[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 29, Number 33 (Monday, August 23, 1993)]
[Pages 1640-1642]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks on Naming William M. Daley as NAFTA Task Force Chairman and an 
Exchange With Reporters

 August 19, 1993

    The President. Good afternoon, everyone.
    Audience member. Happy birthday!
    The President. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Helen. [Helen 
Thomas, United Press International]
    Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to announce that my good friend, 
Bill Daley of Chicago, has agreed to be the Chair of the 
administration's Task Force on the North American Free Trade Agreement. 
This agreement means more trade, more exports, and more jobs for the 
United States. I think it is very much in our national interest.
    I also think it means the opportunity to go not only to Mexico but 
beyond Mexico into other nations in Latin America to develop stronger 
trading relationships that will boost our economy, the jobs, and the 
incomes of the American people well into the 21st century.
    Thanks to the hard work done by Ambassador Mickey Kantor and the 
other members of the U.S. Trade Representative's staff, we have now seen 
in the last several days the conclusion of a remarkable set of side 
agreements to guarantee real investments in environmental cleanup and a 
dramatic and unprecedented commitment by the Government of Mexico to tie 
their minimum wage structure to increases in productivity and growth in 
the Mexican economy and to make that a part of the trade agreement, so 
that failure to do that could result in fines and ultimately trade 
sanctions, meaning that Mexico is serious about making this a trade 
agreement that benefits Mexican workers, raises wage levels, increases 
their ability to buy American products, and decreases the impetus for 
continued illegal immigration across the Mexican border. I am very, very 
encouraged by this.
    I also want to say that as we move into this campaign vigorously 
now--and it's something that we've not been able to do because we didn't 
have an agreement until just a few days ago--Mr. Daley will be working 
with Ambassador Kantor, with the Secretary of Treasury, with the 
Director of EPA, with the Labor Secretary, and with other members of the 
Cabinet, including the Commerce Secretary, to present a strongly united 
front. Furthermore, we will be reaching out to involve in the national 
leadership of this task force prominent Republicans, Democrats, and 
independents who have a common interest in promoting the NAFTA and what 
it can do for our economy.
    I believe, as I said repeatedly, that if we could get these side 
agreements which have now been concluded, this trade agreement means a 
better future for America's workers, for American industry, for the 
American economy. I think it is very much in our interest to adopt it. I 
believe the fact that Bill Daley has agreed to take a leadership role 
enhances the chances of its adoption, and I know that the Vice 
President, Mr. McLarty, and others in our administration join me in 
expressing our thanks to Bill Daley. And he'll be here soon, and we'll 
be going to work.
    Would you like to say a few words?

[[Page 1641]]

    Mr. Daley. I appreciate, Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, this 
opportunity. Obviously it's quite a challenge. And through your 
leadership we will be successful. Thank you.
    Q. [Inaudible]
    Mr. Daley. Yes, ma'am.

NAFTA and Job Creation

    Q. Mr. President, how can you convince American workers that NAFTA 
is good for them when major corporations are laying off thousands of 
people? Where are the jobs going to come from?
    The President. Well, major corporations are laying off thousands of 
people in part because they don't have enough work for them. Part of 
this downsizing is an inevitable part of the reorganization of some of 
those big employers. But what has happened is that for the last 12 
years--for a long time--we had more jobs created in small business, in 
medium-sized businesses than were being lost in large businesses. The 
Fortune 500 laid off more than 100,000 people a year every year of the 
1980's.
    So, this trend is something that has been going on for some time. 
Whether we gain jobs or not, and gain good jobs, depends on whether 
there is more demand for American products and services. And there is 
ample evidence that the only way a wealthy country grows wealthier in a 
global economy is to increase the volume of trade. And it is a clear, 
elemental principle of economics that if you want more people to go to 
work in a competitive economy, you have to have more people to sell to. 
So that's what we're trying to do. I feel very strongly about it.
    I also believe that by raising the incomes of Mexicans, which this 
will do, they will be able to buy more of our products, and there will 
be much less pressure on them to come to this country in the form of 
illegal immigration. So I think this will be a very stabilizing, 
economically healthy agreement.
    I believe, to be fair, that a lot of the people who are against this 
agreement were against the original agreement and may not have had the 
chance to evaluate the side agreements that we've worked so hard since 
January to conclude with the Mexican Government. And I think that that 
will make a difference.
    I also think that it's important that this Government, our 
Government, make a good-faith effort to make sure that we provide 
adequate retraining and other opportunities for people who fear they 
will be subject to dislocation under this agreement. In my mind, there 
is no question that this agreement is a significant net plus for the 
American economy.

