making sure that as many people
who need the help can get it.
And let me explain what I mean by that. Under the
present law, states can pay LIHEAP assistance, low income heating
assistance to people up to 150 percent of the poverty line, the
national poverty line, or up to 60 percent of the median income
in their states;
In the states that are most severely affected,
where you have a lot of people who live on middle incomes, but
particularly if th~y have children, are really hurt by an
increase of $200 or $300 a month in their home heating bill -are eligible for this assistance but don't presently receive it.
So if we provide more money -- if the states really want to see
the maximum number of people helped, they have the ability to·
raise the income limits of people eligible for that help, and to
structure the help accordingly.
We will also be requesting $600 million in emergency
suppl'emental funding for ·the LIHEAP program to help more hard-hit
families through the current crisis, as well as to have some
money for others who may be hard hit later in the year wh~n the
hot, weather sets in.
We will send legislation to Congress in the next 10
days, and I hope there will be fast action on it. Meanwhile, we
will continue to work toward a longer-term solution.
I"ve asked
Secretary Richardson t.o conduct a 60-day study on converting
factories and major users from oil to other fuels, which will
help to free up future oil supplies for·use in heating homes.
Americans have always pulled together to help· their
fellow citizens in times of need. Over the last seven years,
we've stood to help the victims of earthquakes in California, of
the farm crisis and a 500-year flood in the Middle West, and
again and again, .and recently again this week, the violent storms
i11 the South. Now the families in the Northeast need our help,
too, and we must act.
�4
Again I say, the United States did not get to this
fortunate moment by inaction and complacency .. We got here by a
commitment to giving the American people the tools and conditions
to solve their own problems and continuing to act aggressively
and dynamically. This must be a year of that kind of action.
Thank you, ver.y much .
.Now, Helen, would you like to begin?·
Q
Mr. President, you don't seem to have any good
news on the Northern Ireland and Middle Eastern front, so I
thought I'd ask you a homefront question.
How do you like being
targeted in the Republican presidential campaign? Texas Governor
· -- I have to quote this -- Texas Governor Bush told Senator
McCain, "Whatever you do, don't equate my integrity and
trustworthiness with Bill Clinton. That's about ai low as you
can. get in the Republican primary." And McCain said that he
resented being called "Clinton" or "Clinton-like," and a few
other things. ·What do you say?
I
THE PRESIDENT: Well -- (laughter) -- I have a couple
of observations. One is, you know, they're pl:aying to an
elec.torate, most of whom did not vote for me. And secondly, I
have a lot of sympathy with Governor Bush and Senator McCain.
I
mean, it's hard for them tq figure out what to run on. They
can't run against the lc;mgest economic expansion in history; or
the lowest crime rate in 30 years; or the lowest welfare rolls in
30 years; or the progress America has made in promoting peace
around the world; or the fact that our party overrode theirs and
passed the family leave, and it's benefited 20 million people and
it hasn't hurt the economy.
So they've got a tough.job, and I have a lot of<
sympathy with them. And I don't want to complicate their
problems by saying any more about them.
(Laughter.)
Terry?
Q
Mr. President, there are growing calls for a
national moratorium on capital punishment, from the American Bar
Association to members of Congress. Governor Ryan has halted
executions in Illinois, as you know, because the convictions of
13 people on death row were overturned. On the other hand,
Governor Bush said last night that he's confident that the 100
people who were put to death in Texas under his watch were all
guilty. You've had some experience with this.
You signed four
death warrants -- or execution. warrants while you were governor.
What's your feeling about a moratorium on executions?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I think Governor Ryan did
the right thing, and it was probably a courageous thing to do,
because a majority of the American people support c~pital
punishment, as do I. But I think that in Illinois, ·you had a
situation where the exonerations and the executions were about
�' 5
equal in number over the last several years.
So he had a
difficult situation, and I think he did the right thing.
And I think that if I were a governor still, I would
look very closely at the situation il). my state and decide what
the facts· were. There are, I think, not those grounds for that
kind of moratorium under the federal law because of the
circumstances under which people are convicted. Now, we have a
different review going on here, a Justice Department review on
the racial impact, or whether there was one in the death penalty
decisions under the federal law. There are 27 people who have
been sentenced to death under federal law, 20 in the civilian
courts and seven through the military system.
We also are in the process of developing guidelines for
clemency applications when any individual's claims of innocence
or questioning of the sentence, even though guilt is not a
question, can be pressed. And, I think, in an attempt to address
the problem you mentioned, I think Senator Leahy has introduced
some legislation to try to give convicted criminal defendants
access to DNA testing and other things, which might tend to
disprove their guilt.
·
So I think all these things need to be looked at.
The
people who support the death penalty, it seems to me, have an
especially heavy obligation to see. that in cases where it is
applied, there is no question of whether the guilt was there.
So
the only issue that is left is whether philosophically you think
it is the right or wrong thing to do.
Q
So you would not support a ban -- you would not
support suspending it or a moratorium now?
THE PRESIDENT:
In the federal cases, I don't believe
it is called for.
But, as I say, we do have the review going on
in terms of the racial implications of the way it's been applied
and we're also in the process of drawing up guidelines for
clemency requests,.which, obviously, would give people an
opportunity to raise the question of whether there was some doubt
about their guilt or innocence.
But I do think Governor Ryan did the right thing.
think it was a ·great thing to do.
I
Q
Mr. President, next month you're go1ng on a trip
to India and Bangladesh, but not Pakistan. What can Pakistan's
military rulers do to get you to reconsider?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I haven't decided
whether I'm going to Pakistan, or not.
I have decided that I am
going to India and Bangladesh, and.I will make a decision about
whether to go based on what I think will best serve our long-term
interests in non-proliferation, in trying to stop, particularly,
the arms raise, and. trying to help to promote stability,
�6
de.mocracy and a resolution of the conflict between India and
Pakistan.
I hope that my trip will serve ~to highlight to
Americans.the importance of that region.to u_s, and the very real
danger that a conflict between India and Pakistan not contained
is one of the most significant security threats to the interests
of the United States in this new century -- and, I might say, a
tragic. situation.
You know, we -- I think one of the reasons we've been
able to play a meaningful role in Northern Ireland is we have so
many Irish Americans here.
I think one of the reasons we've been
able to play a meaningful role in the Middle East is we have a
lot of Jewish Americans and a lot of Arab Americans.
I think we
forget that among all the some-200 ethnic groups that we have in
o:ur country, Indian Americans and Pakistani Americans· have been
among the most successful in terms of education level and income
level.
They have worked and succeeded stunningly well in the
United States and, astonishingly maybe, had good contacts with
one another.
And I think the United States should be more involved
there, even though I think that they'll have to work out this
business of Kashmir between themselves. Unless we were asked by
both parties to help, ·we can't get involved. We've been -- in
every other case we're involved, it's because both parties have
asked us to be involved.
But I will make a decision about where to go and what
to do based on what I think will further our long-term goals.
And I have not reached a final decision.
Q
Mr. President, as you're well aware, the Arkansas
Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct has initiated an
investigation into a complaint regarding statements that you made
in testimony before Judge Susan Webber Wright -- action that
could include disciplinary action, up to and including
disbarment. My question, sir, is, would you be willing to
surrender your law license to avoid such a hearing? Or will you
fight it, up to and including availing yourself of a public
hearing, as you are entitled to under the regulations?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say to you, the reason -and the only reason -- I even settled the lawsuit in the first
plade was because I thought that it was wrong for the President
to take an hour, much less a day, much less weeks, away from the
job of the .American people to deal with anything that could be a
distraction. And I did it only after there was a court ruling
that the case had absolutely no merit, which was obvious to
everybody who looked at the facts.
Now, I haven't changed my position on that. As a
result, in all the things that have happened subsequently, I have
�7
left a lot of things unsaid which I might have otherwise said.
And I hope I can continue to do that, and that's what I'm going
to do today.
I don't think I should be spending my time on this.
I think I'm working for the American people. And I'm going to do
my best to adhere to that. And as a result, I have refrained
from saying a lot of things I would otherwise have said, as an
American citizen and as a lawyer.
Yes, go ahead, in the back.
'Q
Mr. President, along the lines of the heating oil
situation or whatever, would you at any point consider -because, perhaps as the prices continue to spike up -- would you
at any point consider that it could have some detrimental effect
on the economy? Would you consider tapping into the Strategic
Petroleum Reserves? And conversely, I'd like to ask if we as
Americans have some kind of divine right to cheap gasoline and
cheap-heating oil?
THE PRESIDENT:
Well, you've asked two questions, and
let me try to answer them. And ·I'd like to make, if I might,
three points.
Number one, the statute for using the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve sets forward the conditions under which it
might be used. And I have not ruled out any action which I think
is in the .interest of the American people.
Number two, I think what is in our interest are stable
prices that are not too high, but don't drop rea,l low, encourage
over-consumption, and then jump way up again. That is, what we
need is stable prices that are not too high, but that are also ·
stable.
· ·
·
·
.I also think that is in the interest of the producing
countries·. Why? Because if prices got so high they weakened -disregard America's economy-- other people's economies, that
would shrink the markets for the producers.
If the economy goes
down, that would lower the price and they'd wind up with the
worst of both worlds.
If the price stayed up for any period of
time, ~t would make non-OPEC members who could produce oil more
likely to do it, which would further drive the price down.
So I think the OPEC members understand that and I think
there is an interest in stable prices at an acceptable level.
And we have these conversations all along and I think that is
clear. And we will see what happens on that. But I wouldn't
rule out using the Petroleum Reserve.
Now, the third point I want to make is this.
You said,
do Americans have a right to cheap gas and cheap heating oil.
What I want to do, because I think it's important for our longterm security, is get America in a position where the fuel
efficiency of our vehicles is so great -- or our ability to use
�8
alternative-fuel vehicles, or dual-use vehicles, biofuels, mixed
electric and gasoline-fuel vehicles that have automatically
regenerating batteries -- that our capacity to do that is so
great that we will not be reliant on the ups and downs of
supplies, and the increases that might come in the future would
have a much more limited impact on us.
I would remind you that these increases have had a
much, much more limited impact on the United States than the oil
price increases of t.he '70s, for example, because we're so much
more energy efficient.
The final point I would like to make is, there are all
kinds of problems and historical explanations for why the MidAtlantic and New England states are so dependent on home heating
oil, and no place else is, but it's not a good situation.
It's
just not. We need to examine it. That's one of the things I
asked Secretary Richardson tq look at, is· look at what are the
institutional barriers for businesses and individuals cqnverting
away from heating oil to heating sources that are more commonly
used in other places?
What are the costs? Are there any
federal ~ctions that might be undertaken in concert with the
states or with the private sector to help minimize those costs
and facilitate a conversion.
