-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/9d333bfc9f0b2ccbcb279ebdfa7c779a.pdf
74f7dae19ca2485282718d0a57c68fb8
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0469-F (2)
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Michael Waldman
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
14476
FoIderlD:
Folder Title:
NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] POTUS Speeches/Remarks [Binder][4]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
s
92
4
6
3
�iVot. 11 I Administration
the Interior will facilitate improvement in the
quality of biological research. Better science
will result in improved decision-making in
the management of the Nation's federallv
managed lands and will enable Federal land
managers to avoid future contentious actions
under the Endangered Species Act.
The Act provides funding for a number
of my investment proposals for energy conservation and fossi energy research and development. These investments are important
for our Nation's energy future.
of William]. Clinton, 1993
in support of UNOSOM I I . Such U.S. combat forces shall, however, remain under the
operational command and control of U.S.
commanders at all times.
William J . Clinton
The White House,
November 11, 1993.
NoTt: H.R. 3116, approved November 11, was
assigned Public U w No. 10.3-139.
William J . Clinton
The White House,
November 11,1993.
NOTL: H.R. 2520, approved November 11, was
assigned Public Law No. 10,3-138.
Statement on Signing the
D e p a r t m e n t of D e f e n s e
Appropriations Act, 1994
November 11, 1993
Today I have signed into law, H.R. 3116,
the "Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 1994." H.R. 3116 supports t ie Administration's major defense priorities and reflects
a spirit of cooperation betyveen the Administration and the Congress to provide for a
strong national defense. I am very pleased
that the Congress has addressed budget issues in such a way that provides balanced
support for mv number one priontv. the
readiness of our forces. I also appreciate the
support that the Congress has given to kcv
investment and modernization proposals, especiallv mv efforts to create a strong defense
reinvestment program.
However. I do have serious reservations
about a prov ision in section SI51 of this Act.
1 construe section S151(b)(2)(ii) as not restricting my constitutional responsibility and
authority as Commander In Chief, including
my ability to place U.S. combat forces under
the temporary tactical control of a foreign
commander where to do otherwise would
jeopardize the safety of U.S. combat forces
R e m a r k s in a T e l e p h o n e
Conversation With Congressman E d
Pastor on N A F T A
November 12, 1993
Congressman E d Pastor. Good morning.
The President. Hello, Ed.
Congressman Pastor. Yes, good morning,
Mr. President.
The President. How are you?
Congressman Pastor. I'm doing well, sir,
beautiful weather here in Arizona.
The President. It's beautiful here, too.
Congressman Pastor. The reason I called
you was to let you know that November 17,
we'll be supporting you on the free-trade
agreement.
The President. Thank vou very much. We
need your help.
Congressman Pastor. And I give a lot of
credit to this to Congressman Esteban
Torres. As vou know, he worked verv hard
to get that nat. bank. And I know that with
it vve can do some things along the border.
1 had a conversation yesterday with the
EPA Administrator, and vve talked about the
resources that will be available. That was one
of nn concerns. So I look forward to working
with her and with you to help the border
communities along our Mexican-U.S. border.
The President. Thank you very much. Ed.
As vou well know, these environmental difficulties are going to get a lot better if
N'AFTA passes now that we've got the development bank there. And it also means more
jobs along the border on both sides working
�Administration
of William J. Clinton, 1993 I Nov. I:
2331
on environmental clean-up. So I'm very encouraged.
I also want you to know that since you've
been gone we've had a pretty good run in
picking up some folks. Congresswoman Anna
Eshoo from California came out yesterday,
and we got five Congressmen from the Rust
Belt. David Mann from Ohio became the
first Democrat in Ohio to come out for
NAFTA along with Congressman Hobson
and Congressman Kasich. And then vve got
two Republicans from Michigan and hvo
Members of Congress in the last week
switched from no to yes, Marilyn Lloyd and
Rick Lehman.
[Laughter] Let me know when vou want to
come out.
The President. Thanks. I've plaved golf
in Arizona, and it was a good round for me;
so I have wonderful memories of that. I'll
do that. Thank you.
Congressman Pastor. Okav Thank vou
Mr. President.
The President. Bve.
Congressman Pastor. Have a good day.
Congressman Pastor. Well, Mr. President, you're doing very well.
Thie President. Well, we're making
progress anyway. And we got Cerry Studds
and Steny Hoyer when they came out last
week. I think that was a good sign because
they'll work hard and try to help us pass this
thing. So I'm feeling much better than I did
a few days ago. But I'm glad to have this
phone call from you, and I just want to encourage you to try to sway every vote you
can. And let's keep working until we bring
it in.
Q. Where does this put you, roughly, in
terms of the number of votes you need now?
Sunday you said you needed about 30.
The President. Oh, no, we're much closer
now. I think we'll get what we think we have
to get on the Democratic side, and I'm working with the Republicans. I see all this stuff
about their difficulties, but I don't buy that.
I think that they've got some of the same
problems our folks do.
I think it's clear to everybody now—let me
say this again, if there were a secret ballot,
this would pass by 50 votes or more. And
I think everyone knows that. So now it's a
question of getting the people who are in
there harder for NAFTA and who know it's
good for American jobs and who know it's
an important part of our foreign policy for
the future, that it will develop America by
reaching out to the world, that it will lead
to a trade pact with all of Latin America, that
it will help us with the Pacific and Europe.
It's a matter of sort of bringing that conviction to the fore.
And I will say again, I think that from the
point of view of the Congress, the number
one virtue of the debate between the Vice
President and Mr. Perot is that Al Gore
showed that i f you are on the right side of
an issue and if you believe it, you can convince your constituents that you're right and
that it's in their interest. And so I'm still very
upbeat about this. But I think there will be
clouds around this issue right to the last.
Q. Well, just in a ballpark idea, I mean,
Congressman Pastor. Well, I'm going to
be working with Members of the Hispanic
Caucus. I know that some are still undecided,
so we'll be working with them.
The President. We've got about four outstanding that I think we can still get if we
all work hard.
Congressman Pastor. Well, we're all
going to work hard for you and, hopefully,
at the final count we'll be past the 218 that
we need. But I'm very happy to join you in
this effort and at this time would like to ask
you to consider coming to Arizona one of
these days.
The President. I'd like to come back. You
know it's been a while since I was there. I
was there during the campaign, and the State
was actually very good to me. I was amazed
as we came so close to victory there. And
I'm anxious to come back, and I want to be
your guest.
Congressman Pastor. Well, you have a
standing tee time, so let me know when
you—and we've got a lot of mulligans.
[Af f/ii.s point, the telej>hone conversation
ended, and the President answered rejH>rters'
(juestions. ]
is it fair to say less than 20 votes away or
The President. It's fair to say that I've got
a list that makes me think we can do what
�Week Ending Friday, November 19, 1993
M e d i a Roundtable Interview on
NAFTA
November 12, 1993
The President. We're having a good coujle of days. Yesterday we had 10 or 11 Memjers 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. W e l , 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
lor almost two decades. So my answer to
them is not that their fears are unfounded—
thev 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 vve had in tlie 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 as poor countries. I f 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 vve 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 bom, in my home State, an enormous
percentage of our people worked on the
2343
�2344
Not. 12 / Administnition
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 macjuilladora system, which basically identifies an area along the MexicanAmerican 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 vou've
got to make this stuff here if vou 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 tins is
not more plants to produce for the American
market. I f NAFTA passes, under the terms
of the side agreement our administration negotiated, there is no question that env ironmental costs will go up in Mexico because
of the environmental side agreement Thereis no question that labor costs will go up more
rapidly in Mexico because Mexico is the first
countrv ever to put its labor code, which it
admits has regularly been violated, and now
thev put their labor code into this trade
agreement. So that if they violate their labor
code, vve 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 countrv grows. So if NAFTA passes, wage rates
of William ]. Clinton, 1993
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 verv honest and open and candid conversation with all of the people of his district about
this is verv 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 Boss Perot. That is, the
most important lesson that anv Congressman
should take out of that debate is not that Al
Gore defeated Boss Perot on a night in October—or November The most important lesson is that if vou believe it's the right thing
to do, and vou make the arguments to your
people, vou can do that. In other words, if
Congressman Sawyer's representatives believe that lie is doing 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 vou can do that and survive, that people will support vou. that they will stay with
vou. And that's' what I believe. In other
words. I told a group of business executives
�Administnition
of William J. Clinton, 1993 I Nov. 12
who were in here the other day lobbying for
this, I said, you need to go out and tell people
vou'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 wav to do okav in the
system. But the country as a whole will not
grow as much. No rich countrv can grow
richer, can increase incomes, can increase
jobs unless you expand the base to w hich 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, i f 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 agree-
2345
ment." So that's what I would say to Tom
Sawyer.
Q. Along that same line, could vou analv/e
for us what is at stake for vou and for the
country in this and how it feels having this
fate in the hands of vour opposition party,
particularly Newt Gingrich, who is a man
who has been vour opponent in most cases
and is asking vou lor something verv specific
now , some kind of w ritten protection for Republicans? Are vou willing to give that I
mow 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 sav, 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 believ e 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. I f 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.
0
1^
�2346
Noc. 12 I Administration
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 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
conseA'atives. So I'm not .concemed 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 saving we can compete and
win, by building on the enormous productiv it)' gains in the private sector of the United
States over the ast several years to do what
is the time-tested way for a wealth) countrv
to grow, to create jobs and incomes, and promote peace, that is, by reaching out, involving—[inaudible]—in trade. Or are vve going
to say we just don't think we can compete
and win anymore with anvbodv until thev pav
their workers as much as vve pay ours and
until evervthing else is equal on every last
scale. So even though here's a countn' 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.'l think, because
w re just l
t
are legitimate. But you cannot do that So
nnk , a , ,lus will defme our c . u n t n ' s atti
tucie tor some time
^ > - l l v . I think the second tlnng t h a f s
at stake is vve mav lose the chance to have
l l l r
tl
i n g
t
o
o
b
a
d
N
o
w
t
h
e
h
u
r
t
s
of William J. Clinton, 1993
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—[inaudihle]—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 accumu ated 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 the)'
talk about it. And it's real and honest the
wav thev 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 avvav 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 1 quote from Andrews: "I've been asked
in so many ways, 'What do you need? What
will it take?" We do a great dissenice to this
country when vve make this a matter of porkbarrel auctioneering or vve make it an issue
�A(/minisf rat/on of Willmm J. Clinton, 1993 I Nov. 12
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 la jor and
Government, and I am not trving 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 hav e
voted 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, i f I might, one, the thing that I was most
active in that I'm very proud of, because I
believe in it anvway, 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.
2347
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 trving to do it because we're trving 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 vve
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 bv 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
�2348
Not. 12 I Administration
makes the problems of the last 12 to 15 vears
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. 1 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 1 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, 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.
VVe 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 trv to work
it out as it applies to that specific sector. So
those are two protections that I would sav
to your friend in Charlotte.
Q. Mr. President, Congressman David
Mann from Cincinnati, he voted against vou
on your budget and tax package, and now
he's come out on your side on this one. Part
one, do von forgive him now for the budget
vote now that he is supporting vou on this?
Part hvo, is there anvthing 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 ven- hea\-y labor district next spring and
face another potentially verv tough primary.
What would vou suggest to him in terms of
of William].
Clinton, 1993
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 1 told him that I would, I'd be very
happy to help him deal with it. Remember,
I went to the A F l ^ C I O 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 believ e 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
vve 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 funnv, I think the American people—
I see the Wall Street Journal said the other
dav 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 bv that. These are
tough issues. I f they were easy issues, they'd
have been handled years ago. But making
�Administration
nf William J. Clinton, 1993 I Hoy,. 12
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 vou 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 guv, 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 concemed that the issue has become one of race
baiting and 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
nearlv 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
2349
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 thev 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
ol democratic partnership with our countrv
anil want to build a big middle class in their
countrv. That is. I don't think, in other words,
there's racism involved so much as I think
that manv of the op]Xjnents 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 vou 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 concemed, 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,
T 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
v ictory, 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
f 1
�2350
Nov. 12 I Administration
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, thev don't want production shifted from Caribbean nations to Me\ico, 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 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
il we were to just up and sav. 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 thev
wouldn't be able to fullv assess the implications of. And I think there is everv indication
that we could lose as manv votes as vve could
gain from doing that. That's the real problem
there.
r
I think vve can work this out. But if I promise parity with all the implications that could
make now. there's a chance that vve could
of William J. Clinton, 1993
lose as many or more votes as we could gain
because vve 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 historv of dealing with Cuba.
There's nothing I can do about it. I verv
much regret, after all the support that I have
given to the Cuban Democracy Act, to Radio
and TV Marti—no Democrat in mv lifetime,
in the White House at least, has come close
to taking the strong position I have on this,
agreeing with the Cuban American communitv. And I'm sorry that Congressman
Menendez in New Jersey and Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, Congressman DiazBalart feel the wav 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 thev hav e, getting cooperation on immigration and drug issues, and—[inaudible}—jobs and growth outweigh the others.
And I have to pursue the agreement.
�Atlminislmthmof
Williuin J. Clinton. 1993 I .VOL 12
Haiti
Following up on a regional question,
are you at all concerned about these reports
coining out of Haiti that the embargo is causing the deaths of children? Has that raised
anv question in your mind about the policv?
T/ie President. Well, yes. If vou 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 everv month. And
I am very concemed 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,
vve can increase the delivery and the distribution of food.
I was particularly concerned when I saw
the story—and vve 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 concemed 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.
Frai^ois, 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.
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 manufac-
2351
turing operations to Mexico, which thev said
they wouldn't do? What would you tell the
chief executiv es of those corporations?
The President. First of all, if thev 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 anvbodv. I f an American corporation
wants to invest in Mexico Citv, to hire Mexicans to produce (or 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 tum, 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. I f 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 vve 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: I f NAFTA doesn't pass, what
possible leverage do I have over these folks?
1 lose a lot of lev erage. Now, again, I'm not
saying nobody will ever do this, but the point
that we have to drive home to the American
�2352
Nov. 12 I Administration
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, Pennsylvaniabased 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." 1 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 concemed—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 vve get a new GATT
agreement, we'll get more access to the Asian
markets. Our trade problem is not with Mexico. Here's a countrv tliat's with a much
lower income than we have, spending 70 percent of all their money ou foreign purchases,
on American products, buying stuff hand
over fist. Our trade problem is not with them.
Our trade problem is S49 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 to our stuff, except for agriculture.
They've been pretty open toward us. But
when there's no grow th, thev hav e no money
of William J. Clinton, 1993
to buy anvthing 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 vve move toward the 21st century. That overwhelms every other concern.
N O T E : The President spoke at 2:30 p.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House. This item
was not received in time for publication in the
appropriate issue.
Statement on the Massachusetts
Building Trade Council
E n d o r s e m e n t of N A F T A
November 12, 1993
Today, we saw a profile in courage. Leo
Purcell, president of the Massachusetts
Building Trade Council, endorsed NAFTA
in a letter to fellow union workers.
In addition to saying, as I have, that this
is a choice between change and status quo,
Purcell, wrote, "No longer can nations afford
to build invisible walls at their borders because there are no longer national borders
to free trade."
I applaud Mr. Purcell for his leadership,
courage, and vision and for his strong confidence in the American worker.
NOTK: A copv of the letter that was sent to the
President Irom Leo Purcell was made available
In the Office of the Press Secretarv. This item
was not received m time for publication in the
appropriate issue.
Appointment of M e m b e r s of the
J . William Fulbright F o r e i g n
Scholarship B o a r d
November 12, 1993
The President appointed four members
today to the J. William Fulbright Foreign
Scholarship Board, which selects students,
scholars, teachers, and trainees to participate
in educational exchanges as Fulbright scholars. It also finances educational activities for
Americans abroad and for foreign citizens in
the United States and promotes American
�Administratum
of William J. Clinton. 1993 I .VOL . 13
Studies in foreign countries and foreign language training and area training in the United States. The Board is comprised of 12
members, appointed bv the President. Tlie
new members appointed today are Victoria
Murphv of Maine, Ho\t Fun is of Arkansas,
Robert Rose of Connecticut, and Lee Williams of Arkansas.
"Like manv Arkansans, I have long regarded Senator William Fulbright as both a
role model and a mentor," said the President.
"The Fulbright scholarships are his most lasting achievement. I trust that these four
Board members, two of whom serv ed on his
staff, will work to preserve his legacy."
NoTL: Biographies of the appointees were made
av ailable by the Office of the Press Secretarv. The
Office of the Press Secretarv' also issued a clarification stating that the appointment of Hovt
Pun'is will take effect on January 1, 1994, while
the other appointments are effective immediately.
This item was not received in time for publication
in the appropriate issue.
E x c h a n g e W i t h R e p o r t e r s P r i o r to
D e p a r t u r e for M e m p h i s , T e n n e s s e e
November 13, 1993
Middle East Peace Process
Q. Mr. President, PLO Chairman Arafat
seems to have condemned the murder of an
Israeli at the end of October. Do you think
this is in response to your request and Mr.
Rabin's request?
The President. Well, perhaps, but regardless I think it's a very positive sign. I've only
received limited reports this morning, but
from what I've heard it's a very positive sign.
It's the sort of thing that will enable them
to work together and to implement the accord.
Q. Were there any direct contacts behveen
you and Arafat in order to get him to condemn the murder?
The President. We had no direct contacts,
the White House did not, but vve made it
very clear what our position was, and I think
that the Israelis—they have direct contact of
course with the PLO now because of the implementation of the accord. And I think perlaps again I would say vve maybe ought to
2.353
give most of the credit to that. I hope the
meeting yesterday highlighted it and our position is clear. But they need to keep their
word to each other, that's the most important
thing.
NAFTA
Q. What about NAFTA, how do vou feel
about NAFTA todav
The President. Feel a little better. We
had a gcxnl day yesterday; you know we've
had three big davs. I think we've had 27 people come out, and 1 think we're going to have
another good dav todav. We'll have several
of those who are declared down in Memphis
with us, and we're making some pretty good
inroads now in places where I didn't know
we could get some votes. So it's going to be
a hard weekend, but I think we'll make it.
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. What I have always said
is if they're opposed on the grounds of
NAFTA next year, I'd be happy to say in any
district in America or to any district in America that I think NAFTA is in the public interest, it's in the national interest, and it should
not be the basis on which any Member of
Congress, without regard to party, is voted
out. Thanks.
0
NOTE: The exchange began at approximately 8:25
a.m. on the South Lawn at the White House. A
tape was not available for verification of the content of this exchange.
T h e President's R a d i o A d d r e s s
November 13, 1993
Good morning. This week, Americans
celebrated Veterans Day, the day we set
aside to thank those who sened, kept us secure, and helped preserve the freedoms each
of us cherish.
On Thursday, after paying my respects to
the veterans at Arlington Cemetery, I met
with two groups of patriots who span the generations: some of the remaining veterans of
World War I and active duty personnel who
served with such distinction in Somalia.
These brave Americans are linked across the
years to each other and to history by the valor
with which thev served our Nation. None of
�2354
Nov. 13 I Administration
them shrunk from danger or challenge. In
troubled times, they reached beyond our borders to protect our interests.
And as the world undergoes the most profound changes in the last 50 years, today we
can draw a very powerful lesson from their
courage and their vision. Just as we never
protected our country by shrinking from a
military threat, we cannot protect our prosperity by shrinking from our economic challenges.
Since I became President, our administration has been dedicated to restoring the
American economy, to making work pay for
all Americans again, to creating the conditions that will allow our private sector to create more jobs and higher incomes and more
opportunity for everyone.
This economic program is beginning to
work. We've lowered the deficit, kept inflation down, pushed interest rates down to
record lows. Millions of Americans have refinanced their homes and businesses. And
even though we still don't have as many jobs
as we'd like, the private sector has produced
more jobs in the last 10 months than in the
previous 4 years.
Ultimately, however, the only way a
wealthy nation can grow and create jobs and
lift incomes is to lower trade barriers and
expand trade in a growing global economy.
There simply is no other way that any rich
countrv in the world can create jobs and raise
incomes than to find other customers for
their goods and senices. America is no exception. We have a chance to do this in a
few davs when Congress considers the trade
agreement called NAFTA.
The North American Free Trade Agreement will lower Mexico's barriers to American exports. When these barriers come
down, we'll sell another 55,000 more American-made cars in Mexico next year alone.
We'll sell hundreds of thousands more computers and create 200,000 new high-paying
jobs in the next 2 years. NAFTA is a real
good deal for America. And if we don't open
up Mexico for our products, vou can be sure
that the Europeans and the Japanese will
open up Mexico for theirs
You see. if NAFTA passes, we'll have a
competitive adv antage over the Japanese and
the Europeans in the Mexican market. If it
of William J. Clinton, 1993
fails, and Japan or Europe takes up the challenge that we walked away from, then they'll
have an advantage over us.
Why then do some of our fellow citizens
fear NAFTA so much? Because in the last
20 years their world has changed a lot and
often not for the better. Technology can now
go anvwhere in the world. Money and information travel the globe in a millisecond.
Skills we once had alone, others now share.
This new global economy has created an
awful lot of opportunity, but it's also created
a lot of hardship. We have to do many things
to adjust. We're working now to devise a
completely new system to replace our outdated unemployment system called reemployment. So that anyone who loses a job,
for whatev er reason, will immediately receiv e
the education and training and job placement
help they need. We passed the family leave
law so that you can't lose your job when you
take some time off for a newborn baby or
a sick parent; so that people can be good
workers and good family members at the
same time. We've got to have health care reform, and we've presented a plan that will
provide, for the first time in our history,
health care security to all Americans, even
if they lose their jobs. And we're determined
to fight crime with more police on the beat,
more boot camps for youthful offenders,
more jail cells for people who need that, too.
Tliat's what the crime bill, now moving
tlirough the Congress, will do.
So in education, in health care, in familv
leave, in crime, we're working hard to give
the American people the security all of us
need to face the changes vve confront. But
we cannot make the world the wav it was.
We simply cannot protect our workers, their
jobs, and their incomes from the winds of
global competition by trving to build walls.
The onlv wav to prov ide economic security
and expanded opportunity for the middle
class in this countn is to take this new world
head on. to compete and to win. And we can
win. The American worker is now the most
productiv e worker in the world again. We can
out-compete and out-perform anyone anywhere. We will be number one again for a
long time if vve reach out to the world to
compete. Tliat's whv American workers have
nothing to fear from NAFTA and win Amer-
�Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 I .VOL. 13
ican workers should be ver)/ concerned if we
vote NAFTA down, walk away from Mexico
and the rest of Latin America and the opportunities they present.
