Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book II)

[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book II)]
[November 12, 1993]
[Pages 1966-1975]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

Media Roundtable Interview on NAFTA
November 12, 1993

The President. We're having a good couple of days. Yesterday we had
10 or 11 Members endorse NAFTA.
Q. Could you speak up a little bit, sir?
The President. Yesterday we had 10 or 11 people endorse the treaty,
both Republicans and Democrats, including three Members from Ohio, a
Rust Belt State where we hadn't had any endorsements before; two from
Michigan. Today we have five or six--we have six confirmed, and we have
five who've already announced their endorsement today for NAFTA, all
Democrats, all six of them. So we're making some progress.
Perhaps the most remarkable thing that has happened today is
something I just saw. The president of the Massachusetts Building Trades
Council endorsed NAFTA with this letter. It's a real profile in courage.
He said--this quote--he said, ``No longer can nations afford to build
invisible walls at their borders because there are no national borders
to free trade.'' And he basically said at the end of his letter that
``President Clinton is trying to improve on the status quo. His
opponents, perhaps without knowing it, are defending the status quo.''
Leo Purcell, a pretty brave guy. I hope he's still got his job tomorrow.
Q. Can we get a copy of that letter?
The President. Oh, sure.
Q. I have one question that sort of follows up on what you just
said. In Springfield, Zenith moved its television manufacturing plant to
Mexico a couple of years ago. How do you address blue-collar concerns
from people who have seen that happen and they hear Perot and they just
naturally fear that the same thing's going to happen?
The President. Well, first of all, let me make this statement at the
outset. One of the things that our administration has never denied is
the fears of middle class Americans about the loss of their jobs or the
loss of their incomes. About 60 percent of our work force has suffered
from stagnant wages or worse for almost two decades. So my answer to
them is not that their fears are unfounded--they have legitimate fears
and experience to base that on--but that this agreement will improve
their conditions, not make it worse. And let me explain why.
I think this is at the nub of at least the negative side of the
argument. First, let me say by way of background that I was the Governor
of a State for 12 years that had plants close and move to Mexico. And I
worked very, very hard to try to restructure my State's economy, to
maintain a manufacturing base, and to rebuild from the hard, hard years
we had in the early eighties. And my State did not have an unemployment
rate below the national average in any year I was Governor until last
year, when we ranked first or second in the country in job growth. But
it was a long, painful process of rebuilding. I know a lot about this.
We lost jobs to Mexico.
Now, the point I want to make about this is, number one, Mexico had
a very small role in the decline of manufacturing jobs in America in the
last 15 years. They declined because of foreign competition from rich
countries as well

[[Page 1967]]