The people on home heating oil are the most vulnerable
people in American by a good long ways to these radical swings in
oil prices. And it's also because they're delivered essentially
by individual businesses who come to your home and send you a
bill, consumers don't have the option that many of you who live
in D.C. have, for example -- you can average your electric bills.
You can average your utility bills over a period of months.
So
if you have a couple of bad months, you can average them out.
Those options are not available to them either.
So I think we have to look long-term, in my judgement,·
at whether there's a conversion strategy there that would enable
a whole different energy future to open up in terms of home and
business energy usage.
Q
Mr. President, on the topic of gun control, as
you.'re well aware, the central sticking point in the Congress is
over this division between the Senate and the House over a
waiting period for gun sales at gun shows.
The Senate has
endorsed 72 hours. The House. and a goodly number o:f Democrats
endorsed 24 hours. Would you accept a compromise in between,
sir or is that 72 -hour wai.ting period SO important you prefer
no bill to a compromise?
1
1
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I think, to me, this is a
fact question. There are two benefits to the waiting period.
One is, does it really give you an adequate amount of time to
check the records? And two is, should ther~ 'be a cooling-off
�9
period of somebody who is really hot buys a gun with a bad intent
and might cool down ~nd refrain?
If you move away from 72 hours to a shorter period,
then the question is, since so many of these gun shows occur on
the weekend, will there be access to the records to do the check?
Will you be able -- I mean, to me, in terms of all compromises
at least, I can only tell you what I believe -- this is not
theology. This is, what does it.take as a practical matter to
have a bill that works to keep people alive.
I mean, there's no
question that the Brady Bill has kept a lot of people alive. And
there is, furthermore, no question that there has not-been a huge
amount of inconvenience in the waiting period.
Now, I know what the argument is. The argument is,
well, the gun show people are mobile.
So it'snot like you can
wait five days, go back to the same store where you placed the
order for the gun and it"s going to be there five·days from now.
And the guns shows are mobile.
I understand what the problem is.
But there has got to be a solution here that deals with that.
Maybe they could park the guns at the local police department or
something else. There's got to be some way to deal with this
that allows us to have a practical law that works. The one thing
I will not do is I will not sign a law which promises the
American people that this is going to make them safer, and it
won't do it.
·
But I am not hung up -- I don't think we should be hung
up on any of the facts.
The facts should be, what is necessary
to make us a safer people? What is necessary to save more lives?
That should be the only driving concern. ·
Q
Mr. President, is a candidate's past record on
abortion fair game in a campaign? The First Lady seems to think
it is; the Vice President seems to think it .isn't.
THE PRESIDENT: Oooh __ , (laughter.)
Now, if I get into
that, then you'll have me handicapping that debate last night.
(Laughter. )
Let me just say this.
I'll make a generic comment
about that because I think all of you are going to be writing
about this.
I .see, you know, one candidate says this about the
other's record; then one complains about how the other one
interprets his record and all that kind of stuff.
I have never
seen a hard-foug~t political race where candidates did not
disagree with their opponent's characterization of their record
and their positions.
I mean, that's part of the debate and it.' s
always going to happen.
And, again, I think anything I say to get in the middle
of that is not -- I'm not running for office and, by and large, I
think I shouldn't comment under -- there may be a few exceptions,
but I think, basically, the American people are in the driver's
�10
seat, they're making this decision.
I get to vote like everybody
but I'm not a candidate, and I don't thirik I ought to get
in the way unless there's some specific issue related to
something I've done as President.
else~
Q
Mr. President, may I return to Northern Ireland,
sir? In light of what's happened this week, wasn't it a mistake
not to ask for specific assurances to disarm from the IRA -- not
Sinn Fein, but the IRA -- in advance of going down the political
road and starting a new government?
THE PRESIDENT:
I think Senator Mitchell believes, who,
you know, negotiated the Good Friday Accords, that, like any
accords of that kind, there were compromises involved that both
sides had to accept about the other. And I believe he thought he
got the strongest agreement he could.
It was ratified
overwhelmingly by the Irish people -- by both communities in the
North, and overwhelmingly by the Republic of Ireland.
It has been honored, to date, in all of its specifics,
including standing up the governmental institutions -- although
there was a delay of several months in doing that. And then the
De Chastelain report came out, and then after the British
government passed through the Parliament the bill, in effect,
suspending the· institutions and reasserting control over Northern
Ireland, the IRA made certain representations which General De
Chastelain considered quite hopeful ..• And now they're in a rough
spot.
But I don't think you.can Monday-morning-quarterback
that.
I think Senator Mitchell and all the people who were
negotiating it got the best deal they could from both sides. And
I think what we have to recognize now is, while this is a very
unfortunate development, a year ago at this time, the Irish had
had no taste of what self-governmen~ was like. They now have had
it, and they like it -- positive point number one.
Positive point number two: The IRA has given no
indication whatever that they will revert to violence. And so
that means that they still think, no matter what the rhetoric
sa~s, th~t all the parties really believe that they· ought to find
a way to work this out. And I can assure you, virtually every
day since I've been here we've worked on this. And in the last
several days, we've been involved on a daily basis, and we're · ·
working very hard to work, .. this out.
I can't tell you what the
end will be.
I can only tell you that I think we're way ahead of
·where we would have been and I still think there's a good chance
we'll get there.
Q
Maybe this will be one of the exceptions that
you'll be willing to make:
Senator Bradley has made it a point
of late to challe~ge·vice President Gore's voracity-essentially, to cast him as a politician not to be trusted.
He's
been your Vice President for the last seven years. Are you
�11
offended by those remarks? Certainly there's nobody in a better
position than you to speak to his character.
THE PRES-IDENT: Well, my feelings are hot relevant, .
but I can say this: He has always -~ one of the great strengths
that he had as Vice President is that he was always brutally
honest with me . . I mean, he was never afraid to disagree with me.
AJ]d when we had ve.,:y tough decisions, very often we'd be in these
big meetings, and very -- you see these -- when these tough
decisions come down -- and I mean this, no offense to any of you,
this is actually a compliment to you -- but when you've got seven
people in.a meeting and some huge decision is on the line, and
you realize that if you make the wrong call, it can not only be
bad for the country, it could be very bad for the health of the
administration -- it's amazing to see how some people guard their
words, because they're so afraid that what they say, even'though
the meeting is in confidence, will be public.
In all those tough
times, he took a -- he decided what he thought was right, and he
took a clear and unambiguous stand. And I think the country is
better for it. And I could give you lots of examples.
I mean, he·
when it was an unpopular thing to go into
Kosovo, he wanted to do it. When it was unpopular to go into
Bosnia, he wanted to do it. When it was unpopular to, stand up
for freedom in Haiti, he wanted to do it.
When only 15 percent
.of the people thought.we ought to help Mexico, but I knew it
could hurt our economy, he was right there. And I could go on
and on.
So all I can tell you is that in all my dealings with
him, he has been candid in the extreme, and all anyone could ever
ask.
No~, I'll say again what I said before:
I have never
seen a tough race where people fought with each other, where they
didn't have different interpretations of each other's record and
each other's positions. And then once you disagree with
someone's position or someone's record, then the person will say,
I just think you're mischaracterizing it. Now, depending on the
level of heat· and intensity of the campaign, how they say that
and how they feel about it will go up or down.
·But this happens in every election. And I think the
important thing to remember is, you've basically got four people
running for·president now who are people of accomplishment,
people who have certain convictions, people who have, I think,
pretty clear philosophies and records. And I know that everybody
will get hot and mad at everybody els·e, but, I mean, this is not
a bad thing for America, this choice they've got. And they're
very different ..
So America lias a good choice, And I think that it's
tough to be in these races, and when you're not running anymore
you can look back -- everybody can look back on a life in public
life and say, there's one .thing I said I kind of wish I hadn't
said, or, I said that and I believe what I said, but I wish I
�12
said it in a slightly different way. But, by and large, what's
happening here is just perfectly normal, and we shouldn't get too
exercised by it.
Q
You don't think Bill Bradley's charges have been
below the belt?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't agree -- I'm not going to
get into. characterizing his charges. You asked
if the Vice
President -- I don't have to fight this campaign for anybody ..
You asked me if the Vice President had been perfectly honest and
candid with me; and I said, yes, in the extreme; and that's true
and America's been well served by it. That's .all I can say.
me
My experience is that he is exceedingly honest and
exceedingly straightforward, and has taken a lot of tough
positions which, since he always, presumably, knew he wanted to
run for president,. could have cost him dearly, and he did it
anyway. And I was proud of him for doing it.
Susan.
Q
Mr. President, I would like to follow up on Steve
Holland's question.
You said that it's up to India and pakistan
to settle the issue of Kashmir and that they have not asked the
U.S. to help mediate that dispute.
If India and Pakistan both
ask the United States to get involved to try to help mediate the
·issue of Kashmir, would the United States be willing to do that?
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.
I would. Why? For the
same reason we've been involved in Northern Ireland and the
Middle East. Because, number one and most importantly, it is a·
hugely important area of the world.
If the tensions between
India and Pakistan on the Indian subcontinent could be resolved,
it is my opinion, based on my personal experience with people
from India, people from Pakistan and people from Bangladesh, that
the Indian subcontinent might very well be the great success
story of the next 50 years.
You're talking about people who are basically immensely
talented, have a strong work ethic, a deep devotion to their
faith and to their families.
There is nothing they couldn't do.
And it is heartbreaking to me to see how much they hold each
other back by being trapped in yesterday's conflicts -- number
one.
Numb'er two, like Northern Ireland and the Middle East,
this country has been deeply enriched by people from the Indian
subcontinent, and I think we might be, because of our population,
in a position to make a constructive contribution. But if they
don't want us, it won't be doing any good; we'd just be out there
talking into the air. And I'm not in for that.
Yes, Mark.
�13
Q
Mr. President, by your answer earlier to John
Roberts, did you mean to say that you or your lawyers would not
offer a defense to the Committee on Professional Conduct?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I meant to say I'm not going to
discuss it any more than I absolutely have to because I don't
think I should be dealing_with it.
I should be dealing with my
job.
Yes, Mara.
Q
You say you're not running this year, but you are
casting a shadow over the debate on the campaign trail. And all
of the candidates -THE PRESIDENT:
I'd like to think I'm casting a little
sunshine over it.
(Laughter.)
I keep trying to build these
fellows up, you know.
I'm being nice and generous and all that.
(Laughter.)
Q
All of the candidates are running against your
behavior and conduct -- not just the Republicans, as Helen
mentioned, but all of the candidates.
THE PRESIDENT:
(Laughter. )
Well, if I were running,
I'd do that.