The day after Congress votes on NAFTA,
I'm going to Seattle to meet with the leaders
from Asian countries, including China and
Japan, to ask them to open up their markets
to our products, too. By the end of this vear
I'm going to try verv hard to conclude an
even bigger worldwide trade agreement that
will bring down trade barriers to our products in Europe and the world over. Together
with other nations, vve can literally reignite
growth in the world's economy and create
millions of new jobs and export opportunities
for all Americans. But vve must begin this
week by passing NAFTA. NAFTA is not only
a trade agreement with Mexico, it has become a symbol of our commitment to growth
and to trade throughout the world. And believe me, whichever way the Congress votes,
it will send a signal to every nation in the
world about our intentions. Are we going to
maintain our lead in the global economy and
push others to open their markets to our
products and services and to everyone else's,
or are we going to retreat into a shell of protectionism?
If we pass NAFTA, it can put us at the
center of the largest trading bloc in the world
with Canada and Mexico, one that will quickly grow larger as we bring in the rest of Latin
America. I f vve don't, we'll be stuck while
someone else takes advantage of the opportunity. You know, this vote will tell us a lot
about who we are as Americans in 1993.
Great nations are defined not by how they
act when the rules are clear and the future
is set and the times are easy but by the
choices they make during periods of great
change when the future is not clear, the
times are tough, and people have to forge
their own future.
This is a defining moment for America.
Will we seize the moment? Will we vote for
hope over fear? The history of America's
greatness says we will, for we've always triumphed when our Nation has engaged the
world and great challenges it offers. By passing NAFTA, Congress can demonstrate that
we intend to compete and win in a thriving
global economy. We took the lead in creating
2355
it, now we have to make it again for the 21st
century. We can build a future we'll be proud
to leave our children, and the future begins
on Wednesday with a positive vote for the
North American Free Trade Agreement.
Thanks for listening.
NuTE: Tlie address was recorded at approximatelv
."S:-IO p.in. on November 12 in the Ov;il Office at
the White House lor broadcast at 10:06 a.m. on
November l.'V
R e m a r k s on A r r i v a l in Memphis,
Tennessee
November
13, 1993
Thank you. Thank you v ery much for coming out here in the wind and rain and braving
the elements. It's kind of like what we have
to do to get things done in Washington. I'm
glad to see you here.
I want to thank my good friend Governor
McWherter,
Mayor
Morris,
Mayor
Herenton. Thank you all for being here
today. I want to thank these fine Members
of Congress who are here. Harold Ford made
a great statement in support of the North
American Free Trade Agreement. I'm very
grateful to him and to Bob Clement and to
Jim Cooper for their support. I also want to
introduce some other Members of Congress
who are here. First of all, from our neighboring State of Louisiana, two Members who
have expressed their support today. Representative Bill Jefferson and Representative
Jimmy Hayes. I want to thank your Congresswoman Marilyn Lloyd for her support for
NAFTA. And I want to introduce two Members of my congressional delegation from Arkansas, Blanche Lambert and Ray Thornton,
and thank them for their support.
Let me ask you something. Were you
:>roud of Al Gore the other night in his depate? I mean, was he great or what? I want
to tell you something, folks. This vote over
the North American Free Trade Agreement
has brought out a lot of feelings and emotions
in this country that I think probably need
to be brought out. We've seen in the opposition to NAFTA a lot of the legitimate fears
that the American people hav e developed be-
�2356
Nov. 13 I Administration
cause so many hard-working Americans hav e
worked and worked and worked, and they
still lost their job. Or they worked harder
year-in and year-out, and they never got a
pay raise. And the global economy has been
pretty tough on a lot of people in the States
represented here today, on people in Tennessee and Louisiana and Arkansas. And all
of us know that.
Let me tell you, when I was Governor of
my State, I saw plants shut down and move
to Mexico or just disappear altogether or
move production all the way to Asia. I understand that very well. I want you to know that
there's not a person on this platform today,
including the President, who would be supporting this agreement if we weren't convinced that it will bring more jobs to Tennessee and Louisiana and Arkansas. That's
why we're for it.
I came here today to make a point. I'm
wearing a tie that was made in Little Rock,
Arkansas, and shoes that were made in Nashville, Tennessee. 1 believe we can compete
and win in the global economv. You heard
the Governor say that since 1987, exports to
Mexico from Tennessee have increased by
300 percent. That's 10,000 jobs due to exports to Mexico. In our State, exports have
also tripled-in the same time period. We hav e
5,000 jobs now based on exports to Mexico.
In Louisiana, exports have doubled since
1987. Louisiana will be a big winner if all
those trade barriers come down because ol
the increased activity around the Port of New
Orleans. We know that tins will mean more
jobs for this countrv. Whv? Because when
the trade barriers come down—their trade
barriers are 2 /2 times as high as ours—as
they earn more monev and make more
money, they'll spend more money on American products. Seventy cents of every dollar
Mexico spends on foreign products is spent
on American products.
Whv will
.
,
,
_
cause ,f we
. ,
^
_
i m well be able to use ,t as a basis for similar
agreements with all the other Latin American
countries. Somedav we'll have a trade bloc
going from Canada to the United States to
Mexico to the rest of Latin America, over
700 million people buving from each other.
l
i t
a l s o
I I l a k (
n i a k (
l l j s
a
d j f r (
l l p r w i l | e n t
r e n c
e ?
B e
M e x
of William J. Clinton, 1993
selling to each other, helping each other to
grow.
My fellow Americans, I worked my heart
out in this country right here for the last 12
years to bring more jobs to the people of
my State. And one thing I know: You cannot
put more people to work at a time when productivity' is increasing—which means that
fewer people can produce more things—you
can't put more people to work unless you've
got more people who will buy your products
and services. Without expanding your customer base, there is no way to create more
jobs. It cannot be done. And we have got
to leam that in America. We cannot let other
people outtrade us. We can outwork anybody
in the world. We still have the most productive workers in the world. We've learned a
lot of hard lessons in the last 12 years, but
we've got to have more customers. And that's
what this is about.
So I ask all of you, all of you, to support
the members of the Tennessee congressional
delegation that have come out for NAFTA,
to support the members of the delegations
from Arkansas and Louisiana and from the
other States that are supporting this, to give
our country a chance to compete and win.
On the day after Congress votes on this
agreement, I have to fly out to Washington
State to meet with the President of China,
the world's largest country; with the Prime
Minister of Japan, the country that had the
largest growth rate in the 1980's; with 13
other leaders of Asian nations. That's the fastest growing part of the world. I'm going to
sav to them, "We want to be vour partner.
W e will buv your products, but we'd like for
you to buy ours." I f vve adopt NAFTA, it
will be a lot easier for me to make that case.
I want the American people to be confident about the future. I want them to believe we can do better. In the last 10 months
we've seen interest rates come down, inflation down, the deficit's come down. Millions
and millions of Americans have refinanced
their homes and their businesses, and this
economy has produced more jobs in the last
10 months than in the previous 4 years. But
I m telling you, you and I know there are
not near enough jobs, and incomes are not
going up near enough. And the reason is vve
�Administration
of William J. Clinton, 1993 I Nov. 13
don't yet have enough people who will buy
our products and services.
We need more growth in the world economy, and we need more customers. And
Wednesday we're going to take a big first
step with NAFTA, thanks to the people of
Tennessee, your Vice President, your congressional delegation, and the other Members who are here.
Thank y ou \ ery much.
NOTE: Tlie President spoke at 10 a.m. at the Air
National Guard Ramp, Memphis Inteniation.il
Airport. In his remarks, the President referred to
William N. Morris, Jr., Mayor of Shelby County,
and Mayor WAV. Herenton of Memphis. A tape
was not available for verification of the content
of these remarks.
R e m a r k s to the C o n v o c a t i o n of the
C h u r c h of G o d in C h r i s t in Memphis
November 13, 1993
Thank you. Please sit down. Bishop Ford,
Mrs. Mason, Bishop Owens, and Bishop Anderson; my bishops, Bishop Walker and Bishop Lindsey. Now, if you hav en't had Bishop
Lindsey's barbecue, you haven't had barbecue. And if you haven't heard Bishop
Walker attack one of my opponents, you have
never heard a political speech. [Laughter]
I am glad to be here. You have touched
my heart. You brought tears to my eyes and
joy to my spirit. Last year I was over with
you at the convention center. Two years ago
your bishops came to Arkansas, and vve laid
a plaque at The Point in Little Rock, Arkansas, at 8th and Gaines, where Bishop Mason
received the inspiration for the name of this
great church. Bishop Brooks said from his
pulpit that I would be elected President
when most people thought I wouldn't survive. I thank him, and I thank your faith, and
I thank your works, for without you I would
not be here today as your President.
Many have spoken eloquently and well,
and many have been introduced. I want to
thank my good friend Governor McWherter
and my friend Mayor Herenton for being
with me today, my friend Congressman Harold Ford, we are glad to be in his congressional district. I would like to, if I might, in-
2357
troduce just three other people who are
Members of the Congress. Thev have come
here with me, and without them it's hard for
me to do much for you. The President proposes and the Congress disposes. Sometimes
they dispose of what I propose, but I'm
happy to say that according to a recent report
in Washington, notwithstanding what you
may have heard, this Congress has given me
a higher percentage of my proposals than anv
first year President since President Eisenhower. And I thank them for that. Let me
introduce my good friend, a visitor to Tennessee, Congressman Bill Jefferson from
New Orleans, Louisiana. Please stand up.
[Applause] And an early supporter of my
campaign. Congressman Bob Clement from
Tennessee, known to many of you. And a
young man who's going to be coming back
to the people of Tennessee and asking them
to give him a promotion next year. Congressman Jim Cooper from Tennessee, and a good
friend. Please welcome him.
You know, in the last 10 months, I've been
called a lot of things, but nobody's called me
a bishop yet. [Laughter] When I was about
9 years old, my beloved and now departed
grandmother, who was a very wise woman,
looked at me and she said, "You know, I believe you could be a preacher if you were
just a little better boy." [Laughter]
The proverb says, "A happy heart doeth
good like medicine, but a broken spirit
dryeth the bone." This is a happy place, and
I'm happy to be here. I thank you for your
spirit.
By the grace of Cod and your help, last
year I was elected President of this great
country. I never dreamed that I would ever
have a chance to come to this hallowed place
where Martin Luther King gave his last sermon. I ask you to think today about the purpose for which I ran and the purpose for
which so many of you worked to put me in
this great office. I have worked hard to keep
faith with our common efforts: to restore the
economy; to reverse the politics of helping
only those at the top of our totem pole and
not the hard-working middle class or the
poor; to bring our people together across racial and regional and political lines; to make
a strength out of our diversity instead of letting it tear us apart; to reward work and fam-
�Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 I Nov. 15
2373
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register,
2:17 p.m., November 16, 1993]
NOTE: This proclamation was released by the Office of the Press Secretary on November 15, and
it was published in the Federal Register on
November 18.
is to keep the barriers high here and not
worry about lowering the barriers elsewhere.
That has never worked for any countrv ever
in the entire history of global economics. The
State in this country that has the highest percentage of its work force in manufacturing
by far is North Carolina. And the Governor
of North Carolina is here today with us and
a strong supporter of NAFTA, my friend
Remarks on NAFTA to Small
Governor Jim Hunt. Please welcome him.
Business Leaders
We wanted to meet here today in this marNovember 15,1993
velous museum not to focus on the past but
to make a point about our past. If you look
The President. Thank you very much. around at all these different displays, all the
When Manny and Rick were talking I leaned exhibits, you see that the one constant in
over to Bill Daley, and I said, "You know, American economic history has been change.
these guys are really good. We need to put The reason we have been able to build a
them on the stump."
dominant economy is that we have been at
I want to thank you all for being here the forefront of innovation in new products,
today. And before I make any more remarks, new services, new technologies, new producthere are a couple of people I would like
tion techniques, new management techto introduce who have not yet been introniques, new sales techniques.
duced. First of all, I think all of America has
We know now that a lot of what we have
seen that our administration has pursued the
seen in the last 20 years in terms of competiratification of this agreement in the Congress
on a strictly bipartisan basis on the theory tion from around the world is the direct rethat it was in the best interest of America sult of our success in, first, winning the Secand the American economy and that after all ond World War; secondly, rebuilding our
that we've been through in the last 15 or 20 former foes in Germany and Japan; thirdly,
years, adjusting to the global economy, all supporting a global trading system so that evthe ups and downs, it's an important part of erybody could have the benefit of capitalism
our national security to have a sensible global and free enterprise; and fourthly, the fact
that there are a lot of other people in the
economic policy.
When we organized this campaign 1 asked world who are smart and work hard and do
Bill Daley to come in from Chicago. And things well, too, so that the arena of competithen we were very fortunate to have the serv- tion has gotten much bigger.
In that connection, however, it cannot be
ices of his Republican counterpart, the
former leader of the Republican Party in the denied that for all of the difficulties we've
House of Representatives on the issue of had in the last several years, we've had astontrade. Congressman Bill Frenzel from Min- ishing growth in productivity in many sectors
nesota. And he's over here, so I wanted to of our economy. Every single analysis still
introduce him. Thank you.
says we have the most productive workers
I also want to introduce another person in the world. And it is clear that if we can
who is a longtime friend of mine and in more expand our customer base, we'll be able to
ways than one responsible for my being here so idify job gains and income increases.
today, with this introduction. If you look at There is no way any wealthy country in this
the opposition to NAFTA, much of it is com- world can increase jobs and incomes without
ing from people who are involved in the man- increasing the number of people who buy
ufacturing sector of our economy, who justifi- that nation's products and services. There is
ably note that the percentage of our work simply no other way to do it, just like there's
force in manufacturing has declined and that no way you can increase your business unless
wages have been more or less stagnant for people buy more of whatever it is you're sella long time. Some say that the answer to that ing. It is the same for a nation.
^
s
-s
�2374
Nov. 15 I Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
I understand well why there are so many
people in this country today who are skeptical about any change because they feel so
bumed by the economic problems of the last
10 to 15 years. I understand that. But if ever
a group of Americans understood the risk of
competition and change, it is the small business community. If there is one sector of our
economy that sort of lays it on the line every
day, it is the small business community. If
you look at the incredible churning of the
number of small businesses in America
today, the number that are created and the
number that don't make it, if any group of
Americans could come to the Nation's Capital and say, hey, we can't stand any more
insecurity, it would be you, right?
Audience memben. Right!
The President. So why is the small business community in America overwhelmingly
in support of NAFTA? Because you understand also the only way to sell more is to
have more customers, and the only way to
succeed is to compete and win. And you
know something that everyone in America
has to leam: that we cannot run from the
forces of competition. We have to face them
and overcome them and continue to change
and grow.
That is what America has always done.
That is the meaning of this exhibit. If you
look around, you see in this exhibit the history of the accumulated lives of innovative,
creative entrepreneurs, the people who
paved the way for all of you to be here today.
And on Wednesday, we are going to see the
United States Congress pass a vote which will
either be in the great tradition of all those
who put their products in this museum and
all you who come to this Nation's Capital,
or will be the exception to the rule but one
for which there is some evidence that maybe
we just will tum away one more time.
Every time we have done that, this country'
has gotten bumed. Every time. And all the
people who are against it say, "W ell, there's
something different about this. This is worse,
or this is different, or whatever." I say to
them, if we don't adopt this we will never
know how good it can be. If all the naysayers
tum out to be wrong, the treaty gives us a
right to withdraw in 6 months. Whv don't
;
we just wait and see whether we're right or
they're right?
You know we're right. You know it because
it is consistent with your own life experience.
And the argument that is being made here,
that we shouldn't even try, we should give
up before we engage, is really very, very bad
for our country and ignores the enormous
productivity gains that have been achieved
py Americans in the last several years. We
are now in a position to take advantage of
our productivity gains. But all of you know
what productivity is, it's the same number
of people producing more, or fewer people
producing more. So now, if you want to have
more jobs and more incomes, we have to
have more people to sell to. It is clear and
self-evident.
I want you to contact these Members of
Congress in the next 2 days and make the
case I just made about insecurity. I f any
group of people in America understands how
change can take you away overnight, it is the
small business community. You are for this
because you know you cannot repeal the laws
of change, you cannot run away from them.
And the competitive system in America with
winners and losers has produced far more
winners than losers over the last 200 years,
far more winners than losers. And this will
produce more winners than losers. This is
the way to grow the American economy. You
understand it, and we need you.
One of our Nation's strongest advocates
for small business, also from North Carolina,
is the Director of the Small Business Administration, Erskine Bowles. And I predict he
will go down in history as one of the most
popular members of our administration because he's the first SBA Director in a long
time who's made a living creating small businesses. That's what he's done for 20 years,
helped people start small businesses, helped
them expand, helped them sell their products
overseas, helped them pierce foreign markets
in the private sector. And he is a terrific advocate for NAFTA.
We were talking the other day about this
and it's how I obviously, as you might imagine, since I'm now on my fourth or fifth or
sixth conversation with some of these Members of Congress about this issue, I keep trying to think of the argument that can be
�Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 I Nov. 16
made. So I implore you again, I don't want
to sound like a broken record, but talk to
the Members of Congress. Tell them you
know all about insecurity, but you know that
we can compete and win if we hav e enough
customers to sell to.
Thank you, and God bless you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:20 a.m. at the
Smithsonian Museum of American History In his
remarks, he referred to Manuel Silva, founder.
Pan American Engineering, and Richard Harris,
president, Pulsair, Inc.
2375
The members appointed today are Alice
B. Bulos, William B. Cashin, Olivia P. Maynard, and Mvrtle B. Pickering.
NOTE: Biographies of the appointees were made
available by the OfTice of the Press Secretarv.
Letter to House Republican Leader
on NAFTA
November 15, 1993
Dear Mr. Leader:
Statement on the Outcome of the
Puerto Rican Referendum
November 15,1993
I fully support the determination of the
citizens of Puerto Rico to continue their
commonwealth status.
I am especially gratified by the high level
of participation in Sunday's referendum, and
I look forward to maintaining the relationship
of friendship and mutual respect that the
United States enjoys with the people of Puerto Rico.
Appointment of Members of the
Federal Council on the Aging
November 15,1993
The President announced today that he
will appoint four new members to the Federal Council on the Aging, a 15-member
panel that advises and assists the President
on matters relating to the special needs of
older Americans. The President appoints
one-third of the Council's members, three
of whom must be more than 60 years of age.
"The senior citizen community, our parents and grandparents, is one of our great
resources," said the President. "It is important that we ensure that Government policies
are helpful to them and that we make sure
to seek their wisdom as we decide on those
policies."
On more than one occasion I have been
asked whether the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) might become
a divisive issue in the 1994 Congressional
elections. Each time I have been asked this
question I have expressed the hope that this
issue would continue to be viewed in a spirit
of bipartisan cooperation befitting an issue
of such historical importance.
Since I have sought the support of all
members of the House of Representatives
for the NAFTA implementing legislation as
a matter of compelling national interest, I
hope to discourage NAFTA opponents from
using this issue against pro-NAFTA members, regardless of party, in the coming election.
After our shared success later this week,
when I will have the pleasure of sending
thank you letters to at least 218 House members, I will reaffirm my position on the inappropriateness of fighting NAFTA again in the
1994 election.
As always, you have my respect and appreciation.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton
NOTE: This letter, sent to Representative Robert
H. Michel, was made available by tlie Office of
the Press Secretary on November 16 but was not
issued as a White House press release.
�2376
Not;. J6 / Adminislration of William ]. Clinton, 1993
Letter to Congressional Leaders on
NAFTA
November 15,1993
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. Leader:)
As we approach the end of an intense debate over the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), I want to share with
you my reasons for believing Congressional
approval of NAFTA is essential to our national interest.
We share a commitment to ensuring that
our country has the world's strongest and
most competitive economy, to maintaining
and creating jobs for our workers, and to
making sure that opportunities are there for
our children as they join the workforce of
the future. That is why I am fighting for the
approval of NAFTA. I am convinced that it
wi I help strengthen our economy—in the
near term and in the long run.
Our nation's prosperity depends on our
ability to compete and win in the global economy. It is an illusion to believe that we can
prosper by retreating behind protectionist
walls. We will succeed only by ensuring that
we have the world's most competitive companies, productive workers, and open markets
in which to sell our manufactured goods,
services, and agricultural products.
I understand that NAFTA is, for many, a
reminder of the economic hardships and insecurities that have grown over the past 20
years. Obviously. NAFTA did not cause those
problems. In fact, it is part of the solution.
We are world-class producers of evervthing
from computers and automobiles to financial
services and soybeans. We can compete anywhere, but we need to ensure that markets
around the world are open to our products.
Mexico represents an enormous opportunity for our businesses, our workers, and
our farmers. Exports there have already
soared since 1986, when Mexico began to
open its market and lower trade barriers. But
the status quo in the trading relationship—
in which Mexico's trade barriers are far higher than ours—is still unacceptable. NAFTA
represents both free and fair trade. It
changes the status quo by wiping away the
Mexican barriers.
NAFTA provides us preferential access to
the Mexican market: 90 million people, in
one of the most dynamic growing economies
in the world, who look to us for consumer
goods, agricultural products and the infrastructure needed to bnild a modem economy. It is the gateway to the fast growing
markets of Latin America, which are also
opening, where we have a natural advantage
over Japan and the European Community.
Turning away from this opportunity would
be a serious self-inflicted wound to our economy. It would cost us jobs—in the short and
long term.
Many opponents of NAFTA say that they
don't oppose a trade agreement with Mexico.
They say they just oppose this NAFTA, and
suggest that it be renegotiated. We should
be under no illusions. This is a far-reaching
and fair agreement. It was negotiated painstakingly over three years with input from a
broad array of groups, and it is in the best
interest of the United States, Mexico and
Canada. It represents an unprecedented effort to include in a trade agreement provisions to enhance environmental protection
and workers rights. It was negotiated by a
Republican President, and endorsed and
strengthened by a Democratic President. I f
it were defeated, no government of Mexico
could return, or would return, to the negotiating table for years to come. Mexico would
turn to others, like Japan and the European
Community, for help in building a modem
state—and American workers, farmers, and
businesses would be the losers.
Of course, NAFTA is not a magic bullet
for all our economic problems. But there is
no question that NAFTA will benefit every
region of our country. It is no accident that
NAFTA has the support of more than twothirds of the nation's governors and Members
of Congress from every part of the nation.
Thev understand the benefits that will flow
to their states, regardless of region.
My main reason for supporting NAFTA is
that it will be good for the competitive U.S.
economy that we are trying to build. But
there is another critical issue that I ask you
to consider. After World War I , the United
States chose the path of isolation and protectionism. That path led directly to the Depression, and helped set the world on the path
to World War I I . After World War I I , we
chose to engage with the world, through col-
�Admimstration of William]. Clinton, 1993 I Nov. 16
lective security and expanded trade. We
helped our allies rebuild, ushered in a period
of unprecedented global economic growth,
and prevailed over communism.
