    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book II)]
    [November 1, 1993]
    [Pages 1868-1874]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Teleconference Remarks on NAFTA to the United States Chamber of Commerce
    November 1, 1993

        The President. Thank you very much. I'm delighted to see all of you
    here and to know that there are people all across the country watching
    this important event. I thank the chamber of commerce for organizing
    this and for providing the technology that makes it possible. I'm glad
    to see Governor Edgar of Illinois here. And I listened intently in the
    back room there to my former colleagues, Governor Wilson and Governor
    Weld, talk about NAFTA. I want to thank Dick Lesher and Ivan Gorr and
    Larry Bossidy for their work through USA*NAFTA and the chamber of
    commerce to help us pass this very important piece of legislation. And I
    think former Congressman Bill Frenzel, who's the cochair of our effort,
    is here somewhere. I want to thank him for making our bipartisan
    administration effort as successful as it's been.
        I know that there are people all over the country here, but if
    you'll forgive me for a little bit of parochialism, I want to observe
    that there are 150 people from my home State of Arkansas listening at
    the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, where we had the economic summit
    last December, and one of our good employers I just shook hands with on
    the platform up here.
        I say that to make this point: Any Governor will tell you that the
    job of being Governor today is the job of getting and keeping jobs and
    educating and training people to do them. That is the lion's share of
    the work, on a daily basis, of doing that job. For a dozen years, it was
    my job to try to deal with the pressures of global competition, the
    enormous economic difficulties of the 1980's. When plants closed, I knew
    people's names who ran the plants and worked in the plants. When people
    closed their plants and went to Mexico, I knew about them. And I was
    proud that of the three or four we lost when I was Governor, we actually
    brought one back before I left office. It made me feel that in part, we
    had squared the circle.
        The point I want to make is this: Anybody who has ever dealt with
    these issues knows that most of the arguments being raised against NAFTA
    today are arguments being raised about

    [[Page 1869]]

    economic forces and developments that occurred in the past. And anybody
    who has ever read the agreement knows that if you don't like it when
    people shut plants down and move to Mexico, that this agreement will
    actually make that less likely. And if we don't pass it, it will do
    nothing to stop what people who are complaining about it are complaining
    about.
        I would never knowingly do anything that would cost an American a
    job. My job is to try to recover the economic vitality of this country
    by working in partnership with the private sector. It is important, it
    is imperative that we make it clear to the American people, first of
    all, that you ought to look at what this agreement does: It helps to
    alleviate the problems that led to so many jobs moving out of our
    manufacturing sector, either into machines or offshore, whether to
    Mexico or to other places.
        I want to acknowledge that in Cincinnati today, Congressman David
    Mann is there with 130 people at the General Electric aircraft engine
    plant. I think if NAFTA passes we'll not only sell aircraft engines from
    Cincinnati, we may even sell some of that Cincinnati chili, too. In
    Seattle there are 100 people in attendance at the Lake Washington
    Technical College. One in six jobs in the State of Washington are
    related to trade today, and by the time most of the students at that
    college hit their stride, even more jobs will be dependent on trade.
        I have to tell you that again I have heard all the debates on this
    issue. I have listened carefully to the opponents and the supporters. I
    have never heard anyone seriously argue that a great country with a high
    per capita income can expand its incomes or its jobs without expanding
    trade. There is simply no way to do it. There is no example anywhere now
    of a country that can grow more jobs without selling its products beyond
    its borders. And that, in the end, is the most important lesson we have
    to learn if we're going to make a good decision about NAFTA.
        When I became President, I had a very clear set of priorities in my
    mind about what I thought we ought to do with this economy. I knew we
    had to try to bring the deficit down and get interest rates down. And
    it's immensely gratifying to have the lowest home mortgage rates in 25
    years, the lowest 30-year rate since we've been calculating them come
    out in the last few months, to know that the deficit came in $55 billion
    less this year than we were told it would be on January 20th. But I also
    know that even though there are indications that we see an increase in
    investment in homes, in cars, in long-term investments by businesses, in
    the end this economy will not grow unless we sell more of our products
    and services beyond our borders. We cannot simply create a healthy
    economy only by changes here.
        The other day we announced our new export initiative, which among
    other things removed over $35 billion worth of high-tech equipment from
    export controls and opened those things to the international market,
    computers, supercomputers, telecommunications equipment. Someone has to
    buy them. In the last 2 years, Mexico has gone from purchasing 390,000
    to 600,000 computers, just from one year to the next. But 600,000 in a
    consumer market of 90 million men, women, and children is not so many.
    Think what will happen when the barriers, the tariffs, go down, when
    there is no 20 percent tariff barrier. And think what it will be like
    when that tariff barrier is down for us but not for our major
    competitors. We've been on the opposite side of that fence a lot of
    times. Now we're going to be given preferential treatment in a market
    that we're going to help develop. It's a very, very important issue.
        I want to say to all of you that if we don't approve NAFTA, it will
    weaken our ability to get a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
    passed by the end of the year. If we do approve NAFTA, it will not only
    put us in a stronger position with Mexico and with all the rest of Latin
    America, it will help us to say to our trading partners in Europe and in
    Asia what we really need is to continue to expand trade worldwide.
        The real job gains in NAFTA come not just from passing NAFTA,
    although we are convinced it will create 200,000 new jobs by 1995. The
    real job gains come when we take that NAFTA agreement and we take it to
    Chile, we take it to Argentina, we take it to Colombia, we take it to
    Venezuela, we take it to the other market-oriented democracies in Latin
    America and enable us to create a consumer market of over 700 million
    people, soon to be over one billion people, early in the next century,
    and we use that leverage then to say to our friends in Asia and our
    friends in Europe that it's okay for you to have trading blocs but we
    need to open up trading worldwide. We need that. If we don't pass NAFTA,
    our leverage to get that