Q
But on the other hand, also all of the candidates,
Republicans and Democrats, do so~nd a lot like you when they talk
about policy.
Even the Republicans say they want prescription
drug coverage for Medicare -THE PRESIDENT:
Yes.
Q
-- and they support a patients' bill of rights
with the right to sue. And I am wondering if you could comment
on both aspects of your influence -- both the negative, the fact
that everybody seems to be running against your behavior, and
also, on the other side, why everyone seems to sound like you
when they discuss policy.
THE PRESIDENT:
First of ali, I think, for the
Republicans, it's probably good politics to do that, because they
spent years and years trying to tell everybody how bad I am --
Q
But it's not just
THE PRESIDENT:
So, so
but for everybody -- the
public, however-- people are really smart, you know, and it's
pretty hard to convince them that they should hold anyone
responsible for someone else's mistake, particularly a personal
mistake.
I mean, I can't imagine any voter ever doing that.
That's like shooting yourself in the foot.
�14
I even caution people,rfor example, if somebody says
something -- one of you says something or prints something, or
has a story that we don't agree with -- I tell people all the
time, don't ever talk about the press, there is no such thing as
"the press."· You can't ~lame-- if you think somebody made a.
mistake, you can't blame everybody else for a mistake somebody
made.
But that's in a professional context.
In a personal
context, it's even more true.
So my view is that the voters are going to -- this is,
as I have said repeatedly, the presidential election is the
world's greatest job interview. And the voters are going to hire
someone that they believe, of course, is a good person, a strong
person, a person who will be a credit to the office.
But they
want to know what in the world are a they going to do? How are .
we going to keep this expansion going? How are we going to meet
the big challenges facing the country?
And it is, to me, a source of reassurance -- not
personal, but for my country's future -- that so many of the
dandidates have adopted at least some of the policies th~t we
have tried to put in place over the last seven years, that moved
the country away from this big, deep partisan division that
dominated Washington politics for so long.·
So all I can tell you is, I think -- my instinct is
that the voters are going to take the measure of these people.
They're going to think: ·Who will be a good President; who will
make good decisions; and do I.agree with this person, in terms of
priorities and positions? That's what I think.
I think the
implication that anybody would be held responsible for somebody
else's mistake or misconduct is just -- it's a real insult to the
American people. And they're not going to do that.
That's not
in their interest, and it's not in their nature.
They're too
smart and too good for that.·
_ .. ___
/Q
·----M~ ~-P-~e~ict~~t-; --;,oliicf you-~1~---o~~~-~M~-~~-~--y~ar~
<~utomat_i_c renewal of China's normal trading status, unless
lCongress disagrees? And do you think that
D.Eill\QC::_~?l!;S_ would find easier to acceEtJT
wou~d
\. 1
be .a f.ormula
-·
I~~NT_~ T~:~ ~ould
LEHE- PRE_S
be a -- I would not support
·
that because-;-···in order to get China into the WTO, and in order
for us to benefit from the terms of .the agreement that Ambassador
Barshefsky and Gene Sperling and others made with China, they
have to get permanent normal trading status.
And since you asked the question, let me tell you why I
feel so strongly ~bout it.
This is not a pplitical issue for me;
this is a huge national security issue -- for thre.e reasons.
Number one, our biggest trade deficit is with China, because.
China has access t6 our markets and our access to their~ is
highly restricted.
This trade agreement offers no increased
�15
access -to the American markets by China, but gives us
.dramatically increased access to their market~.
Moreover, it means that we can get access to their
markets without having to trahsfer technology or agree to do
manufacturing in their country, and we retain specific rights,
even once China is in the WTO, on a bilateral basis to take
action if there is a big surge of imports in some sector into our
economy that would throw a lot of people out of work in a short
time.
So, economically, from agriculture to high-tech
products to automobiles and all things in between, I think this
agreement is a clear 100-or-nothing deal for us.
The price of
admission to the WTO is modernizing and opening the economy.
Number two, having China in a rule-based system
increases the likelihood not only that China will follow the
rules of the road in terms of the international economy, but that
China will cooperate more in other forums -- the United Nations
and many other areas -- to try to help reduce, rather than
increase, the proliferation of dangerous weapons or technology,
for example. That's what I believe with all my heart.
Number three, I believe this agreement will change
China from within more than all the other economic opening of the
last 20 years combinea, fairly rapidly, because of the dramatic
increase in access to communications and contact with the outside
world that this agreement portends.
Now, as I said in the State of the Union address, and I
tried to say it again when I went over to Switzerland to talk,
the truth is, I don't know what _choice China will make, I don't
know what path China will take, and neither does anyone else.
So
I don't want oversell this to the. American people in'that sense.
But what I believe I do know, based on all my experience not only
as President, but just with human nature, is that they are far
more likely to be constructive members of the international
community if they get into the WTO and they make these changes
than if they don't.
And I think it's quite interesting-- one of the things
that has really moved me·on this, since one of the big issues
with which we have. differences with China is in the repression of
political and re·ligious expression, is how many of the religious
groups that actually have missions operating in China agree with
this.
People that have actually worked there, lived there, and
been subject to some of the repression there agree that what
we're doing is the right thing to do.
I think that a substantial
-- a majority of opinion in Taiwan agrees that this is the right
thing to do.
So I'm going to push this as hard as I can.
I want to
get the earliest possible vote I can. And I cannot tell you how
�16
important I think it is..
I think that if we didn't do this, we
would be regretting it for 20 years. And I think 10 years from
now, we'll look back, and no matter what decisions .China makes,
we'll say, the only thing we could control is what we did, and
what we did was the right, the honorable and the smart thing to
do for America over the long run. ·
Q
Both Senator Bradley and Vice President Gore have
condemned your nomination of Bradley Smith to the FEC. Would you
care to take this opportunity to explain exactly why you've
nominated this man, and to say what exactly this says about your
own commitment to the campaign finance reform that you said you
would support?
THE PRESIDENT:
Well, it doesn't say anything about my
commitment·, although I think they were right to condemn it,
except that -- look at what t'he law says.
The law says, A, this
is a Republican appointment; and,· B, as a practical matter, the
way the appointments process works in the Senate, if you want
anybody to be confirmed for anything,.you have to take-- and the
Republicans in this case happen to be in the majority -- the
Majority Leader always makes that recommendation.
Now, I have -- I argued with him, as he will tell you,
for months about this. And there is a reason they wanted Bradley
Smith on the FEC.
You know, he hates campaign finance, Bradley
Smith does.
He's written about it. And he'll get a three-year
appointment now, where it will be one person on the FEC.
And I
don't like it; but I decided that I should not shut down the
whole appointments process and depart from the plain intent of
the law, which requires that it be bipartisan and by all
tradition that the Majority Leader make the nomination.
And I think it ought to be instructive for the American
people, and you ought not to change the subject and confuse them.
We have a bill, the McCain-Feingold bill before the Congress.
The administration is for it; both the Democratic candidates for
president are for it; and 100 percent of our caucus in the Senate
and the House are for it.
Every last person down to the. last man
and woman.
There is only one reason this is not the law.
The
Republicans are not for it.
And ever since I've been here -- we didn't have
unanimous support in '93, but ever since '94, '95, somewhere in
there, we·always had a big majority of the Democratic Party for
campaign finance reform and a big majority of the Republicans
against it, even though some Republicans are for it.
But,
basically, the big majority of the Republican Party, particularly
in the House and the Senate -- I don't mean out :i.n the country, I
mean in the House and the Senate·-- are against this.
That's why
it is not the law of the land.
That is the ultimate truth.
This appointment ·
demonstrates that.
It's the poster child -- this. should be
�17
this is like a big neon sign, "hello, America needs" -- if you
care about this issue, you need to know what the real issue is
here.
Ever since I've been here, there's been an attempt to say,
oh, a pox on both their houses; the Democrats don't really care;
if they really cared, if the President really cared, somehow we
would have this.
It is just not true.
·
What else can we do? Both our presid~ntial candidates,
the White House, and 100 percent of our members of Congress are
for it. Why hasn't there been a signing ceremony? Because they
are against it. Now, this man, his writings and his honest
convictions demonstrate that. And I hope there will be no
further doubt about this.
The American people can make their owri
decision.
Q
Mr. President, current polls show that your wife
is virtually tied with her likely challenger, Mayor Rudy
Giuliani, when it comes to women voters in .New York, and that she
is trailing when it comes to white voters. And by most accounts,
women will play a decisive role in this. race.
Can you address
why you _think your wife is having some trouble connecting with·
women vofers, in particular; what advice, if any, you're offering
her to help her better connect; and are you playing the role of a
senior strategist in her campaign?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm basically doing for her what
she's always done for me.
You know,· I'm· talking to her about
whatever she wants to talk about.
I'm giving her my best ideas.
I thought she had a wonderful announcement.
I was really proud
of her.
She got up there and said that sh~ understood she was
new to the neighborhood, but. she wasn't new to the concerns of
the people of New York. And then she said in .exact detail -- she
did what I believe all candidates should do -- she said, look, if
you vote for me, here's what you get. Here's what I'll fight
for.
Here's what I'll do.
Here's what I'll fight against.
Here's what I won't do.
And now the campaign is underway. And I think she's
doing remarkably well, given the unusual nature of the campaign
and the formidable obstacles out there. And I think now the
people will begin to listen and debate, and I think she'll do
real well.
But I'm very proud of her, and I think she's doing
fine.
But you should not -- all I'm doing for her is what she
did for me.
So when she says something, it's what she believes.
And she's made up her mind what she wants to run on, what she
wants to be for, and why she wants to do it. And I was
ecstatically happy with the way her announcement came ·out,
because I just knew it was her. And I just think if -- you know,
you just go out there and make your best shot and hope that it
works.
But my instinct is, she'll do right well.
Sarah, go ahead.
�18
Q
Sir, do you see any way to make the presidency a
position that is close~ to the people? It's sort of aloof, now.
And·you're a friendly type of man.
You must see some means
whereby you can bring the presidency down to the people more.
THE PRESIDENT: Well~ I think part of what makes the
presidency aloof is that if you show up for work every day you
don't have as much time to spend with people as you'd like.
I
think that -- I think technology will h~lp some.
I think this
web chat I did earlier this week with Wolf Blitzer, where he
asked me questions, but he also let a lot of other people ask
questions -- I thought that was a good way to do it.
I think that -- in my first term, I did a lot of these
town hall meetings, and I think they're good, although I think
they tend to get turned in a certain way around whatever's
breaking in the news at any given time.
I've tried to not get too aloof from the people.
I
went down to the Rio Grande Valley the other day.