Now we face another defining moment.
The rejection of NAFTA would set back our
relationship with Mexico, and Latin American beyond, for years to come. It would send
a signal that the world's leading power has
chosen the path of pessimism and protectionism. It would gravely undermine our ability
to convince other countries to join us in completing the Uruguay Round, which is essential to expand trade and enhance global
growth.
Rejecting NAFTA would, quite simply,
put us on the wrong- side of history. That
is not our destiny. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in choosing the path
of expanded trade, to make the decision to
compete in the world, rather than to retreat
behind our borders. We are a great countiy,
and we cannot shrink from this test.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton
Idential letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Robert H. Michel, House Republican leader.
This letter was made available by the Office of
the Press Secretary on November 16 but was not
issued as a White House press release.
NOTE:
Remarks on Signing the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
November 16,1993
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President,
for those fine remarks and to the Members
of Congress, the chaplains of the House and
the Senate, and to all of you who worked
so hard to help this day become a reality.
Let me especially thank the Coalition for the
Free Exercise of Religion for the central role
they played in drafting this legislation and
working so hard for its passage.
It is interesting to note, as the Vice President said, what a broad coalition of Americans came together to make this bill a reality,
interesting to note that that coalition produced a 97-to-3 vote in the United States
237
Senate and a bill that had such broad support
it was adopted on a voice vote in the House.
I'm told that, as many of the people in the
coalition worked together across ideological
and religious lines, some new friendships
were formed and some new trust was established, which shows, I suppose, that the
power of Cod is such that even in the legislative process miracles can happen. [Laugfiter]
We all have a shared desire here to protect
perhaps the most precious of all American
iberties, religious freedom. Usually the signing of legislation by a President is a ministerial act, often a quiet ending to a turbulent
legislative process. Today this event assumes
a more majestic quality because of our ability
together to affirm the historic role that people of faith have played in the history of this
country and the constitutional protections
those who profess and express their faith
have always demanded and cherished.
The power to reverse legislation by legislation, a decision of the United States Supreme
Court, is a power that is rightly hesitantly
and infrequently exercised by the United
States Congress. But this is an issue in which
that extraordinary measure was clearly called
for. As the Vice President said, this act reverses the Supreme Court's decision Employment Division against Smith and reestabishes a standard that better protects all
Americans of all faiths in the exercise of their
religion in a way that I am convinced is far
more consistent with the intent of the
Founders of this Nation than the Supreme
Court decision.
More than 50 cases have been decided
against individuals making religious claims
against Government action since that decision was handed down. This act will help to
reverse that trend by honoring the principle
that our laws and institutions should not impede or hinder but rather should protect and
preserve fundamental religious liberties.
The free exercise of religion has been
called the first freedom, that which originally
sparked the development of the full range
of the Bill of Rights. Our Founders cared
a lot about religion. And one of the reasons
they worked so hard to get the first amendment into the Bill of Rights at the head of
the class is that they well understood what
could happen to this country, how both reli-
�Administration of William]. Clinton, 1993 I Nov. 16
Remarks on Governors'
Endorsements of NAFTA and an
Exchange With Reporters
November 16,1993
The President. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Vice President, and thank
you to all the Governors who are here and
to the many Governors who are not here who
have helped us in this battle to pass NAFTA.
I think I should say by way of sort of a
parenthesis at the outset of my remarks, in
reaction to Governor Thompson's eloquent
comments about the Rose Bowl, that in view
of the wisdom of the voters in Michigan,
Ohio, and Wisconsin in the last election, this
administration has no position on that football game. [Laughter]
You know, I looked at the Governors who
are here with me, and I had to think—I actually counted. We are about equally divided
back here between Democrats and Republicans. And I think it is an interesting statement that these who have come here and
those who are not here who have also endorsed this agreement are more or less
equally divided in about the ratio the parties
hold of gubernatorial offices. And the reason
for that is that if you're a Governor today,
a big part of your job is keeping the job base
you have, trying to find more jobs, and when
you lose jobs, trying to replace them as quickly as possible.
It's not unusual to see a Governor who actually knows huge numbers of employers by
name, who's been in, in my case, literally
hundreds of manufacturing facilities and different small businesses and who understands
how businesses rise and fall and how they
fit within the economy of the State, the Nation, and the globe. The job of Governors
is to create jobs, to keep jobs, to enhance
the economic base and the economic security
of our people.
Any of these Governors will tell you that
it is difficult to hold onto this job if your voters don't believe you have a clear economic
program and that your State is moving in the
right direction against all the odds. Many of
us have served in very difficult economic
times, with high unemployment rates caused
by all kinds of factors. But we always found
that the people of our State wanted us to
2379
have a theory about how the economy works
and how we were going to get more jobs.
That is what these folks do for a living.
So I am especially honored to have these
Governors here and to have their support because they understand on a bipartisan basis
that a big part of America's national security
involves the ability to create economic security for our people. They further understand
that the only way to have economic security
is to compete and win in the global economy.
As I have said many times and I want to
say here on the eve of this great vote, every
wealthy country in the world today is having
trouble creating new jobs. Productivity increases, which are necessary to compete in
the global economy, in the short run sometimes cause difficulty in creating jobs because a more productive worker means fewer
people can produce more products and services. Therefore, if you want more jobs at
higher wages in this world, you have to have
more customers. There is no way around
that.
No one has seriously advanced the proposition that the United States can grow jobs
and raise incomes, our most urgent economic
priority, without having more customers for
our products and services. The Governors
understand that. That is why they do not seek
to run away from change or to shield their
people from change but instead to embrace
it, to compete and win. That is the great message that must be carried to the Congress
over the next 24 hours as the Members prepare for this vote.
This really is a vote about whether we're
going to try to hold onto yesterday's economy
or embrace tomorrow's economy. It's about
the past and the future. You know, if I could
wave a magic wand and return eveiy American to absolute job security with no competition at all, I might do that although I'm not
sure our country would be better off. At least
more and more people think that that is a
possibility as you hear this NAFTA vote. And
I'm telling you folks, these Governors understand that is not a possibility.
Governors have stood at the doors of
plants when they closed. I have stood by
plants and shaken hands with workers, hundreds of them, when they walked off the job
for the last time. If I thought that this was
"My
�2380
Not;. 76 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
going to cost the American people jobs, I
would not be for this agreement and neither
would these Governors. Our work is putting
Americans to work.
Now, in the last 10 months, with the deficit
down, with inflation down, with interest rates
down, this economy has produced more jobs
in the private sector than in the previous 4
years. And every American can tell you that's
very fine, but it's nowhere near enough. We
cannot get more jobs in this economy until
we have more customers for our products
and our services.
Tomorrow the Congress has simply got to
vote for hope over fear, for the future over
the past, they've got to vote for confidence
in the ability of the American people to compete and win. These Governors are closer to
their workers than any other public officials
in the country. They know we can compete
and win. So do I . And tomorrow I think the
House of Representatives will say the same
thing.
Thank you very much.
NAFTA
Q. Mr. President, you have stressed bipartisanship here. But Lane Kirkland says that
you have really abdicated the leadership of
the Democratic Party with your all-out campaign.
The President. My job is to try to lead
the United States and to try to help this country move forward and to do what I think is
right to get that done. I do not believe we
can grow this economv without expanding
our trade. I'm doing the job that the people
elected me to do, to try to expand the economy.
Q. Can you explain about the political
cover, as it's been described, that you're offering Members of Congress, Republicans
and Democrats, in terms of NAFTA not
being a legitimate political issue in the 1994
campaign?
The President. I have told all Members
of Congress who vote for this that I will do
everything I can to defend this vote and to
say that a vote for this agreement should not
be the basis for defeating any Member of
Congress without regard to part)'. And I believe that.
Q. Mr. President, Ross Perot has accused
you of giving away billions of dollars in taxpayers' monies to buy votes in favor of
NAFTA. And he says that what you're doing
makes the scandal in New Jersey look like
peanuts. What do you say about that?
The President. I sav that the Vice President, first of all, disposed of most of Mr.
Perot's arguments pretty well the other night.
The Members of Congress who come to me
and ask me for things have asked me to help
their people. The people that I've talked to
in Congress have been nobly motivated.
Most of them have taken great risks and, as
you heard, were threatened on national television with their very political life by Mr.
Perot the other night to vote for this. When
they come to see me, they want to know
things like: Is this job training package going
to be really adequate? How do I know the
members of my district are going to have access to job training programs? What are you
going to do to ensure that the environmental
standards will be kept? And how quickly will
we see investments in cleaning up the environment along the border?
Those are the kinds of substantive questions that we've been asked to hammer out
and work through and give assurances on.
I think that is the job of a Member of Congress. I don't feel badly about that at all.
Q. Mr. President
Q. Mr. President—sorry.
The President. Go ahead. Both of you.
[Laughter}
Q. Isn't there a danger, Mr. President,
these kind of side deals you've had to make
on sugar, citrus, wheat can end up undermining the very thing you tried to do with the
trade agreement?
The President. No.
Q. Why not?
The President. Well, the side agreements
we made on agriculture were just like the
side agreements we made on the environment and on the labor standards. They don't
undermine the fundamental things in the
agreement. The Mexican tariffs come down.
The barriers to trade go down. The Mexicans
have access to nationwide investment in their
countr)'. We win; they win. The big things
in the agreement are still wholly intact, and
�Administration of Williain J. Clinton, 1993 I Nov. 16
as a matter of fact, I think it's a much better
deal than it was a year ago.
Q. How do you feel about this bipartisan
coalition? There was an extraordinary joint
whips committee meeting yesterday. When
all the votes are being counted in the middle
of the rollcall, do you really trust Newt Gingrich with what may be the future of your
Presidency?
The President. First of all, 1 wouldn't
even characterize it that way. I believe that
Newt Gingrich believes in NAFTA just like
I do. And I believe he wants it to pass. And
do I trust him to do everything he can to
deliver every vote he can? You bet I do.
And let me say that, you know, we can't
win for losing around here. I mean, when
we were voting on the budget, you were asking me wasn't it terrible we didn't have any
Republicans voting with us. I like the idea
of people in the two parties working together
when they agree. I do not like the idea that
any party's, either party's discipline would
prevent people who agree with one another
from working together toward the national
good. I think that's what the American people want us to do. I think they want us to
disagree when we disagree, to agree when
we agree, but not to let our labels keep us
from working together.
So this has been an immensely rewarding
thing for me to work with the Republicans
who agree with us on this issue. Mr. Bonior
has worked very hard with the Republicans
who agree with him on the issue, and I would
like to see more of it in America. I think
that our country would work better if we
could work out agreements and work together in a constructive way, particularly on
issues that affect our national security.
When I was a boy, looking at Washington
from afar, growing up, the normal thing was
for the Republicans and Democrats to work
together on foreign policy because everyone
understood that was our national security.
Well frankly, folks, a lot of these economic
issues are our national security today. And
I hope we'll see a lot more of this bipartisanship.
Q. Do you have the votes?
The President. We're getting there. 1
never say that until they're counted, you
2381
know, but I feel good today. We're getting
there.
Q. Mr. President, a lot of people have
characterized this as a test of your Presidency. And the stakes seem to have been
ratcheted up, particularly in the last few days,
to the point where one Senator was quoted
as saving your political future is at stake and,
at the very least, the future of any political
programs you want to enact. Do you think
that is an exaggeration, or are the stakes really that high?
The President. I think the stakes for our
country are high. What happens to me is not
nearly as important as what happens to the
country. Thursday morning I'll wake up, and
I'll get on that plane and go to the APEC
meeting and do the best I can for America.
A month from now people may be concemed
about something else. But what I want to
emphasize is the importance of this to our
country.
I want to make, in closing, since this is
my last shot, one argument that none of us
have made yet again this morning. And that
is that NAFTA is the gateway to all of Latin
America, to 700 million people. It is an insurance policy against protectionism in the rest
of the world. And it is an enormous lever
for us to convince our friends in the Pacific
region and our friends in Europe to complete
the worldwide trade agreement, the GATT
round, by the end of the year so we can continue to expand the global economy.
Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. President, your opponents on this
issue, Mr. Gephardt, for instance, say that
if NAFTA fails they will immediately offer
to renegotiate it with you, to revive it. If
NAFTA does not pass tomorrow night, is it
dead, or are you going to immediately try
to work with them to renegotiate it?
The President. They're missing the point.
They can renegotiate with me all they want.
They can't renegotiate it with the Mexicans.
I think the Government of Mexico has made
it quite clear that this trade agreement includes environmental concessions and labor
concessions on their part, which I think are
good for them, by the way, but never before
put into a trade agreement by any nation
ever. I think it is clear what they will do is
to look to other nations to make other deals.
�2382
Nov. 16 I Administration
You see, even the Canadians said today that
if we voted it down, they'd try to make a
separate agreement with Mexico. I feel quite
sure that other nations will as well.
Q. Mr. President, what are you learning
from this intensive campaign? Are there a
lot of disappointments? And do you have any
unusual surprises?
The President. There haven't been any
disappointments. Actually, what I'm learning
from this campaign is that an awful lot of
people really love this countiy and many
Members of Congress are literally willing to
put their political careers on the line tomorrow night to do what they think is right, even
though they're not quite sure their voters
agree with them yet. Every Member we get
who's in a difficult district, who's voting for
this is doing it because he or she believes
that it's in the interest of their constituents
even i f they haven't quite persuaded them
yet. And it's been a deeply moving thing for
me.
I also would tell you all that we've had
a lot of close votes up here, but we're moving
the ball forward in this countiy. It is hard
to do hard things. And sometimes hard things
win by narrow margins. But America is going
through a period of real change and ferment
at a time of great difficult)' for millions of
our citizens. So the fact that this is tough,
it should be exhilarating to all of us who are
carrying forward. It's just our responsibility
to take the tough fight and go forward.
North
Q. Mr. President, on one other topic, are
you willing to give up military exercises in
South Korea in exchange for nuclear inspections in North Korea?
The President. I'm not at liberty' even to
comment on that now. The negotiations are
going on, and I don't think I should comment. I'll have more to say about that, I hope,
in the next few days.
One last question. Go ahead.
Canadian Agricultural
Prime Minister of Canada. I'm going to have
my first meeting with him in just a couple
of days, and we're going to discuss some of
the issues outstanding between us, including
the differences both of us have with each other's definition of what constitutes fair trade
in agriculture. The Prime Minister has made
an interesting suggestion, which is that we
ought to try to reach agreement on what does
or doesn't constitute a subsidy, something
which was not done before our agreement
with Canada was developed. And that is what
led to a lot of this misunderstanding because
they have things that our farmers consider
to be significant subsidies that are indirect.
So we're going to meet and visit about that
when we get out to the Pacific. Right now,
we've got to pass NAFTA.
Thank you veiy much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:05 a.m. at tlie
North Portico to die West Wine at tlie White
House. In his remarks, he referred to Gov.
Tommy G. Thompson of Wisconsin.
Proclamation 6624—National FarmCity Week, 1993
November 16, 1993
By the President of the United States
of America
A
Korea
Subsidies
Q. Have you decided to ask Canada to
change its grain pricing policies? And are you
prepared to seek tariffs or quotas, if they
don't, on durum wheat?
The President. First of all, 1 don't think
I should prefigure my conversation with the
of William J. Clinton, 1993
Proclamation
The efficiency with which a nation produces and distributes its agricultural products largely determines the vitality', health,
well-being, and economic strength of that nation. One of our Nation's great strengths is
the tremendous productivity of its agricultural sector. The food and fiber that grow
on our country's farms feed us, sustain us,
and allow our Nation to thrive.
More than 20 million Americans—from
farms to cities—are engaged in producing,
processing, and marketing our agricultural
supplies. They are a highly efficient team
made up of farm families, people in rural
communities, agribusiness industries, scientists, and retail distributors. This farm-city
team is the most productive and effective in
the world, demonstrating the strength and
�Good evening. A few moments ago, the House of Representatives voted to
approve the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA will expand
American exports, create new jobs, and help us reassert America's leadership in
the world. This agreement is in the deep self-interest of the United States. It will
help make working Americans winners in the new global economy.
I want to thank the lawmakers of both parties who gave it their support.
Many of them showed real courage in voting their conscience in the best interests
of our country.
Tonight's vote is a defining moment for our country.
At a time when many of our people are hurting, we chose to compete, not
retreat -- to lead the new world economy, we did so much to make, as we have led
the world in America's finest moments. The debate over NAFTA has been
contentious.
Men and women of good will raised strong arguments for and against this
agreement. Every participant in this debate wanted the same thing: more jobs,
more security, and more opportunity for every American. And so do I .
The passionate defenders of our working people who opposed NAFTA are
right to speak out against economic conditions which have produced too few jobs,
stagnant incomes, inadequate retraining and investment strategies for people and
places that need them. They fought hard and they have my respect.
But in an economy where competition is global and change is the only
constant, we cannot advance the security of our workers by building walls of
protection around our nation or pretending that the world economy simply isn't
there. Our only choice is to take this new world head on.
That is why it is so important that we pass NAFTA, and I call on the
Senate to complete the process within days. By eliminating Mexico's tariff taxes
and restrictive rules, we will be able to export more cars, computers and other
products, and keep more American workers on the job here at home.
NAFTA will raise environmental and labor standards in Mexico. I want
labor and management to work together with my administration to ensure that
the labor and environmental provisions of NAFTA are honored, and that this pact
works to America's advantage.
NAFTA is a big step but just the first step in our effort to expand trade and
spark an economic revival here and around the world.
We must guarantee our workers the training and education they need to
compete in the new global marketplace. VVe must provide every citizen with
�health care that can never be taken away. We must increase investment in our
people and their jobs.
And we must lower foreign trade barriers so that the goods and services we
produce can compete and win in the global marketplace. Tomorrow, I go to Seattle
to meet with the leaders of fifteen Asian-Pacific economies. I will ask them to
work toward more open markets for our products.
When we return, we will reach out to the other emerging market oriented
democracies in Latin America.
And next month, we will urge our European and Asian competitors to
complete work on a worldwide trade agreement that will create literally hundreds
of thousands of U.S. jobs as we open markets all across the globe.
We've faced these difficult choices before -- whether to turn inward or to
turn outward as leader of the world.
After World War I , we turned inward and built walls of protection around
our economy. The result was Depression and ultimately war.
After World War I I , we made a different choice. We turned outward. We
built a system of expanded trade and collective security and created the great
American middle class.
Tonight, with the Cold War over, our nation is facing that choice again; and
we have not flinched. Once again, leaders of both political parties are finding
common ground to fight for the common good.
Tonight, America has once again shown its strength, its confidence in itself
Americans are winners. And we are ready, together, to shape the new world.
Thank you and good night.
�Administration of William]. Clinton, 1993 I Nov. 17
Remarks on the House of
Representatives Action on NAFTA
and an Exchange With Reporters
November 17, 1993
2385
grassroots effort in our behalf. Bill Daley and
former Congressman Bill Frenzel. I also
thank the passionate defenders of the working people who oppose NAFTA for exercising their right to speak out. And they were
right to speak out against economic conditions which have produced too few jobs and
stagnant incomes, as well as inadequate strategies for retraining our workers and investing
in our people and our places that need them.
They fought hard, and they have my respect.
But in an economy where competition is
global and change is the only constant, we
simply cannot advance the security of American workers by building walls of protection
around our economy or by pretending that
global competition isn't there. Our only
choice is to take this new world head on, to
compete, and to win. That's why it's so important that we pass NAFTA, and I hope the
Senate will complete the process in the next
few days.
By eliminating Mexico's tariffs and restrictive rules we'll be able to export more cars,
more computers, and other products and
keep more American workers on the job here
at home. NAFTA will raise environmental
and labor standards in Mexico. And I want
to ask tonight labor and management to work
together with our administration to ensure
that the labor and environmental provisions
of NAFTA are honored. We must make sure
that this pact works to America's advantage.
NAFTA is a big step, but just the first step
in our effort to expand trade and spark an
economic revival here and around the world.
One legitimate point that the opponents of
NAFTA made is that we will do even better
in the global economy if we have a training
system and a retraining system and a job
placement system for our workers worthy of
the challenges they face. We simply must
guarantee our workers the training and education they need to compete in the global
marketplace. And I call on the coalition that
passed NAFTA to help me early next year
present to the Congress and pass a worldclass reemployment svstem that will give our
working people the security of knowing that
they'll be able always to get the training they
need as economic conditions change.
The President. Thank vou very much. Just
a few minutes ago the House of Representatives voted to approve the North American
Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA will expand
our exports, create new jobs, and help us
reassert America's leadership in the global
economy. This agreement is in the deep selfinterest of the United States. It wil help
make working Americans, the world's most
productive workers, winners in the world
economy.
I want to thank the lawmakers of both parties who gave their support to NAFTA. Many
of them, as everyone knows, showed real
courage in voting their consciences and what
they knew to be in the best interest for their
Nation. 1 want to thank all the citizens who
worked so hard for this, the business leaders,
especially the small business leaders, the
spokespersons for the NAFTA fight, including Lee lacocca who's here with us tonight.
I want to say a special word of thanks to
the members of the Cabinet who labored so
hard and long, especially Mickey Kantor, our
Trade Ambassador, for his tireless effort on
the side agreements and to lobby this
through, and the Secretary of the Treasury,
who is a native of south Texas and who understands so clearly why this is in our interests. And I want to say a special word of
thanks to Vice President Gore for bringing
home the message to the American people
in his superb debate performance.
Tonight's vote is a defining moment for
our Nation. At a time when many of our people are hurting from the strains of this tough
global economy, we chose to compete, not
to retreat, to lead a new world economy, to
lead as America has done so often in the past.
The debate over NAFTA has been contentious. Men and women of good will raised
strong arguments for and against this agreement. But every participant in this debate
wanted the same things: more jobs, more security, more opportunity for every American.
And so do I .
I thank those who worked with us. I thank
We must also provide our citizens with
especially the people who organized the other things, with health care that can never
�2386
Nov. 17 I Administration
be taken away, with increased investment in
people and places and jobs. And we must
continue the fight to lower foreign trade barriers which slow economic growth here in
the United States and around the world.
Tomorrow I go to Seattle to meet with the
leaders of 15 Asian Pacific economies. I will
ask them to work toward more open markets
for our products. When I return, I ' l l reach
out to the other market-oriented democracies of Latin America, to ask them to join
in this great American pact that I believe offers so much hope to our future. And next
month we will urge our European and Asian
competitors to complete work on the worldwide trade agreement that can literally create
hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the
United States as we open markets all across
the globe.