    [[Page 1870]]

    done will be much more limited.
        So I say to all of you it is important not only on its own terms,
    but this issue has acquired an enormous significance because of the
    advantage it will give us in the Mexican market over our competitors in
    Japan and Europe and because of the leverage that will then give us to
    get a worldwide trade agreement that the world desperately needs to
    restore global growth. Without that, we're not going to be able to sell
    our products; we're not going to be able to create more jobs; we're not
    going to be able to see our workers' incomes go up. With it, we have the
    prospect of having several years now of sustained, vigorous economic
    growth because we are getting control of our economic house; we are
    putting things in order; we are getting our priorities straightened out
    in this country; we are focusing on investment and on training. We have
    to have the markets.
        Now let me just say one final thing about this. I think if there
    were a secret vote in the Congress today, we would win. Now, that's a
    big issue, winning the secret ballot. I say that not to criticize anyone
    or to put anyone down but to recognize that the pressures against NAFTA
    are enormous. But they reflect, as I have said many times in many
    places, the accumulated frustrations and grievances and insecurities
    people bring to this day in American history. More and more people are
    worried about losing their jobs. More and more people know if they lose
    their jobs, they won't get it back. That's true. That's true. We have an
    unemployment system premised on a set of conditions that no longer
    exist, you know, you lose your job, and then the recession's over and
    your old company hires you back. That only happens about one in five
    times now.
        So there is all this uncertainty out there in America today. I
    understand that. And our administration has done what we could to try to
    alleviate the insecurities of the American working families. The family
    leave law was designed to say to people, ``You can be a good worker and
    a good parent.'' The attempt to control health care costs and still
    provide health care for everyone is an attempt to say, ``Yes, you may
    lose your job, but at least your family can be taken care of.'' The
    attempt that the Congress is making now on a bipartisan basis to pass a
    new crime bill is a way of saying, ``We know you have to feel safer on
    your streets. If you work hard and play by the rules, you shouldn't
    worry about having your children shot going to and from school.''
        But with all of this, we cannot turn away from the global economy
    that is engulfing us. And what I want to ask all of you to do, every one
    of you listening to me today, is to think about what you can do between
    now and November 17th, either directly by contacting a Member of
    Congress or indirectly by getting employees or friends or others to
    contact Members of Congress to say, ``We know America can compete and
    win. We are not going to turn tail and run. We have not given up on
    America.''
        The Mexican economy may have 90 million people, but today it is the
    size of California from Los Angeles to the Mexican border. The idea that
    America is just going to shrivel up if we adopt this trade agreement is
    ridiculous. This trade agreement is a door that opens all of Latin
    America to us. It is a lever that will open a broader trading system in
    the world to us. And we cannot run away. We've got to compete and win.
    You have to be, in other words, the engines of confidence in our future.
    And employees, people who work with you who understand this, can have a
    huge impact on turning what is now only a secret ballot victory on NAFTA
    into a public victory on November 17th.
        This is a difficult time for America. And it's hard for people to
    have confidence when they've been battered and pushed around and
    worried. But we cannot turn away from the future that is there before
    us. I honestly believe the next 20 years could be the best 20 years this
    country ever had if we have the courage and the vision to take advantage
    of the end of the cold war, the continued efforts to reduce nuclear
    arms, the fact that economic competition may expand opportunity for
    everyone if we do it right.
        When we started, NAFTA had a significance for those who were
    fighting against it all out of proportion, all out of proportion to the
    impact it could have. You saw on that film there are several unions,
    many major unions in this country, who are going to gain jobs if this
    passes. But they decided that NAFTA would be the receptacle in which all
    the resentments and fears and insecurities of that last 12 to 20 years
    of stagnant wages and economic difficulties would be poured.
        It has acquired a symbolic significance for those of us who are for
    it, too. This is a huge diplomatic, foreign policy, and economic issue
    for America. You simply cannot divide domestic