I was the
first President since President. Eisenhower to go down there and
I've been there three times. And a lot of people came out and I
stopped along the s~reet and talked.to them and visited with
them.
I think that you have to have -- I think doing these press
conferences helps.
I think using the Internet and finding other
ways that ordinary citizens can ask you questions in the course
of your work helps. Anq I think that you have to find the proper
balance of work in Washington and getting out with the folks to
do that.
It's a constant struggle, but my instinct is that
technology will help.
I think a lot of you, for example -- I
think your jobs are changing because of the way technology works.
And ~here will be ways that you also can help make people in
public life less aloof and bring more people into it.
It's going
to be very interesting.
Yes, go ahead.
Q
Mr. President, to follow up on what you said
before -- you said that no one should b~ held accountable for
somebody else's actions.
But if you examine the suspension of
the powers in Northern Ireland last week, the British government
was holding Sinn Fein responsible for the IRA.not disarming.
According to the Good Friday Accord, they encouraged both sides
to encourage disarmament.
Is.there any protest on your part to
the British government for bringing down a democratically-elected
government -- and similar to .the way you pointed your finger at
the IRA in a statement saying that you hoped that there wouldn't·
be any backsliding· after they retracted their previous
statements.
�19
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say, first of all, I was
in constant contact with the Irish and the British governments
and I think we all know what is going on here. The question is,
how can we keep the peace process going; how can we get the
institutions back up; and how can we keep the Unionist Party
involved and under the leadership of David Trimble -- an
objective I believe that Sinn Fein strongly supports. That is, I
believe that they believe that they have to have people they can
work with in order to make this thing last.
I have found that my influence is greater when I say
what I think about most of these things to the parties
themselves, but when I don't try to make their jobs any harder by
what I say, particularly after the fact.
Now, our big job now is
to get these people back on track.
In order to do it, we have to
honor the votes of the people of Northern Ireland; we've got to
stand these institutions back up; and then all the parties that
said they supported the Good Friday Accords and the people they
represent who voted in record numbers for it, they've got to
comply. And we've got to find a way to get this done.
And I think that -- I know it's not satisfying to a lot
of people, they want me to be judgmental about everything. And
all I can tell you is, in private I've tried to be
straightforward and clear wi_th them. But I don't want to say
anything that would make it even harder to put this thing back
together. We've got to keep going forward.
The most important
thing now is to look about how to go forward and how to get
how to keep the Unionists in harness, and how to find a way to
comply with all the requirements, including putting those
institutions back up.
Q
Mr. -President, back on the rising oil prices,
~ecretary Richardson is beginning a series of consultations with
oil companies. Do you think that· this will have some moderating
effect on oil prices?
·
THE PRESIDENT:
I think that oil prices may well
moderate. We'll have to see about that. But what I think that
he wants to do is to make sure that we've gotten rid of some of
the bottlenecks. There are plainly some reasons that are only
indirectly related to the g~neral rise in oil prices -- that home
heating oil prices, for example, have gone up so explosively.
That's why he went up to. Boston first, and why,the Coast Guard is
trying to assure rapid delivery of the oil.
So I think that he believes that in his talks with the
oil companies -- not necessarily he can talk the oil prices in
the aggregate down; but that they may be able to take certain
specific steps which would alleviate some of the biggest burdens
on them.
Q
-- the oil-producing countries, I believe. he's
going to make some consultations around the world.
�20
'~
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think we're in regular touch
with them and they know what our views are.
I think that's all I
should say about that.
Q
Back on an earlier question,· the death penalty
you mentioned that supporters of the death penalty 1 like
yourself, have a special burden to make sure that innocent people
are not executed. And you mentioned the Leahy·bill, but you
didn't state a position on that. ·· That would make DNA testing
available .to death row inmates.
Is it a good idea? Is it
workable? Would you sleep better at night if it were law?
I
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, .the reason I didn't
take a position on it -- I tried to make it clear that I am quite
favorably disposed toward it, but I just learned .about in the
last couple of days, and I've asked our people to review it, to
answer the questions that you ask:·
Would I sleep better at night, if it were law? If it
would really work, I would.
In other words, I am favorably
disposed toward it.
I just w~nt -- and we just have a review
underway to analyze the law, how it would work, whether it will
work, what, if any, practical problems are there. And I am
trying to come to grips with it and as soon as I do, I'll be glad
to state ~ position. But I want to make it clear -- I· ·thought I
had made it clear before -- I am favorably disposed ..
Q
On the issue of Vieques and Puerto Rico,
currently, there is major resistance by religious groups, civic
groups, opposition parties to the agreement reached on Vieques.
There's continued civil disobedience on Navy lands. This might
entail a Waco-style operation to get these protestors out. Are
you willing to go all the way with federal authority to clear
these federal lands? And as a follow-up, do you believe in ·your
heart that Puerto Rico's colonial status is the root of this
problem, or is related to Puerto Ricans' ambivalence to issues of
national security?
THE PRESIDENT:
I think the root of the problem -- I
think the root of the problem is .t.wofold. One is, as the
Pentagon has acknowledged·-- and they should get credit in Puerto
Rico for doing this.
It's hard to get people in Washington to
admit they're wrong, including me. We all hate to do it, you
know -- including you. We all h~te to do it. The Pentagon has
acknowledged that the 1983 agreement was not followed, in letter
and spirit. They have acknowledged that. That left a bad taste
in the mouths of the people of Vieques, and of all Puerto Rico.
Problem two is the unwillingness of the Cong~ess to
give a legislatively-sanctioned vote to the people to let them
determine the status of Puerto Rico. Now, I think those are the
roots of the problem.
�,.,
21
Now, there may be some people there who, on any given
day, would be, ·r don't know, against the military, or would think
the military shouldn't train, or whatever.
But it's clear that
if you look at the offer we made -- to begin now to give the
western part of the island to Puerto Rico; to facilitate transit
back and forth between Vieques and the main island; to do·a lot
of the other environmental and economic things on the island of
Vieques; to have no live fire in the short run here whil~ we're
going through this transition period; to cut the trairiing d~ys in
half; and then to let the people decide for themselves what the
future of the island is, but to give us a transition period when
we don't have any other place to·train -- it is a perfectly
reasonable compromise, unless either those first two things are
eating at you, so you don't trust anything America or the
Pentagon does, or unless you're·just philosophically opposed to
America having a military which has to train.
So I still believe it's a good agreement.
I will
continue to work with the Governor, with the Mayor in Vieques,
with the authorities, 'with a view toward trying to work this out.
I want the people of Puerto Rico to decide this~
You know, I did
a message to them.
I wish they could decide their status.
If it
were just up to me, if !_could sign an executive order and let
them have·a s~nctioned election~ I would do it today. And I view
this comp~omise as an empowerment of the people of Puerto Rico,
and, to that extent, a ratification of their longstanding
'grievances.
But the people of Vieques should be able to decide
this. And I don't think that -- just .as I don't think the
Pentagon should impose it on them, I don't think the
demonstrators should stop them from having a vote either.
I
think they ought to be able to make a judgment.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
END
.3:25 P.M. EST
�2/23/00 Final
Orzulak
!'.
PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
REMARKS TO THE BUSINESS COUNCIL
ON CHINA
WASHINGTON, DC
FEBRUARY 24, 2000
�1
Acknowledgments: Ralph Larsen; Phil Cassidy;
Cindy Cassidy; ladies and gentlemen: _earlier today,
you heard from Secretary Summers arltl AitumlssiidM
~about
the upcoming debate over China's
entry into the WTO. I want to spend a few minutes
telling you why I think this is one of the most
important votes this Congress or any Congress will
cast.
�2
For the past 30 years, every one of my predecessors
has worked for the emergence of a China that
contributes to peace in Asia; that is open to American
products, farmers, and businesses; that allows its
people access to ideas and information; that upholds
the rule of law at home and adheres to global rules
abroad. The reason is simple: America has a
tremendous stake in how China evolves. We are a
Pacific nation that has fought three wars in Asia in the
20th Century. As China develops, the path it
illuminates or the shadow it casts wil\ be felt very far
from its own borders.
�3
The more we can promote peace and stability in Asia,
the more we promote our own peace and stability.
This WTO agreement 'Yith China helps to advance all
of those goals in unprecedented new ways. It is the
kind of opportunity that emerges only once in a
generation; and we should seize it. If we turn our
backs, we will regret it for a generation.
I don't believe there can be any serious question that
this agreement is in America's economic interest.
�4
- This agreement requires China to openjts markets on
','
everything from agriculture to manufacturing to hightech products -- while we agree simply to maintain the
market access that we already give China. For the
first time, U.S. companies will be able to competitively
sell and distribute in China products made by
American workers here at home. And it strengthens
our response to unfair and market-distorting trade
from China, from import surges to forced technology
transfer to protection of intellectual property.
Think about what this agreement could mean for our
farmers.
�.5
It cuts tariffs on everything from corn to wheat to
barley by two-thirds, and gives our farmers new
access to one-fifth of the world's population. Little
wonder that paystubs at the Farmland Institute read:
"China will account for nearly 40 percent of the future
growth of U.S. agricultural exports."
Think about what it could mean to our
telecommunications industry. China to~ay already
has the largest potential telecommunications market in
the world -- only five percent of it has been tapped.
�..
6
This agreement will allow American firms -who
already are leading the world-- to compete in
developing the other 95 percent.
And think about what this agreement could mean to
our auto industry. Tariffs will fall by nearly 75
percent. The requirement that we rely on Chinese
distribution is eliminated, as is the requirement that
we have to transfer our technology. American
manufacturers will now, for the first time, be able to
sell American-made cars in China, to set up their own
distribution centers, to run their own service shops,
and to provide their own financing to consumers.
�....---------
--~----
---------------c------------------.
7
It means that we're going to sell more American cars
and auto parts in China, which means more jobs here
at home.
Now, most Members of Congress don't even question
those benefits. Critics are more likely to say: China is
a growing threat to Taiwan and its neighbors, and we
shouldn't strengthen it. Or, China is a drag on labor
and environmental rights, and we shouldn't engage it.
Or, China is an offender of human rights, and we
shouldn't reward it. Or, China is a dangerous
proliferator, and we shouldn't empower it. And all
those concerns· will be absolutely legitimate.
�8
But this debate should not be defined as economic
rights versus human rights - or economic secu.rity
versus national security. That is a trap, it's a false
. choice. This agreement is just as vital- if not more
vital- to our national security as it is to our economic
security. It promotes both jobs in America andl
progress toward change in China.
Over the past 20 years, China has made a lot of
progress in building a new economy, lifting more than ·
200 million people out of absolute poverty.
�9
It is linking so many people through its wireless
communications network that it is adding the
equivalent of a new Baby Bell every year. But its
system is still plagued by corruption. Less than one.