Efforts To Combat Drugs

    Q.  Mr. President, what do you think about this proposal to merge 
the DEA with the FBI? And what kind of signal would that send about U.S. 
commitment to drug interdiction?
    The President. Well, first of all, I've not had a chance to view the 
proposal. The Vice President's task force has under review a number of 
proposals. I'm not sure they've even finalized their own decisions. You 
might want to ask him about that. But he'll be making a presentation to 
me early in September. And when and if that recommendation comes to me, 
I'll evaluate it. I'll talk to him, and I'll talk to the Attorney 
General about it. But I will say this: Anything we do will be designed 
to enhance our efforts to combat drugs, not to weaken it. And any 
decision I make will be made with that in mind.

NAFTA

    Q. Do you and Mr. Daley have any idea how you are going to overcome 
or circumvent the leadership of the House, the majority leader and the 
chief whip, both of whom are opposed to NAFTA?
    The President. Well, the chief whip is clearly opposed to it, and I 
think he and I--I admire him immensely, but we just have an honest 
disagreement about this. And I might say, since he's from Michigan, I 
would just point out to you not very long ago General Motors announced 
that they were moving 1,000 jobs back from Mexico to the United States 
to be closer to the market and because of the higher productivity of the 
American worker.
    I'd like to make one point about that, and then I'll say something 
about the majority leader. I have governed a State where people shut 
their plants down and went to Mexico for low wages. I have been there. 
And my belief is that if we defeat NAFTA, nothing

[[Page 1642]]

will stop. NAFTA won't stop people. If you beat NAFTA, it will not stop 
people who want to go to Mexico for lower wages from going there. But 
more and more, smart manufacturers are deciding that they should locate 
where they're going to have a highly productive work force and where 
they'll be reasonably close to the market and where they'll be very 
flexible to change product lines on a rapid basis. I think that this 
will help the American economy.
    I also think that the kinds of investments you'll see in Mexico, if 
NAFTA passes, are not those investments along the American border that 
produce more products to come back into America but investments further 
down into Mexico to put Mexican people to work to produce products for 
their own market, which, again, will stabilize their incomes, stabilize 
their population movement, increase their ability to buy American 
products. So that's the argument I'm going to make to others. I don't 
think I can change Mr. Bonior's mind, but I think perhaps I can change 
others.
    Mr. Gephardt has a different set of concerns. He wants to make sure 
that we're going to adequately fund the training programs, that we're 
going to adequately fund the environmental programs, and that the 
Mexican commitment to raise minimum wages means that manufacturing wages 
will in fact go up as their incomes go up. And I still have high hopes 
that things that will happen between now and the time the implementing 
legislation is presented to Congress in several weeks will persuade him 
to support this. I do believe it will be difficult for us to prevail if 
both of them are opposed. But Mr. Gephardt has some high standards for 
this agreement, but I'm not sure they can't be met.
    And I also say, I want the Members of Congress who have not 
announced their positions to review these agreements. There has never 
been a trade agreement with this kind of environmental protection in it. 
There has certainly never been a trade agreement where one country 
committed to raise its wages when its productivity increases and to make 
that wage increase a subject of the trade agreement so that they can be 
subject to fines for trade sanctions that they don't keep. This has 
never happened before. Mexico was serious about trying to raise the 
living standards of its own people in ways that help stabilize American 
wages and American jobs.
    Thank you.

Note: The President spoke at 12:57 p.m. in the Oval Office at the White 
House. A tape was not available for verification of the content of these 
remarks.