as poor countries. If you look at just the manufacturing trade
advantage, you will find that obviously the biggest trade deficit we
have is with Japan, a rich country.
Number two, a lot of this happened in every advanced country because
of productivity increases that came because of mechanization. Just the
improvements in technology meant that we could produce more things with
fewer people. That's what rise in productivity means. So manufacturing
has been going through something of the same thing that agriculture went
through. When I was born, in my home State, an enormous percentage of
our people worked on the farm. Now it's down to probably 4 percent, even
though Arkansas is a big farm State. So a lot of these things are big
long-term developments.
Number three, the device which made Mexico particularly attractive
for plant was the so-called maquilladora system, which basically
identifies an area along the Mexican-American border in which plants can
locate and produce for the American market and send it back in here
without paying tariffs, taking advantage of the low wages in Mexico and
the other lower costs of production.
Now, if you look at that and you look at what NAFTA does, it's easy
to see how NAFTA will make it less likely, not impossible--I'm not
saying none of this will ever happen--but it will be less likely than it
is now that we'll have significant movement of manufacturing facilities
to Mexico for low wages. Why is that? For one thing, NAFTA will give
bigger markets to American manufacturers here at home by lowering the
tariff barriers and by doing something else which is quite important: It
reduces the domestic content requirements that Mexico imposes on
American manufacturers, which means that--domestic content basically
says you've got to make this stuff here if you want to sell it here. So
that the auto industry, for example, estimates that they'll go from
selling 1,000 to 50,000, 60,000 cars, made in America, in Mexico in one
year. So we'll have more access to the market.
Secondly, what Mexico gets out of this is not more plants to produce
for the American market. If NAFTA passes, under the terms of the side
agreement our administration negotiated, there is no question that
environmental costs will go up in Mexico because of the environmental
side agreement. There is no question that labor costs will go up more
rapidly in Mexico because Mexico is the first country ever to put its
labor code, which it admits has regularly been violated, and now they
put their labor code into this trade agreement. So that if they violate
their labor code, we can bring a trade action against them.
And furthermore, President Salinas has said that he will raise the
minimum wage on an annual basis as the economy of the country grows. So
if NAFTA passes, wage rates will go up more rapidly, costs of production
from environmental protection will go up more rapidly, trade barriers to
American products will go down more, the requirements to produce in
Mexico if you want to sell in Mexico will go down more. Therefore, the
conditions which people are worried about, which are legitimate
conditions, will be improved if NAFTA passes, not aggravated.
Now, that's a long answer, but that's the nub of the negative
argument against this. And I think it's important to get it out.
Q. Mr. President, that's an economic argument, and a good one.
Congressman Sawyer from northeast Ohio makes that same argument but says
he hasn't been able to overcome the emotional objections to it, and the
perception that it won't do the things you said it would do seem
impossible to overcome. Why should a Member who can't overcome this
perception in his district be willing to vote for it, and what can you
do to help such a Member overcome any political backlash to him or her
if this happens?
The President. Well, first, let me say I have enormous respect for
him, for Sawyer. If you look at the way that other votes have lined up
in Ohio and if you look at his district, I think the fact that he's been
willing to have a very honest and open and candid conversation with all
of the people of his district about this is very much to his credit. But
he lives in a place that has lost a lot of high-wage, high-dollar
manufacturing jobs.
My response is the debate between Vice President Gore and Ross
Perot. That is, the most important lesson that any Congressman should
take out of that debate is not that Al Gore defeated Ross Perot on a
night in October--or November. The most important lesson is that if you
believe it's the right thing to do, and you make the arguments to your
people, you can do that. In other words, if Congressman Sawyer's
representatives believe that he is doing

[[Page 1968]]

this because he thinks it will get them more jobs and make America
stronger economically, then the evidence of the public reaction to the
Gore-Perot debate is that you can do that and survive, that people will
support you, that they will stay with you. And that's what I believe. In
other words, I told a group of business executives who were in here the
other day lobbying for this, I said, you need to go out and tell people
you're doing this for middle class America. I said, you look around this
room. Every one of us is going to be all right whether NAFTA passes or
not, whether GATT passes or not. We'll figure out some way to do okay in
the system. But the country as a whole will not grow as much. No rich
country can grow richer, can increase incomes, can increase jobs unless
you expand the base to which you sell. That's the whole theory of trade.
It built a massive middle class in America after the Second World War.
It rebuilt Europe and Japan, and now it can revitalize Latin America.
I also think it's important, by the way, for the Tom Sawyers of the
world, let me say this, and for all the others, that we not overstate,
just as I think the opponents of NAFTA have grossly overstated the
negative effects. I mean Mexico, after all, is less than 5 percent of--
[inaudible]. The idea that we're trying to convince people that they
sort of snookered the United States in a trade negotiation, and we're
going to collapse the American economy, it really shows you how anxiety-
ridden a lot of Americans are, that many people believe that.
On the other hand, it's important not to overestimate the number of
jobs that can be created. That is, Mexico has gone from a $5.7 billion
trade deficit 5 years ago to a $5.4 billion trade surplus last year.
Most of the smart money in Mexico is that the trade deficit for them
will get bigger. That is, we'll sell more near-term because they'll get
more investment to develop their own economy in the long term.
But the real job generator for us in NAFTA is going to be not only
for the specific industries that will sell more in Mexico, but that will
open Chile, Argentina, all of Latin America. And we will then be able to
say--when I go out there the day after the House votes, if I win, it
will be a lot easier for me to look the Japanese, the Chinese, the heads
of the other 13 Asian countries in the eye and say, ``We want to grow
with you. Asia's growing very rapidly. We want to buy your products, but
you have to buy ours. And we need to adopt a new world trade
agreement.'' So that's what I would say to Tom Sawyer.
Q. Along that same line, could you analyze for us what is at stake
for you and for the country in this and how it feels having this fate in
the hands of your opposition party, particularly Newt Gingrich, who is a
man who has been your opponent in most cases and is asking you for
something very specific now, some kind of written protection for
Republicans? Are you willing to give that? I know that's three
questions.
The President. Let me start at the back and come forward.
[Inaudible] First of all, I volunteered even before Newt asked, but I
agree with him, that if a Republican votes for NAFTA and is opposed in
the congressional races next year by a Democrat who attacks the
Republican for voting for NAFTA, then I will say, for whatever it is
worth, in any given district that I think that the attack is unfair,
that the vote was not a partisan vote, and that it was in the national
interest. And I do not believe any Member of Congress should be defeated
for voting for NAFTA. That's all they've asked me for. In other words,
they haven't asked me to prefer Republicans over Democrats. But they
want me to say----
Q. In writing.
The President. Well, I'll give it to them in writing, I'll give it
to them in public statements. I do not believe any Member of Congress
should be defeated for doing what is plainly in the national interest.
Now, what was your other question?
Q. How does it feel having Republicans----
The President. Well, I don't mind it. I wish we had more bipartisan
efforts for change. If you look at the fact that 41 Governors at least
have come out for this and only 2 have come out explicitly against it, I
think we ought to have more common economic efforts.
I thought the Republicans made a mistake. They may have hurt me
politically by simply refusing to work with us on the economic program.
But I think over the long run, we're going to come out ahead because
it's produced deficit reduction, low interest rates, low inflation, and
more jobs in 10 months than were created in the previous 4 years. So I
think they made a mistake. The national security issues of the nineties
by and large, are going to be economic issues, by and large. And to
whatever extent