I
third of its economy is private enterprise. Meanwhile,
its workforce is increasing by 12 million each year. At
least 100 million people in China are still looking. for
work. And economic growth has slowed just when it
needs to be rising to create new jobs.
�10
So, China's leaders face a dilemma: they realize that
if they open China's antiquated market to global
competition, they risk unleashing forces beyond their
control- namely, unemployment, social unrest, and
demands for political freedom. But they have anso
concluded that without competition from the outside,
China will not be able to attract investment or build
world-class industries that can survive in the global
economy.
With this agreement, China has chosen to embrace
change, despite the risks it entails.
�11
'
The real question for America is: do we really want to
reject that choice? That would be a disastrous
mistake. We need to embrace it, and that is what the
WTO agreement does. It advances our interests by
encouraging China to meet, not muzzle, the growing
demands of its people for openness. Rather than
'
working from the outside-in, it will work from the
inside-out to move China in the right direction, in at
least three ways.
Number one, having China in a rules-based system
increases the likelihood that China will follow the rules
of the road in terms of the international economy.
�12
Under this agreement, some of China's most
important decisions, for the first time, will be subject
to the review of an international body. It means that
China is conceding that governments c·annot behave
arbitrarily at home or abroad, that their actions are
subject to international rules. Opponents say that
doesn't matter because China will just break its·
promises. But if China does, we're still in a better
position, because it won't be able to ascribe differences
to U.S. bullying- its actions will be subject to
judgments backed by 135 nations.
�13
Number two, this agreement will obligate China to
deepen its market reforms, intensifying the process of
change.
A decade ago, China's best and brightest college
graduates sought jobs in the government, in large
state-owned firms or universities. More and more,
the best and brightest are either starting their own
companies or choosing to work for foreign-invested
·companies-- where they generally get higher pay, a
better work environment, and a chance to get ahead
based on merit, not political connections.
�.-------------
--------------------------------------
14
That process will only accelerate as China joins the
WTO, and we should do all we can to encourage it.
Number three, I believe that this agreement has the ·
potential to help open c;_hina's society.
Think about it: in the past, virtually every Chinese
citizen woke up in the morning in an apartment or
house owned by their government, went to work in a
factory or farm run by their government, read
newspapers written by their government..
�15
Their state-run workplaces also operated the schools
where they sent their kids, the clinics where they got
health care, the stores where they bought their food.
That system was a big source of the Communist
Party's power; the meager benefits it provided were a
big source of the loyalty it commanded. But now, with
lower tariffs and greater competition, China's state
sector is going to shrivel; its private sector will expand.
In that way, this WTO agreement will speed a process
that is removing government from vast areas of people
lives.
�16
It will also dramatically increase access to
communications. A year ago, China had two million
Internet addresses. Today, it has nine million. This
agreement is going to bring the information revolution
to cities and towns across China. As the Chinese
people see how people across the world live, I believe
they will seek a greater voice in shaping their own
lives.
In the end, China is going to learn what every other
nation is learning as we go through this knowledgebased, information age: you can't expect people to be
innovative economically while being stifled politically.
�17
Bringing China into the WTO doesn't guarantee it will
choose political reform. By accelerating the process of
economic change, it will force China to confront that
choice sooner,\ and make the imperative for that
change much more powerful.
But iet's be clear: bringing China into the WTO is
not, by itself, a human rights policy for the United
States. The reality is that China continues today to
suppress the voices of those who challenge the rule of
the Communist Party. It will change only by a
combination of internal pressure·s for change and
external validation of its human rights struggle.
�18
And we must maintain our leadership in the latter,
even as the WTO agreement contributes to the former.
That's -why we sanctioned China as a "country of
particular concern" under the International Religious
Freedom Act last year. It is why we are once again
sponsoring a resolution in the UN Human Rights ·
Commission condemning China's l;luman rights
record. We will continue to press China to respect
global norms on non-proliferation .. And we reject the
use of force as a means to resolve the Taiwan question.
�19
We will continue to make absolutely clear that the
issues between Beijing and Taiwan must be resolved
peacefully and with the assent of the people of Taiwan.
We must not and we will not rely on the invisible hand
of the market to do our heavy lifting with China, and
neither should the private sector. For all of us -including the business community-- permanent NTR
must mean a permanent commitment to change in
China.
But to even get that opportunity, we must first get this
agreement through the United States Congress.
�20
And we can't underestimate for a second how hard
this is going to be. There are real differences.
I'll promise you this: I am going to push this as hard
as I can to pass this agreement. I know you heard me
talk about this in my State . of the Union Address, and
in my press conference last week. I also talked about
it in Davos. Last week, I started meetings with
members of Congress, and those meetings will
·'
continue this week. You can expect to see a full-court
press from my entire Administration. Those efforts
are already underway.
�21
I know you realize the stakes involved. I( Congress
doesn't approve PNTR, we risk losing the full benefits
of China's WTO membership. In a global economy,
_,.--....
with global markets, your companies will be shut off
from one-fifth of the world- while your European,·
Japanese, and other competitors will take advantage
of the benefits we negotiated. But failure would also
send a signal to the rest of the world that America has
turned inward. That would be a devastating setback
to our vision of the future.
We don't know what choices China will make- but we
can control the choices we make.
�22
And today, we have a clear choice: between a Chinese
market that is open to American products and
American services, or closed to us and only us.
Between speeding the opening of China's economy and
society, or turning our backs. Between a China that is
on the inside of the international system looking out,
or on the outside looking in. Between a China that is
moving in the right direction, or in the wrong
direction. Above all, we have a choice- at a moment
of America's greatest strength and influence- to
either lead the world, or turn away from it.
�.
23
I am confident that we will m~ke the right c~oice,
because it is good for America, good for China, good
for Asia, and good for the world. llook forward to
working with you to turn those worthy goals into
reality. Thank you.
�2/20/00 6:30p.m.
Orztilak
PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
REMARKS TO THE BUSINESS COUNCIL
ON CHINA
WASHINGTON, DC
M~~
FEBRUARY24,2000 ·
,,
rod:~u
heard from Secretary Summers and Ambassador Barshefsky about the
Earlier
upcoming
in Congress over China's entry into the WTO. I want to spend a few minutes
this morning telling you why I think this is one of the most important votes this Congress or any
Congress will ever cast.
For,more than five centuries, people have been searching for a way into China. At the White
House las! nigh~, I had the pleasure of hosting the King and Queen of Spain. We got to talking
about the long history between our two nations, and the trip Christopher Columbus took more
than 500 years ago. If Columbus had known that he discovered North America, he would have
been bitterly disappointed, because he was looking for what later become known as China and
Japan. It was his wish to bring back the spices and riches that legend had foretold, and link the
Far East to the Western World.
For the past 30 years, every one of my predecessors has sought virtually the same thirig. We
have worked for the emergence of a China that contributes to peace in Asia; that is open to
American products, farmers, and businesses; that allows its people access to ideas and
information; that upholds the rule of law at home and adheres to global rules on everything from
non-proliferatio~ to:human rights to trade.
This year, we have an opportunity to advance all of those goals in unprecedented new ways. I
think if we turn our backs on this historic chance, and say rio to this WTO agreement with
China, we will be regretting it for the next 30 years. Let me tell you why.
I don't believe there can be any serious question that this agreement is in America's economic
interest. Growing up, we used to say that if you see a turtle on a fence post, it didn't get there by
itself. I look at our trade deficit with China -- the biggest we have with any nation -- and I know
it didn't just happen. It got that way because for years, China has had open access to our
markets, while our access to theirs has been highly restricted.
iA.*
mast bweficial way possit:J.1.8.to .
This agreement changes zrt+.&fthat ~ight. it Els0s SQ
thb-Unjted States. '];bis trade ag;t=eetH:tQt..requires that China "Open its markets on everything froin
agriculture to manufacturing to high tech-- while we agree only to maintain the market access
that we already give China. If there is trade equivalent of a one-way street, this agreement is it.
For the first time, U.S. companies will be able to competitive.ly sell and distribute in China
1
�produc~s made by American workers here at home.
And{!i)esponds to unfair trade practices in
China, from import surges to technology transfer to intellectual property.
·
~
. . .r~ r Fz,.r~
.
t
'yii'A-f
Think about what this agreement could mean for
·
sas. Our farmers ~ave
had a rough time lately, in part because they are competing in a wo ld with too much supply and
not enough demand. Yet, the China market as lar e y een c ose This agreement gives our
farmers direct access to one-fifth of the world's population thatthey could never sell to before.
Little wonder that paystubs at the Farmland Institue read: "China will account for nearly 40
percent of the future growth of U.S. agricultural exports."
·
China today already has the largest telecommunication market in the world -- yet only five
percent of their market has been tapped. This agreement opens the other 95 percent up to
American firms, who are already leading the world.
Just think about what it could mean for the auto industry.· Right now, a car made in Dearborn
faces an 80 to 100 percent tariff before it can be sold in China -- which prices us out of the
market. If you want to sell cars in China, you need to base your operations in China.-To do ).
tMt;c yov mu&tofonrl ~joint venture with a Chinese state-run ·enterprise and give it at least a 50
percent stake. You als must agree to transfer a significant amount of your technology to China,
and teach the Chinese how to use it -- which means you are transferring both your product and
your expertise to eventual competitors. And because of local content requirements, most parts
have to be made in China, too.
In addition, Americans cannot directly run~ parts distribution centers in Chinas, so once your
parts are made, Chinese partners have to sell them for you. American are not allowed to directly
own service centers, either. And all this assumes that Chinese consumers can buy the cars in the
first place, because they only financing allowed in China is through state-run banks -- and they
don't make loans for cars. Little wonder that there are many more times bicycles in China than
automobiles.
Under the new agreement, it's completely different. Tariffs on American cars will fall by nearly
75 percent, so we can compete in Chinese markets. The requirement that we have to link up
with Chinese enterprises is eliminated. So is the requirement that we have to transfer our
technology. And, American manufacturers will now be free to use parts made in America for
assembly in China, to set up their own distribution centers, to run their own service shops, and to
provide their own financing.
It means that we're going to sell a lot more American cars and auto parts in China, which means
more jobs here in America. In return, the Chinese people end up with much better products at
lower prices. Now, take ~xample and multiply it across our other industries, and you begin
to get an idea of what this a~reement could means to both of our economies.
