    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book II)]
    [November 10, 1993]
    [Pages 1942-1950]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    November 10, 1993

        The President. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. As we approach
    the end of this congressional session, just before Thanksgiving, it's
    important that our people know that here in Washington we are finally
    tackling issues that are central to the lives of all Americans,
    replacing gridlock and inaction with progress in the pursuit of the
    common good.
        In the last few months, we passed the largest deficit reduction
    package in history. Interest rates and inflation have remained at
    historic lows. Millions of Americans have been able to refinance their
    homes. Investment is up, and more new jobs have come into our economy in
    the last 10 months than in the previous 4 years. There's been a real
    effort to improve security for America's working families with the
    dramatic expansion in the earned-income tax credit, to help working
    Americans with children who live on modest incomes to do better through
    tax reductions. We've opened more of our products in high-tech areas to
    exports. We've passed the family leave law. We've expanded opportunities
    for people to invest in new

    [[Page 1943]]

    businesses in this country. And we've presented a comprehensive plan
    that will put real health care security within reach of every American.
    We're working on reinventing our Government to do more with less, and I
    am proud to say that the Congress is clearly signaling today its
    determination to move on reforming campaign finance laws. A bill passed
    the Senate several months ago. Today the House committee is voting out a
    bill which I believe the House of Representatives will pass.
        This is a record of real achievement. But in the next few weeks
    before we go home, Congress will be challenged to take even greater
    strides in protecting the personal security of Americans and in creating
    more opportunities for us to compete and win in the global environment.
        The Senate is completing work now on our crime bill, legislation
    that will fulfill the campaign promise I made to put 100,000 additional
    police officers on the street, to keep felons behind bars, to take
    criminals off the street, to provide boot camps and alternative service
    for first-time youthful offenders, and to remove guns from the hands of
    people who should not have them. We have a real shot now to pass the
    Brady bill. After years, 12 years, of heroic activism by Jim and Sarah
    Brady, Congress is finally determined, I believe, to stand up to the
    interests against the Brady bill and to take action on crime, which is
    the number one personal security issue for most Americans.
        A week from today, Congress will decide whether to expand exports
    and jobs by passing the North American Free Trade Agreement. The case
    for NAFTA could not have been made more forcefully or eloquently than it
    was by Vice President Gore last night in his debate with Mr. Perot. Last
    night the Vice President showed that just stating the facts about NAFTA
    and showing our concern for the interests of working Americans can
    overcome the fears, the distortions that have been leveled against this
    agreement. NAFTA means exports; exports means jobs. No wealthy country
    in the world is growing more jobs without expanding exports.
        When the American people hear that case, they showed last night they
    are willing to listen and willing to join not only millions of other
    Americans like those the Vice President called by name last night but
    every living former President, former Secretary of State, Nobel Prize-
    winning economists, and over 80 percent of the sitting Governors.
        The contrast we saw last night was clear. Mr. Perot warned Members
    of the House of Representatives that they would face awful retaliation
    if they voted their conscience on NAFTA. The Vice President urged the
    Members of the House to vote for hope against fear; to vote for the
    proposition that Americans can compete and win in the global economy; to
    vote their conscience and tell the constituents back home why they were
    voting as they were. And if the preliminary results on the debate last
    night are any indication, the Members of the House of Representatives
    can trust the American people with the facts and with their own
    convictions.
        This vote comes at a defining moment for our Nation. We have been
    through a very tough period. For 20 years--20 years--60 percent of the
    American people have been working harder for the same or less wages. We
    have had great difficulty in increasing the productivity that is
    absolutely essential to creating jobs and raising incomes. But we have
    now done it. This country is now the most productive country in the
    world across a broad spectrum of manufacturing and service activities in
    this economy. We can win. And we have to decide, beginning next week,
    whether we're going to reach out to compete and win or try to withdraw.
        I will say again one point I want to make about NAFTA, before I open
    the floor to questions, that was not emphasized last night simply
    because it didn't come up as much. This agreement means more jobs, but
    the real job growth for America will come when two other steps are
    taken. It will come when all the other Latin democracies and free market
    economies also join in a great trade group with Mexico, Canada, and the
    United States. And it will come because once this happens, we will have
    enormously increased influence in the world community to argue that we
    ought to adopt a worldwide trade agreement before the end of the year,
    to get that new GATT agreement. That will influence Asia, it will
    influence Europe, if the House votes for NAFTA. The stakes for this
    country, therefore, are quite high. I believe the House will do the
    right thing.
        I want to say, too, that I am grateful that today Congressman
    Hoagland, Congressman Kreidler, Congressman Dicks, Congressman
    Valentine, and Senator Nunn announced their support for NAFTA. I think
    that we will see more coming in the days ahead, and I think by the