    [[Page 1871]]

    and foreign policy anymore, as you once could. This is a major thing for
    the United States. If we walk away from this, if we walk away from this
    and Mexico decides to pursue its development strategy, what must it do?
    It must make this deal with Europe or with Japan. And what would that
    do? That could change the purchasing habits of 90 million Mexicans and
    hundreds of millions of people in Latin America. It could cut us off
    from not only economic but political opportunities to promote democracy
    and freedom and stability in our hemisphere that we can now only
    imagine.
        If we embrace it, we not only will get in the immediate future a
    competitive advantage in selling into the Mexican market, a way of
    embracing all of Latin America, but the security of knowing that America
    is still marching in the right direction, that we are on future's side,
    that we are grasping for a time when our people will be able to compete
    and win in a global economy that will be less protectionist, more open,
    more full of opportunity, and more full of peace and democracy. This is
    a huge issue.
        So I will close with this plea to you. This is not exactly like a
    church service. I know I am preaching to the saved, as we say at home,
    but you all have to be missionaries. We only have 17 days or so. We need
    you to go out and make sure that your Members of Congress, every man and
    woman in the Congress that you can reach, is contacted by real people
    who say, ``My life will be better.'' I don't know how many Members I've
    heard from both parties saying, ``All the organized vote is against
    this. I'd just like to hear from a few people who will rationally tell
    me that their lives will be better and that our country will be better
    off and that our district will be better off.''
        Please do that. Don't miss a chance to do it. Don't wake up on the
    morning of November 18th and wish that you had done something to give
    America a brighter future; to give our hemisphere a more solid, more
    democratic, more market-oriented future; and to open up the future in a
    way that is worthy of our country and that I am convinced is absolutely
    essential for our long-term success. We need your help. Many of these
    Members, you can have more influence on them than I can, because I can
    only vote in one congressional district every 2 years. You can vote in
    all of them. We need your help.
        Thank you very much.
        Meryl Comer. Ladies and gentlemen, the President has agreed to take
    some questions. Behind you are small business owners. They all are
    wearing NAFTA buttons, but there's one man who's wearing an attitude
    button as well. Would you like to ask the President a question?

    [At this point, a participant requested the President's response to
    people who favor protectionism.]