C~w
·
There's no question that this agreement has huge economic benefits. But that's not where the
debate is going to ~- 'Yhen we talk to Members of Congress, most don't challenge the
~w~
2
�economic benefits of the agreement. Critics are more likely to say: China is a growing threat to
Taiwan and its neighbors, and we shouldn't strengthen it. Or, China is a drag on labor and
environmental rights, and we shouldn't engage it. Or, China is an offender of human rights, and·
we shouldn't reward it. Or, China is a dangerous proliferator, and we shouldn't empower~
The truth is, none of us know what choices China will make, and neither does anyone else. But
this debate shouldn't come down to a question of economic rights versus human rights - or
economic security versus national security. That is a trap, it's a straw man. This agreement is
just as vital- if not more vital- to our national security as it is to our economic security. ~~
f.ar-mare likely to prompt ChiAa te do the right thifl:g ratl:ret dum iB:e wrQB§ tlttftt;. If we are
going to win this debate, we've got to convince people that it promotes both jobs in America and
progress toward change in China.
+..,.~~l/
t.;
W e ' ve got a 1 n.d.mg on th.1s agreement, but Ch'ma h as a huge amount n'd'mg on tttlS agreem~t.
ot
There's a reason why China didn't just walk away from the table when we demanded openings a'"'\
~ their market big enough tirat yQu c~ drive a truck through. Over the past 20 years, China
has made a lot of progress in building a new economy. It's lifted more than 200 million people
out of absolute poverty. But its system is still plagued by corruption. Less than one-third of its
economy is private enterprise. Jts~:H~S1iltfSti11 Ili~f.&l~~tbmts to state efiterpftses ma't
~tb:0least likely to SUI oioe iR-th&flewee6110my. ~iTSworkforce is increasing by 12 million
each year. wlilliuns ate IIligtarlng ftom rhe coanb:yside ta tfte sity, and many are stj!! '>
.Qfteml"lsy®G., And economic growth has slowed just when it needs to ~e rising to create new
jobs. They're in a lose-lose ·situation right now.· They can't maintain stability or ensure
prosperity by maintaining the status quo.
Think about the dilemma China's leaders face today. They realize that if they open China's
antiquated market to global competition, they risk unleashing forces beyond their control namely, unemployment, social unrest, and demands for political freedom. But if they dori't
move forwaro, China's economy may whither on the vine, because without competition from the
outside, it will not build 9f'world-class industries that can survive in the global economy.
If we've learned a
m~gm Russ. an apa , it is t a t we ess f gir:rattions pan
be
just as big ~hal ge as eir stren hs. A str g China m y one day merge a thr t. B a
a down ard spi 1 of i erna
weak Chin rna merge s an eve bigger thr: at, setting
conflict, so ial d locatio , large-scale emigration, and c minal activity that could rock the
ith this agreement, China has chosen the first path, toward change, despite
stability of sia.
_
itJ.vM.UI .>../'
the risks it entails. I don't think we as a nation really want to reject that choice.
-r'«l-'1 cLt ' -rt. "'
,'J
...J-1. r~ ._.,," ---~
1
\1
1
,lf ~J ..... r · .k..t-
f
,"'-t--~.
Qar intetest liewis ~rQmo 1 ing the rjght kind of chaRge in China by encouraging ~t.,Q meet, not
muzzle, the growing demands of its people for openness, accountability, and freedo~-:" T-!HsWTO Agreem~f,lt is liks the Trojan HoJ:Se. Rather than working from the outside-in, it's going
to work from the inside-out to move China in the right direction, in at least three ways.
•~
Number one, it's going to obligate China to deepen its market reforms. With lower tariffs and
3
�greater competition, China is going to see its state sector shrink as.its private sector grows.
A decade ago, China's best and brightest college graduates would seek jobs in the government,
in large state-owned firms or state-run research institutions or universities. More and more, the
best and brightest are either starting their own companies or choosing to work for foreigninvested companies -- where they generally get higher pay, a better work enyironment, and a
chance 'to get ahead based on merit, not political connections.
Number two, having China in a rules-based system increases the likelihood not only that China
will follow the rules of the road in terms of the international economy, but fH:<H: it 'Fill cooperate•
trnore in other fomms like the United Nahons. to address issues like pmliferation &H:d global
warmmg_
Under this agreement, some of China's most important decisions, for the first time, will be
subject to the review of an international body. Why does that matter? It means that China, for
the first time, is conceding that governments cannot behave arbitrarily at home or abroad, that
their actions are subject to an international set of rules. Opponents say it doesn't matter.because
China will just break its promises. Thttt may be hue, l:r1:1t we H:ave FeasoB to 8eli€P.'8 ot.HeFWt8'8.
First, Chjua·'is pledging to open its econo~y Bet just as a means of gettmg into theW 10, itut
- beeause most of China's leaders believe reform is in China's inter8St. g888H:B, Cveli if China
'!'"BOe~late its CDRifltitrneiTts, we're still in a better position, because they won't be able to
[blame U.S. bulJying\- their actions will be subject to judgements backed by a 135-member body .
• •Jt.~'- tA.~~~fM-(.4 ~
.
.
Number three, I believe that this agreement will change China from within more than all the
other economic openings of the last 20 years combined, because of the dramatic increase in .
access to communications and contact with the outside world that this agreement promotes.
mill~
A year ago, China had two million Internet addresses. Today, it has nine
.•. " •
agreement is going to bring the· information revolution& the most remote comers oQchina. As
the Chinese people see how people across the world live, and become more aware of the
freedoms that they enjoy, I believe they will seek a greater voice in shaping their own lives.
Ir'Seemed tike a setback: A-rew weeks ago wfte11' Beijing announced that it was going to restrict
the flow of information on the Internet. Well, good luck. In the information age, cracking down
on the Internet is like trying to nail j ello to the wall. It's futile. But i.tZ-s- alse fl: sigtt ttt hew real
~hange is and how threatening it i~ to tfte st<H:H&-EflO ,that's not an argument for slowing
down the effort to bring China into the world; it's an argument for accelerating it.
�In the end, China is going to learn what every other nation is learning as we go through this
knowledge-based, information age: you can't expect people to be innovative economically and
stifled politically. You can only succeed if you liberate the minds of your people and empower
the individual. Bringing China into the WTO doesn't guarantee it will choose political reform.
By accelerating the process of economic change, it will force China to confront that choice
sooner, and make the imperative for that change much more powerful.
Of course, there are some who will disagree with that. They will say that by passing this
agreement, we are looking the other way on human rights. Actually, I believe the opposite is
true -- locking China out of the WTO would be a blow to the very cause they and we support. It
would leave the Chinese people with less access to information, less contact withthe democratic
world, and more resistance from their government to outside influence and ideas. And no one
could possibly benefit from that except the most rigid, anti-democratic elements in ~hina itselfB --~
1(...,. (-'fAflv .,C. J.l.r. ...;) ~ '"".) -t La."""'"""" ~ r c; •
One of the things that has really moved me n this agreement is how many religious groups that
·
actually have mission operating in China a ree that this is the right approach. People that have
actually worked there, lived there, and be n subject to some of the repression there agree that.
what we're doing is the right thing to do. A leading Chinese dissident, Ren Wending, said upon
the deal's completion: "Before, the sky was black. Now it is light. This can be a new
beginning." [NOTE: ANY OTHER EXAMPLES FROM NAPLAN OR SCHWARTZ?]
But let's not fool anyone: bringing China into the WTO is not, by itself, a human rights policy
for the United States. The reality is that China continues today to suppress the voices of those
who challenge the rule of the Communist Party. It will change only by a combination of internal
pressures for change and external validation of its human rights struggle. And we must maintain
our leadership in the latter, even as the WTO agreement contributes to the former.
That's why we sanctioned China as a "country of particular concern" under the International
Religious Freedom Act last year. It is why we are once again sponsoring a resolution in the UN
Human Rights Commission condemning China's human rights record. [NOTE: NEED
UPDATED LIST OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVITIES] We will continue to press China to
respect global norms _on non-proliferation; to encourage a peaceful resolution of issues with
Taiwan; to urge China to be part ofthe solution to the problem of global climate change .
. In other words, we must not and we are not relying on the invisible hand of the market to do all
·our heavy lifting with China, and neither should the private sector. Vlha1: does that memr for--_
Ametiemr companies soing business in Chiaa? It JliCdllS we catt't read &B~' more stories abou~
Chinem:! wblkets being fmced to run laps mBttfts A H~et:ican facto¥ie!i [TWIS IS A ?J:IK~
~=~~:n'J~~tz:;'j:COMPLEFE L~O:\f:'f 3P~W~..,J. ~~~..~
~ !'J; .
.
"""""'"
.
' not enough for you to lobby us on
·
·
rpM-W'v
·
es onsibility
t
means recommitting yourselves to the up~olding G--) MMt.+ ~
the environmental standards and labor rights i China to which you adhere in this country. It
\--:l '-l.v. 1'4
~~ ~
s·
1
"'~v
f·C~l ""
�means pressing Chinese authorities to move further and faster toward the rule of law and respect
for human rights. It also means working with some of the one million nonprofit and social
organizations that have emerged in China and that are working to reform the system from within
[NEED GOOD EXAMPLE FROM llM OR KEN]. We have argued that American business can
be a force for change in China. Part of your job is to prove us right.
But to even get that opportunity, first, we must get this agreement through the United States
Congress. And we can't underestimate for a second how hard this is going to be. This fight
involves two issues -China and trade- that individually and together have become the new
third rail of American politics today. Just last week, the AFL-CIO announced that it was
mo~nting an all-out effort to defeat i~ It has created real splits among honest people in both
parties.
/.I' (,
.
'
~C.4
'"J . .. . .
.
.
To me, this is the one of the most important votes of this Congress, and probably one of the mos~ *::::.-~
important votes any of these Members will ever cast. I'll promise you this: I am going to push
this as hard as I can. I know you heard me talk about this in my State of the Union Address, and
in my press conference last week. I also talked about it in Daves, and two weeks ago, I 1SJD1R #
talked about it at the Democratic Caucus Retreat. Last week, I started meetings with members of
Congress, and those meetings will continue this week. [NOTE: NEED SPECIFICS F/MILESJ
.
.
~ ~ll
(,.:Nr+ ("''J.
see a u -court press rom me
· ·
· . I've asked
Secretary Daley and Steve Richetti, my deputy chief of staff, to lead
rt. Two
weeks ago, we had a good event with representatives from the agriculture community. Next
week, I'll be speaking to workers at a high-tech company to focus on the benefits of this
agreement to that community. On March 9th, I'll be giving a major address on the strategic and
economic benefits to the American people if-we grllill Jllq'fJt status te Chi~. Finally, we're also
organizing a Congressional Delegation visit to China, possibly in April. I encourage you to
think about how we can use this to best effect.
