    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book II)]
    [November 15, 1993]
    [Pages 1998-2000]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Letter to Congressional Leaders on NAFTA
    November 15, 1993

    Dear Mr. Speaker:  (Dear Mr. Leader:)

        As we approach the end of an intense debate over the North American
    Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), I want to share with you my reasons for
    believing Congressional approval of NAFTA is essential to our national
    interest.

        We share a commitment to ensuring that our country has the world's
    strongest and most competitive economy, to maintaining and creating jobs
    for our workers, and to making sure that opportunities are there for our
    children as they join the workforce of the future. That is why I am
    fighting for the approval of NAFTA. I am convinced that it will help
    strengthen our economy--in the near term and in the long run.

    [[Page 1999]]

        Our nation's prosperity depends on our ability to compete and win in
    the global economy. It is an illusion to believe that we can prosper by
    retreating behind protectionist walls. We will succeed only by ensuring
    that we have the world's most competitive companies, productive workers,
    and open markets in which to sell our manufactured goods, services, and
    agricultural products.

        I understand that NAFTA is, for many, a reminder of the economic
    hardships and insecurities that have grown over the past 20 years.
    Obviously, NAFTA did not cause those problems. In fact, it is part of
    the solution. We are world-class producers of everything from computers
    and automobiles to financial services and soybeans. We can compete
    anywhere, but we need to ensure that markets around the world are open
    to our products.

        Mexico represents an enormous opportunity for our businesses, our
    workers, and our farmers. Exports there have already soared since 1986,
    when Mexico began to open its market and lower trade barriers. But the
    status quo in the trading relationship--in which Mexico's trade barriers
    are far higher than ours--is still unacceptable. NAFTA represents both
    free and fair trade. It changes the status quo by wiping away the
    Mexican barriers.

        NAFTA provides us preferential access to the Mexican market: 90
    million people, in one of the most dynamic growing economies in the
    world, who look to us for consumer goods, agricultural products and the
    infrastructure needed to build a modern economy. It is the gateway to
    the fast growing markets of Latin America, which are also opening, where
    we have a natural advantage over Japan and the European Community.
    Turning away from this opportunity would be a serious self-inflicted
    wound to our economy. It would cost us jobs--in the short and long term.

        Many opponents of NAFTA say that they don't oppose a trade agreement
    with Mexico. They say they just oppose this NAFTA, and suggest that it
    be renegotiated. We should be under no illusions. This is a far-reaching
    and fair agreement. It was negotiated painstakingly over three years
    with input from a broad array of groups, and it is in the best interest
    of the United States, Mexico and Canada. It represents an unprecedented
    effort to include in a trade agreement provisions to enhance
    environmental protection and workers rights. It was negotiated by a
    Republican President, and endorsed and strengthened by a Democratic
    President. If it were defeated, no government of Mexico could return, or
    would return, to the negotiating table for years to come. Mexico would
    turn to others, like Japan and the European Community, for help in
    building a modern state--and American workers, farmers, and businesses
    would be the losers.

        Of course, NAFTA is not a magic bullet for all our economic
    problems. But there is no question that NAFTA will benefit every region
    of our country. It is no accident that NAFTA has the support of more
    than two-thirds of the nation's governors and Members of Congress from
    every part of the nation. They understand the benefits that will flow to
    their states, regardless of region.

        My main reason for supporting NAFTA is that it will be good for the
    competitive U.S. economy that we are trying to build. But there is
    another critical issue that I ask you to consider. After World War I,
    the United States chose the path of isolation and protectionism. That
    path led directly to the Depression, and helped set the world on the
    path to World War II. After World War II, we chose to engage with the
    world, through collective security and expanded trade. We helped our
    allies rebuild, ushered in a period of unprecedented global economic
    growth, and prevailed over communism.

        Now we face another defining moment. The rejection of NAFTA would
    set back our relationship with Mexico, and Latin American beyond, for
    years to come. It would send a signal that the world's leading power has
    chosen the path of pessimism and protectionism. It would gravely
    undermine our ability to convince other countries to join us in
    completing the Uruguay Round, which is essential to expand trade and
    enhance global growth.

    [[Page 2000]]

        Rejecting NAFTA would, quite simply, put us on the wrong side of
    history. That is not our destiny. I ask the House of Representatives to
    join me in choosing the path of expanded trade, to make the decision to
    compete in the world, rather than to retreat behind our borders. We are
    a great country, and we cannot shrink from this test.
        Sincerely,

                                                                Bill Clinton

    Note: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S. Foley, Speaker of the
    House of Representatives, and Robert H. Michel, House Republican leader.
    This letter was made available by the Office of the Press Secretary on
    November 16 but was not issued as a White House press release.