    [[Page 1944]]

    time we get to vote counting, we'll have enough to win.
        Thank you.
        Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International]?

    Foreign Policy Team

        Q. Mr. President, U.S. foreign policy endeavors have been less than
    successful in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia. And on Sunday on ``Meet the
    Press'' you seemed to be lukewarm about your foreign policy team. Is
    Secretary Wharton being made your sacrificial lamb? And are you planning
    a shakeup of your foreign policy team? I mean, is that the signal?
        The President. No to both questions. First of all, I did not mean to
    be lukewarm. I have always followed a policy as long as I've been a
    chief executive of not discussing a lot of personnel issues. But I will
    say again what I said on Sunday. This team has worked hard on a lot of
    difficult issues. I think they deserve high marks for dealing with the
    central, large, strategic issues of this time, dealing with the former
    Soviet Union, working on bringing down the nuclear threat, working on
    stemming nuclear proliferation, working on peace in the Middle East,
    working on putting economics at the forefront of our foreign policy.
        Secondly, Mr. Wharton is not being made a scapegoat in any way,
    shape, or form. What he worked on at the State Department, in my
    judgment, he did a good job on. He worked on reorganization; he worked
    on the aid programs; he worked on a number of issues that have nothing
    to do with the controversies which were thorny when I got here and are
    still thorny today in Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia. It would be a great
    mistake for anyone to misinterpret what happened. I think you have to
    take his remarks on their own terms. But believe me, his departure has
    nothing to do with scapegoating. I have the highest regard for him. And
    I am grateful for the service he rendered.

    Israel

        Q. Mr. President, there's a growing expectation that Israel and
    Jordan are going to sign a peace treaty when Prime Minister Rabin visits
    the White House on Friday. Could you tell us what's the likelihood of
    that? And also on Mr. Rabin, Israeli radio says that he's written you a
    letter asking you to cut the prison sentence of convicted spy Jonathan
    Pollard to 10 years. Are you going to do that?
        The President. First of all, I am delighted by the reports of
    progress in the relationships between Israel and Jordan. And as you
    know, we are talking with both of them. And we've been involved with
    that. But I don't think anything will happen Friday on that. I would be
    pleased if it did. But the truth is, we have no reason to believe that
    anything will be happening Friday.
        On the Pollard case, it is true that the Prime Minister has written
    me about Jonathan Pollard. I have asked the Justice Department to review
    his case, as I do in every request for executive clemency. I have not
    received a report from them yet. And I will not make a decision on the
    Pollard case until I get some sort of indication from them.
        Yes, Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, CNN]?

    Ross Perot

        Q. Mr. President, there are some who suggest that you deliberately
    wanted to have the Vice President debate Mr. Perot in order to elevate
    Mr. Perot as a potential threat to Republicans down the road more than
    Democrats. Did you have those kinds of interests in mind?
        The President. I wish I were that Machiavellian. It never occurred
    to me. I wanted the Vice President to debate Mr. Perot because I
    believed--and I know that the conventional wisdom around here was that
    it was a mistake--but first, I want to give credit where credit's due.
    The Vice President, not the President, the Vice President had the idea
    that maybe this was the time to have a debate and to do it on Larry
    King.
        My immediate response, however, was very positive, because I believe
    the American people--first of all, we know they're hungry for debate.
    They know we have to change, and they're deeply skeptical of people in
    politics. So the more direct access people have to this issue, one that
    affects their lives, the more feeling they get for the facts and the
    arguments as well as for the conviction of the parties involved, I just
    think it's better. So there was no ulterior motive in that whatever.
        Q. Mr. President, the polls indicate that Vice President Gore did do
    well in the debate last night and that Mr. Perot did not do so well. You
    clearly believe he was wounded on the issue of NAFTA. Do you think that
    carries over into his role in politics in general? Does it hurt his