I
c~i """'
l
I know you realize the stakes involved. If we don't get PNTR, we will lose the benefits of+Ms- ._.vC: 0
1
~ent. In a global economy, with global markets, your companies will be shut off from
Me,.4 1-vou:fl
one-fifth of the world- while your European, Japanese, and other competitors will take
advantage of the ~benefits we negotiated. But failure would also send a signal to the
rest of the world, particularly after the Senate's rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
that America has turned inward. That would be devastating to our future.
That's why I say that if we don't do this, we'll be regretting it for the next 30 years. If we are ~
successful, 10 years from now, no matter what decisions China makes, we'll be able to look back
and say that that only thing we could control is what we did, and it was right for America. And
we'll be able to say that at the moment of America's greatest strength and influence, we did not
turn away from the world, we led it. And someday, when the people of China have access to
ideas and information, when their rights are respected and theirvoices are allowed to be heard,
we will be able to look back on this agreement and say: we did the right thing. _,That's what's at
stake. I look forward to working with you to tum those worthy goals into reality. Thank you
6
�_ _ _o_2_/_0_l_I_O_O_l_4_:_l_l_FA_X_._2_0_2_4_8_2_8_2_89 _ _ _____:S::..:P:....:E"""E~HWRITERS US cmmERCE
_
..----.
{0
141002
.
REMARKS BY
COMMERCE SECRETARY WILLIAM M. DALEY
U.S.-CHINA BUSINESS COUNCIL
WASHINGTON, DC
JANUARY 26, 2000
[Text as prepared for del~very.]
I know a number of you represent companies that worked with
us a few years ago on NAFTA.
So for me this effort on China
feels like deja vu.
Frankly, I see a lot of irony in all this.
I have met with
officials and business people in 45 nations in my three years as
. Commerce Secretary.
I've been to China several times.
I plan to
be there again this spring. And time and time again, they tell
you how America's economy-- and our democracy-- has served as
their model.
So here we are, with a booming economy that is about to
become the longest expansion in U.S. history, and we are battling
over a trade opening agreement with China.
This is a deal with
the largest nation on earth -- more than a billion people.
It is a win-win for both countries because it is good for
the American people and good for the Chinese people, in terms of
long term economic benefits. And to be honest, it is one-sided
-- in our favor.
All China really wants in exchange is to have
normal trade relations with us -- on a permanent basis, and to
become a member of the World Trade Organization.
Obviously, that would be good for the global economy, also,
because China -- for the first time -- would have to abide by WTO
rules for doing business. Another iiony I see, is that in all
these trade fights, usually the same thing happens.
There are two camps -- and they are miles apart.
On one
extreme, there are the free traders who want absolutely no
They
controls.
They probably never spent a day on a shop floor.
never worked in a mill, worrying that steel imports will put them
out of a job.
�_ _ _o_z_;_o_l_l_o_o_l_4_:_l_l_FA_X_2_0_2_4_8_2_8_2_89 _ _ _____:S"'-'P'-""'EEHWIUTERS US CODII!IERCE
_
@]003
2
Then there are protectionists. They want to throw up a
fortress around America. They would have America go back 70
yea~s, when we had tariffs of more than 50 percent. President
Clinton believes it is time we found common ground -- a place
sdme~here in between ·the two.
You will hear the President talk about this tomorrow night
in his State of the Union. You will hear him make the case for
why America needs to get behind this deal with China.
The fact is, in this global economy, you can't be an
absolute free trader. And you can't be an absolute protectionist
-- not when jobs can go anywhere, .whether you have a trade deal
or not.
By the way, if you were planning on getting to bed early
tomorrow night, forget it.
This is the President's last State of
the Union, and it may be his longest!
I don't have to tell you what a good deal this is
but a
few points are worth underscoring.
First, this is a one-way
deal.
We don't give anything up.
In fact, we gain tremendous
access to a market with vast potential for our farm~rs and many
of our most competitive industries. These include autos,
telecommunications, computers, the Internet, and financial
services.
Average tariffs on farm products over the next three years
will drop to 14 percent -- from 31 percent.
In four years,
industrial· tariffs will fall to nearly 9 percent -- from 25
percent. And tariffs on Internet technology will fall to zero in
2005.
We get all this by simply granting China normal trade
relations.
Giving them the same access they have had to our
markets since 1980, but on a permanent basis instead of renewing
it every year.
I know Congress wants to have some continued say over our
relations with China. Obviously this is because of its track
record on human rights, and for national security reasons. This
Administration is committed to protecting our national security
and to promoting human rights. And we think denying China
permanent trade relations will do nothing for either of these
issues.
I say the fastest way to advance democracy in China is by
bringing them into the WTO.
The reforms they will undertake
will move them dramatically toward a market economy.
Let me give
you one example.
Can you imagine a better way to allow for the
�___o_2_I_O_l_l_o_o_1_4_:_1_2_F_A_X_2_0_2_4_8_2_8_2_8_9_ _ _ _---=.o.SPEEHWIUTERS US COMMERCE
141 004
3
free flow of ideas than for a billion people to be connected to
the Internet?
The second point I want to make is this. ·We have the
strongest economy in our history, and people want to keep our
prosperity going.
One way to do that is to engage China so we
can sell goods made by American workers there.
This is a deal that is good for our economy, but also
includes strong protection for our workers.· No agreement on
allowing a nation to join WTO has ever included stronger measures
against unfair trade. There are safeguards to stop import surges
in particula~ industries. This is a key issue raised by
Democrats and Republicans on Capito~ Hill.
And we keep our powers, to stop cheap imports from being
dumped on our shores. And for the first time, we will be able to
use WTO rules to combat unfair trade and investment practices,
such as local content requirements. WTO rules -- even with
permanent trade relations -- allow for social justice and
national security concerns.
They permit us to block imports of
goods made with prison labor, and keep our export control
policies intact.
This is a good deal, no doubt, but let me be realistic.
This will be a tough battle. And it will tough for a lot of
reasons.
We have this huge -- $60 billion-plus -- trade deficit
with China, second only to Japan. We did not have red {nk like
that with Mexico or Canada when we did NAFTA.
And we did not have the kind of overall trade deficit back
then, that we have now, which members of Congress don't like ..
Let me say, people may want to use the trade deficit as an
excuse.
Bu·t the fact is, it's an example of how open our economy·
is.
This deal opens their economy.
It will be tough, because, we don't know how well the ·
opposition will be organized -- but Seattle is a strong
indication of how tough it could be. We have some timing issues
that.make it tough.
We have to wait and see the deals that China clos~s with the
Europeans, and a critical mass of other countries. We welcome
the progress made by Brazil and China.
Until that happens, which
optimistically will be in mid-April, Congress probably won't want
to take a look at these things.
I see the window on this as midApril until July.
�02/01/00
14:13 FAX 202 4828289
SPEEHWRITERS US CO&IMERCE
141005
4
Of course, we're ready to go tomorrow, if Congress is
willing!.
The [November] election is another obstacle. The fact of
the matter is, the lo~ger we wait, the politics gets harder.
I
think there is a consensus in both parties to get this done early
on. And the election is an obstacle in that the American public
is focused on that, rather than this -- although maybe that's
good!
But in spite of the obstacles,
President Clinton is
extremely committed to do this. The first question I always get
asked is, is he really extremely committed.
Is this really
important to him? We can sit here all day and go back and forth,
but the answer is:
Yes. Absolutely. The President will be
aggressively involved. And it's very important to me personally,
that I help the President on this.
I
The next question I get is:
Is this winnable? Yes.
Congress, or
believe we can answer any questions that members of
the public have.
Our strategy to pass this is very straight-forward.
The
President has asked Steve Ricchetti, his deputy chief of staff,
and me to lead the effort.
Secretaries Albright, Summers, and
Glickman ... Amb. Barshefsky ... Gene Sperling, and Sandy Berger
are the other members of the team. We're meeting regularly.
We're good friends now, and we'll be best friends before this is
over.
Obviously, ~e're reaching out to Congress.
W~'re going to
meet with every lawmaker, look them in the eye, tell them why we
need their sUpport, until I hope they will be all sick of seeing
us.
To kick it off, two days ago, the President sent a letter to
every member of Congress to outline his position and urge
Congress to move ahead quickly.
Secretary Bentsen, when he helped the President pass NAFTA,
would spend so much time on the Hill, he called himself the
lowest paid lobbyist in town.
We have the lowest paid lobbying
firm in town. We'll be speaking loudly, and often, about how
important this deal is to America's economic future.
But -- and this is important -- the key to our strategy is
taking the story outside of Washington. And we don't have the
luxury of time on our side. This is not going to get done if we
make it an inside-the-beltway, Uncle Sam.com kind of effort.
'
�02/01/00
14:13 FAX 202 4828289
SPEEHWRITERS US COMMERCE
141 006
5
I don't care if Wall Street loves this deal
what matters
is that Main Street loves it. This must be a grass roots
campaign.
This is what I've been telling business. Workers and
local officials need to know why this deal with China is so
critical to their pocketbooks. They need.to see paystubs like
Farmland Industries puts out that says:
(and I quote)
"China will account for nearly 40 percent of the future growth of
U.S. agricultural exports."
Last year, I went on a trade education tour around the
country. And the problem is, that so many people in Washington
paint this rosy picture. That's what elitists do.
We need to
paint the full picture. We need to talk about the positives of
trade
but we can't ignore the'negatives.
And I won't let the critics get away without answering the
what would they do instead? This is a public
question:
One, do we bring China into
referendum on two different futures:
Or, two, do we keep them as a global outcast?
the world;
And let me say, I believe winning this fight is more than
just about getting 10 more votes, or counting votes.
It's about
Americans understanding where the economy is going in the new
century. And how important it will be to the workers of Coke,
and Motorola, and General Motors, and Aetna, and thousands of
small companies that make up a third of our exports to China.
My mother is 92 jears old. She knows more about the old
century than anyone I know.
She often talks about the
depression, and the war, and the great challenges they faced.
The new century is the digital century, where trade is done
electronically across borders.
I hope that the great challenges
we face, aren't how to fight countries, but how to compete, so
workers around the world have opportunities to benefit.
I will ~nd on this: I have a famous quote of Teddy Roosevelt
framed in my office.
It's the quote, where he says "it's not the
critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man
stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better.
The·
credit belong to the man who is actually in the aren~."
We may take our hits.
We may stumble.
But we will be in
the.arena.
This thing is winnable.
It is absolutely doable.
And I am ~ery confident that with your help, we'll g~t this thing
through Congress, and America will be better for it.
Thank you very much.
-30-
�--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,
For more than five centuries, people have been searching for a way into China. At the White
House last night, I had the pleasure ofhosting the King and Queen of Spain. We got to talking
about the long history between our two nations, and the trip Christopher Columbus took more
than 500 years ago. If Columbus had known that he discovered North America, he would have
been bitterly dissapointed, because he was looking for China -- to bring back the spices and
riches that legend had foretold, and link the Far East to the Western World.