        The President. I respond in two ways. Number one, most of those
    people believe that all managers make all decisions based on labor
    costs. If that were true, what you would be reading this morning about
    Haiti is not whether a police chief and an army guy want to make it even
    poorer, even though it's already the third poorest country in the world.
    What you would read is that Haiti had all the manufacturing jobs in
    America, right? I mean, if this were a case of low wages, the headlines
    on Haiti today would be ``General Motors shuts down in Michigan,''
    ``Caterpillar leaves Illinois, goes to Port-au-Prince,'' right? Number
    one, it's not factually true that labor costs or environmental
    investments are the only thing involved. Germany, which has a trading
    system arguably more open than ours and higher labor costs, has almost
    one-third of its work force in manufacturing, almost twice the
    percentage we do. It's simply not true. How well you do in production of
    goods and services depends upon how productive you are, how well-
    organized you are, and whether you can sell.
        The second thing I would say is there is this fear, because of
    what's happened to us, because we're going through this wrenching
    restructuring, that is emotional, that we can't compete and win anymore.
    And that's just not true either. We're going to have to be able to suit
    up and go out and play and win. That's the attitude issue: Do you
    believe that this country can win or not? I mean, we're gaining back
    market share in autos, American autos, shoving our foreign competitors
    out of the American market because of quality and price. And there are
    lots of other examples. Our manufacturing productivity's gone up now for
    a dozen years at an annual rate of over 4 percent a year. This is nuts,
    this idea that we can't compete and win. It is true we're having trouble
    creating large numbers of new jobs. That is true for every wealthy
    country in the world. We have to solve that problem. But no one can
    solve it without more markets.

    [[Page 1872]]

        Those are my answers, and I thank you.
        Ms. Comer. Please raise your hand for questions. Mr. President,
    while I'm trying to find a question, there's a gentleman who got up at 3
    this morning, milked the cows, and came because he cares about NAFTA. If
    you shook his hand he'd have stories to tell for years. He's right
    behind you in the white shirt.
        The President. Where is he? I want to say this before you get to the
    question: That man is a dairy farmer, and sometimes I feel sorry for
    myself--if you think you work hard, you ought to start a dairy farm.
    It's a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week job. I never could figure out how any
    of the dairy farmers in my State even made it to their kids' high school
    graduation. But I thank you for coming here today.

    [Another participant asked about the economic impact if NAFTA is not
    passed.]

        The President. Let me say, first of all, to the opponents of NAFTA,
    you can't name a single solitary thing you don't like that wouldn't
    continue to happen at maybe a greater pace if it fails. So you don't
    gain anything by beating it, for the people who are against it.
        In addition to that, if Mexico follows the same strategy--let's ask
    rationally, what do they get out of this deal? If it's such a good deal
    for us and we sell even more consumer products--they are already the
    second biggest purchaser of American products in the world, even though
    they're by no means a wealthy country. They buy more per person than any
    other country in the world except Canada. What do they get out of it?
    They get development capital, not to invest to export back to the
    American market but to build up Mexico. That's what they get.
        Now, if they stay with that strategy and we turn them down, what do
    you think they're going to do? There's only two places they can get it.
    They can make the same deal with Europe or the same deal with Japan,
    which means they will give them preferential access to their market
    instead of giving us preferential access to their market. Which means
    that you, sir, will have to face a 20 percent disability, if you want to
    sell into the Mexican market, against either the European people doing
    more or less what you do or the Japanese business people who do. That's
    exactly what's going to happen.
        In addition to that, we will probably see a reversal of the good
    feeling that now exists for the United States in Mexico and throughout
    Latin America and the opportunity to do this same deal with other
    countries--I mentioned a few, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela;
    there are others--none of whom will be getting investment to export back
    to the American market, but all of whom will buy more American products.
    Those opportunities will also be lost.
        So, this is a good deal for this country. And not doing it,
    conversely, is a very, very dangerous strategy. It's a dangerous
    strategy economically; it's dangerous politically. It will hurt us in
    the short run, and it will hurt us for 20 years. I am convinced it is a
    terrible, terrible mistake.
        Ms. Comer. Do you have time for one more, Mr. President?
        The President. Sure, I'm with you.
        Ms. Comer. This gentleman flew all the way in from California. He
    didn't want to talk to the Governor, he wanted to talk to the President.
    Please go ahead.

    [The participant asked if NAFTA would increase illegal immigration.]