We've faced choices before like the one
we faced tonight, whether to tum inward or
tum outward. After World War I , the United
States turned inward and built walls of protection around our economy. The result was
a depression and ultimately another world
war. After the Second World War, we made
a very different choice. We turned outward.
We built a system of expanded trade and collective security. We rebuilt the economies of
our former foes and in the process created
the great American middle class.
Tonight, with the cold war over, our Nation is facing that choice again. And tonight
I am proud to say, we have not flinched. Tonight the leaders of both parties found common ground in supporting the common good.
We voted for the future tonight. VVe once
again showed our strength. We once again
showed our self-confidence, even in this difficult time. Our people are winners. And 1
believe we showed tonight we are ready together to compete and win and to shape the
world of the 21st centun.
Thank you very much.
Q. Mr. President, how are you going to
make up with the Democratic leaders who
fought this trade agreement so vociferously?
The President. Well, I thought what they
all said tonight was a very good signal. At
the end of that debate I was deeply moved
by the efforts that people on both sides of
the issue made to reach out to each other
and to say that we have to make this work
of William ]. Clinton, 1993
now, we have to go forward now, we have
to build our economy. And I think you will
see that happening. I think you will see a
greater sense of unity and commitment to
have the kind of job training programs we
need, to have the kind of investment strategies we need to keep forcing these trade barriers down abroad.
And I must say, too, I hope we'll see in
the future some more of this bipartisan effort
to build economic security for Americans,
because a lot of our national security in the
future is going to be involved with rebuilding
our economic strength from the grassroots
up. And that's a very hopeful part of this debate.
Q. What about the relationship with organized labor, sir?
The President. Well, one of the things I
learned, again, in this fight is that they have
an enormous amount of energy and ability
to organize and ability to channel the passions and feelings of their workers. You
know, when you think about it, we had the
White House, the leaders of both parties, an
enormous amount of support, and we had
to come from a long way back to win this
fight because of the work they did largely.
And what I want to do is to ask them to join
me now, as 1 said tonight, in making sure
that the labor and environmental agreements
are honored, in going on to the health care
battle, in going on to other economic battles,
and in making sure we give our working people the kind of education and training programs they need to compete in this different
and very competitive global economy.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spike at 11:03 p.m. in the
Grand Fover at the White House.
E x e c u t i v e O r d e r 12880—National
D r u g Control Program
November
16,1993
The OfTice of National Drug Contro! Policv has the lead responsibility within the Executive Office of the President to establish
policies, priorities, and objectives for the Nation's drug control program, with the goal of
�2388
Nov. 18 I Admimstration of William ]. Clinton, 1993
(2) The National Drug Control Strategy'
shall also include an assessment of the quality
of techniques and instruments to measure
current drug use and supply and demand reduction activities, and the adequacy of the
coverage of existing national drug use instruments and techniques to measure the total
illicit drug user population and groups at-risk
for drug use.
(3) The Director shall coordinate an effort
among the relevant drug control program
agencies to assess the quality, access, management, effectiveness, and standards of accountability of drug abuse treatment, prevention, education, and other demand reduction
activities.
(c) Provision of Reports. To the extent permitted by law, heads of departments and
agencies with responsibilities under the National Drug Control Program shall make
available to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, appropriate statistics, studies, and
reports, pertaining to Federal drug abuse
control.
his stunning performance in the debate on
the Larry King show played a major role in
our victory.
Now that the House has voted for the
North American Free Trade Agreement,
voted for America to continue to compete
and win in the global economy, 1 want to
say again how grateful I am to the Members
who voted with us and how deeply I respect
the opinions and convictions of those who
did not and those who supported them.
It is for us now to make sure that this
agreement is speedily passed by the United
States Senate and then implemented as it was
intended to be implemented, with the cooperation of both labor and management to
make sure that it works to the benefit of the
United States and to all the working people
of our country. It is also our responsibi ity
to press on until we have the kind of education and training programs we need.
And finally, it is our responsibility to make
sure that we make the most of this effort
in terms of our relationships with our neighbor to the south, Mexico, the rest of Latin
William J.Clinton
America, and hopefully with nations all
across the world w io are committed to open
The White House,
and free trade, to lowering the barriers that
November 16,1993.
they have to our products and services and
[Filed with the Office of die Federal Register, to working together for more global oppor10:49 a.m., November 17, 1993]
tunity, jobs, and growth.
Last night I called President Salinas, and
NOTE: This Executive order was released by the
OfTice of tlie Press Secretarv on November 18, I told him that the Vice President and Chief
and it was published in the Federal Register on of Staff McLarty would be available to go
November 18.
to Mexico City when NAFTA is ratified by
both nations, to meet with him and his govemment for indepth discussions about how
best to launch this great new era in North
American relations. The President gracefully
Remarks on Departure for Seattle,
welcomed this suggestion and invited the
Washington
Vice President to travel to Mexico as soon
November 18, 1993
as NAFTA is approved by the United States
Thank you very much. Thank you, ladies Senate and by the Mexican Senate, which is
and gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Vice Presi- expected to be this Tuesday.
dent.
Now I am leaving for the first ever Asian
Let me just say that I have never been and Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in
involved in an effort in which there were so Seattle with the strength in hand to fight for
many diverse people working so hard with open markets throughout the world. The 15
so little concern for who got the credit after Asian-Pacific economic partners that I will
meet are dynamic and powerful traders and
the battle was over.
competitors. From the creative tension beI thank all those who were mentioned last
night and were mentioned today by the Vice tween their nations and ours can come an
President. I will say again that I believe that economic expansion that will sustain us for
�Administration
of William J. Clinton, 1993 I Nov. 18
years to come. The fastest growing part of
the world economy is in Asia.
One thing is clear, by taking the courageous step of opening trade in our own hemisphere we have the economic, the political,
and the moral standing to make the case that
that ought to be done throughout the world,
that America is serious about lowering trade
barriers and promoting growth in our country
and throughout the globe.
I look forward to this trip and to continuing the fight. I will remind you again, as I
have said so many times in the past, there
is simply no evidence that the United States
or any other wealthy country can grow jobs
and increase incomes unless the world economy is growing and unless w^have more customers for our goods and services. We took
a long step in the right direction last night,
and I intend to take more steps on that
course in the next few days in the Pacific
Northwest.
Thank you very much.
2389
derful host. I thank you, and vour Nation
thanks you.
Frank noted that a number of mv Cabinet
members came here with me today, along
with Congressman Norm Dicks and Heather
Foley, the wife of House Speaker Tom Folev.
I wanted to say also that Senator Pattv Murray had planned to come home with me
today. I invited her here. And I want you
to know why she's not here. She's not here
because she is in Washington fighting to pass
a crime bill that keeps in the ban on assault
weapons to make our streets safer. I'm proud
of her for doing that.
You know, I've been to this wonderful city
for many reasons. I came here as a Governor
to a Governors' Conference. I've been here
on vacation. I came here many times asking
your help to become President. Today I
come on a truly historic mission, for this is
the first meeting ever of the leaders of the
nations of the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation group. I ' l l have a chance to meet
with the Prime Minister of Japan, the PresiNOTE: The President spoke at 11:28 a.m. on the dent of China, the leaders of the other naSouth Lawn at the White House. A tape was not tions in this group. We'll be able to talk about
available for verification of tlie content of these regional economics and political developremarks.
ments. We'll be focusing on what we can do
to help our own people.
Make no mistake about it: Ultimately, this
meeting is about the jobs, the incomes, and
R e m a r k s on A r r i v a l i n Seattle
the futures of the American people; about
exhorting American leadership in a world
November
18,1993
where there isn't a lot of growth now, so jobs
Thank you very much. Thank you very are not secure, incomes are stagnant in every
much. Governor Lowry and Mayor Rice, wealthy country on Earth. The only way we
Chairman Shrontz, ladies and gentlemen. I can tum this around now is to have more
thought I ought to bring Air Force One growth not only in America but throughout
home. And I'm glad to be back here myself, the world.
and I do love this town. Seattle has been
With all of the difficulties we have today,
wonderful to me. The State of Washington our economy is growing more than Europe's
has been good to me. Without your support economy. I t is growing faster today than Ja1 would not have been able to take office pan's economy. Our problem in America
as President and to work every day to keep today and Boeing's problem today is that
the commitments I made to the American there's not enough growth in the world econpeople to try to change this country for the omy, so people don't have enough money to
buy these airplanes. And we're going to
petter.
change that, beginning at this meeting for
I want to thank you especially today for
all the work that you and this city have done, the Pacific region. I know we can do that.
America's workers are still the world's
and all the work people throughout this State
have done to help this Asian-Pacific Eco- most productive. America can compete and
nomic Cooperation meeting come off as well win all over the world in all markets, if only
as it has. Everyone says you've been a won- given a fair chance and i f there are sensible
�\
2390
\
\
Nm. 18 I Administration of William]. Clinton, 1993
partnerships to promote growth. People cannot spend money they do not have.
So we come here today, hoping to drive
down trade barriers, open up trade opportunities, and promote more growth. Seattle has
long seen itself as the portal of the Pacific.
Today, it is the portal to the Asian-Pacific
region, the world's fastest growing economy,
the largest region in our world in terms of
population, with enormous potential for
American prosperity and new partnerships
for peace and freedom and democracy.
Washington exports more per person than
any other State in our Nation. And over 80
percent of those exports go to the Asian-Pacific region. You know that. You know also
that Boeing is America's largest exporter, and
that no company in the world better exemplifies the potential of worldwide economic
partnerships to create opportunity for people
right here at home in America.
I'm proud that I worked with the Transportation Secretary and the Commerce Secretary and others in my administration to see
that your aircraft get full and fair consideration in the global market. Someone sort of
made fun of me the other day. They said,
"You know, President Clinton is almost like
a rug merchant out there selling American
products." Well, I'm not ashamed that I've
asked other countries to buy Boeing, and I'll
do it again if given half the chance.
I was so pleased this week that Boeing
reached an agreement with Gulf Air, based
in Bahrain, to sell six of your new 777 widebody planes with an option to purchase another six, an agreement that could be worth
$2 billion. I was pleased to read in the paper
today of Boeing's agreement with Southwest
Airlines. 1 think you all know we're working
on other sales in the Middle East. And I'm
also proud to say that I am delighted that
Boeing was selected as the prime contractor
for America's space station, something I
worked hard to save from the budget ax in
the last session of Congress. That's another
global partnership because now we're going
to develop that space station in partnership
with the Russians in further pursuit of peace
and global economic prosperity.
And finally, I want to say a special word
of thanks to Congressman Norm Dicks for
his initiative in getting Congress to initiate
a new airlift initiative to supplement our
present airlift capacity and replace some of
our old planes by buying off-the-shelf commercial airlines, like the 747. I commend
Norm Dicks for that initiative. It can save
the Defense Department money and put
people in Washington State to work.
I ask you here to continue your resolve
in the face of adversity, to be an example
to the rest of our Nation that we can compete
and win in this global economy.
As Frank said, and as Governor Lowry and
Mayor Rice noted, we've just come through
a tough fight in the Congress where good
people on both sides argued about what was
pest for the working families of America. I
did everything I could for 12 years to advance
the cause of working people as a Governor.
I ran for President because I thought we
could expand the horizons of young people
and preserve the American dream and make
a strength out of our diversity in the Nation
as you have done in Seattle. That's why I
ran.
This debate over NAFTA was very profitable, very productive, but sometimes very
painful because some of the best friends I
ever had were on the other side of that debate. And they were on the other side because they were tired of seeing Americans
work harder for lower wages to pay higher
prices for health care, housing, and education
to have less security in their basic lives. That
was a genuine fear that should be honored
by every person in public life today. Those
are the fears we have to answer.
I disagreed on the solution because I believe that the only way a rich country can
grow richer is to find more customers for its
products and services. In the absence of that
we cannot continue to grow.
We are getting more and more productive,
as we have to do to compete. But what does
that mean? That means fewer people can
produce more things. If fewer people
produce more things and you still want more
jobs at higher incomes, there must be more
customers. There is no alternative.
But make no mistake about it, my fellow
Americans, the fight over NAFTA shows us
the best of both sides. The winning side was
right. We ought to expand our trade. We've
got to bring down trade barriers. We have
�Administratum of William J. Clinton, 1993 I Nov. 18
to reach out to the rest of the world. We
need a partnership, not only with Mexico but
with all of Latin America, 700 million people
plus, in a giant trading cooperative partnership. We need that. But we also need to guarantee every American working family the
education and training they need, the investment in their communities they need, the security of health care that can never be taken
away, and an economic policy dedicated to
growing jobs and raising incomes and benefiting the ordinary citizens of this country.
That is what we have to do.
Our economic strategy is simple, direct,
and I think correct: Put our own economic
house in order, enable our people to compete
and win in the global economy, and find
more markets for our products and services.
Just in the last 10 months the United States
Congress has enacted an historic plan that
has brought interest rates down to record
lows, kept inflation down, increased investment, permitted millions of Americans to refinance their homes, and created more jobs
in the private sector in the last 10 months
than in the previous 4 years. It is not nearly
enough, but it's a dam good beginning, and
we're glad to have it.
We' must now move on to invest in education and training and new technologies,
and helping us to win from downsizing defense by converting to domestic technologies
and opening the world to those markets. We
can do it, and that's what this meeting is all
about. So I say to you, again, you have helped
America to make history here in Seattle.
The meeting of the leaders of the AsianPacific region, if we make wise decisions and
if we begin a long-term, disciplined partnership for growth and opportunity, can create
jobs here and jobs across the Pacific, can
raise incomes here and give hope to people
who never had it all across the largest ocean
on the globe. We can do this. And when we
do, I hope you will always take pride in knowing that it began here in Washington, America's trading State, America's model for the
future, in a town that's been awfully good
to me and is now a wonderful example for
the entire United States.
Thank you very much, and God bless you
all.
2391
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:50 p.m. at Boeing
Field. In his remarks, he referred to Mayor Norman B. Rice of Seattle, and Frank A. Shrontz,
chairman and chief executive officer, Boeing Co.
A tape was not available for verification of the
content of these remarks.
Message to the Congress
Transmitting a Report on United
States Activities in the United
Nations
November 18, 1993
To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit herewith a report
of the activities of the United States Government in the United Nations and its affiliated
agencies during the calendar year 1992. The
report is required by the United Nations Participation Act (Public Law 264 , 79th Congress; 22 U.S.C. 287b).
William J.Clinton
The White House,
November 18, 1993.
Statement by the Press Secretary on
the President's Message on NAFTA
to Latin American Heads of State
November 18,1993
Following passage of the NAFTA implementing legislation by the House of Representatives on November 17 the President
sent the following message to heads of state
and government of Paraguay, Uruguay,
Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela, Pern, Colombia, Suriname, Guyana,
Bolivia, Costa Rica, Panama, Honduras, El
Salvador, Dominican Republic, Belize, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Haiti, Barbados, The Bahamas, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and The Grenadines, St. Kitts and Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica, Dominica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Grenada:
" I am pleased to inform you that the implementing legislation for the North American Free Trade Agreement was passed on
November 17 by the United States House
�2392
Not. 18 I Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
of Representatives. This represents the first
critical step on the road to U.S. implementation of the Agreement. I hope to win approval of the implementing legislation next
week by the United States Senate. The other
signatory parties, Canada and Mexico, are
completing their ratification procedures.
'This is an historic occasion. The NAFTA
will benefit all the people of our hemisphere.
It manifests the confidence and optimism
with which the United States and our immediate neighbors face the future. It epitomizes
our dedication to the development of a cooperative and prosperous post-Cold War world
based on open and dynamic economies, a
clean environment, protection of workers'
rights and expansion of democracy.
"The NAFTA will capitalize on the tremendous opportunities which reforms in
Mexico and elsewhere in the Americas have
given us to open the way to trade liberalization throughout the hemisphere. As we link
our economies we not only will increase the
efficiency of production in each country but
also will create new, better quality jobs and
improve the entire hemisphere's competitiveness in the global marketplace. The
NAFTA will set the stage for freer trade and
sustainable, more equitable economic development throughout Latin America and the
Caribbean for the benefit of our combined
populations of 700 million. It will also give
an enormous boost to our efforts to complete
the GATT Uruguay Round so we can continue to expand the global economv.
Nomination for a Member of the
Board of Directors of the ExportImport Bank of the United States
November
18,1993
The President announced his intention
today to nominate Maria Luisa M. Haley to
be a member of the Board of Directors of
the Export-Import Bank of the United
States.
" I have been very impressed with Maria
Haley's work over the years, as an aide to
me here at the White House, and working
for our Industrial Development Commission
in Arkansas," said the President. " I expect
that she will continue to do well on the Export-Import Bank Board."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the OfTice of the Press Secretary.
Nomination for United States
District Court Judges
November 18, 1993
The President today nominated two U.S.
district court judges for Louisiana: Tucker
Melancon for the Western District, and
Helen "Ginger" Berrigan for the Eastern
District.
" I have pledged to the American people
that I would appoint Federal judges committed to public service," said the President. "In
Tucker Melancon and Ginger Berrigan, the
people of Louisiana will have just that."
" I am grateful for the hemisphere-wide
backing the NAFTA enjoys. Your expressions
of support, both individual and issued collectively through the Organization of American
States, the Rio Group, the Caribbean Community and the Meeting of Central American NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available hv the Office of the Press Secretarv.
Presidents have helped me convey to the
people of the United States the commitment
of Latin American and Caribbean nations to
opening their markets so that freer trade may
benefit all. I am proud to have your support
in this historic endeavor and I look forward
to working with you to make freer trade
throughout this hemisphere a reality.'"
�Administratum
of William J. Clinton, 1993 I Nov. 19
Exchange With Reporters Following
Discussions With Prime Minister
Jean Chretien of Canada in Seattle
November 18, 1993
NAFTA
Q. [Inaudible]—resolve vour differences
on NAFTA?
The President. Well, I wouldn't say we
resolved them all, but we had a very good
meeting, and we agreed that our respective
trade representatives would get together, Mr.
MacLaren and Ambassador Kantor, and try
to work through the issues in a timely fashion. And I feel comfortable that we've set
up a good process. We've identified what the
points of concern are, and I think we've got
a good shot to work it out.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, can you resolve
the issues now without completely reopening
NAFTA?
Prime Minister Chretien. That debate is
going on at this time. We've discussed the
nature of the problem and we tried to find
a way to solve the problem. I guess we could,
but I'm not sure. That's why, you know, we'll
have to reflect on the nature of the problem,
and we have only a few weeks to make a
final decision because proclamation is for the
first of January. But I'm confident that they
seem to understand our position and understand the American position, too. So, yes, I'm
optimistic that we can find a solution. The
technique is something to be worked on, and
we'll find a solution. There is always a solution to a problem.
Q. What are the—problems?
Prime Minister Chretien. For us, we talk
about a clear definition of what is subsidy
and what is dumping and counterbidding.
We want to have rules on that; it's extremely
important for us. So we're debating that at
this moment, how can we find the process
to solve this problem and discuss other issues
like water and so on. We hope to find the
proper solution in the weeks to come.
Trade With Japan and China
Q. Mr. President can you coax China and
Japan to open their markets to U.S. products?
The President. We hope so. That's one
of the things we're working on here. And in
2393
a larger sense, both Canada and the United
States being the sort of Western partners in
this Asian-Pacific economic group, we want
very much to continue to buy from those
Asian countries, and we want them to buy
our products. We want to build a free trading
relationship that will support the growth of
Asia and support jobs in our nations. Both
of us are very excited about it. We're happy
to have this meeting here being hosted in
North America.
Prime Minister Chretien. We want to reassure them, too, that what is happening in
North America at this moment, it's not a bloc
that will become protectionist. It's very important that they understand that now we
want to expand trade with the other nations
in the Pacific, because there will be more
wealth around the world, more jobs for the
people who are seeking jobs—United States
and Canada.
NOTE: The exchange began at approximately 9:15
i m. at the Westin Hotel. This exchange was reeased by the Office of the Press Secretary on November 19. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this exchange.
Proclamation 6626—National
Children's Day, 1993
November 18, 1993
By the President of the United States
of America
A
Proclamation
America's children are at once our most
precious national resource and our most
weighty responsibility. They represent our
future hopes and aspirations. By empowering
and supporting America's families today, we
can make a more secure world for all Americans tomorrow.
Millions of America's children grow up in
stable and loving families. At the same time,
an alarmingly high number of our youth do
not have the benefit of such security; many
grow up hungry, neglected, or abused. Far
too many reach adolescence having experienced painful episodes of physical, mental,
or emotional mistreatment that have long-
�Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 I Nov. 19
contributions of our military families wherever they may be around the world.
As we go about the routine business of our
lives, it is easy to forget the daily hardships,
inconveniences, separations, and disruptions
that our service men and women and their
families endure to protect America. These
dedicated individuals will affirm that it is
their families who invariably sustain them
and warm their hearts. In every city and State
and in many countries worldwide, service
men and women proudly note that the highlight of their day is that special smile, telephone call, or letter they receive. The military family is the motivational force that continually elevates the spirit of the service
member when life's joys and sorrows need
to be shared.
The Department of Defense has long recognized that the family unit is an important
factor in the overall readiness and well-being
of the members of the Armed Forces. Indeed, military families make extraordinary
contributions to the entire Nation through
their efforts to support and encourage their
loved ones.
The Congress, by Senate Joint Resolution
115, has designated November 22, 1993, as
"National Military Families Recognition
Day" and has authorized and requested the
President to issue a proclamation in observance of this day.
Now, Therefore, I , William J. Clinton,
President of the United States of America,
do hereby proclaim November 22, 1993, as
National Military Families Recognition Day.
I call upon all Americans to join in honoring
military families throughout the world. Finally, I ask Federal, State, and local officials
and private organizations to observe this day
with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set
my hand this eighteenth day of November,
in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred
and ninety-three, and of the Independence
of the United States of America the two hundred and eighteenth.
2395
it will be published in the Federal Renter on
November 23.
Remarks to the Seattle A P E C Host
Committee
November 19, 1993
Thank you so much for that warm welcome, and thank you, all of you, for evervthing you have done to make this conference
of the Asian-Pacific economic council a success. I want to thank your Governor for his
leadership in coming all the way to Washington, DC, to help me pass the NAFTA agreement and for speaking up for it, and as a
leader of the State which leads America in
per capita trade. I want to thank my good
friend Mayor Rice, who heads this wonderful
city which has been voted the best city in
America in which to do business, in no small
measure because of your Mayor.
I'm glad to see my friend and former colleague Governor Roberts out there. I must
say I sort of jumped when Governor Lowry
introduced her as his neighbor to the south.
I never thought of Oregon in the south before. That's a lesson for this whole conference: Perspective is very important.
[Laughter]
I have one member of your delegation
here. Congressman Norm Dicks, who came
back with me yesterday; and Speaker Foley
is on the way. But I'm glad to see him here.