[[Page 1969]]

we can pursue the national security in a bipartisan fashion, we're
better off doing so.
Also, a lot of the divisions that have ripped the Congress today do
not break down into any traditional liberal or conservative terms, or
Republican and Democratic terms. They're more like who's pro-change and
who's against it, who's willing to go beyond the status quo in the
debate and who's not. And it's amazing how it shifts from issue to
issue, not only among Republicans and Democrats but among people who
would otherwise define themselves as liberals and conservatives. So I'm
not concerned about that. I think Newt Gingrich is doing the best he can
with Mr. Michel to produce the votes that they think they can produce.
And he sure knows I'm doing the best I can to produce the votes I can
produce.
The first question is, what's at stake. What's at stake, in my
judgment, is something more than the sheer terms of this economic
debate. I think, first, what's at stake is the strategy and the attitude
and the conviction America will take in moving toward the 21st century
economically. Are we going to try to do it by reaching out to the rest
of the world, by saying we can compete and win, by building on the
enormous productivity gains in the private sector of the United States
over the last several years to do what is the time-tested way for a
wealthy country to grow, to create jobs and incomes, and promote peace,
that is, by reaching out, involving--[inaudible]--in trade. Or are we
going to say we just don't think we can compete and win anymore with
anybody until they pay their workers as much as we pay ours and until
everything else is equal on every last scale. So even though here's a
country that we've got a trade surplus with, that's buying more from us
than we're buying from them, we're just not going to do it, I think,
because we're just hurting too bad. Now, the hurts are legitimate. But
you cannot do that. So I think that this will define our country's
attitude for some time.
Secondly, I think the second thing that's at stake is we may lose
the chance to have a stable, good, strong, growing economic relationship
with our neighbor in the south and lose the chance to build that sort of
partnership with all of Latin America. I hope it is not so if we don't--
[inaudible]--but it could happen.
The third thing is it could cost us getting a new world trade
agreement in the GATT round by the end of the year, because the French,
for example, will be able to say, ``Well, you say we shouldn't be
protectionist, you say we shouldn't protect our agriculture, you want us
to get into a world trade agreement that will bring America hundreds of
thousands of jobs, and yet you walked away from a no-brainer on your
southern border.'' So I think that America's abilities to forge a
globally competitive but cooperative world in the 21st century in which
we can compete and win, whether it is with Asia or with Europe or with
Latin America, I think will be significantly undermined if we defeat
this. It is far bigger than just the terms of this agreement.
First, this agreement took on abnormal symbolic significance for
those who were against it. They poured into the agreement all the
accumulated resentments of the 1980's. Tom Sawyer's right about that;
they did. I mean, a lot of the people who are against this, it's very
moving to listen to them, to watch them. They almost shake when they
talk about it. And it's real and honest the way they feel. But then,
because of that, and because it became clear that the Congress might
actually not adopt it, which is unheard of for the Congress to walk away
from a trade agreement, it then took on a much greater symbolic
significance for those of us who are for it. So it is about jobs and
growth and opportunity for Americans by its own terms. And it is much
better than letting the status quo go on. But it has bigger stakes as
well.
Q. Congressman Tom Andrews, a Democrat from Maine, has criticized
the way in which labor groups and your administration has gone about
trying to win over his support. And I quote from Andrews: ``I've been
asked in so many ways, `What do you need? What will it take?' We do a
great disservice to this country when we make this a matter of pork-
barrel auctioneering or we make it an issue of what threats we will
respond to.'' What's your response to Andrews' concern?
The President. I agree with him. I think, first of all, a lot of the
people who are fighting this are good friends of mine. I've been close
to and worked with the labor movement, and I believe in a much higher
level of partnerships between management and labor and Government, and I
am not trying to create a low-wage economy. But I think it is wrong for
people who are on the other side of this issue to tell Members of
Congress who have voted