        The President. It won't. There's no evidence that it will. I can't
    even figure out that argument. I stayed up late trying to figure that
    one. I can't figure it out.
        To be fair, let's talk about it. There is a sophisticated argument
    that development in Mexico increases immigration to America. And let me
    tell you what it is and then say why NAFTA makes it better. Most of the
    people who immigrate from Mexico to the United States illegally are
    looking for jobs. Some are looking for welfare, but most are looking for
    work. When we set up the maquilladora system along the Mexican border--
    which, after all, was set up by our Government to help Mexico develop,
    right?--the idea was you could go down there and put up a plant and then
    export back to the United States duty-free. So a lot of people who don't
    have access to other jobs in other parts of Mexico come up there, they
    work in the maquilladora plant, but they can make more money in America.
    Or they come looking for a job, they don't get it, so they just--it's
    very close to the border. So you could argue that the maquilladora
    system has perversely increased illegal immigration.
        How will NAFTA reverse that? It erases the maquilladora line. This
    will permit investment to occur in Mexico City and south of there. This
    will permit a balanced development ap-

    [[Page 1873]]

    proach so there will not only be more jobs and higher incomes, but
    they'll be strewed out all over the country instead of right there on
    the American border, all of which will reduce illegal immigration long-
    term.
        Also, since you said that, if NAFTA passes we will get much more
    cooperation from the Mexican Government in enforcing our immigration
    laws and our drug laws. There's no question that we'll get a higher
    level of cooperation on both those very important issues if this passes.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Comer. Was that answer worth your trip?
        Q. Absolutely perfect. And I'll go home and tell----
        The President. Don't you think it's right----
        Q. You're absolutely right. And I'll go home and tell the story for
    you.
        The President. Thank you.

    [A participant asked why many Americans feel U.S. businesses cannot
    compete.]

        The President. Again, you see, I don't agree with it. But we have
    lost a lot of manufacturing jobs in the last 20 years. We've been losing
    manufacturing jobs for 35 years. But the percentage of our economy
    devoted to manufacturing is just what it was 12 years ago. In other
    words, what's happening is we're doing just what happened in
    agriculture, going back to the beginning of this century. You've got
    fewer people increasing their productivity and therefore increasing
    their output. That doesn't mean we can't compete, it means we have to
    get more and more productive to compete.
        Now, here's my argument to the people against NAFTA. Let's say we've
    got 16 percent of the American work force in manufacturing today--it is
    16 to 17--producing about 20 percent of our national wealth. And let's
    say that 15 years ago, I can't remember, but let's say 15 years ago it
    was about 23 percent--I think that's about what it was--producing 20
    percent of our national wealth. If you want to go back to 23 percent,
    what do you have to do? You have to make more things and sell them to
    more people.
        I will say it again: Germany, a country with a shorter work week and
    higher labor costs but extraordinary productivity in manufacturing, has
    almost a third of its workers in manufacturing. Now, do they account for
    20 percent of the wealth in Germany? No, they account for about 40
    percent of the wealth. So if you want to do more in manufacturing or in
    services or in agriculture or in anything else, you have to have
    somebody to sell to.
        So people have missed the--they assume that when the number of
    manufacturing workers go down, that the production's going down because
    nobody's buying it. In fact, production is just where it was. It's just
    that more people are more productive.
        So my answer to those folks is, if you want more people to work in
    manufacturing again, find more customers. There is no other way to do
    it. Find new products and more customers. This gentleman here in the
    environmental area, one of the things we're trying to do is to take a
    lot of these defense companies that are losing their defense contracts
    and do partnerships with the Federal Government to give them the time
    they need to develop new technologies. You have to find different
    products and more customers. There is no other way. It has nothing to do
    with lower wages. That's not what the problem is.
        Ms. Comer. Mr. President, your friends from the Excelsior Hotel are
    trying to reach you.
        The President. I may owe some money--[laughter]
        Ms. Comer. They've gotten to you by fax. It's your Arkansas NAFTA
    coalition assembled at the Excelsior Hotel. How is that hotel?
        The President. It's a very nice hotel.
        Ms. Comer. Okay. All right.
        The President. Also to give you--it happens to belong to some
    Japanese investors who employ a lot of Arkansans. I mean, I think that's
    the world we're living in. We can't run from it. We ought to embrace it
    and figure out a way to win in it.
        Ms. Comer. Here is their question, Mr. President: If NAFTA fails,
    isn't it reasonable to expect that Japan and the European Community will
    step into Mexico and take much of the market away from the U.S., thereby
    costing U.S. jobs, not saving them?
        The President. Well, I'll tell you what I would do. If I were the
    Prime Minister of Japan and I had a low growth rate and I had my
    companies going crazy because they have hidden unemployment, since they
    have in theory lifetime employment--so they've got about 7 percent
    unemployment, but it only scores at 2.5 percent, which means all those
    companies are carrying idle workers on their books--I would jump on this
    like flies on a junebug. I would be there on