The Washington delegation has been enormously supportive of this administration in
the cause of economic expansion, and I am
very grateful for that.
Senator Murray wanted to come back with
me also, but she's on the floor of the Senate
even as I speak here, debating the crime bill
and trying to pass it with 100,000 new police
officers and the Brady bill and an historic
ban on assault weapons, which she's working
hard to keep in the bill.
I love Seattle. I always love to come here.
William J. Clinton
I called home last night, and both my wife
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, and my daughter had chewed me out be4:30 p.m., November 19,1993]
cause I was here, and they weren't. We've
NOTE: This proclamation was released by the Of- had some wonderful days here. This moming
fice of the Press Secretary on November 19, and I got up, and I went running in Green Lake
�2394
Nov. 19 I Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
lasting effects. For them, the future can be
clouded with doubt or despair.
We all must take it upon ourselves to address these problems and to guarantee that
children of all families will be given new hope
for a better life. We must get back to "being
our neighbor's keeper" when it comes to raising children. The plight of our neighborhoods and communities must be rectified
and replaced with a positive environment in
which to grow and live in safety. Today's children are frightened and worried. We must
close the opportunity gap and the responsibility gap because all of the children of
America deserve an equal chance.
Parents must make an all-out effort to provide an accepting, caring, and loving atmosphere for their children. Grandparents also
have an important role to play, as do other
members of the extended family.
This is an issue that all Americans can and
should support and promote. By becoming
directly involved and assuming personal responsibility, we can strengthen our schools,
churches, and communities in ways that will
reinforce and enhance the importance of values that the family structure can provide.
This is all the more critical as the world becomes an increasingly complex and interrelated place. We must interact in the future
with any number of new and emerging nations. In order to do this successfully, we will
need the talent, dedication, and best efforts
of all of our youth.
Today's children will also be tomorrow's
parents. To preserve the American Dream,
the fiber of our Nation must be strengthened. By instilling a common purpose and
assuring ourselves that children are receiving
the best and most comprehensive care possible, we can face the awesome challenges
that lie ahead. We can start at the family level
to bring our countiy together, solve problems, and make progress.
So I ask all Americans to reaffirm this Nation's commitment to its children. 1 appeal
specifically to parents to spend quality time
each day with their children, to listen to their
concerns and dreams, and to guide them well
as they make the transition into adolescence
and adulthood. We have a right and an obligation to make sure our children can rise as
far and as high as their talents and determination will let them.
The Congress, by Senate Joint Resolution
139, has designated the third Sunday in November as "National Children's Day" and has
authorized and requested the President to
issue a proclamation in observance of this
day.
Now, Therefore, I, William J . Clinton,
President of the United States of America,
do hereby proclaim November 21, 1993, as
National Children's Day. On this day and
every day, 1 urge all Americans to express
their love, advocacy, and appreciation for
their children and all children of the world.
1 invite Federal officials, State and local govern ments, and particularly the American
family, to join together in observing this day
with appropriate ceremonies and activities to
honor our Nation's children.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set
my hand this eighteenth day of November,
in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred
and ninety-three, and of the Independence
of the United States of America the two hundred and eighteenth.
William J. Clinton
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register,
4:27 p.m., November 19, 1993]
NOTE. This proclamation was released by the Office of the Press Secretary on November 19, and
it will be published in tlie Federal Register on
November 23.
Proclamation 6627—National
Military Families Recognition Day,
1993
November 18, 1993
Bt/ the President of the United States
of America
A Proc/amofion
Military families are diverse, strong, resourceful, and patriotic. The men and
women who sene our country understand
that their families provide essential support
and make enormous sacrifices every day. We,
as a Nation, must also recognize the unselfish
�REMARKS BY T H E PRESIDENT
IN NAFTA B I L L SIGNING CEREMONY
Mellon Auditorium
Washington, DC
December 8, 1993
Thank you very much. I'm delighted to see all of you here. I thank
Speaker Foley and the Republican Leader Bob Michel for joining us today. There
are so many people to thank, and the Vice President did a marvelous job. I do
want to mention, if I might, just three others -- Laura Tyson, the Chair of the
Council of Economic Advisors; Bob Rubin, head of my national economic team; and
one Republican member of the House that wasn't mentioned,
Congressman David Dreier, who went with me on a rainy day to Louisiana to
campaign for NAFTA. There are many others that I might mention, but I thank
all of you for what you have done.
I also can't help but note that in spite of all the rest of our efforts,
there was a -- that magic moment on Larry King -- (applause) -- which made a lot
of difference. And I thank the Vice President for that and for so much else.
In the campaign, when we decided to come out for NAFTA, he was a
strong supporter of that position in our personal meetings, long before we knew
whether we would even be here or not. I also would be remiss i f I did not
personally thank both Mickey Kantor and Mack McLarty for the work they did,
especially in the closing days with the Mexican trade representatives and the
Mexican government. I'd also like to welcome here the representatives from
Mexico and Canada and tell them they are, in fact, welcome here. They are our
partners in the future that we are trying to make together. (Applause.)
I want to say a special word of thanks to the Cabinet because we have
tried to do something that I have not always seen in the past. And we try to get
all of our departments and all of our Cabinet leaders to work together on all the
things that we all care about. And a lot of them, therefore, had to take a lot of
personal time and business time away from their very busy schedules to do this 1
thank the former leaders of our government that were mentioned and our
military. I can't help but noting, since General Powell is here, that every senior
military officer with whom I spoke about NAFTA was perhaps -- they were as a
group perhaps the most intensely supportive of any group I spoke with. And I
think it is because they have in their bones the experience of the world of the
last several decades. And they knew we could not afford to turn away from our
leadership responsibilities and our constructive involvement in the world. And
many of them, of course, still in uniform, were not permitted to say that in public
and should not have been. But I think I can say that today. I was profoundly
personally moved by the remarks that they made. (Applause.)
I do want to say, also, a special word of thanks to all the citizens who
helped us -- the business leaders, the labor folks, the environmental people who
came out and worked through this; many of them at great criticism, particularly
in the environmental movement and some of the working people who helped it.
And a group that was quite pivotal to our success that I want to acknowledge
specifically are the small business people, many of whom got themselves organized
and came forward and tried to help us. They made a real difference. (Applause )
�And they've been mentioned, but I couldn't let this moment go by
without thanking my good friend Bill Daley and Congressman Bill Frenzel for
their work in helping to mobilize this effort. Congressman Frenzel wrote me a
great letter the other day and sent me one of his famous doodles that he doodled
around the NAFTA legislation, which I am now having framed. But they sort of
represented the bipartisan spirit that encaptured the Congress, encaptured the
country in the call to change. I hope that we can have more than that in the days
and months and years ahead. It was a very fine thing.
This whole issue turned out to be a defining moment for our nation. I
spoke with one of the folks who was in the reception just a few moments ago who
told me that he was in China watching the vote on international television when it
was taken. And he said you would have had to be there to understand how
important this was to the rest of the world; not because of the terms of NAFTA,
which basically is trade agreement between the United States, Mexico, and
Canada, but because it became a symbolic struggle for the spirit of our country
and for how we would approach this very difficult and rapidly changing world
dealing with our own considerable challenges here at home.
I believe we have made a decision now that will permit us to create an
economic order in the world that will promote more growth, more equality, better
preservation of the environment, and a greater possibility of world peace. We are
on the verge of a global economic expansion that is sparked by the fact that the
United States at this critical moment decided that we would compete, not retreat.
In a few moments, I will sign the North American Free Trade Act into
law. NAFTA will tear down trade barriers between our three nations. I t will
create the world's largest trade zone and create 200,000 jobs in this country by
1995 alone. The environmental and labor side agreements negotiated by our
administration will make this agreement a force for social progress, as well as
economic growth. Already the confidence we've displayed by ratifying NAFTA has
begun to bear fruit. We are now making real progress toward a worldwide trade
agreement so significant that it could make the material gains of NAFTA for our
country look small by comparison.
Today, we have the chance to do what our parents did before us. We
have the opportunity to remake the world. For this new era, our national secunty
we now know will be determined as much by our ability to pull down foreign trade
barriers as by our ability to breach distant ramparts. Once again, we are leading.
And in so doing, we are rediscovering a fundamental truth about ourselves: When
we lead, we build security, we build prosperity for our own people.
We've learned this lesson the hard way. Twice before in this century,
we have been forced to define our role in the world.
After World War I we turned inward, building walls of protectionism
around our nation. The result was a great depression and ultimately, another
horrible world war.
After the second world war, we took a different course -- we reached
outward. Gifted leaders of both political parties built a new order based on
collective security and expanded trade. They created a foundation of stability and
created in the process the conditions which led to the explosion of the great
�American middle class, one of the true economic miracles in the whole history of
civilization. Their statecraft stands to this day -- the IMF and the World Bank,
GATT and NATO.
In this very auditorium in 1949, President Harry Truman signed one
of the charter documents of this golden era of American leadership -- the North
Atlantic Treaty that created NATO. "In this pact we hope to create a shield
against aggression and the fear of aggression," Truman told his audience, "a
bulwark which will permit us to get on with the real business of government and
society, the business of achieving a fuller and happier life for our citizens."
Now, the institutions built by Truman and Acheson, by Marshall and
Vandenberg, have accomplished their task. The Cold War is over. The grim
certitude of the contest with communism has been replaced by the exuberant
uncertainty of international economic competition. And the great question of this
day is how to ensure security for our people at a time when change is the only
constant.
Make no mistake, the global economy with all of its promise and perils
is now the central fact of life for hardworking Americans. It has enriched the
lives of millions of Americans; but for too many those same winds of change have
worn away at the basis of their security.
For two decades, most people have worked harder for less. Seemingly
secure jobs have been lost. And while America once again is the most productive
nation on Earth, this productivity itself holds the seeds of further insecurity.
After all, productivity means the same people can produce more or, very often,
that fewer people can produce more. This is the world we face.
We cannot stop global change. We cannot repeal the international
economic competition that is everywhere. We can only harness the energy to our
benefit. Now we must recognize that the only way for a wealthy nation to grow
richer is to export, to simply find new customers for the products and services it
makes. That, my fellow Americans, is the decision the Congress made when thev
voted to ratify NAFTA. (Applause.)
I am gratified with the work that Congress has done this year,
bringing the deficit down and keeping interest rates down, getting housing starts
and new jobs going upward. But we know that over the long run, our ability to
have our internal economic policies work for the benefit of our people requires us
to have external economic policies that permit productivity to find expression not
simply in higher incomes for our businesses, but in more jobs and higher incomes
for our people. That means more customers. There is no other way -- not for the
United States or for Europe or for Japan or for any other wealthy nation in the
world. (Applause.)
That is why I am gratified that we had such a good meeting after the
NAFTA vote in the House with the Asian-Pacific leaders in Washington. I am
gratified that, as Vice President Gore and Chief of Staff Mack McLarty announcnl
two weeks ago when they met with President Salinas, next year the nations of
this hemisphere will gather in an economic summit that will plan how to extend
the benefits of trade to the emerging market democracies of all the Americas.
And now I am pleased that we have the opportunity to secure the
�biggest breakthrough of all. Negotiators from 112 nations are seeking to conclude
negotiations on a new round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. A
historic worldwide trade pact, one that would spur a global economic boom, is now
within our grasp.
Let me be clear. We cannot, nor should we, settle for a bad GATT
agreement. But we will not flag in our efforts to secure a good one in these
closing days. We are prepared to make our contributions to the success of this
negotiation, but we insist that other nations do their part as well. We must not
squander this opportunity. I call on all the nations of the world to seize this
moment and close the deal on a strong GATT agreement within the next week.
(Applause.)
I say to everyone, even to our negotiators, don't rest, don't sleep. Close
the deal. I told Mickey Kantor the other day that we rewarded his laborious effort
on NAFTA with a vacation at the GATT talks. (Laughter.)
My fellow Americans, bit by bit all these things are creating the
conditions of a sustained global expansion. As significant as they are, our goals
must be more ambitious. The United States must seek nothing less than a new
trading system that benefits all nations through robust commerce, but that
protects our middle class and gives other nations a chance to grow one; that lifts
workers and the environment up without dragging people down; that seeks to
ensure that our policies reflect our values.
Our agenda must, therefore, be far-reaching.
We are determined that dynamic trade cannot lead to environmental
despoliation. We will seek new institutional arrangements to ensure that trade
leaves the world cleaner than before.
We will press for workers in all countries to secure rights that we now
take for granted, to organize and earn a decent living.
We will insist that expanded trade be fair to our businesses and to our
regions. No country should use cartels, subsidies or rules of entry to keep our
products off its shelves.
And we must see to it that our citizens have the personal security to
confidently participate in this new era. Every worker must receive the education
and training he or she needs to reap the rewards of international competition
rather than to bear its burdens. Next year, our administration will propose
comprehensive legislation to transform our unemployment system into a
reemployment and job retraining system for the 21st century. (Applause.)
And above all, I say to you we must seek to reconstruct the broadbased
political coalition for expanded trade. For decades, working men and women and
their representatives supported policies that brought us prosperity and securitv.
That was because we recognized that expanded trade benefitted all of us, but that
we have an obligation to protect those workers who do bear the brunt of
competition by giving them a chance to be retrained and to go on to a new and
different and, ultimately, more secure and more rewarding way of work. I n recent
years, this social contract has been sundered. That cannot continue.
�When I affix my signature to the NAFTA legislation a few moments
from now, I do so with this pledge: To the men and women of our country who
were afraid of these changes, and found in their opposition to NAFTA an
expression of that fear, what I thought was a wrong expression and what I know
was a wrong expression, but nonetheless represented legitimate fears -- the gains
from this agreement will be your gains, too.
I ask those who opposed NAFTA to work with us to guarantee that the
labor and side agreements are enforced; and I call on all of us who believe in
NAFTA to join with me to urge the Congress to create the world's best worker
training and retraining system. We owe it to the business community, as well as
to the working men and women of this country. It means greater productivity,
lower unemployment, greater worker efficiency, and higher wages and greater
security for our people. We have to do that. (Applause.)
We seek a new and more open global trading system not for its own
sake, but for our own sake. Good jobs, rewarding careers, broadened horizons for
the middle class Americans can only be secured by expanding exports and global
growth. For too long our step has been unsteady as the ground has shifted
beneath our feet.
Today, as I sign the North American Free Trade Agreement into law
and call for further progress on GATT, I believe we have found our footing. And I
ask all of you to be steady; to recognize that there is no turning back from the
world of today and tomorrow. We must face the challenges, embrace them with
confidence, deal with the problems honestly and openly, and make this world work
for all of us. America is where i t should be -- in the lead, setting the pace, showing
the confidence that all of us need to face tomorrow. We are ready to compete and
we can win. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
(NAFTA is signed.) (Applause.)
�508
Mar. 13 I Administration of William]. Clinton, 1994
or background, if only we will give everybody
a chance and invest in the future of the
American people, this model here could be
seen sweeping across America if we had the
kind of local leadership that is manifest here
by the stunning examples of Father
Cunningham and Eleanor Josaitis and if we
had the kind of help you've had here from
the private sector to work with Government
in a partnership. There is not enough Government money in the world to create these
opportunities without a partnership. But if
we can do this here, we can do it anywhere.
And if here, if here you can be the best in
the world, then America can be the best in
the world everywhere. That is our mission,
all of us, to be that.
I just want you to know that I got a lot
more out of seeing you today than you did
out of seeing me. I got fresh, clear, strong
evidence to prove what I have always believed, that if we could get rid of all these
hangups we've got in this country, if we could
stop majoring in the minors and minoring
in the majors and start thinking about what
is really important, if we could really believe
that all people are created equal and that
people can do anything, if we could rememper that the purpose of coming together is
to get people together to share beliefs, to
share convictions, and to get things done,
then we would be able to revolutionize this
whole country. I f it can happen in these few
square blocks of Detroit, my fellow Americans, can it not happen throughout our country? I believe it can.
So I want you to know you have inspired
me, and I will talk about you all across this
country. I remember I used to say, when I
was running for President, because of the little town that I was bom in, that I still believed in a place called Hope. And now I
can say I also believe in a place called Focus:
HOPE.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
Exchange With Reporters Prior to
Discussions With Group of Seven
Ministers in Detroit
March 14, 1994
Interest Rates
Q. Mr. President, do you think rising interest rates are hurting the U.S. economic recovery?
The President. I don't think we can say
that for sure yet. They were bound to go up
some after the fourth quarter growth figure
came in; we had the highest growth rate in
a decade. But I think that since there's no
inflation in the economy, interest rates
should not continue to go up. We'll see. If
they moderate, tail off, then we'll be all right.
China
Q. Is the U.S., Mr. President, backing
awav from its human rights stand in terms
of MFN for China?
The President. I was disappointed at the
results of the meeting with the Secretary of
State. And our policy is the same. We'll just
have to wait and see what happens between
now and June. I'll make a judgment at the
appropriate time.
NOTE: The exchange began at 9:25 a.m. at the
Westin Hotel. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this exchange.
Remarks at the Group of Seven Jobs
Conference in Detroit
March 14; 1994
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President,
for your remarks and your wonderful service
and for your commitment to this project. The
Vice President will be here for the entire day
and a half, working with the distinguished
ministers from other countries as well as our
own Cabinet members and other leaders
here in America.
I want to thank the State of Michigan and
the congressional delegation and the city of
Detroit. You know, it is true that the Mayor
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:39 p.m. at the runs faster in the moming than the President
Advance Technology Center. In his remarks, he and the Vice President do. [Laughter] He
referred to Father William Cunningham, director; took us out to Belle Isle; I made him quit
Eleanor Josaitis, associate director; and Donald after 3 miles. And if that weren't enough indignity, I got back to the hotel room, and
Hutchinson, student, Focus: HOPE.
�Administration of William J. Clinton, 1994 I Mar. 14
I read the newspaper and discovered that in
the NCAA basketball championships, my beloved Arkansas basketball team has been
paired with Michigan in the Midwest
regionals. The only thing I can say is they
are in much better shape than I am. Mayor.
[Laughter]
I want to say how wonderful it is for me
to be back here in this magnificent theater,
which represents the cultural richness and
the indomitable spirit of this wonderful city.
I want to thank Michael and Marion Hitch
for restoring this theater and for doing so
much else for downtown historical—-[applause].
I am delighted that the ministers of the
G-7 nations and representatives of the European Union have come here to America's industrial heartland for this important meeting
at an historic and hopeful time. In some nations, people are pessimistic. And in all nations, some people are pessimistic, and in all
nations, there are people with difficulties.
But there is real cause for hope. Technology
that was once the province of science fiction
now fills our factories, our schools, and our
homes. Nations that once aimed missiles at
each other now cooperate not only here on
Earth but also in space. Jobs that challenged
the mind instead of straining the back are
now within reach of virtually all the people
who live in these nations.
For the past half-century, our great common endeavors, from containing communism
to defeating aggression in the Persian Gulf,
to expanding world trade to promoting democracy in the former Soviet Union and
helping to solve the tragic conflict in Bosnia,
all have depended on common bonds among
the countries present here today. 1 asked for
the conference to summon the same collective energy and intellect and ideas and experience to one of the greatest problems of our
era: The challenge of creating and maintaining a high-wage, high-growth society in mature, industrial countries confronted by the
challenges of a global economy.
In different ways, every advanced nation
faces a stubborn, persistent problem of jobs
and incomes. Some are having difficulty creating new jobs; others are having difficulty
lifting their people's incomes. In the United
States, we have created a lot of new jobs in
509
the last two decades. But for almost two decades now, the wages of hourly workers in
America have remained virtually stagnant.
The average American worker is working a
longer work week than 20 years ago for about
the same income.
None of us has all the answers. We are
here because we have something to leam
from each other and, hopefully, something
to teach each other. We can all do better,
and if we work together, it is certain that
all of our people will do better.
For the first time, this conference brings
together our ministers offinance,labor, commerce, and economics. We know that the riddle of job creation cannot be solved entirely
by low interest rates or better training policies or high tech investment alone, but we
need these. Some of the ministers told me
that if we can get the finance ministers and
labor ministers within each country to talk
to each other, we will have made a real step
forward. There's no better place to address
these challenges than here, in this city, this
State, and this region. They tell us not only
that we must change but that we can.
When I was growing up in Arkansas, many
of the people that I knew and lived with were
farmers. Almost no one my age can go back
more than one generation in my State without having a farmer in his or her family. But
as agriculture mechanized and more and
more people were thrown off the farms, literally hundreds of thousands of people were
forced to leave the farm. Many of them came
to places like Detroit for jobs in the factory.
When I campaigned in Michigan 2 years ago,
I realized I actually had a chance to be elected President when one of three democraticprimary voters I met in Michigan was bom
in Arkansas. [Laughter]
That is the pattern of America. For most
of this century, the industrial Midwest symbolized economic opportunity. People
thrown off the farm in the rural areas could
come here and expect to find, without regard
to their race or their educational level before
they got here or their income before they
got here, a job which would permit them to
support their families, take a vacation, have
health care, send their kids to college, live
in their own home, and have a decent retirement when they finish. That was the great
�510
Mar. 14 I Administration of William]. Clinton, 1994
hope and promise of Detroit, of Chicago, of
this whole regional mecca that led the industrial revolution of America.
Industrial America was hit hard by economic changes, which all of you know as well
or better than I. But I have watched the people of this region fight back. A few years ago,
people said the American automobile industry' was doomed. But the Big Three auto
companies worked hard with their partners
in labor to improve quality, safety, and fuel
efficiency. Now they are regaining market
share at home and abroad. They are back.
For the past dozen years Michigan has made
the journey to a new economy; small and
mid-sized companies here have created nearly 400,000 manufacturing and industrial service jobs. The British magazine, the Economist, calls Automation Alley, the 40-mile corridor between Detroit and Ann Arbor, and
I quote, "the fastest growing technology corridor in the entire United States of America."
And yet, let us not be too Pollyanna about
this, with all the good news there's also the
continuing challenge. Too many people have
been left behind. And that was the challenge
that I think brought this fine young Mayor
to the mayor's job here and is bringing so
many of you together across party and racial
and income and background lines to try to
figure out how we can unlock the human potential of all of our people.
This moming, I want to begin by introducing you to eight extraordinary people
throughout the Midwest who exemplify the
changes that we must all make—and I want
to ask them to stand up when I call their
names—because it is important for all of us
in public life never to forget that there are
real lives behind the actions we take and the
mistakes we make as well as the things we
do right.