    [[Page 1945]]

    standing as a political force in this country in the future?
        The President. Well, I don't have any idea. I don't know about that.
    I will say this: I think there are a lot of people out there who are
    alienated from the political system for good reasons. One of the
    greatest frustrations I have as President is that it is often difficult
    for me to cut through the din of daily events here to keep speaking to
    those people and to try to keep them involved.
        I think that they will feel more supportive of not only this
    administration but of the American political system, if we can produce
    sustained economic growth, greater security for people who work hard and
    play by the rules; if we can produce a genuine effort to fight crime and
    to deal with the problems of the breakdown of the society and family in
    many of the troubled areas of our country; and if we can produce
    political reform, if we can produce campaign finance reform and lobby
    reform, and if the Congress sometime in the next few weeks passes a law
    that says they'll live under the laws that they pass and impose on the
    private sector.
        These are the things that you keep hearing from people who voted in
    the last election for Mr. Perot. I think what we should focus on, those
    of us who are here, is addressing the concerns, the hopes, and the fears
    of those people. And the rest of it will take care of itself. We'll just
    have to see what happens.

    NAFTA

        Q. Mr. President, the White House has complained and Mr. Gore has
    scored some points about Mr. Perot's exaggerations and exaggerations of
    the anti-NAFTA forces. But last night the Vice President said that 22
    out of 23 studies have shown job increases. He cited a figure of
    400,000. The Joint Economic Committee, a bipartisan committee of
    Congress, said that's not true. Doesn't it hurt your arguments for NAFTA
    when----
        The President. What did they say was not true?
        Q. Well, they said that the studies were being double counted and
    that he did not cite the job losses so he wasn't giving a net figure and
    that actually in the overall size of the economy, that those really are
    not that significant, or can't be properly counted.
        The President. Let me just respond to that on the specific
    allegations--I have always tried to couch NAFTA as a job winner, a net
    job winner. That is, I think that the evidence is clear that not just in
    the long run but in the near run, we'll have more job gains than job
    losses out of this. There will plainly be some job losses. But the point
    I have tried to make always is, we have a lot of job losses every year
    in America we can't prevent. So when we have an opportunity to create
    more jobs, we are almost morally bound to do it, when we can have a net
    job gain.
        I don't think the Vice President willfully misstated that, because
    we've had this conversation a long time--many times. But a lot of the
    extreme claims on both sides ignore the fact that Mexico itself, on its
    own terms, only comprises 4 to 5 percent of the size of the American
    economy. The size of the Mexican economy today is about the size of
    California's economy from the Los Angeles County line, the north line,
    down to the Mexican border. And therefore, the ability of the Mexicans
    in the near term to hurt the American economy, or to totally inflate it,
    is somewhat limited.
        As you know, we said that we thought we would gain 200,000 jobs over
    the next 2 years. Well, last month our economy produced 177,000 jobs.
    Let me reiterate what I said in my opening remarks. The thing that's
    important about this is that it makes a statement that we're reaching
    out to expand trade. It really will; 200,000 jobs is nothing to sneeze
    at. And almost all of our people believe that the net will be well above
    150,000. That is, that's nothing to sneeze at in 2 years, especially
    since they will be higher paying jobs.
        But the important thing is that by showing we can have this
    relationship with Mexico, we will rapidly be able to move to conclude
    similar agreements with other market-oriented democracies, with Chile,
    with Argentina, with a whole range of other countries in Latin America.
    And this then will give us the psychological leverage--just as for the
    anti-NAFTA people this has become the repository of all their
    resentments, for us that are for it it's become the symbol of where we
    want to go in the world. This will give me enormous leverage when I get
    on the airplane the day after the NAFTA vote and go out to meet with the
    General Secretary of the People's Republic of China, when I go out to
    meet with the Prime Minister of Japan and all the other leaders of Asia,
    when I try to convince the Europeans that it's time