    [[Page 1874]]

    the next day. If Congress votes this down on the 17th of November, I
    would, if I were the Prime Minister of Japan, have the Finance Minister
    of my country in to see the President of Mexico on the 18th of November.
    That's what I would do. I'd say, ``We've got more money than they do
    anyway; make the deal with us.'' That's what I would do. And if I were
    running the economic affairs of the European Community, I would do that
    same thing because it's a new market for them at a preferential rate, so
    they can actually push us out of a new market that we're already well
    established in. That's what I would do; that's what I think will happen.
    That's what you'd do, too, isn't it? If you were running----
        Ms. Comer. Mr. President, you remember the budget vote?
        The President. I do. As the Vice President says, whenever he votes,
    he always wins. [Laughter]
        Ms. Comer. The speculation is that it's going to come down to a
    pretty close vote, so I was trying to see whether or not you might have
    the same feeling about this vote that you had about the budget vote.
        The President. I'll tell you what I think will happen. I think it
    will pass for the same reason the budget passed. I think what will
    happen is people will get up to the point of decision, they will look
    over the abyss, Members of Congress who have been subjected to
    unbelievable pressure, and they will think, ``Can I actually do this to
    my country? What are the consequences of not doing this?''
        Now, you can say whatever you want to about the details of the
    budget, it's hard to argue with the conclusions. We've now got very
    stable long-term low interest rates. We've got investment going back up
    in the country. We've got America being complimented instead of
    condemned by the Europeans and the Asians for getting control of our
    budgetary affairs. That's what the Members of the Congress knew. So
    finally, they had to swap and squall and break, and everything happened,
    but we got enough votes to pass the thing. So, that's what I think will
    happen with NAFTA.
        But let me say this, in order to win by a vote or two or three or
    four, you have to be close so that there is a magnet leading people to
    take the right decision. If the Members of the Congress who are under so
    much pressure from organized groups, whether it's the Perot crowd or the
    labor groups, if they sense that it's not close, they might run away
    from it in great numbers, which is why your efforts are so important. I
    honestly believe it will pass, but you need to understand, that is the
    dynamic that will operate in the Congress.
        Let me also say that one of the things that I think is worth
    pointing out is we all know who's against NAFTA, but it's worth pointing
    out that 41 of the 50 Governors have endorsed it--and they make their
    living, without regard to party, they make their living creating jobs,
    keeping jobs--12 Nobel Prize winning economists, and every living former
    President. I had several of them at the White House the other day, and
    we were trying to figure out if there was any other issue on which all
    of us have ever agreed. [Laughter] Maybe something else equally
    controversial, who knows. But I think that's important.
        So, that's the answer. The answer is yes, I remember the budget
    vote. Yes, it could be close. But in order for it to be close, you all
    have to push between now and then. If it's close, I think we'll win. If
    they perceive it's not close, then you'll see a big movement away from
    it just to avoid making anybody mad who's arguing to vote against it.
        Ms. Comer. Thank you, Mr. President. They're here to help you. And
    thank you so much for your time.
        The President. Thank you very much.

    Note: The President spoke at 12:35 p.m. at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
    and his remarks were broadcast via satellite. In his remarks, he
    referred to Dick Lesher, chamber president; Ivan Gorr, chamber chairman
    and CEO and chairman, Cooper Tire and Rubber; and Larry Bossidy,
    chairman, USA*NAFTA, and CEO, Allied-Signal, Inc. The teleconference was
    moderated by Meryl Comer, chamber vice president of community
    development.