Anna Satur—where are you, Anna? Stand
up. They should all be down here. She's not
here? If you are here, you stand up when
I call you. Steve Choate. I know he's here,
I saw him yesterday. Stand up, Steve. Don't
sit down. Steve Choate is a near neighbor
of mine. He started out as a janitor, and he's
now a plant manager for Megavolt in Springfield, Missouri, part of an employee-owned
company that practices, and I quote, "openbook management, sharing its financial fig-
ures with its workers and asking their help
in planning new products." Debbie Colloton
started as a machine operator, took advanced
training, and became the quality control officer of Rockford Process Control, a metal assemblies maker in Rockford, Illinois. Bruce
Wirtanen founded Waterworks America. I
met him yesterday, and he gave me one of
his products. He never stopped selling.
[Laughter] In North Royalton, Ohio, they
make crystals that save water in places like
Saudi Arabia, where water is more expensive
than oil. Kathy Price, of Chicago, earned
new skills at the Martin Luther King Community Services Center and moved from welfare to work as a programmer analyst. Frank
Rapley is the superintendent of the Kalamazoo, Michigan, public schools, where they
help young people who are not going to college move from school to work. Harold
Wright learned new skills in heating and air
conditioning after he lost his factory job right
here in Detroit, and now he's an instructor
for the International Union of Operating Engineers. And Ocelia Williams—I saw her—
is a lead person and metal slitter operator
at the Cin-Made Corporation in Cincinnati,
Ohio, a unionized company with profit sharing and self-directed work teams.
All these people have been forced to
change to do well in the global economy. But
they are your friends and neighbors, and
there are millions of them like them not only
here but in every one of the G-7 nations
here represented. We are here to help them
find new ways to create new jobs, better jobs,
and better opportunities for their families.
And we dare not let them down. Thank you
very much.
Let us begin by recognizing the fundamental reality that private enterprise, not Government action, is the engine of economic
growth and job creation. Our vision of the
good society depends as much on a thriving
private sector as anything else. Let us also
recognize that there are things that Government can and should do, give our private sector the tools to grow and prepare our people
for the jobs of the new economy.
A big thing that we'll be discussing here
in the next 2 days is what the responsibility
of the Government is and what must be done
in the private sector and how we can rec-
�Administration of William ]. Clinton, 1994 I Mar. 14
oncile the two better than any of us has done
in the past. Here in the United States, I think
we are moving in the right direction. Our
economy has produced 2.1 million jobs in 13
months, and 90 percent of them are in the
private sector.
In the 1980's, a lot of the net new job
growth in America was in the government
sector, mostly at the State and local level.
These new jobs are coming in the private
sector. But too many middle class people are
working harder for less, and too many people
in America are still unemployed. Too many
lack the training to prosper in the competitive environment, and there are too many
areas where there is simply no new private
investment, especially in large sections of
inner cities and isolated rural areas.
The growing gap in incomes between the
skilled and unskilled threatens not only the
strength of our economies in these countries
but also the very fabric of our democratic
societies. A year ago, for example, unemployment in America was 12.6 percent for people
with no high school diploma, 7.2 percent for
high school graduates, 5.7 percent for people
with advanced training, and 3.5 percent for
college graduates. And unemployment, as I
said before, is also highest in places where
people are isolated from investment opportunities, principally in our large inner cities and
our poorest rural areas.
All of us, in our own way, must face these
fundamental challenges: to find new ways to
equip people to succeed, harnessing the dynamism of the marketplace, and somehow
finding a way to bring those forces into the
areas where people have been left behind.
I have to say that here in the United States,
I sometimes think we do a better job in giving
people incentives to invest in some of our
trading partners that are developing economies than we do in some of our inner cities
and isolated rural areas that are also developing economies where we have opportunities
to grow.
We all know that a global economy is taking shape where information and investment
move across national lines at stunning speed,
competing for jobs and incomes. For economies at the cutting edge, there is no place
to hide. Rapidly developing nations strive to
improve their living standards by showing
511
that they can do what we do just as well at
lower costs. As the old era gives way to the
new, our nations face a clear and crucial
choice at the very outset. Are we going to
hunker down and build walls of protection
and suffer a slow and steady decline in our
living standards, or are we going to embrace
eagerly the challenges of this new economy,
create high-wage jobs, and prepare people
to fill them?
Every advanced economy is now facing
that choice in many different ways, a choice
between hope and fear, between stagnation
and change, between closing up and opening
up. If we ever needed evidence that we
should choose change and that we can, I received that evidence yesterday when I visited
Focus: HOPE here in Detroit, where I saw
people from the inner city being trained for
world-class jobs, getting world-class jobs, and
able to compete.
America has chosen the path of change.
We have seen, among other things, these
other countries in the G-7. All of our guests
here today—my fellow Americans, you need
to know that they used to meet once a year,
and every time they met for 10 years, the
G-7 nations passed a resolution that was,
frankly, embarrassing to the United States.
They did it in very polite language, but they
essentially said the global economy cannot
grow if America continues to expand its
budget deficit, every year spending more and
more money than the taxpayers are paying
in. They said, "Please, America, do something about your deficit." And so we did.
By cutting the deficit by $500 billion, we
now have a deficit that is a smaller percentage of our annual income than all but one
of our other G-7 nations here represented
today. And I'm proud of that. And if the Congress adopts the new budget, as they seem
on the way to doing, we will have 3 years
of reduction in our deficit for the first time
since Harry Truman was President. So we
are moving in the right direction.
You need to know that our nations here
have adopted a strategy that recognizes that
each of the great blocs here have a role to
play, that the United States should continue
to bring its deficit down, that Japan should
increase domestic demand, that Europe
should continue to work for lower interest
�512
Mrtr. 14 I Administration of William]. Clinton, 1994
rates, so that these three things together can
spark a new round of worldwide growth
which will create more economic activity and
more jobs in the European countries, here
in North America with the United States and
Canada, and in Japan.
VVe're also working hard together to tear
down trade barriers with NAFTA, GATT, a
meeting with the Asian-Pacific countries.
Last year, we did a generation's work of
worth in supporting global growth and jobs
and incomes through increased trade.
During the debate on NAFTA, we heard
the concerns of working people—legitimate
concerns—who were vulnerable to changes
in the economy and don't believe that any
of these changes will benefit them. But we
had to face the simple truth: Export-related
jobs in the United States pay on average 22
percent more than jobs having nothing to do
with the global economy. And trade is not
a zero-sum game. If the world economy declines, we all lose, and when it grows, we
all win.
One lesson is clear: There is no rich country on Earth that can expand its own job base
and its incomes unless there is global economic growth. In the absence of that growth,
poorer countries doing the same thing we do
for wages our people can't live on will chip
away at our position. When there is a lot of
growth you can be developing new technologies, new activities, and new markets.
That is our only option.
We also, therefore, must create those new
markets. That means we have to be investing
in job-creating technologies, from dual-use
military and civilian technologies as we reduce defense spending, to an information sujerhighway connecting every classroom and
ibrary in the country.
Many of these technologies will be in the
environmental area. We now know for sure
it is possible to protect the environment and
promote the economy. Together with the Big
Three auto companies and United Autoworkers, we're promoting clean cars that will
cause less pollution and create more markets.
From Theodore Roosevelt to Walter Ruther
to our own distinguished Vice President, our
wisest leaders have always cared about both
our workers and our environment. And we
aim to prove that that's a big ticket to new
jobs in the 21st century.
Now, what are the obstacles to change?
Here in the heartland and throughout the
industrial world too many people have
worked hard only to see their incomes stagnate or decline. VVe have to restore confidence in people that if they do acquire the
skills they need and help their countries
move forward, they'll be rewarded and not
punished. These ingrained political, almost
psychological barriers to change have to be
addressed in every country.
I'll be candid with you. One of the things
that I hope will come out of this G-7 meeting
is that by talking together openly and honestly about the problems of growth and sharing our common experiences each of us who
are leaders in our countries will be able to
do more within our own countries because
we'll be able to say, "See, the Germans and
the French and the Canadians and the Italians and the Japanese, well, we all have the
same problems."
We have talked about that a lot around
our breakfast table this moming. And everybody made the same observation, that if we
can just honestly debate these problems, we
can help people overcome their fears of
change and still recognize that there are
some legitimate concerns associated with
these changes going on.
This conference, I think, must address
three critical problems that discourage people from supporting change. Unless people
pelieve they are prepared for the jobs of the
future, that productivity benefits them, and
they can have both strong work lives and
strong families in a dynamic economy, they
will tum against change. We have to reassure
our constituents in all these countries on all
those points. Our first challenge is obvious,
preparing our people for a world of work that
offers high wages but demands high skills.
When I address audiences of young people, I tell them they will probably change
jobs seven or eight times in a lifetime. That's
why we're moving forward with a lifelong
learning agenda in Congress and why Congress is preparing to pass bills establishing
world-class educational standards, promoting
grassroots reform, helping to facihtate the
movement of people who go from high
�Administration of William J. Clinton, 1994 I Mar. 14
school into the workplace and who don't go
on to college.
Learning must never stop. We've got an
unemployment system today tied to an economy that hasn't existed for over 10 years, an
unemployment that assumes that if you just
give people enough to Uve on, they will be
called back to their old job. Well, the truth
is most people aren't called back to their old
job today. When they lose a job today it's
not because of some cyclical regular downturn in the economy, it's often because there
has been another structural change in the
world economy, and what used to be done
by a person in America is now being done
by a machine in America or by a person
somewhere else. So that person has to find
something new to do. That means it is wrong
to charge employers an unemployment tax,
to put it in a trust fund to pay people when
they are unemployed, to hang around until
the unemployment runs out when they still
won't have a job. That is not right.
So, last week we presented a plan to tum
our unemployment system into a reemployment system, to consolidate all these training
programs, create one-stop career centers,
and start people training and preparing for
new jobs from the day they lose their old
jobs.
This is a big problem in many industrial
countries. The length of time people are unemployed is growing longer and longer, and
very often because they don't get training
they are forced to take a new job at a lower
wage than the old job they lost. We can
change this, and in so doing, we can make
our people feel more secure about embracing the changes of the global economy. And
besides, it's good business. We need all our
people right now. We shouldn't be paying
for people to be idle when we could be paying for them to work. It's not good business.
Yesterday, as I said, when I went to Focus:
Hope, I saw young people who were learning
advanced jobs in engineering, robotics, other
fields of the future, proving once again that
all people can leam. I met a man the other
day from northern New York, who had
worked in the defense industry for 29 years
and is now an executive in a hospital, because
he was given the chance to leam a new skill
and given the chance to be hired by an em-
513
ployer not blinded by age bias. We have too
much age bias in this country on both—[applause]. We have people that won't hire kids
because they don't have any experience. How
are they ever going to get any experience if
they don't get a job, right? Then we have
people who won't hire older people because
they've got too much experience. Let me tell
you, the older I get, the more 1 believe this,
so I think I can say this with great passion,
the fastest growing group of Americans today
are people over 80. People who follow sensible habits are going to be very vigorous well
into their 70's, able to work, able to contribute, able to do things. If people are going
to lose their jobs throughout a ifetime, if we
are going to have to change jobs eight times
in a lifetime, a lot of people will have to
change jobs into their 50's, even into their
60's. They cannot be denied the opportunity
to contribute. If you want people to embrace
change, we all have to change our attitudes
about who is employable and especially on
each end of the age spectrum. This is a very,
very important thing. The issue should be,
are people prepared for the jobs that are
opening up? And if they are, they should be
given a chance to do them.
The second challenge we face is one we
talked about a lot at breakfast this moming.
And the representative from the European
Union from Greece made a very passionate
comment about this. We have got to make
our people believe that productivity can be
a source of gain, not pain. And here is the
trick. Productivity on the farm when I was
a boy meant people lost jobs on the farm,
right? But productivity in Detroit meant that
more jobs were created in the automobile
industry than were lost on the farm.
Throughout the whole 20th century, ever
since the Industrial Revolution, every time
we had productivity in one area that meant
that fewer people could do more work in that
area, technological changes were always creating more jobs in another area.
Now, that is still true today, but the problem is there has been an explosion of productivity in manufacturing. It's not stopping. And
now it's in the service industry, so that banks,
for example, or insurance companies or you
name it can do more work with fewer people
because of information productivity. And at
�514
Mar. 14 I Admimstration oj William J. Clinton, 1994
the same time, all these other countries are
able to do things that they were not formerly
able to do. So in our countries, there is this
great insecurity that productivity, for the first
time, may be a job threat, not a job creator.
VVe have to fight that. Because last year
we saw our companies here in America begin
to rebound—13 months, 2.1 million jobs.
And I promise you they would not have been
there had it not been for increasing productivity in the private sector. We cannot tum
away from the notion that modernization is
the key to employment. The trick is for us
in Government and people in the private sector to keep finding new areas in which productivity can succeed. Therefore, even
though we're cutting back on Government
spending this year, for example, we're spending a lot more money to try to give funds
to defense contractors to figure out how they
can use the technologies we all paid for to
win the cold war, to win the post-cold-war
era, in new technologies for new jobs for the
future.
That is the trick. We've got to prove to
our people that change can work for them
and that increasing productivity is still the
key to jobs and growth. If we forget that,
if we allow our fears to blind us to the fact
that we must always be on the side of productivity, we're going to be in real trouble. That's
what created the middle class. The ability to
do more per worker created the American
middle class. It created the economic miracles in Europe and Japan after World War
II. It will still create opportunity. It just is
going to be different and more challenging
and more complicated and more rapidly
moving than before. But if we allow ourselves
for a minute to try to resist the growth of
productivity, we are in deep trouble.
From 1947 to 1973, productivity grew by
over 3 percent a year in America, and wages
grew at the same rate. Since then, the growth
of productivity has slowed down and so have
wages. Productivity is now coming back in
many sectors of our economy, and as it does,
jobs and wages will improve. Because we
need to work smarter and not harder, this
issue is more important than ever before.
Today, the United States Senate is debating a bill to help business conduct research
and development to create manufacturing
centers where businesses can work together
as smaller manufacturers have been doing in
northern Italy, for example, for quite a long
time now, to help put new technologies in
the hands of companies that can use them,
even though on their own, they wouldn't
have the money to develop them. These are
the kinds of things that a 1 nations must do
to keep their own people on the side of productivit)' and to keep our own economies
going.
There will always be restructurings; there
will always be some job loss. The best Government policies, the best business practices
cannot stop these changes. But what we can
do is to help our people shape the change.
Government has to equip people with lifelong learning, reemployment, health care security. Businesses have to keep pushing for
productivity improvements. Leaders in the
private sector have to strive for new ways to
help their own workers benefit from productivity increases throughout well-conceived
strategic planning and new innovations and
creating high-performance workplaces and
letting workers participate in more decisionmaking.
We talked this moming at breakfast about
how Japan still has basically a lifetime emjloyment policy. In order to do that, you
lave to be willing to carry your workers
through the tough times and always have the
companies find new things to do, because
that way, you don't have to go to a new company. However we do it, there is a big responsibility here that can only be borne by
the private sector not by Government. From
companies that make cars to those that write
software, some of the greatest gains have
been achieved by those who treated their
workers as their most important asset, who
gave their workers the most respect and the
largest role infiguringout how to do what
has to be done to compete and win in the
global economy. These are the high performance workplaces that train and retrain their
employees, empower them to take personal
responsibility for the quality of the products
and services, and treat the workers and the
unions as friends, not adversaries.
Today, I am going to visit a company called
Detroit Diesel that's working with the UAW
to make high-quality engines for domestic
�Administration of William J. Clinton, 1994 I Mar. 14
and foreign markets. The chief executive,
Robert Penske, is known to most of you for
sending championship teams to the Indianapolis 500 Race. And he's also, however,
building a championship team here at Detroit Diesel, a team succeeding in the face
of change.
The third challenge we have is to offer
people security in their own lives while maintaining the dynamism of market economies.
This is a big deal, and it's a difficult one.
How can we give workers the security they
need? What land of unemployment system
must we have, what kind of health care must
we have, what kind of training system must
we have, what kind of policies must we have
for family leave and for child care or for caring for parents that enable people to succeed
as workers and as family members?
We have seen in the United States, more
than in any other country present here, the
awful price we pay if the family disintegrates
as an institution. It is a more fundamental
institution than the workplace. It is the most
fundamental institution.
But we know that most of our people are
now in the work force. Most mothers with
children over one year of age are now in the
work force. How can we make it possible for
people to do what they have to do as workers
and do what they have to do as family members? How does the Government intervene
in that in a way that makes work forces more
productive instead of putting so many burdens on the work unit that they can't compete in the global economy. This is a tough,
difficult, even painful thing for most of us
to discuss, but we have to be honest about
it. And I look forward to the next day and
a half to seeing some very stimulating discussions about this.
In every country we have a find the right
formula. We can't just fall into dogmatism
or ideology and pretend that one or the other
doesn't matter. But we know that when secure workers with secure families, knowing
they are succeeding as parents, show up for
work, they are free to be the most productive
workers in the world. We also know that
there is a limit for the cost any operation
can bear and still be productive. So we are
going to have to talk through and work
through these difficult issues.
515
I know the United States has benefited
from the resilience of its firms and its workers and the flexibility of its labor markets.
I also know we have been hurt by the gnawing insecurity of millions of our people when
they lose their health care or they can't
change jobs because they've got somebody
in their family that's been sick with a preexisting condition.
I know that the family leave law, in my
own mind, that we signed here last year,
which simply brought us into line with every
other country that's here at the G-7, and 170
others around the world, is going to make
the American workplace stronger because
people won't have to lose their jobs when
they take care of sick children or parents in
need. These are things that we have to face.
So as we seek to find these proper balances, to help people deal with these three
challenges, let us recognize two simple
truths: First, the market with all of its unruly
energy and all of its dislocation, is still an
unstoppable, unstoppable and absolutely indispensable force for progress. We have to
have markets where people are making
choices. Second, our societies can promote
human values from the strength of our families to the skills of our workers. We can do
that, and in so doing, empower people to take
full advantage of the opportunities provided
by a vibrant market economy.
Now, I believe if you believe these things,
then you say, "Well, why are we all here?
Why must we act together? Why must we
act together in our own countries? Why
should these nations that share so much try
to act together among themselves?" I want
the ministers to explore these questions honestly and openly. But it is perfectly clear,
again I will say, that it is easier for us to do
what we need to do at home if we know people in other countries are working with us
and that we're all going to win over the long
run.
So let us ask the hard questions. First,
what really is the jobs problem? Why is unemployment too high even when growth occurs? Can we really talk about one national
unemployment rate anymore? Does the national unemployment rate mean anything to
any of you here in Michigan? No, you want
to know what the unemployment rate is in
�516
Mar. 14 I Administration of William J. Clinton, 1994
Michigan or what it is in Detroit or what it
is in Wayne County, right? Is there a national
unemployment rate that is meaningful? Are
there trends in all these countries that make
the overall rate of unemployment in each less
important than the rates among different sectors of the society, especially among people
who, because of their long-term unemployment, their lack of skills, or their isolation
from investment opportunities, have absolutely lost touch with the labor markets?
Second, what's the best strategy for worldwide cooperation on monetary and fiscal policy to stimulate growth and create jobs? How
do we balance our fears of inflation with the
need for economic growth?
Third, how can we build a social safety net
that helps our people advance and helps our
economies grow? Can we provide lifelong
learning, help people to balance the demands
of work and family, give people health security, and still keep our economies dynamic?
And if so, what is the best way to do that?
Fourth, history has shown productivity
brings better jobs and higher wages. But how
do we, when change is so rapid, make the
case to our people that this will be true in
this time as it has always been true in the
past? And with the rapid technological
change of the information age, how can Govemmrnt jxjlicies and business practices show
workers that change and productivity can be
harnessed for their advantage?
None of us can find the answers to all of
these (juestions just within the borders of our
individual countries. At this conference, as
we share our insights, our views, and our
practical experiences, every one of our nations will benefit. If we find new and effective ways to generate jobs and increase incomes, the working people of all nations will
be the winners. It is my hope that this conference will continue the work that we began
last year where these great industrial nations
work together to get things done.
For years, the G-7 nations consulted with
each other about the great issues of macroeconomics and globalfinance.Today, we are
beginning a serious conversation about the
economic well-being of ordinary people in
each of these countries. This is an historic,
important, and long-overdue moment.
We all must succeed. If any of us fails to
convince our people to embrace change, then
that nation might well retreat from the global
economy. That could set off a downward spiral of protectionism and lower growth and
turning backward which could affect us all.
If the faces of the new economy, these fine
people I introduced here today can have the
courage to change, then so can we, each of
us as nations. We can proceed in the spirit
that President Roosevelt called bold, persistent experimentation. If we can move forward
from this conference filled with the faith that
we can make change work for the ordinary
citizens in these countries, for all of our people, then we will succeed. And we will go
rom this conference to the meeting of all
of the leaders of the G-7 countries in Naples
with a real agenda where we can all be committed to going forward here.
Let me say that, in closing, we've faced
a lot of difficult and decisive choices like this
before. We haven't always made the right decision. At the end of World War I our nations
turned inward, and it led us to depression
and another world war. After World War I I ,
our nations turned outward. They faced the
future courageously. Old enemies embraced
each other in a common cause of human development. Alliances were built; institutions
were created that kept the peace, promoted
prosperity, advanced democracy, and won
the cold war.
Now we have to choose once again. And
this conference is a part of that choosing. Will
we have the courage to embrace change and
build our people up? I think I know the answer. Together we have to find it.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:45 am. in Fox
Theater. In his remarks, he referred to Mayor
Dennis Archer of Detroit.
Remarks at Detroit Diesel in Detroit
March 14,1994
Thank you very much. Thank you very
much for that wonderful welcome and for
the tour and the opportunity I had to shake
hands with so many of you. When you were
asked how many of you had roots in my home
State, I met seven or eight people just walk-
�•p
1418
July 5 I Administration of William J. Clinton, 1994
even go back to his own country that he loves
and he wants to go.
The President. I'll get on it.
Q. Thank you, sir.
The President: When I was a boy I went
to school with a man named Richard
Kuklinsld. [Laughter]
Q. Oh, really? This can help him.
The President. I wonder if he was related
to this man.
Q. I hope it will help him as well.
The President. Thank you.
NOTE: The interview began at 6:07 p.m. in theOval Office at the White House. In the interview,
the President referred to Ryshard Kuklinski,
former Polish military officer, now a U.S. citizen,
who would face imprisonment for espionage if he
returned to Poland. This interview was embargoed
for release by the Office of the Press Secretary
until July 5. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this interview.
Remarks on the Upcoming Economic
Summit
July 5,1994
Thank you very much. Secretary Brown,
Ambassador Kantor, Secretary Reich, Deputy Secretary Talbott, National Security Adviser Lake, National Economic Adviser Bob
Rubin, to my Special Assistant for Public Liaison, Alexis Herman, and so many others
who have worked hard to make this upcoming trip a success. I'd like to also recognize
and acKnowledge the presence of the members of the diplomatic community who are
here today, as well as the leaders from business and labor. Government, and academia,
many faces of our national interests that seek
to advance our international economic policies.