    [[Page 1946]]

    for a worldwide trade agreement.
        And nearly everyone who has analyzed what we agreed to about the
    time of the G-7 on the GATT round, the new trade agreement, concludes
    that it will add hundreds of thousands of jobs, significant jobs near-
    term, to the American economy. So I say that, on balance, this is a huge
    deal for America, but both sides need to be very careful not to make
    extreme claims. This is a job winner for our country, more jobs with
    Latin America, even more jobs when we have a new world trade agreement.
    It all begins with NAFTA.
        Q. Mr. President, do you have any regrets about your comments about
    labor during the Sunday television interview, your comment about the
    naked pressure that they've exerted on Members of Congress on NAFTA? And
    what are you going to do to kiss and make up with them?
        The President. I sent a little note to Mr. Kirkland the other day
    and said I hoped my comments Sunday morning didn't ruin his Sunday
    afternoon. And I told him basically what I said before. I have enormous
    respect for many of the people who are fighting us on this. I just think
    they're wrong. But specifically, I don't think a Congressman who has
    been a friend of the labor movement for 20 years should be told that he
    or she will get an opponent in the next election or never get any more
    help on this one vote. I just disagree with that.
        If you go back and look at the interview, I was trying to make the
    point that I thought in the Congress the labor movement was a bigger
    force in keeping this from passing than the Perot folks were. I didn't
    mean to hurt their feelings, but I can't retract what I said because I
    don't think it's right for people to be told, ``If you vote your
    conscience on this vote we're through with you forever, no matter what
    you've done with us before.'' I think that's bad and it's not conducive
    to good government.
        Q. We seem to be heading for one of those cliffhangers next week in
    the House, kind of high political drama that Washington enjoys. I can't
    imagine, though, sir, that perhaps you enjoy it quite as much. And I
    wonder as you look back on this if you feel that this issue could
    perhaps have been managed differently, perhaps an earlier start that
    would have enabled you to make what you seem to feel is a very strong
    case a bit more easily?
        The President. I think the only way we could have started earlier is
    if we'd been able to conclude the side agreements sooner; because keep
    in mind, first of all, I ran for this job with a commitment to support
    NAFTA if I could get the right side agreements. This thing was dead in
    the water in January when I became President. It was gone. There was no
    support among the Democrats in the House. There were Republicans who
    thought they weren't going to be able to vote for it. Yes, the
    opposition then got geared up and made a lot of charges against it. But
    the only thing we had to hold out was the promise that we could conclude
    side agreements that would improve the environmental issues and that
    would deal with the labor issues and that would give us some leverage
    for people to move forward. If we had been able to conclude those
    agreements more quickly, then we could have started the campaign more
    quickly.
        Q. You don't think these side agreements added credence to the idea
    that it was a flawed agreement and perhaps hurt politically?
        The President. No, I don't think so. But I don't know. Anybody can
    always second-guess. But what I always tried to say about NAFTA was that
    the concept was sound and that we needed an agreement with Mexico. One
    of the things we haven't talked about very much is it means a lot to the
    United States to have a neighbor with 90 million people that is moving
    toward democracy, that is moving toward an open economy, and that is
    moving toward greater friendship with us. I mean, this is a big deal. If
    you want cooperation in the immigration problem, the drug problem, this
    means a lot to us.
        I always felt that we would get there, but in dealing with at least
    the people in our party, we had to be able to have something to show
    that would indicate we were making progress in these areas. So that's
    all I can say. We may be able to be second-guessed, but the thing simply
    wasn't ready, and I didn't have anything to argue with.
        Q. Mr. President, a moment ago you stated that your leverage would
    be increased in Seattle if you get a NAFTA victory. Could you come at it
    from the other side? If you have a NAFTA defeat on Wednesday, would that
    in any way diminish your prestige in Seattle or your ability to conduct
    foreign policy?
        The President. I don't think it would diminish my ability to conduct
    foreign policy except in the economic area. I think it would limit my