For the past 30 years, every one of my predecessors has sought virtually the same thing. We
have worked for the emergence of a China that contributes to peace in Asia; that is open to
American products, farmers, and businesses; that allows its people access to ideas and ,
information; that upholds the rule of law at home and adheres to global rules on everything from
non-proliferation to human rights to trade.
This year, we have an opportunity to advance all ofthose goals in unprecedented new ways. I
think if we tum our backs on this historic chance, and say no to this WTO agreement with China,
we will be regretting it for the next 30 years. Let me tell you why.
,
.
I
I don't believe there can be any serious question that this agreement is in America's economic
interest. Growing up, we used to say that if you see a turtle on a fencepost, it didn't get there by
itself. I look at our trade deficit with China -- the biggest we have with any nation -- and I know
it didn't just happen. It got that way because for years, China has had open: access to our
markets, while our access to theirs has been highly .restricted.
'
'
This agreement changes all ofthat overnight. It does so in the most beneficial way possible to
the United States. This trade agreement requires that China open its markets on everything from
agriculture to manufacturing to high tech -- while we agree only to maintain the market access
that we already give China. If there is trade equivalent of a one-way street, this agreement is it.
For the first time, U.S. companies will be able to competitively sell and distribute in China
products made by American workers here at home. And it responds to unfair trade practices in
China, from import surges to technology transfer to intellectual property.
Think about what this agreement could mean for a wheat farmer in Kansas. Our farmers have
had a rough time lately, in part because they are competing in a world with too much supply and
not enough demand. Yet, the China market has largely been closed. This agreement gives our ·
farmers direct access to one-fifth .of the world's population that they could never sell to before.
Little wonder that paystubs at the Farmland Institue read: "China will account for nearly 40
percent ofthe future growth ofU.S. agricultural exports."
China today already has the largest telecommunication market in the world -- yet only five
percent of their market has been tapped. This agreement opens the other 95 percent up to
American firms, who are already leading the world.
Just think about what it could mean .for the auto industry. Right now, a car made in Dearborn
faces an 80 to 100 percent tariff before it can be sold in China-- which prices us out of the
�market. If you want to sell cars in China, you need to base your operations in China. To do that,
you must form a joint v~nture with a Chinese state-run enterprise and give it at least a 50 percent
stake. You als must agree to transfer a significant amount of your technology to China, and
teach the Chinese how to use it -- which means you are transferring both your product and your
expertise to eventual competitors. And because of local content requirements, most parts have to
be made in China, too.
In addition, Americans cannot directly runs parts distribution centers in Chinas, so once your
parts are made, Chinese partners have to sell them for you. American are not allowed to directly
own service centers, either. And all this assumes that Chinese consumers can buy the cars in the
first place, because they only financing allowed in China is through state-run banks-- and they
don't make loans for cars. Little wonder that there are many more times bicycles in China than
automobiles.
Under the new agreement, it's completely different. Tariffs on American cars will fall by nearly
75 percent, so we can compete in Chinese markets . The requirement that we have to link up with
Chinese enterprises is eliminated. So is the requirement that we have to transfer our technology.
And, American manufacturers will now be free to use parts made in America for assembly in
China, to set up their own distribution centers, to run their own service shops, and to provide
their own financing.
From our perspective, it means that we're going to sell a lot more American cars and auto parts
in China, which means more jobs here in America. In return, the Chinese people end up with
much better products at lower prices. Now, take that example and multiply it across our other
industries, and you begin to get an idea of what this agreement could means to both of our
economies.
�By Samuel R. Berger
When Congress holds its first hearing today on the agreement we reached last
fall to bring China into the World Trade Organization, our critics will say
that U.S. jobs could be at risk and that we'l,(l.ose our leverage in our
fight to hold China to high standards on lab~r. human rights and the
environment. I believe the o osite· is true- membershi in the WTO will broaden and
deepen our ialogue with China. In short,
\Nhil9 th9SQ sgns9rns shgwld ngt 99 saswally disr+~iss9d, th9 benefits of this
agreement far· outweigh its drawbasksrisks.
Today's House hearing likely will focus on the economic benefits, which are
substantial. The agreement will expand dramatically our access to one-fifth
of the world's population. It requires China to open all its markets, while
we agree only to maintain the market access we already give China. And it
will create jobs and exports for Americans by allowing our companies, for
the first time, to competitively sell products in China without having to
open factories in China itself.
But bringing China into the WTO is about far more than trade. It also will
advance U.S. national security by encouraging change within China.
,...-I-e"'CJli'CC§f'Stt:lnd-wM~ the dilemma China finds itself in today. Over
~the_past 20 years, China has lifted more than 200 million people out of
~-.xlt. "absolute poverty. But its workforce increases by 12 million annually.
Millions are migrating from rural areas to cities, where only some find
work. Economic growth has slowed just when it needs to rise to create jobs.
China's leaders know that opening the country's antiquated markets to global
competition risks unleashing forces beyond their control: unemployment,
social unrest, more domestic pressure for political change. But if its
markets aren't opened, China won't build world-class industries that can
survive in the global economy.
With this WTO agreement, China has chosen to speed the opening of its
economy, despite the political risks. p_~r interests lie in embracir{g that
. \
choice. Bringing China into the WTO~ill promote the change we se~k in three
ways:
~ 0 \rl rt.o. \ '~ Ot(i\ ~ -ill rfj f( ~~.,J-· c£\ ~. "'' ·
Bit will obligate China to deepen its market reforms.
With lower tariffs and greater competition, China's private sector will
expand and its state sector shrink. Chinese firms will learn that, unless
they treat employees with greater respect, they will lose their top talent
to foreign companies, which offer better pay and merit-based chances to
advance. This will lift standards for Chinese workers - and their
expectations.
,
8By speeding economic change, the agreement can encourage China to evolve
into a more open society.
The Chinese state was once every citizens' employer, landlord, shopkeeper
and news provider rolled into one. This agreement will accelerate (/- f 'vtO J
government's removal from vast areas of people's lives. By opening China's
?
-
t
1
r
�2
"
telecommunications market, for example, the wro agreement will spread the
information revolution across China. The government's futile effort to
control Internet content simply proves how threatening these changes are to
the status quo.
Bringing China into the WfO will not guarantee it will choose political
reform. But by hastening economic change, it will force China to confront
that choice sooner, and make the imperative for t~e right choice more
powerful.
8Th is agreement increases the chance that China will be on the inside of the
international system, playing by the rules, instead of on the outside,
denying them.
By joining the wro, China has agreed to subject some key economic decisions
to an international body's review for the first time: If China violates its
commitments, it will confront judgments backed by all 135 members of the
wro, rather than being able to cha.lk u friction to supposed U.S. bullying. c\.;_t ,_,·,\~ .oA_t,
y itself, this agreement is nQ. ·a anacea Human rights changes in China ·, ~'- tl-•4..'\
~ .;~ \
1
reqtJif'ePa combinatioA··ohnternal pr ssure and external v 1~ fion of those
(a at(.
who struggle~f&a political voice. nd we WI con 1nue to press China y,__
•.
[espect global nonproliferation norms, find a peaceful resolution of its
/ /jssues with Taiwan and help solve problems of global climate change.
/
·We will continue to protect our interests, but we must do so without
tl'q.f'
isolating the Chinese people from the global forces empowering them to build
U\ \..~ aS~':\ta better future . For that would l_eave them with less ~ccess to inform~tion,
. \'~'<' \ less contact w1th the democratic world and more res1stance from the1r
government to outside influence and ideas. No one could possibly benefit
r , ~·
from that except the most rigid, anti-democratic elements in China itself.
· '(
We must not give them a victory by locking China out of the global trading
system.
-
(·\'· U)
Samuel R. Berger is assistant to the president for national security
affairs.
�''"~
.:·
·-~
I;'
:.'•f ..:.·.
·\,
,.
.
.··
_.,"
··[
·•,.
-
·r·.'
l;,
,•·''
'
.,
,.
:·:J.,
·-
<>
.·
·,,
~- •
';.
,<,'
... . ..
.•
.•.:
.,<ii' •• •
-~'
··.
~
..
•
"·.."_~ .
0
~
..
'-·,.
: ~.
<>\'"
... ..
',,·
_
_.,._
,-:··
-
.... ,,
''
0
"·'
,,
,<>·}'
.~· ..
,,''.
.,.·.
'
e.
}
. ·i
v~
.
; ... ~.
:" •
Jo
•
~
.
!J
..
. !,··
·~
,.
.··
·.·
',•
··-.'
"·..,'
.-
..
'
~
'' .
'o o,
. •.
'r'
·•
,•4]-
.·'
··).
~
/ ...., o~·
... ~--
.
·.".
·-.
. ,-,
0
,_'t
.
v. ~.
.•
,,
~-
·.
t\.L-
_;u
..
·.·;;·"
·,_
,·
'•' ,,I
<
-~-
. ;.
;,: .
·.4~.-.-.··
·. ·-
·. ·, _
'•
• :, 'l_~LINTON LIBRARY PHOTOC,OPY
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Speechwriting Office - Paul Orzulak
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
National Security Council
Speechwriting Office
Paul Orzulak
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1999-2000
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36267" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/7585791" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2008-0702-F
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Orzulak served as speechwriter for President William J. Clinton and National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger in 1999 and 2000.</p>
<p>Orzulak authored speeches for President Clinton concerning permanent normal trade relations with China; the United States Coast Guard Academy commencement; the role of computer technology in India; the defense of American cyberspace; the Eleanor Roosevelt Human Rights Award; the memorial service for Former Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi of Japan; the Charlemagne Prize in Germany; the presentation of the Medal of Freedom to President James E. Carter and Rosalyn Carter in Atlanta; the Millennium Around the World Celebration in Washington, DC; the Cornerstone of Peace Park in Japan; the role of scientific research and the European Union while in Portugal; sustainable development in India; armed forces training on Vieques Island, Puerto Rico; and the funeral services for Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr. in Annapolis. Orzulak’s speechwriting for National Security Advisor Berger concerned Senator Joseph R. Biden, China’s trade status, Kosovo, and challenges facing American foreign policy.</p>
<p>This collection was made available through a <a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/freedom-of-information-act-requests">Freedom of Information Act</a> request. For more information concerning this collection view the complete finding aid.</p>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
82 folders in 7 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
[China] [Folder 4]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
National Security Council
Speechwriting Office
Paul Orzulak
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2008-0702-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 3
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/2008/2008-0702-F.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/7585791" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
5/19/2014
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
42-t-7585791-20080702f-003-006-2014
7585791