It is fitting that we should gather here at
the moment of my departure for the G-7
meeting, as well as our trips to Latvia and
Poland and Germany, fitting that we should
be here because it was here last year that
I signed into law the North American Free
Trade Agreement. NAFTA was more than
a trade agreement; because of the circumstances surrounding its debate, it was a
defining moment in our modem history. It
was ratified only after a principled and momentous debate over how the United States
should enter into the post-cold-war era.
Would we hunker down, tum away, and ultimately, in my view, suffer a slow and steady
decline in our living standards, or would we,
instead, take a different path? Would we
build new walls where old walls had crumbled, or would we embrace eagerly the challenges of a new and rapidly changing economy? Our vote on NAFTA was our answer
to that question. We chose to embrace the
world. It is for us now to shape what kind
of world we will live in.
This moment in history demands that we
master the rapid, even dazzling pace of economic change and ensure that our people
have the confidence and skills they need to
reap the rewards that are there for them in
a growing global economy. That is the purpose of my Presidency. And the mission to
Europe on which I embark tonight is simple:
to create jobs and a world of prosperity.
We are in the midst of a rare moment of
opportunity. I f our people have the confidence, the vision, the wisdom to seize this
moment, we can make this a new season of
renewal for Americans and for the rest of
the world as well.
At the G-7 summit is Naples and in visits
to Latvia, Poland, and Germany, we will seek
to find ways to create jobs and better prepare
our people to fill them, to develop the infrastructure for the new global economy, to
commit to sustainable development for all
the nations of the Earth, to continue the economic, the political, the security integration
of the new democracies into the family of
free nations.
Even as we speak and meet here, powerful
forces are shaking and remaking the world.
That is the central fact of our time. It is up
to us to understand those forces and respond
in the proper way so that every man and
woman within our reach, every boy and girl,
can live to the fullest of their God-given capacities.
A global economy, constant innovation, instant communication, they're cutting through
our world like a new river, providing both
power and disruption to all of us who live
along its course. The cold war has clearly
given way to a new birth of freedom in
Central and Eastern Europe. And this means
enormous opportunities. But citizens find
�1419
Admtntstration of William J. Clinton, 1994 I July 4
themselves buffeted by changing tides, cut
loose from their moorings, facing stagnant incomes, shrinking job prospects, social problems of staggering dimensions. Stubborn unemployment is especially endemic in Europe. And here in the United States, our incomes are still largely stagnant, even when
the economy is growing.
Here in America we're preparing for this
new world by putting our fiscal house in
order, dramatically cutting our deficit, by aggressively opening our efforts to increase access to foreign markets. We're helping our
working people adapt and prosper in the
global economy by creating a system of
standards for world class education and a better system for moving our young people from
school to work when they don't go to college
and better opportunities for people who do
go to college and, finally, a system of lifetime
learning and reemployment for those who
lose their jobs. And we must work to give
them health care security as well.
From the first day of preschool to the last
day before retirement, eveiy American will
have to continue to be a learner. And that
is the lesson that every American must be
taught from the first day of preschool to the
first day on the job to the last day of retirement. Lifetime learning is not an option. And
so our responsibility is to be able to say to
every American, whatever the economy
brings, you will be prepared to make the best
of it.
Even as we sow the seeds of our own renewal, we also must recognize that what happens around the world affects us here at
home. We must have global economic
growth, because when global markets grow,
our exports boom, and that means higher
paying jobs here in America. I f workers in
other nations embrace protectionism, that
means a race to the bottom in which all will
lose. If the nations of Central and Eastern
Europe fall backward into chaos or
authoritarianism, then legitimate security
needs will soak up an ever greater part of
our budget in the future.
Our challenge is the challenge of all advanced nations. We will only act most effectively when we act together. We began to
do that a year ago in Tokyo at the first G7 summit of my Presidency. For years, the
G-7 did less than it could, but in the past
year we've replaced a decade of drift with
a real commitment to action. We closed the
deal on the world trade talks that were stalled
for years. And with our help, the once-crippled Russian economy is struggling to its feet.
We have shown together that bit by bit and
year by year, the decisions made at these G7 meetings really can make a difference.
For a decade, our out-of-control budget
deficit robbed us of the standing to press our
partners to act. Indeed, year after year at
these meetings our friends and allies hammered us about the deficit and claimed that
they were unable to listen to our suggestions
about what they could do to promote global
growth. Well, now, instead of having the biggest deficit in the G-7, we have among the
smallest.
With the largest deficit cut in our history,
including $255 billion in spending cuts, we
now have the standing and the credibility to
speak and to be heard. We're on the brink
of passing a new budget, I might add, which
with new spending cuts, including the first
reduction in aggregate discretionary domestic spending in 25 years, will give us 3 years
of deficit reduction in a row for the first time
since Harry Truman was the President of the
United States.
Now, we have to use this newfound
strength to address how to give the citizens
of our Nation and all other nations the confidence they need to prosper in uncertain
times. W e have to move from coping with
crises to planning for prosperity. In other
words, we have to lay the foundation for the
21st century economy, one in which change
will be the order of the day, and the real
question will be whether change is our friend
or our enemy.
Our first job is to create jobs and to develop the high-skill work force to fill them.
It may seem obvious, but many, many of the
advanced economies of the world have been
unsuccessful in creating jobs for several years
now. In Tokyo, we agreed on a common
strategy to spur expansion. And today, growth
in the G-7 is 2Vi times faster than it was
a year ago. America has powered that expansion. With 40 percent of the annual income
of the G-7, we have produced fully threequarters of the growth and almost 100 per7
�1420
July 5 I Administration of William J. Clinton, 1994
cent of the new jobs. Our exports are rising
faster than those of any other G-7 nation.
We will continue to do everything we can
to expand on this record by expanding trade.
Last year when we ended 7 years of global
gridlock, leading to the signing of the largest
trade pact ever with the Uruguay round of
GATT, we knew we were on the right track.
Now, we have to lead the world in ratifying
it.
These trade agreements are good for our
country. Thanks to NAFTA—you heard what
Secretary Brown said—let me just mention
one thing that was of particular concern during the debate. This year we are exporting
automobiles to Mexico at 5 times the rate
of a year ago. I f you look at what NAFTA
did and then you compare the potential of
GATT, you get a sense of the importance
of ratification here in the United States and
in the other countries. GATT means a $744
billion tax cut over the next decade for the
industrialized countries- and in half a million
new American jobs alone. Congress must
pass the agreement this year. And all the
G-7 nations must work to implement it in
good faith.
But we know also that we have to do more.
At the Detroit jobs conference in March, for
the first time ever, finance and labor ministers of all these countries began a serious
conversation about the economic well-being
of working people. For all the advanced
countries, new competition from rapidly developing nations places an even greater premium on the skills of their work force even
as it places greater pressures on wages of
their workers.
We've got a lot to leam from each other.
We can leam a lot from the German apprenticeship and health care systems, from the
French child care system, from the way the
Italians in the northern part of Italy cooperate in research and development and marketing among small businesses. We have things
to leam from every nation in the G-7. Every
nation is addressing these qualities.
I have talked to the Japanese about it. I
have talked to the British about it. I have
talked to the Canadians about it. I was so
impressed to see the Prime Minister of Britain carrying around a little plastic card which
had the goals for British education in the year
2000. And it sounded very much like the legislation that I signed in the Congress just a
few weeks ago.
We know we can leam from one another.
We know that the United States because of
its adaptable work force has been able to create more jobs. But we also know that every
nation has got to work harder to create even
more jobs and increase incomes.
In Naples we will be pressing forward with
this common agenda. And let me say that,
to the best of my knowledge, no group of
advanced nations ever in all of human history
has ever tried to work together in common
on these problems, the problems of ordinary
citizens that lie behind the complex statistics
we read about in the newspapers every day.
Our second goal in Naples will be to build
a new infrastmcture for this new economy.
In the 21st century, there must be a nerve
system to carry the ideas, the information,
the investments of the new economy. These
will require new technologies and certainly
the building of what the Vice President always talks about in the information superhighway. We must create this infrastructure
and use it to increase productivity so that we
can expand overall growth within the limits
of our planet's resources. We will begin to
lay those plans in Naples.
Third, we will discuss the tinderbox issues
of global population and the environmental
crisis. In the coming years, prosperity and
security will depend more than ever on
progress on the environment and sustainable
development. We must stabilize population
growth, because poverty is both the cause
and an effect of exploding population. Otherwise, we will find ourselves with a worsening
shortage of the food to feed future generations, a shortage of the environmental sustenance needed for them to live in peace, instead of closing up camp and moving across
national borders, and a shortage of the capacity to create jobs to sustain the people of the
21st century.
Fourth, we will continue to work with Russia and the other new democracies to make
the difficult transition from command economies to free markets, from repressive regimes to open societies. In Tokyo, Russia was
in dire economic straits. We mustered the
international community to provide emer-
�1421
Administration of WiUiam J. Clinton, 1994 I July 4
gency aid for refonn. Already $26 billion of
the promised $43 billion has been disbursed.
The Russian Government deserves enormous credit for staying on the path of reform,
especially in these last several months. And
slowly but surely, reform is working. Today,
the Russian budget deficit is a smaller percentage of its income than the deficit in some
other European countries. Russian monthly
inflation has dropped to single digits. And
half of all Russian workers are now employed
in the private sector. Life in Russia is still
difficult, but now her people have tangible
reason to hope. And in Naples, for the first
time. President Yeltsin will join our ranks as
a full participant in discussing political issues.
The G-7 will strive to bring the economies
of Central and Eastern Europe fully into the
world economy with trade and long-range reform. We want those nations to hold to the
path of economic reform and democracy, for
those are the only true routes to prosperity
and peace. But the prospect of renewal will
only be complete if Europe is whole, if the
young democracies are fully integrated into
security and into the society of that continent. That's why we have worked so hard
to create NATO's Partnership For Peace, to
link peaceful nations committed to respecting one another's borders, from Vancouver
to Vladivostok. They must believe that this
difficult journey is worthwhile.
To that end, I have the great honor of visiting Riga, Latvia, to be the first American
President to touch free Baltic soil. I will visit
Warsaw, where a free people is coming into
its own, where the Polish economy is now
growing faster than any other economy in
Europe, and eager to be a full partner in
our deliberations for the future.
And then I will end the trip in Berlin,
where for 50 years, our Presidents made pilgrimages to proclaim our commitment to
freedom. It will be a privilege to represent
all of you as the first President to visit that
city since that glorious day when the Germans united to topple the Berlin Wall. There
I will witness the end of a proud chapter in
our own history, as the last American brigade
comes home from Berlin. As the last detail
on freedom's frontier returns, we must remember again the dire consequences when
America withdrew from the world after
7
World W ar I . So, these troops will leave Germany and Europe because their mission is
complete, but some 100,000 others will stay,
working through NATO to promote peace
and to secure the Continent. And we will stay
through our commitment to trade and political integration.
A month ago when I represented our Nation in Europe, it was on ajoumeyof remembrance, to honor the generation that saved
the world for freedom in World War I I . Tonight I return to Europe on another mission,
to join others in renewing the world that the
generation of World War I I has left to us.
It will serve us to remember that when
World War I I was won, profound uncertainty
clouded the future. Europe and Japan were
buried in rubble. Their peoples were weary.
People did not know what to expect or what
would happen. But because of the vision of
the people who were our predecessors here
in the United States and the other allies, new
institutions were created and the path that
was followed after World War I was abandoned and instead the world was embraced
with optimism and hope and a determination
to make the world work, not just for Americans but for our friends and allies and, indeed, our former foes as well. It is that spirit,
that idea, which must animate us today.
We have had a good year in America since
the last G-7 meeting, but we are nowhere
near where we need to be. We are simply
moving on the path that will take us. And
I want all of you to know that as long as I
am President, I will continue to work for
these things: an integrated and strong security partnership in Europe, the right kind of
political partnership, and continued expansion of our economic frontiers. I hope you
will continue to support that direction.
Think of the world you want the children
in this country to live in 20, 30, 40 years from
now. It is within our power to make it, but
we must make the right decisions today. This
trip is an important part of that decisionmaking. I hope you will wish me well, but more
importantly, I hope you will support these
efforts here at home and, as you can, around
the world.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
�1422
July 5 I Administration of William J. Clinton, 1994
The President spoke at 2.08 p.m. at the
Mellon Auditorium.
NOTE: H.R. 1758, approved July 5, was assigned
Public Law No. 103-272.
Statement on Signing Transportation
Legislation
Statement on Signing Federal
Housing Administration Legislation
fuly 5,1994
NOTE:
July 5,1994
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1758,
an act to revise, codify, and enact certain general and permanent laws related to transportation.
Section 31134 directs the Secretary of
Transportation to establish the Commercial
Motor Vehicle Safety Regulatory Review
Panel. The legislation grants panelists a position within the Federal Government that is
endowed with tenure and continuing duties
as well as significant authority, including the
authority to compel the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a regulatory proceeding
and to prescribe final regulations. For this
reason, panelists are officers of the United
States. Fourteen of the fifteen members of
the panel are to be appointed from lists submitted by two committees of the Congress.
The Constitution prohibits the Congress
from sharing in the power to appoint officers
of the United States other than through the
Senate's confirmation role. As such, no statute may require an appointment to be made
from a list submitted by a Member, committee, or other agent of the Congress. I therefore do not interpret section 31134(c)(2) as
binding and direct the Secretary of Transportation to regard any lists submitted pursuant
to section 31134(c)(2) as advisory.
I also note that section 42104(c) purports
to enact a legislative veto with respect to specific regulations issued by the Secretary of
Labor pertaining to air carrier employees.
The Supreme Court has ruled definitively
that legislative vetoes are unconstitutional.
Under the Court's precedents, the legislative
veto provision contained in section 42104(c)
is severable from H.R. 1758. I therefore instruct the Secretary of Labor to disregard
section 42104(c).
William J. Clinton
The White House,
JulyS, 1994.
Home ownership is one of the foundation
stones of the American dream. Renewing and
expanding this dream is one of my Administration's highest priorities and deepest commitments.
Our economic plan, which did so much
to lower interest rates, has helped make
homes affordable for more people. As more
Americans realize that home ownership is
within their reach, many of them tum to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Government National
Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) for Government assistance. These programs, some of
which operate at a profit to the Federal Government, have enabled millions of Americans
to enjoy the pride and sense of accomplishment that come with owning your own home.
As new home purchases and refinancings
continue at a rapid rate, single-family home
purchasers will soon be unable to do business
with the Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) and Ginnie Mae—absent corrective
action—because the increased demand for
loans has exhausted their loan authority. That
is why the Congress, acting responsibly and
in a fiscally prudent manner, adopted a supdemental appropriation to replenish these
unds. Today I am signing into law H.R.
4568, which provides a supplemental appropriation for HUD and Ginnie Mae so that
these agencies can continue their good work
in helping low- and middle-income Americans buid their piece of the American
dream.
Specifically, the Act provides: (1) increased loan commitment authority of $35
billion for the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance program; (2) increased Ginnie Mae loan
guarantee commitment authority of $55 bilion; (3) an increase of $3 bilhon in loan volume for condominium and other housing insurance programs; and (4) an additional $18
million in budget authority to subsidize mortgages for the purchase or construction of
rental housing. Equally important, this legis-
f
�Week Ending Friday, July 15,1994
Statement o n the Resignation o f
National A I D S Policy Coordinator
Kristine Cebbie
July 8,1994
Kristine Gebbie, the first National AIDS
Policy Coordinator, served ably and with
dedication as a member of our administration. With her help, the Federal Government
finally began exercising real leadership in response to this terrible epidemic. Working together, we boosted funding for the Ryan
White Care Act, increased resources for prevention and research, sped the research and
approval process for new drugs, and required
every Federal employee to receive comprehensive workplace education. While more
needs to be done—and more will be done—
to fight AIDS, Kristine Gebbie's service as
the Nation's first AIDS Policy Coordinator
gave this vitally important battle a lift when
one was desperately needed and long overdue.
NOTE: A statement by Kristine Gebbie was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary. This
item was not received in time for publication in
the appropriate issue.
The President's Radio Address
July 9,1994
Good morning. I'm speaking to you from
the seaside city of Napes, Italy, where the
leaders of the Group of 7 major industrial
countries have gathered for our annual meeting.
What my trip to Naples this week, as well
as to Latvia, Poland, and Germany, is all
about is dealing with three concerns that, for
better or worse, will determine whether we
have a peaceful and prosperous future.
In Eastern Europe, we addressed concerns
raised by the breakup of the Soviet empire
and the need to continue to strengthen democracy and economic growth there, to work
until we have a united Europe, a strong trading partner, and a partner for peace.
In negotiations with North Korea that
began yesterday in Geneva and in my first
meeting here with Japan's new Prime Minister, we are addressing another challenge:
tbe threat posed by nuclear proliferation and
the need to limit the spread of weapons of
mass destruction.
Now, this weekend, I'm meeting with
other world leaders to act on what is in many
ways the most important purpose of the trip.
I'm here to keep our economic recovery
going by promoting economic growth
throughout the world. What happens here affects every American. More than ever, what
happens in the international economy has a
direct impact on our jobs, our incomes, and
our prospects.
This moming, I want to talk with you about
the economy, what we've done, how well it's
worked, and how America is in a position
to lead the world.
This is a time of rapid, often remarkable
change. Especially when it comes to the
emergence of a truly global marketplace that
has opened enormous opportunities. But for
a decade, in the face of this change, our leaders mismanaged the economy, walked away
from a lot of our challenges, let the deficit
explode, and didn't produce enough jobs.
And of course, America's middle class fell behind.
Now after years of drift we're pursuing an
aggressive strategy for renewal. We began by
putting our own economic house in order.
We enacted the biggest deficit cut in our history including $255 billion in specific spending cuts. Our deficit is now going down for
3 years in a row for the first time since Harry
Truman was President.
We're expanding exports through trade
agreements that tear down foreign barriers
to our products and services. And we're creating a world-class education and job training
system so that every American has the ability
1451
�L452
July 9 I Administration of William J. Clinton, 1994
md confidence to compete. From the first
day of preschool to the first day on the job
to the last day before retirement, you should
know that whatever the world brings, you and
your children will be prepared.
Our strategy is working. Our economy is
coming back. Just yesterday we received
some very good news. Since I took office,
our economy has produced over 3.8 million
jobs, 94 percent of them in the private sector.
Just last month, the economy brought us
380,000 new jobs. Unemployment has fallen
by more than 1.5 percentage points since I
took office and inflation is the lowest in two
decades. We have to do more, but this is a
very good start.
This news is especially significant as I meet
with our trading partners this weekend.
America's economic growth is helping to pull
the rest of the world out of recession. Our
workers and businesses, while accounting for
about 40 percent of the overall income of
the G-7 countries, produced three-quarters
of the growth in the G-7 nations last year
and nearly 100 percent of the new jobs. We
have the authority to speak and the credibility to be heard.
In Naples, I'm urging our partners to do
everything we can to keep the growth going
and the new jobs coming. I want these countries and our Congress to ratify the GATT
world trade agreement and to do it this year.
Ratifying GATT will mean some half a million jobs and billions of dollars in exports for
the United States. And because these meetings should be about more than high finance,
I also want us to begin to focus hard on the
training, education, and skills of our working
people and what they'll need to compete and
win and to bring us prosperity in the 21st
century.
Before coming to Naples, I visited Latvia
and Poland, countries that are breathing the
fresh air of freedom. I wish every American
could have been with me as 40,000 people
filled Freedom Square in Riga, Latvia, waving American flags and looking to us with
hope and admiration. We should see ourselves as they see us, a nation of doers, of
optimists, a nation with a future, leading the
world to a future of peace and prosperity.
Visiting Eastern Europe reminds us of the,
remarkable changes that we must deal with
every day. The global economy has the power
to remake our lives for the better, if we make
those changes work for our people. If we
move forward with our successful strategy for
economic growth, we'll do just that.
Thanks for listening.
NOTE: The address was recorded at 4:02 p.m. on
July 8 in the Hotel Vesuvio for broadcast at 10:06
a.m. on July 9.
Exchange With Reporters on North
Korea in Naples, Italy
July
9,1994
The President. Good morning.
Q. Where do we go from here on North
Korea?
The President. Let me say, first of all, I
have extended sincere condolences to the
people of North Korea on behalf of the people of the United States after the death of
Kim Il-song, and I have expressed my deep
appreciation to him for his leadership in enabling our two countries to resume our talks.
We hope the talks will resume as appropriate.
We believe it is in the interest of both countries to continue.
Obviously, the people there are preoccupied with their surprise and their grief
at this moment. But we have no reason to
believe that they will not continue at this
time.
Q. Do you have any sign of any foul play?
The President. No. All we know is what
was reported. And it was reported that he
died of a heart ailment, and that's all we
know. We believe, as I said—first of all, we
believe that Kim Il-song's leadership in starting these talks again was a very good thing,
and we believe it remains in the interest of
both countries to continue them, and we
hope they will as appropriate.
NOTE: The exchange began at approximately 9:15
a.m. at the Hotel Vesuvio. A tape was not available
for verification of the content of this exchange.
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
November 10,
1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
EDMUND J . WALSH SCHOOL OF FOREIGN POLICY
Gaston H a l l
Georgetown University
Washington, D.C.
11:36 A.M.
EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Father 0'Donovan,
for your introduction and for our wonderful t r i p to the Middle East.
Thank you, Dean Krogh, for your confidence and for your outstanding
leadership. To the members of Congress, the Cabinet, and the
administration who are here; members of the faculty, the diplomatic
corps, the students, and a special word of hello and thanks to many
of my former classmates who are here. I t ' s nice for us to be here
with no obligation to take notes. (Laughter.)
I want to thank Robert Wagner for endowing t h i s series
of l e c t u r e s , and also Ron L i g n e l l i and the Georgetown Phantoms for
keeping you a l l entertained. I t i s wonderful to be back i n t h i s
magnificent h a l l . And I am p a r t i c u l a r l y honored to be here to give
t h i s f i r s t inaugural lecture.
In the f a l l of 1964, with about 200 other freshmen in
the School of Foreign Serv'.ce, I was enrolled in C a r r o l l Quigley's
Western C i v i l i z a t i o n coursj. A l l of us — that was 30 years ago;
i t ' s kind of spooky now to think about i t . (Laughter.) A l l of us
who were there then — and there were a bunch of us here that were
there then — we can remember things from those lectures. At the end
of the s e r i e s he did a lecture on Plato, and he always had t h i s
appropriately beat-up copy of The Republic, which he ripped into at
the end of the lecture and threw across the room and said, "Plato was
a fascist."