[[Page 1970]]

with labor for years that they're never going to give them a
contribution and they're never going to support them again, or get them
an opponent even--some of them, they've said, well, they'd get opponents
in primaries.
I agree with him that neither should we get into a bartering
situation. I have to tell you that Members of Congress with whom I have
talked--I can only speak for the ones with whom I have talked--the ones
who have talked to me about things they wanted me to do if they voted
for this were within the realm of what I would call legitimate concerns
for their constituents. Let me just give you, if I might, one, the thing
that I was most active in that I'm very proud of, because I believe in
it anyway, and that was the desire of Congressman Esteban Torres from
California and a number of the other Hispanics and Members of Congress
who live along the border to develop this North American development
bank as a way of financing infrastructure improvements to clean the
environment up on both sides of the Rio Grande River. That creates jobs.
It's in the public policy interest. It ameliorates the harsh impacts of
the past.
When Lucille Roybal-Allard came out for this, who comes from one of
the lowest, poorest districts in America, has workers that may be
adversely affected by this, she wanted to know that in January we were
really going to have the kind of comprehensive job retraining program
dovetailed into the unemployment system that we should have had 15 years
ago. She didn't ask me for a highway or a bridge or anything. She wanted
me to try to take care of her folks. So that, I think, is legitimate.
Now, when other people come up to you, though, and say, ``Look, I've
been threatened, I may lose my seat, and will you help me do thus and
so,'' if we can do it and there's nothing wrong with it, then we're
trying to do it because we're trying to win. I think it's very much in
America's interest. But I believe Tom Andrews is right. This issue
should be resolved insofar as possible based on what's in the national
interest.
Q. Mr. President, this morning when we put a notice in the paper
asking people to call in with questions for you, here's one from
Charlotte. He says, ``I'd like to know, if the President's opinion is
that NAFTA is so good for the United States, why is there so much
opposition against it by people in the country?''
The President. Everyone knows that Mexico is a country that has a
lower per capita income than the United States. And everyone knows that
American business interests have moved plants to Mexico to produce for
the American market. That's very different from investing in Mexico to
hire Mexicans to produce for the Mexican market. That's a good thing. We
should support that because the more Mexicans who have good jobs, the
more they can buy American products. That symbolizes, those plants along
the Rio Grande River symbolize the loss of America's industrial base to
many people and the fact that literally millions of Americans, over half
of American wage earners have worked harder for the same or lower wages
for more than a decade. So NAFTA, the reason that so many people are
against it is it's the symbol for so many people of their accumulated
resentments of the last 10 to 15 years. Now, that's why there are so
many people against it. And then there are a lot of people who say,
``Well, I don't like this, that, or the other thing.'' There's no such
thing as a perfect agreement that satisfies 100 percent of everybody's
concerns.
But again, I would say, what I've found and what I thought Al Gore
did so well in his television appearance--you have to be able to say to
people, ``Look, you can't vote on your emotions alone. You also have to
vote on your head; you have to think through this. Look at what this
agreement does. This makes the problems of the last 12 to 15 years
better, not worse.''
But I understand those fears. I mean, I have never questioned the
integrity of anybody's anxiety. I got elected President because most
people were working harder for less. That's the only reason I won the
election and because people thought the society was coming apart and
because there was no clear sense of where we were going. And when I ran
for President, I said I like NAFTA, but I want to try to have a side
agreement on the environment, side agreement on labor standards, and
protection. This is another issue I want to emphasize: protection for
unforeseen consequences. And there are two protections in there that I
want to mention.
One is that we can, either of us, anybody can get out in 6 months
notice. So if it turns out we're wrong, we can walk away from it. And if
I thought it were hurting America, I would do so. It would be my duty to
do so,