    [[Page 1947]]

    ability to argue that the Asians should open their markets more. And
    after all, our trade problem, in terms of open markets--if you look at
    it, where is our trade deficit: $49 billion with Japan, $19 billion with
    China, $9 billion with Taiwan. We have a $5.4 billion trade surplus with
    Mexico. So I think my ability to argue that case forcefully that ``You
    ought to open your markets; look at what we're doing,'' will be
    undermined. And I think, more importantly, my ability to argue that the
    Asians and the Europeans should join with me and push hard, hard to get
    a world trade agreement through the GATT round by the end of the year
    will be more limited. There's no question about it.
        Look, the anxieties that we have here, the same thing is going on in
    Japan, where they're not generating jobs and they've got staggering
    income. Same thing in Europe; it's been years since the European economy
    as a whole has generated new jobs. So in each of these great power
    centers of the world there are these debates every day just like the one
    that went on last night between the Vice President and Mr. Perot.
    They're debating it: Are they going to be more open or more closed?
    Which way are they going to go? And so I think that my ability to tip
    the scales in that debate in the right direction for history and for the
    American people will be limited significantly in the short run if we
    lose NAFTA. It will not be good for the United States.

    Anticrime Efforts

        Q. Mr. President, beyond signing a crime bill, if and when one hits
    your desk, what else can you do? What else will you do about crime and
    violence?
        The President. Well, I think that there's a lot more we have to do.
    I think the administration has got to examine everything we can do to
    try to put together an approach that will challenge every community in
    this country and every organization in this country and every individual
    in this country to make a contribution with us in restoring the
    conditions in which civilized life can go on.
        I think that the crime bill is very important. I don't want to
    minimize that. I know some disagree that it is. It really will make a
    difference if you put another 100,000 police out there. We're losing the
    ratio of police to crime. We have been for 30 years. This is an
    important issue. It matters whether we get these police out there, if
    they're properly trained and properly deployed in community policing.
        But we have to rebuild families and communities in this country.
    We've got to take more responsibility for these little kids before they
    grow up and start shooting each other. We have to find ways to offer
    hope and to reconnect people. When children start shooting children the
    way they're doing now, and little kids go around planning their own
    funerals, what that means is that there are a whole lot of people,
    millions of people in this country, who literally are not even playing
    by the same set of rules that all the rest of us take for granted. And
    we have learned in this country to accept many things that are
    unacceptable. And I think the President has a pulpit, Teddy Roosevelt's
    bully pulpit, that I have to use and work hard on and try to live by, to
    try to help rebuild the conditions of family and community and education
    and opportunity.
        And I'll just say one last thing about that. What a lot of these
    folks that are in such desperate trouble need is a unique combination of
    both structure and order and discipline on the one hand and genuine
    caring on the other. It is impossible to structure life in a society
    like ours where there is no family or at least no supervising, caring
    adult on the one hand, and on the other hand where there is no work. If
    you go generation after generation after generation and people don't get
    to work--you think about your lives, think about what you're going to do
    today, what you did this morning when you got up, what you'll do tonight
    when you go home. If you think about the extent to which work organizes
    life in America and reinforces our values, our rules, and the way we
    relate to one another and the way we raise our children, and then you
    imagine what it must be like where there is no work--I know the budget
    is tight. I know there are all kinds of tough problems. I know that
    people with private capital, even with our empowerment zones, may not
    want to invest in inner cities and decimated rural areas, but I'm
    telling you, we have to deal with family, community, education, and you
    have to have work; there has to be work there.
        Q. Mr. President, on the issue of crime, could you explain a little
    bit more about how the White House, how your administration is going to
    accomplish some of those things?
        The President. Yes. First of all, the Attorney General and Secretary
    Cisneros and a number

