    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book II)]
    [November 2, 1993]
    [Pages 1882-1884]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 1882]]

    Remarks on Endorsements of the North American Free Trade Agreement
    November 2, 1993

        Thank you very much, President Carter, Mr. Vice President, all the
    distinguished people who have spoken here today.
        I would like to begin by making two observations. First of all,
    after hearing what has been said, I'm pretty proud to be an American
    today. And I think all of you should be, too. Secondly, I have been sent
    an extraterrestrial telegram stating, ``I, too, am for NAFTA,'' signed
    Otto von Bismarck. [Laughter]
        You know, it is something of note that every living President,
    Secretary of State, Secretaries of Defense, national security advisers,
    Secretaries of Commerce, leaders of the Federal Reserve, distinguished
    contributors to the American spirit like John Gardner and Father
    Hesburgh and other great American citizens all support this agreement,
    for economic reasons, for foreign policy reasons. Our own Secretary of
    State, Warren Christopher, is in California even as we are here, talking
    about the foreign policy implications of NAFTA for our Government and
    our country.
        Why have all of us declared this issue above politics? Why have we
    come to agree that whatever else has divided us in the past, this will
    weld us together in the cause of more jobs for our people, more exports
    for our markets, and more democracy for our allies? Why do we all know
    down deep inside that this would be such a profound setback for America
    and the world economy and in the new global polity we are striving so
    honestly to create? Why are we so willing to say no to partisan politics
    and yes to NAFTA? I think it is because we know, as all of these have
    said in different ways, that NAFTA reflects this moment's expression of
    all the lessons we have learned in the 20th century. It reflects this
    moment's expression of what we learned not to do after World War I, what
    we learned we had to do during and after World War II. It reflects the
    sheer economic weight of argument that Mr. Samuelson referred to, that
    we have seen even more expressed just in the last few years when a
    higher and higher percentage of our new jobs in this country are clearly
    traceable directly to exports.
        I see it in my own work here. For years and years and years our
    allies in Europe and Asia said, ``Well, if America really wanted to
    promote global growth, you would do something about your deficit and get
    your interest rates down and quit taking so much money out of the global
    economy.'' And so we have tried to do that. And we have low interest
    rates and the deficit is coming down, and our own deficit this year was
    much lower, in no small measure because of those lower rates.
        But we still have this great global recession. Why? Because we are
    not trading with one another. We are not buying and selling and
    investing across national lines and sparking the kind of global growth
    that is the only way any wealthy country, anyway, generates any new
    jobs.
        No one attacking NAFTA has yet made a single solitary argument to
    refute this essential point: There is no evidence that any wealthy
    country--not just the United States, anyone, not one--can create new
    jobs and higher incomes without more global growth fueled by trade. If
    you strip away all the other arguments, no one has offered a single
    solitary shred of evidence to refute that central point.
        And I know there is great insecurity and instability in all the
    wealthy countries in the world. You can say whatever you want about this
    being the first Tuesday in November; you've seen a lot of other Tuesdays
    come along in other nations, great political upheavals all across the
    world. Why? Because people feel the walls are closing in on them.
        And in truth, I think when you strip all this away, we are facing a
    real decision about whether the psychological pressures of the moment
    will overcome what we know in our hearts and our minds is the right
    thing to do. Whether the same pressures that people in Canada feel, or
    France, or Japan, in a time when wealthy countries are not generating
    new jobs and people are working harder for stagnant wages, will those
    pressures make us do what is easy and perhaps popular in the moment? Or
    will we do what we should really do? The honorable thing to do to
    respond to those pressures is to take an action that may not be popular
    in the moment but that actually holds the promise of alleviating the
    pressures.
        If we believe the feelings, the anxieties are