[[Page 1971]]

and I would do so. The second thing deals with the more likely problem,
which is suppose this turns out to be basically a good thing for us and
basically a good thing for them, but there's some totally unforeseen
consequence in one sector of the economy. We wouldn't want to withdraw,
because it's basically a good thing. There is also a provision in here,
the so-called surge provision, which allows us to identify some sector
that's being decimated--it gives the Mexicans the same right, as it
should--that no one ever thought about and to put the brakes on this
agreement for 3 years while we try to work it out as it applies to that
specific sector. So those are two protections that I would say to your
friend in Charlotte.
Q. Mr. President, Congressman David Mann from Cincinnati, he voted
against you on your budget and tax package, and now he's come out on
your side on this one. Part one, do you forgive him now for the budget
vote, now that he is supporting you on this? Part two, is there anything
you've agreed to do for Mann to help him? And thirdly, he, like a lot of
these other Congressmen we've been talking about, is going to have to
run in a very heavy labor district next spring and face another
potentially very tough primary. What would you suggest to him in terms
of campaigning over this issue, and how should he defend himself on it?
The President. First of all, the only thing that David Mann asked me
to do was to be supportive of the decision that he has made. And I told
him that I would, I'd be very happy to help him deal with it. Remember,
I went to the AFL-CIO convention in San Francisco to defend my position.
I don't want to run away from labor. I want the working people of this
country to stay with the Democratic Party. I want the small business
people to come back to the Democratic Party. I believe this is in their
interest. So I will certainly stand with him, foursquare.
In terms of the other thing, there's nothing for me to forgive. I
think that the Members who voted for the economic program, including Tom
Sawyer, have been proved right. And I think next April when people get
their tax bills and you see somewhere between 15 and 18 million working
families get a tax cut because they're working for modest wages with
children, and see less than 2 percent of the American people get a tax
increase, I think that April 15th is our friend. And all the rhetoric
that people heard about, it will go away, will vanish, and people will
see that we did ask wealthy Americans to pay more of the load, and we
did reduce the deficit, and we did bring interest rates and inflation
down, and we did begin the process of creating jobs. So I think that
time is on my side.
Q. But Mann voted----
The President. I know he did, but let me go back to what I said
before. There are also a lot of people working against NAFTA who voted
for me last time. What I have got to do is to try to develop a majority
for change in the Congress.
It's funny, I think the American people--I see the Wall Street
Journal said the other day that 70 percent of the people thought there
was just as much gridlock now as there had been, and that's plainly not
true. It's not true. What they're doing is, we're making hard decisions
by narrow margins. That's very different than not taking up hard
questions because there's gridlock. So when people read about all this
contentiousness, they shouldn't be deterred by that. These are tough
issues. If they were easy issues, they'd have been handled years ago.
But making hard decisions by narrow margins is breaking gridlock. I've
just got to keep working with David Mann on one hand or my friend David
Bonior on the other hand and with the Republicans who are going to vote
with us on this. We've got to create a majority for responsible change.
That's what we've got to do.
Q. Mr. President, did you discuss this letter with Joe Moakley, and
has it had any effect on his position?
The President. No, I just got it right before I came in here. I went
with Joe to the Gillette factory, you know, when I was there for the
dedication of the Kennedy Museum. And I know this is a tough vote for
him in a large measure because Joe Moakley is a very loyal guy, and the
guys that have been with him all these years are against this. I hope
this will affect him. When Gerry Studds came out for NAFTA, I had the
feeling that we might be on the verge of making some real breakthrough
in Massachusetts, and we're working hard on it. Joe Kennedy came out
earlier, as you know. So I'm hoping that we'll get some more in
Massachusetts. It can make a big difference for us.
Q. One other followup, if I may, on a slightly more general
question. Are you concerned that the issue has become one of race
baiting and