    [[Page 1948]]

    of other people are now working in our administration on how we can
    develop a comprehensive approach to the whole issue of violence in our
    society and how we can merge that with what we want to do in terms of
    community empowerment and how it will fit with all the things that we
    are now doing. And I think what you will see from us over the next
    several months is a sustained, organized, disciplined approach so that
    we don't just respond to the horror we all feel when a little kid gets
    shot after being picked up off the street, like happened here last
    weekend, or when these children plan their funerals. I want to put this
    right at the center of what we're doing.
        I have spent years going to neighborhoods and talking to people and
    dealing with issues that most politicians in National Government have
    not talked a lot about. I care a great deal about this. There is a lot
    of knowledge in this town about it. Senator Moynihan wrote a very
    powerful article just a couple of weeks ago on how we have defined
    deviancy down. I think there's an enormous bipartisan willingness to
    face this. What I think I have to do is to mobilize every person in my
    Government to do what can be done to address these problems. And you
    will see that coming out after the Congress goes home and in my address
    to the people next year when the Congress begins.
        Q. Mr. President, you mentioned Senator Moynihan. He's proposed a
    Federal tax on bullets that would make certain kind of bullets,
    particularly cop-killer bullets, prohibitively expensive. Do you support
    the general idea of an ammunition tax? And would you like to see it to
    be part of the financing for your health care package, as Senator
    Moynihan has proposed?
        The President. Well, Senator Moynihan has been very candid in saying
    that what he really wants to do is to try to use this to deal with the
    problem of gun violence in America. I think the health care plan that I
    put forward will finance itself in the way that we have, and I think we
    should proceed with that. I think that this idea of his, however,
    deserves a lot of consideration.
        But one of the things that I question in my own mind is if some of
    these bullets are being manufactured solely for the purpose of having a
    devastating effect on someone's body if they hit someone's body, whether
    we ought not just to get rid of those bullets. Because if you look at
    the money that can be raised as a practical matter, in the context of
    this Federal budget or the health care budget, it's limited. I agree
    with the Treasury Secretary. Secretary Bentsen stated our position. We
    think the Senator has given us an interesting idea. We're looking at it.
    We're seeing what the objectives are. But some of that ammunition, it
    would seem to me, there might be a consensus that we ought not to make
    it at all in this country.

    New Jersey Election

        Q. Mr. President, it turns out that your friend Jim Florio in New
    Jersey may have lost the election by a narrow margin because of an
    approach dreamed up by the Republican strategists which depressed the
    black voter turnout. What do you think about that tactic?
        The President. First, I think we should all acknowledge that people
    have died in this country, given their lives to give other Americans,
    especially African-Americans, the right to vote. And this allegation, if
    it is true--and I say if it is true--I don't know what the facts are,
    but if it is true, then it was terribly wrong for anyone to give money
    to anybody else not to vote or to depress voter turnout. And it was
    terribly wrong for anyone to accept that money to render that nonservice
    to this country.

    NAFTA

        Q. Can you give us a count right now of how many votes you have in
    the House on NAFTA?
        The President. No, because it's changing every day. But we're
    getting a lot closer. I honestly believe we're going to win it now, and
    that's not just political puff. I think we'll make it. I'll be surprised
    if we don't win now.
        Q. [Inaudible]--what is going to happen to Latin America if NAFTA is
    not passed. What would be the impact in the United States, not in you
    but in the people of the United States if NAFTA is not approved?
        The President. Well, if it's not passed, we'll lose a lot of
    opportunities to sell our products. We will not do one single thing to
    discourage people from moving to Mexico to set up plants to get low
    wages to sell back in here. We will depress the environmental and labor
    costs more than they otherwise would be depressed in Mexico, which will
    make it harder for us to compete. It'll be bad for America if we do it.

    [[Page 1949]]