    [[Page 1883]]

    legitimate, as has been said already by other speakers, then don't we
    have the obligation to do what will alleviate the anxieties over the
    long haul, instead of play to them in the moment? That, in the end, is
    what this decision is all about. That is really what we mean when we say
    the secret ballot on this issue has already been won.
        These students over here to my left are from my alma mater,
    Georgetown. And when I was in their place 25 years ago now, when we were
    studying global affairs, we came out really worrying about and thinking
    about the cold war and trying to debate exactly how much the pattern of
    the bipolar world could be manifested in every--[inaudible]--
    development, in every country in the world, in every region of the
    world. And sometimes we were wrong, and sometimes we were right. But at
    least we had a framework within which to view the world.
        As Dr. Kissinger said, we are in the process now of creating a new
    framework. And a lot of people are complaining about how we don't have
    all the answers. I don't mean we, the administration, I mean we, the
    people. But I say to you--many of you in this room are old enough to
    remember, and I think I now qualify in that category--there are a lot of
    generations of Americans who would kill to be alive and of age in this
    time with this set of problems. I mean, who are we to complain about
    this set of problems? Very few mornings do I come to work in the Oval
    Office and wonder about whether some decision I make can spark a nuclear
    war. Very few mornings do I wonder whether, even in all the difficulties
    we face, we might make an economic error and a quarter of our people
    will be out of work, as they were during the Great Depression.
        We see people in positions of responsibility going around wringing
    their hands about the difficulties of the moment. Yes, it's a new time.
    It's always difficult in a new time to see the future with clarity and
    to have the kind of framework you need. But none of that is an excuse to
    give in to the emotional pressure of the moment instead of to take steps
    that will alleviate the pressure. That is the dilemma before us.
        You know, it's true that it's good for us economically. It's also
    true that what Mexico gets out of it is investment, so that if we don't
    take this deal somebody else probably will. And that will be bad for us
    economically, as has already been said by President Carter. But the real
    thing that this is about is how we are going to view ourselves as we
    relate to the rest of the world. Keep in mind, this is not an isolated
    incident. This is not just a trade deal between the United States and
    Mexico; not even a deal that affects our relationships with the rest of
    Latin America, although that's where the real jobs and long-term
    economic benefit to us lie, perhaps; not even a deal that will help us
    to get the GATT agreement by the end of the year, although, I tell you,
    it will give enormously increased leverage to the United States to push
    that agreement through by the end of the year if this passes, enormous,
    and great incentive to other nations to support this. But over and above
    that, this is a decision which will demonstrate whether in this
    difficult moment we still have confidence in ourselves and our
    potential.
        And I would say to all of you, anything you can do to the people at
    large and to the Congress in particular to instill that confidence again
    is very important. If we have lost our way at all in the last couple of
    years, it is in not having any historic memory. These are difficult
    problems. But for goodness sakes, give us these problems as compared
    with many of those our forebears faced, and give us these problems as
    compared to those we are about to create if we start turning away from
    the world that is plainly before us. Help us to give the Congress the
    freedom, the confidence, the courage that is inside every Member of the
    Congress waiting to be brought out. Help to give them the space they
    need to take the steps they know are right for America.
        This is about whether we really have confidence in ourselves. I
    believe with all my heart the next 20 years can be the best we ever had.
    But they're going to require some tough decisions, some difficult
    moments, some uncertain moments. What do you do in moments like that? Do
    what the priests would tell you to do: Fall back on what you believe and
    what you know is right. What we know is right for America is to be
    confident, to reach out, to believe in ourselves and our potential, to
    believe that we can adjust to change, just as we have been doing for 200
    years now.
        Make three calls. Make 12 calls. Make two dozen calls. For goodness
    sakes, make however many you can. But remember, this is a test of our
    confidence. Every one of you can give confidence to someone else by the
    life you have

    [[Page 1884]]

    lived, the experiences you have had, the things that you know. Give it
    now. We need it.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President spoke at 3:20 p.m. in the East Room at the White
    House. In his remarks, he referred to John Gardner, writer and founder
    of Common Cause; Theodore M. Hesburgh, president emeritus, University of
    Notre Dame; Paul A. Samuelson, Nobel Prize-winning economist; and Henry
    Kissinger, former Secretary of State.