[[Page 1972]]

ethnic division with the language of what the----
The President. I think it is for some people, but not for others. I
don't want to inject it into this. I thought what Mr. Perot said was
very unfortunate. I'm sure you saw perhaps in the New York Times or the
Washington Post yesterday, one of the papers carried a story about
intense negative reaction in Mexico over his rhetoric. But much as I
want to win this fight, I don't want to be unfair to my opponents. I
don't think that that is nearly as big a factor as the sheer fear of
middle class people that the system is out of control, that the middle
class is going to work hard and get the shaft, that business executives
cannot be trusted to put their workers or their interests high on their
list of priorities, that the Government cannot be trusted to protect the
interests of average working people, and that the system is working
against them and even if they can't stop it, they ought to just try to
put their thumb in the dike one more time. I think that is a much bigger
deal.
Now, let me say this, I think a lot of people are less sensitive
than they should be to how many people there are in Mexico who are
sophisticated, well-educated, productive people of good will who want to
build a kind of democratic partnership with our country and want to
build a big middle class in their country. That is, I don't think, in
other words, there's racism involved so much as I think that many of the
opponents of NAFTA have dismissed the real talent and energy and
capacity of the Mexican people to be good partners with us. That's not
racism, it's because their own fears have overtaken them.
Q. Mr. President, in New Jersey, every House Democrat except Bob
Torricelli has come out against this. Why do you think it's such a tough
sell in New Jersey, and do you think you can get Mr. Torricelli's vote?
The President. I hope we can get his vote because he's been a real
leader on issues in this hemisphere. I think to be fair to all
concerned, Bob Torricelli has more personal experience and knowledge of
this. And the voters in his district would be more likely to understand
it because he does know so much about it, because he's been a leader on
all these issues in the Caribbean and in Latin America. He has lived
these issues, and I think he has a real feel for it.
I think what happened in New Jersey was that the Democrats reacted
to the fact that New Jersey's had a very tough economy. There's a lot of
anxiety. That's what I think. But I wish I could get some of them back
between now and voting day, because I've had any number of Members of
Congress come to me just since the debate and say, ``I know this is the
right thing to do; I just don't know how to get there.'' Ultimately, the
very sad thing is that if this issue were being decided by secret
ballot, we'd have a 50-vote victory, at least.
Q. What does that show? What does that indicate?
The President. It doesn't show a lack of courage. I don't want to
say that; I don't think that's fair. It shows the extent to which the
organized efforts and the crying anxieties of people are combining to
pull Congressmen back. I just hope that we can overcome it by Wednesday.
I think we can.
Q. Mr. President, in Florida, Mickey Kantor seems to have delivered
an agreement on citrus, sugar, and winter vegetables. There are two
concerns still out there, it seems. And one I know that Bob Graham has
discussed with you personally; that's parity for the Caribbean Basin
countries. The other one might be part of what's got Torricelli hanging
out there yet, concern among Cuban-Americans that Mexico still has
pretty good relationships with Cuba and is supporting Castro. Can you
address those?
The President. First, I think Congressman Johnston came out for it,
for NAFTA yesterday. And I hope we'll get a lot of the other Florida
Democrats and the Republicans. They could turn the tide, actually.
Florida is one of the keys in what happens to NAFTA. They have a huge
number of votes that are not firmly declared.
Now, on the two issues you raised, I have talked to Senator Graham
twice at great length about the Caribbean Basin Initiative issue, and I
think he has some legitimate concerns which I want to work with him on.
But here is the problem: I think that their concerns--I think we can
solve this. That is, what the Members of the Florida delegation who have
real concerns about these Caribbean countries and want them to do well
and not be hurt, that is, they don't want production shifted from
Caribbean nations to Mexico, I think we can work that out. And I think
we can work that out with the support of the Mexicans. But that is a
matter that it