    Haiti and Bosnia

        Q. Mr. President, so far you haven't talked about Haiti and Bosnia.
    The situation in those two countries seems to have gotten worse in the
    year since you've been elected. Right now, what can you tell us you're
    doing to reverse the situation in the short term, or do you fear that
    this is going to go on all winter long in Bosnia as well as in Haiti?
        The President. Well, the problem or the conditions in Bosnia at
    least seem to be that none of the parties now, including the government,
    at least at the moment we speak, based on what I knew this morning, are
    of a mind to make peace on any terms that the others will accept,
    because there are different military results being achieved on the
    ground there in different places in ways that make all the parties feel
    that they shouldn't agree now. Under those conditions, all we can do is
    to try to make sure that we minimize the human loss coming on for this
    winter, that we try to get the United Nations to agree to let the NATO
    position that the United States put together on the availability of air
    power in the event that Sarajevo is seriously shelled be an actual live
    option and not just something on the books, and that we make sure our
    humanitarian program works.
        I will say this--I want to emphasize this--the airlift to Bosnia,
    which this Nation has spearheaded, has now gone on longer than the
    Berlin airlift. And it's one of the most comprehensive humanitarian aid
    efforts in history. And we'll have to keep doing it.
        In Haiti, I'd like to say a word or two about that. First of all,
    it's important that the people of Haiti understand that the people who
    brought this embargo on were Mr. Francois and General Cedras, because
    they didn't go through with the Governors Island Agreement.
        Now, I believe that Mr. Malval and President Aristide are willing to
    talk in good faith and try to reach an accommodation that would enable
    us to get back on the path to democracy and to implementing that
    agreement. I grieve for the people of Haiti. We feed almost 700,000
    people a day in Haiti. We participate actively, the United States does.
    I don't want anybody else to be hurt down there. But I think it's very
    important that the people of Haiti understand that the people that
    brought this embargo on them were Francois and Cedras in breaking the
    agreement that was agreed to by all parties there. And we have to try to
    reach another agreement so that the country can go back to normal.

    NAFTA

        Q. The financial community has been worried about Mexico's policy of
    gradually devaluing the peso and saying that this would underscore the
    low-wage environment there. What would you foresee under a NAFTA pact
    that was approved as far as the relationship between the dollar and the
    peso? And would we end up finding the Federal Reserve having to support
    the peso because of our tighter economic relationship?
        The President. Actually, I would think that--I want to be careful
    how I say this because I don't want anything I say now to have an impact
    in the Mexican financial markets today, but I believe that you have to
    just say that the peso would become stronger if NAFTA passes because it
    would strengthen the Mexican economy. And normally, when you've got a
    strong economy that's growing, the value of the currency will rise.

    Khanh Pham

        Let me say, I know we've got--no, no, no, I'm sorry. I want to
    introduce someone before we go, because I think I would be remiss, here
    at a press conference with all of you, not to do this. I'd like to ask
    Khanh Pham to stand. Would you stand up?
        I want to tell you a little bit about this young woman. She's here
    today with a program that puts role models and young people together.
    And she said that her role model was Dee Dee Myers, so she wanted to
    come here and be here. But let me tell you about her. Maybe she should
    be our role model.
        When she was 2\1/2\ years old, she was cradled in her 5-year-old
    brother's arms as her mother made a desperate run for freedom from
    Vietnam. They forced their way onto an overcrowded small wooden boat
    after giving away their life savings for those spots. They endured heavy
    seas, were separated on the boat for a period of time. They watched
    people die before being picked up by a U.S. naval ship, the U.S.S.
    Warden.
        After coming here, because of language barriers, her mother could
    only get jobs in manual labor. She also baked Vietnamese pastries to
    sell. She held two or three jobs at a time. Sometimes she didn't have
    enough money to wash

    [[Page 1950]]

    the clothes so the family would have to wash them in their tub, while
    Khanh and her brother would try to teach their mother English.
        A couple of years ago, she missed several months of school while she
    single handedly worked with all the agencies and authorities here to get
    her two sisters back from Vietnam into the United States. Finally, they
    were reunited a year and a half ago, and they now live with Khanh and
    her mother. She is 17, a senior at Reston High School in Virginia. She
    holds an office with her student government, and she's a student
    representative elected to the board of governors, a city office in
    Reston.
        And as I said, she's spending the day here today. She's interested
    in being in the press today, but one day she hopes to be America's
    Ambassador to Vietnam.
        Thank you for coming here.
        Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

    Note: The President's 32d news conference began at 3:05 p.m. in the East
    Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Col. Joseph
    Michel Francois, chief of the Haitian police; Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras,
    commander of the Haitian armed forces; and Haitian Prime Minister Robert
    Malval.