[[Page 1973]]

requires a greater attention to detail, in effect creating a new set of
understandings, than solving the citrus problem or the sugar problem or
the winter vegetable problem. So that if we were to just up and say,
well, this is something we've fixed or agreed to now or the Mexicans
were to agree to, we'd be asking them to do something now that they
wouldn't be able to fully assess the implications of. And I think there
is every indication that we could lose as many votes as we could gain
from doing that. That's the real problem there.
I think we can work this out. But if I promise parity with all the
implications that could make now, there's a chance that we could lose as
many or more votes as we could gain because we simply don't have time to
sit down and work out the level of detail on the Caribbean Basin
Initiative that I want. I think that the principle is sound; I think
that the objective is sound; I think we can get there. But if the vote
hinges on that, I just don't think we can do it.
And I feel the same way on the Cuban issue. Colombia--take another
example--Colombia has increased their purchases of American products 69
and 64 percent in the last 2 years. It has also had some greater contact
with the Castro regime. Should we tell them we don't want them to buy
our products anymore?
The French--every time I see President Mitterrand, he tells me how
wrong I am about Cuba. I think we're right about Cuba and they're wrong.
But I think that we have to recognize that our embargo has been quite
successful, that we have hurt the economy significantly, that it is
contributing to, it is hastening the day when the outdated Communist
system will collapse and Cuba will have to open. I don't think there's
any question that these gestures of openness that have come out of the
Castro regime in the last several months have been the direct result of
our policy of pressure and firmness.
So I believe in our policy. But I don't think that we can rationally
expect that we can leverage anybody right now to go along with it who
doesn't agree with it. I mean, Mexico does have a history of dealing
with Cuba. There's nothing I can do about it. I very much regret, after
all the support that I have given to the Cuban Democracy Act, to Radio
and TV Marti--no Democrat in my lifetime, in the White House at least,
has come close to taking the strong position I have on this, agreeing
with the Cuban American community. And I'm sorry that Congressman
Menendez in New Jersey and Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, Congressman Diaz-
Balart feel the way they do. But there's nothing I can do about it. I
think the interest of the United States in dealing with Mexico, the
border they share with us, the 90 million people they have, getting
cooperation on immigration and drug issues, and--[inaudible]--jobs and
growth outweigh the others. And I have to pursue the agreement.

Haiti

Q. Following up on a regional question, are you at all concerned
about these reports coming out of Haiti that the embargo is causing the
deaths of children? Has that raised any question in your mind about the
policy?
The President. Well, yes. If you read the whole report, it's very
interesting what it says. It says that the accumulation of the policies
and the politics of the country are increasing the death rate of
children every month. And I am very concerned about it. We feed over
650,000 people a week in Haiti. When I read the story, the thing that I
was really concerned about--we could increase that if we need to. That
is, if malnutrition is a problem, we can increase the delivery and the
distribution of food.
I was particularly concerned when I saw the story--and we had a
meeting on it, the national security people, the next morning--about the
people saying that they were supposed to get medicine and they couldn't,
because we thought when we did the embargo that we had taken care of
that. So I asked our people to go back immediately and see what we could
do to improve the delivery to the country and the distribution of
medical supplies and medical care. And I would like to be given at least
a while to try to see if we can't deal with that issue. I was very
concerned about the report.
On the other hand, the people of Haiti need to know that the reason
this embargo occurred is because of the police chief, Mr. Francois, and
because of General Cedras and because they welshed on the Governors
Island Agreement. The United States was willing to insist on full
compliance of the Governors Island Agreement, including the amnesty
provisions from President Aristide and from the Malval government, and
they were willing to go along with it.

[[Page 1974]]

Has everybody asked a question?

NAFTA

Q. In a couple of years from now, what if, despite their
protestations to the contrary, you find that a Procter and Gamble-type
corporation or a Ford Motor Company or the Cincinnati--[inaudible]--
companies like that, what if you find that they are indeed moving plants
to Mexico, moving manufacturing operations to Mexico, which they said
they wouldn't do? What would you tell the chief executives of those
corporations?
The President. First of all, if they continue to move high-wage--
those good plants to Mexico for the purpose--in other words--there's a
difference. I want to make a clear distinction here, because I don't
want to mislead anybody. If an American corporation wants to invest in
Mexico City, to hire Mexicans to produce for the Mexican market, I don't
think we should be against that. I think we should support that because
that would create more middle-class Mexicans that will buy more American
products. That's what the Mexicans get out of this deal. A lot of
Americans say to me all the time, they say, ``Mr. President, if this is
such a hot deal for us, why do the Mexicans want it? What do they get
out of it?'' Of course, the whole idea of trade is that both sides win,
that there are win-win agreements in this world. What they get out of it
is investment in their country to develop their country to produce
products and services for their people. Now, they will, in turn, buy
more of our services.
To go back to your point, if I ever become convinced this is a bad
deal for America, I'll just give notice and leave, if it's a bad deal
for America. If certain companies are clearly abusing this agreement--
well, let me back up and say there is no possibility they could do that.
Let me tell you why. Put yourself in their position. This agreement does
not prohibit what has been not only permitted but encouraged for years
by our Government, which is setting up plants along the Mexican border
with the United States to sell back into America. Now, if that continues
unabated in a way that's bad for America, I think we ought to take note
who's doing it, try to jawbone them out of it, and ask also if there's
something we can do to help keep these companies operating in America,
just the way I did when I was the Governor in my State. I think we'll be
able to keep more jobs here if this passes than if it doesn't.
On the other hand, let me pitch it to you another way: If NAFTA
doesn't pass, what possible leverage do I have over these folks? I lose
a lot of leverage. Now, again, I'm not saying nobody will ever do this,
but the point that we have to drive home to the American people is that
the present system makes it relatively more attractive to do this than
Mexico after NAFTA will.
There was a man here last week from a fifth-generation Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania-based furniture manufacturer, who talked about how he said,
``They tried to get me to move to the South for years. Then the people
tried to get me to move to Mexico. I wouldn't move anywhere; I'm staying
in Pennsylvania. But I am going to sell more products and hire more
people if you pass this deal.'' I think there will be more examples of
that than there will be people who shut down and move. I think the
President, however, should discourage and jawbone people from doing it,
regardless.
Q. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir.
Q. Would you lose any leverage domestically if this thing goes down?
The President. Well, perhaps for a time. There's always a drag in
politics. I don't think that would be permanent. I'm far more
concerned--the effect on me is irrelevant. It's impossible to calculate
what the twists and turns in the next 6 months or 2 years or 3 years
will be. That doesn't matter. What matters is this is good for the
American people, so it will be bad for them if it goes down. And it
would clearly be bad for the United States in terms of our leadership to
promote more growth, more economic partnerships, in terms of our
leverage to get those Asian markets open.
Keep in mind, if we get a new GATT agreement, we'll get more access
to the Asian markets. Our trade problem is not with Mexico. Here's a
country that's with a much lower income than we have, spending 70
percent of all their money on foreign purchases, on American products,
buying stuff hand over fist. Our trade problem is not with them. Our
trade problem is $49 billion with Japan, $19 billion with China, $9
billion with Taiwan, because those countries are growing very fast with
their high savings, low cost, heavy export, minimum import strategy. We
need that.
Our other big trade problem is a stagnant Europe. In other words,
Europe is pretty open

[[Page 1975]]

to our stuff, except for agriculture. They've been pretty open toward
us. But when there's no growth, they have no money to buy anything new.
So the thing that I'm most worried about is that it will put America on
the wrong side of history and it will take us in a direction that is
just where we don't want to go as we move toward the 21st century. That
overwhelms every other concern.

Note: The President spoke at 2:30 p.m. in the Roosevelt Room at the
White House.