(Laughter.)
Even then I was a decent p o l i t i c i a n , and I remember the
best grade I made on any of h i s t e s t s was the question about Plato
and the myth of the cave, and I only wrote one page i n the l i t t l e
test book and three other l i n e s . And he said, " I f you can explain i t
in t h i s short a duration, you obviously understand i t , " — (laughter)
— 98.
(Laughter.) Hooray! (Laughter.) I might add, i t was the
only 98 I received in the entire year. (Laughter.)
Carol Quigley's ideas were expressed well, both in the
very t e r s e prose of h i s book on c i v i l i z a t i o n s and the high drama of
his l e c t u r e s . He l e f t a l a s t i n g impression, I think, on every one of
us who ever entered his c l a s s . And
you have already heard Father
0'Donovan say, he drummed into us that western c i v i l i z a t i o n was the
greatest of a l l , and America was the best expression of western
c i v i l i z a t i o n because of it? commitment to future preference — the
b e l i e f that the future could be better than the present and that we
have an obligation to make i t so. I t i s interesting that we would
come here today at a time when, frankly, a l o t of our fellow
Americans, i n the face of ample evidence to support C a r r o l l Quigley's
dictum, are not sure they believe i t anymore.
Three years ago, here in t h i s h a l l as a candidate for
president, I had an opportunity on three different occasions to speak
about those lessons of Professor Quigley's and how I thought they
MORE
�- 2 -
applied to the present moment. And I expressed the b e l i e f then that,
working together, we could shape the future and meet the challenges
of a rapidly-changing world at home and abroad at the end of the Cold
War, but that we could only do i t by leaving behind the old p o l i t i c a l
debates and the d i v i s i o n s , and forging a new dynamic center of
American p o l i t i c s — not a compromise, but a move forward, based on
the ideas of opportunity, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and community.
I argued three years ago that the main job of government
i s not to solve a l l our problems. In t h i s day and age, you simply
can't do that. But i t ' s also not to s i t on the s i d e l i n e s and shout
and preach at people because that's not enough. Instead, I believed
then and I believe today that the primary obligation of government i s
to empower c i t i z e n s to make the most of t h e i r own l i v e s ; then to
i n s i s t on responsible behavior i n turn.
F i n a l l y , I urged that we should see ourselves not as
i s o l a t e d individuals, but as members of interdependent communities,
l o c a l l y , nationally, and, of course, globally — communities i n which
we have to work together i f we're going to make the most of our
opportunities and deal with our problems.
After I was elected president, I was well aware going
into the o f f i c e that i t would be very d i f f i c u l t to translate these
ideas into s p e c i f i c p o l i c i e s , then to get them enacted into law, and
to keep the country with me during a process which would take time
and patience, which would inevitably be contentious and which would
require a d e l i c a t e balance between a determination to stand on
p r i n c i p l e and a willingness to have principled compromise.
Why i s t h i s ? F i r s t of a l l , the problems we face are
absolutely immense. The s o c i a l problems of crime and violence,
rooted i n the breakdown of families and communities, have been
building in t h i s country for 3 0 years at l e a s t . And they plainly
require for t h e i r reversal much more than s p e c i f i c governmental
actions. Indeed, no matter what we do, millions of Americans are
going to have to decide to change t h e i r ways, to put the interest of
t h e i r families, t h e i r communities, and t h e i r own personal development
ahead of momentary s e l f i s i - impulses.
The economic problems we face — the stagnation of
American incomes, the declining rate of security i n jobs and health
care and retirement — these things have been building for 20 years.
And they, too, p l a i n l y require for t h e i r reversal more than simply
s p e c i f i c governmental policy changes, although these are imperative.
The pressures of the global economy are r e l e n t l e s s and
dynamic. And government can help to deal with them, but i t cannot
reverse them. The fact that workers must be w i l l i n g to upgrade t h e i r
education and t h e i r s k i l l s throughout a lifetime i s absolute.
Government can help to create opportunities to do that, but workers
must take advantage of them and cannot deny the f a c t s of economic
life.
We also know that i n t h i s time, p a r t i c u l a r l y as we are
going througn a period of change, people feel uncertainty because
they don't have a new framework within which to view the world after
the Cold War that i s neat and understandable and that has a definable
enemy. And here at home, people feel genuine i n s e c u r i t i e s that are
personal to them, an uncertainty about t h e i r personal future.
We see i t a l ] the time. Yesterday there were several
s t o r i e s about people sayii j , w e l l , yeah, there has been a recovery,
but I don't think i t ' s going to l a s t . There i s t h i s feeling that
we're waiting for the other shoe to drop.
day.
A l o t of people f e e l that even as they walk home every
I never w i l l forget the man in New York who told me during the
MORE
�- 3 -
campaign — he was working in a hotel — that he had come here from
another country, and he was proud to be an immigrant, he was doing
well economically.
But h i s son wasn't free. And I asked him what he
meant, and he said, "Because my son can't walk across the street and
play in the park unless I go with him. My son can't even walk two
blocks to school unless I go with him." He said, "My son has read up
on a l l the candidates. He says I should vote for you. I f I do, I
want you to do one simple thing — make my son free." In t h i s
atmosphere, people are e a s i l y unsettled.
F i n a l l y , there i s the immutable fact that i n every age
and time, r e a l change i s d i f f i c u l t . Most everybody i s for change in
general, but then against i t in p a r t i c u l a r . Machiavelli said over
400 years ago, " I t must be considered that there i s nothing more
d i f f i c u l t to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor dangerous
to handle than to i n i t i a t e a new order of things." He turned out to
be pretty smart. (Laughter.) I n spite of a l l these d i f f i c u l t i e s ,
u n t i l Tuesday I thought we'd made a pretty good beginning.
(Laughter.)
The voters c l e a r l y a l l along had wanted smaller, more
effective, l e s s i n t r u s i v e government that r e f l e c t s both our values
and our i n t e r e s t s — governmental action that brings s t a b i l i t y into
t h e i r l i v e s and doesn't create too many problems because most folks
think they've got enough problems already. But they p l a i n l y also
want us to be strong and secure and to lead them into the next
century i n a country that i s strong and secure, with the American
Dream a l i v e .
The reason I'd thought we'd done pretty well i s that in
the l a s t 2 2 months, we brought the d e f i c i t down more than at any time
in history i n a comparable period, and next year we'll have three
years of d e f i c i t r e d u c t i c i in a row for the f i r s t time since Mr.
Truman was president. We've reduced the federal work force by 70,000
already and put i t on a path to shrink to i t s smallest s i z e since Mr.
Kennedy was president. More than five m i l l i o n new jobs have come
into our economy, and t h i s year, for the f i r s t time in a good, long
while, a l o t of them are high-wage jobs. We have more high-wage jobs
coming into the American economy t h i s year than in the l a s t f i v e
years combined.
We have deregulated s i g n i f i c a n t parts of our economy,
and we've freed s t a t e s from regulation so that they can pursue their
own path to reform welfare and health care and education.
We passed a very strong crime b i l l with tough penalties,
and funds for prison and police, and with prevention programs that
have enjoyed the support of members of both p a r t i e s and a l l law
enforcement agencies. We've supported working families with the
Family Leave law, with childhood immunizations, with expanded Head
Start, more affordable college loans and income tax cuts for 15
million working families with incomes of up to $27,000.
We've expanded trade dramatically i n these l a s t two
years; opened new markets; relaxed a l o t of our controls on our own
products so they can be sold overseas in the aftermath of the Cold
War.
We have kept the wo -Id's strongest, most mobile, most f l e x i b l e
defense. We worked for ptaace and freedom from the Persian Gulf and
the Middle East to Northern Ireland and Southern Africa, and of
course, i n H a i t i . And for the f i r s t time since the dawn of the
nuclear age there are no Russian m i s s i l e s pointed at the people of
the United States.
Most of these measures required the support of members
of my party i n Congress, e s p e c i a l l y in the especially polarized
environment i n which we have been operating. In an ordinary time
that record would have generated support for congressmen and women
who made i t , and a desire to have more people to have that kind of
MORE
�- 4 -
record continue. Even though some of the decisions were tough, and
change i s always controversial, and there i s always a lag time
between when change occurs and when i t i s f e l t , nonetheless, in an
ordinary time, even though tough decisions were required, especially
in the area of d e f i c i t reduction and crime where things had gotten so
out of hand for so long, the people who made that record would have
been supported.
But t h i s i s no ordinary time. And on Tuesday the voters
r e f l e c t e d t h e i r f r u s t r a t i o n with the pace of change and the messy and
often, to them, almost revolting process by which i t was made; t h e i r
f r u s t r a t i o n that some things were not done which ought to have been
done, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the area of p o l i t i c a l reform. And they c l e a r l y
said that we have to do more to l i m i t government's reach into t h e i r
l i v e s and to make more e f f i c i e n t the government they pay for.
They also thought that, frankly, we sent them some mixed
signals, e s p e c i a l l y i n the areas of the economic program, the crime
b i l l with the very controversial assault weapons ban, and the health
care program, where a f t e r $200 million by the best estimates had been
spent by people who were organized against i t , a remarkable feat of
reversed p l a s t i c surgery was performed.
Well, anyway, the reasons for t h i s vote w i l l be analyzed
by experts who are more objective than I am for a long time. But you
don't have to be as bright as a tree f u l l of owls to say that i t was
a smashing victory for the Republicans, for t h e i r strategy, t h e i r
t a c t i c s and t h e i r message that government i s no longer the problem —
that was t h e i r message in the '80s; now, government i s the enemy.
Well, I think i t ' s also clear that I bear some
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s for p o l i c i e s and p o l i t i c a l decisions that hurt our
candidates. I do believe that we were moving in the right direction,
and I think we have to continue to t r y to address the problems of
t h i s country. But I also regret p a r t i c u l a r l y the l o s s of those who
were trying to take the country in the direction that the voters said
they w a n t e d — the people who voted to reduce the d e f i c i t , to reduce
government, to deregulate large areas of our economy; people who
voted to break partisan gridlock.
I regret that in t h i s s w i r l , t h i s national sea change,
that people who a c t u a l l y were building the blocks of the future, that
the American people i n every survey say they want, were l o s t to the
Congress. And I hope they w i l l have a chance to serve again.
Regardless, the American people have now entrusted t h e i r
fate and t h e i r future to a Republican-led Congress and a Democratic
President. I have heard them, and I w i l l continue to l i s t e n closely
to them. With a l l my strength I w i l l work to pursue the new Democrat
agenda I outlined here at Georgetown in 1991. And I hope the
Republicans w i l l move beyond the rancor of the campaign rhetoric to
be new Republicans as well.
After a l l , the American people told us to make America
work for them. They want to be the subject of t h i s debate — not the
Republicans, not the Democrats, not the President, not the Congress
— they want to be the subject of t h i s debate. They want us to
r e b u i l d the American Dream, to stop playing p o l i t i c s now and s t a r t
p u l l i n g together.
I know we can do i t . There i s clear evidence in what
has already happened i n the l a s t couple of years. I n t h i s l a s t
Congress, there were bipartisan majorities who stood up for education
reform, for the new trade agreements, for national service, for a
tough crime b i l l , for many other e f f o r t s to move our country forward.
Now, the American people want us to move ahead to help
solve the problems that s t i l l block our progress as a people. I am
MORE
�- 5 -
ready to share r e s p o n s i b i l i t y with the Republican Party when i t
assumes leadership i n the Congress. I ask them only to j o i n me i n
the center of public debate, the place where the best ideas for the
next generation must a r i s e . I ask them to join me i n moving forward
to keep America strong. Already there are areas where c l e a r l y we can
work together — welfare reform, congressional reform, the line item
veto, continuing e f f o r t s to reduce and reinvent government.
And I must stay, t h e i r term limits proposal i s looking
better to me every day.
(Laughter and applause.)
I hope we'll be working together on lobby reform,
campaign finance reform, continued advances in education and
t r a i n i n g , and health care reform that leads us to r e a l solutions.
Above a l l , we must not do anything to jeopardize t h i s country's
economic recovery.
A l l of us who do the people's business must be ready to
work, as Professor Quigley said over and over again, to make the
future better than the present. That commitment i s not only
important at home, i t i s t e r r i b l y important when i t comes to our
c r u c i a l role i n the world.
From the beginning of t h i s administration, we have
chosen to engage f u l l y in t h i s rapidly-changing world, and the
r e s u l t s are known t o the people the world over — from H a i t i to North
Korea, from Northern Ireland to the Middle East. We have remained
firm i n our commitments to build greater security, to spread
democracy and to usher vn a new age of prosperity and open markets
a l l across the world.
Today I want to t a l k with you about the t h i r d of those
goals — our strategy in the global economy — and three c r u c i a l
events that are coming up i n rapid succession in the next couple of
weeks that w i l l help to broaden and bolster our progress.
When I came to t h i s h a l l as a candidate for president in
1991, I said something that I'm s t i l l having trouble getting
everybody i n the country to focus on — that we had to tear down the
wall i n our thinking between domestic and foreign policy, and forge a
new economic policy, rooted in our own security i n t e r e s t s , that would
serve ordinary Americans by launching a new era of global growth. I
argued then that a l l our efforts to lead the world would f a i l i f we
weren't strong at home, but that i f we withdrew from the emerging
global economy, our workers and our families would inevitably be
hurt. And from the day I took o f f i c e , we have acted on those
beliefs.
Our economic strategy embraces change and prosperity,
growth and security. We are pursuing t h i s strategy because i t
promotes peace and prosperity around the world, but also because i t
i s c l e a r l y i n the i n t e r e s t of our working people and t h e i r families.
I t ' s good for American families. I t produces high-wage jobs. I t ' s a
strategy that enables the United States to keep leading the fight to
open markets worldwide; a strategy to promote free trade and the
growth that undergirds democracies and helps to ensure peace; a
strategy to help every American, family, every American worker, every
American farmer, benefit from the world-wide growth and the
prosperity i t w i l l y i e l d .
The center, the heart of our economic policy must be an
unbreakable l i n k between what we do to open the global marketplace
and what we do to empower American workers to deal with that
marketplace. Understandably, at the end of the Cold War when the
nuclear threat i s receding, when we have so many pressing problems
here at home and when people are c l e a r l y worried about t h e i r own
personal circumstances, and when the government i t s e l f faces serious
f i n a n c i a l constraints because of years and years and years of p i l i n g
MORE
�- 6-
up massive d e f i c i t s , there are those on both the t r a d i t i o n a l l e f t and
t r a d i t i o n a l r i g h t i n our country who would l i k e us to withdraw more
from the world — p o l i t i c a l l y , s t r a t e g i c a l l y , economically — to stay
more within our own borders.
We have not — and we need only look around the world,
to Kuwait, t o the former Soviet Union, to the Middle East, t o the
Korean Peninsula, to NATO and i t s Partnership for Peace, to H a i t i , to
see how important i t i s for America to continue the role of
engagement i n the world.
Long before the Cold War was over, a new global economy
was emerging — an economy which started 20 years ago to put great
pressures on the wages ard benefits of our working people, t o put
great pressure on many of our companies to compete and win, to make
internal changes i n order to survive and prosper.
Now, t h i s has helped to prompt a serious question about
what our country should want and about whether government should act
or should r e t r e a t i n t h i s area of our national l i f e . I think what we
have to want i s a strong America — a strong America in terms of
national s e c u r i t y and national defense, but also i n terms of stronger
families, better education, higher paying jobs, and safer s t r e e t s .
Strong at home, strong abroad; two sides of the same coin.
The United States has never been i n a stronger economic
position to meet both these challenges to compete and win i n the
world. We have the world's most productive work force, an economy
that i s gaining strength e-ery day, an economy that j u s t since I
became President has created now over five m i l l i o n new jobs, and as I
said, there are more high-wage jobs t h i s year than there have been in
the previous f i v e years. And t h i s gives us some hope that f i n a l l y we
have begun t o move to counteract t h i s 2 0-year trend of stagnant wages
— a trend which, unbelievably, l a s t year, a t a time when we had
rapid growth, millions of new jobs and no i n f l a t i o n , s t i l l led to a
s l i g h t drop i n the average income of American workers.
Our govemme i t i s working as a partner with the private
sector on t h i s strategy. W are reemerging as the world's largest
e
producer of automobiles, for the f i r s t time i n 15 years. We've
regained our position as the gross top s e l l e r of semiconductors.
We're creating the industries of tomorrow, from biotechnology to
express delivery. We've opened markets with our Japanese partners in
products from c e l l u l a r telephones to r i c e . We've sold power plants
to India, f i b e r optic systems to Indonesia. Our businesses are
proving that they can meet and beat the global competition i f only
given a chance to do so. But we know that we cannot meet the
challenges of competition unless we help a l l Americans also adjust to
the changes we're a l l facing.
For too many of our people trade s t i l l appears to be a
gale-force wind, j u s t another threat ready to blow away the prospects
of a stable job a t a good wage; j u s t another problem adding t o the
already unstable, uncertain condition of t h e i r l i v e s .
I believe that i f we continue to work together on t h i s
trade issue — Democrats, Republicans and independents — as
Americans, we can agree on ways to help a l l our people make t h e i r way
in the new economy. W must help workers whose jobs are threatened
e
by changing the workplace; by doing what we have to do to help them
deal with imports or s h i f t i n g winds. They'll have to retool; t h e y ' l l
have to reengage. But we can do that.
In the recovery which i s occurring now the economy has
created more high-wage jobs. I t i s growing steadily. But as I said,
our workers' wages, millions of them, are s t i l l caught in that period
of stagnation. And l a s t year more than a m i l l i o n Americans l o s t
t h e i r health insurance. Almost a l l of them were i n working families'.
MORE
�- 7 -
This i s not a problem that w i l l go away. We are the only nation with
an advanced economy, the only one where in the l a s t 10 years, the
percentage of our people with health care coverage under 65 has
declined. So i t i s easy to understand why many Americans s t i l l
aren't feeling the impact of growth. I t ' s also easy to understand
why many Americans are frustrated by what i t takes to sustain that
growth.
On Tuesday morning, I had an interesting conversation
with a radio t a l k show host i n Detroit who said to me, Mr. President,
I'm not one of those cynics. He said, I see these jobs coming into
our economy. The biggest problem we've got now in the auto industry
i s people complaining about overtime. But he said, I want to ask you
something. I s i t absolutely necessary for the Fed to r a i s e interest
rates every time we announce more jobs? I don't mind helping other
people to get jobs, but : don't see why my income should go down j u s t
•
because we're hiring new people. And he said, i f you've got a
variable mortgage, or you're about to go buy a car, that's what
happens. We get punished — the economy adds jobs, my income goes
down. I don't get i t . I f there were i n f l a t i o n , I would understand.
These are interesting questions, but t h i s i s the way the American
people are thinking about t h i s complex global society i n which we
live.
So our ultimate goal has to be to both spur the growth
and provide the s k i l l s and create the package of high-wage jobs that
w i l l reverse the trend and increase the a b i l i t y of our people to feel
secure i n the face of a l l t h i s change, to see the changes that are
going on as our friend and not our enemy. Of course, I believe very
strongly that the only way we can do i t i s to keep breaking down
b a r r i e r s and keep expanding our exports. Every b i l l i o n dollars in
exports creates about 16,000 jobs i n America, and on average, those
jobs pay much better than other jobs i n our work force.
Look at NAFTA. Our trade agreement with Mexico and
Canada that provided our greatest moment of bipartisan cooperation in
the l a s t Congress. Thanks to NAFTA, new exports to Mexico and Canada
have helped our businesses create as many as 100,000 jobs. In the
six months a f t e r the treaty's adoption, exports from the United
States to Mexico increased by nearly 20 percent — about three times
the rate of our o v e r a l l export growth in t h i s time of economic
expansion. And the future looks brighter s t i l l and w i l l be even
brighter as the growth rate i n Mexico picks up.
But NAFTA and the debate that led up to i t s passage also
reminds us of the changing nature of the economy in a time when
c a p i t a l and factories, entire industries are completely mobile, our
competitive edge and the ultimate source of our wealth must be our
own people's knowledge and s k i l l s and t h e i r a b i l i t y to continue to
learn throughout a l i f e t i m e . At the dawn of t h i s century, t h i s new
century, and indeed, t h i s new millennium, the livelihoods of onehalf our people w i l l depend upon t h e i r a b i l i t y to engage in what we
now c a l l lifetime learning. As never before, we are what we know, we
earn based on what we learn.
Again, I say, t h i s should not be a partisan issue. We
should continue our vigorous program to give our children and our
workers the world's f i n e s t education and training and retraining. In
less than two years, with bipartisan support in Congress, we've
already expanded Head Start, established the f i r s t - e v e r national
standards for our schools, put our nation on the right road by
saying, here are the national standards, we'll help you measure how
you're doing, but you get to decide with fewer federal strings, not
more, how to meet those st mdards.
We've created a national network of youth apprenticeship
programs to help high school students who want to go on into the
workplace, don't go to college, but do want good jobs to continue to
MORE
�- 8-
increase t h e i r educational attainment — again, with bipartisan
support. We reformed the student loan program to give millions and
m i l l i o n s of Americans lower cost and better repayment options so that
no one should ever r e f r a i n from going to college because they're
a f r a i d to borrow the money because they're afraid t h e y ' l l never pay
i t back.
Now, our next big challenge in the coming Congress i s to
replace the unemployment system with reemployment, helping workers
who are l a i d o f f , most of whom now w i l l never be c a l l e d back to their
jobs, but who do need new t r a i n i n g to develop new s k i l l s and find new
jobs. The present unemployment system i s geared to yesterday's
economy. I t i s premised on the idea that you w i l l be called back to
your old job, and you w i l l be given a l i v i n g standard that i s f a r
below what you're earning in the workplace j u s t to get you by u n t i l
you're c a l l e d back. Most people are not c a l l e d back in America
anymore, and i t i s time to fundamentally change that system. I t
would be better for workers, but i t would p l a i n l y be better for
employers as w e l l because they would not be paying for an
unemployment system that does not achieve the objectives that i t was
o r i g i n a l l y designed to achieve.
This w i l l bslp our workers because, as I say, nobody,
nobody can promise to remove the uncertainty from modern
international economic l i f e . They w i l l face uncertainty whether we
act or not. What we wish our people to do i s to look at the future
with more confidence, more optimism. And i f together we help them to
get the tools they need to be ready for whatever the future holds,
they w i l l be able to do that.
I n the coming weeks, we have the opportunity to continue
pursuing our economic strategy and to put in place three more c r u c i a l
building blocks for American success in the 21st century. Next week
as part of our strategy to develop regional i n i t i a t i v e s that put the
United States a t the center of emerging and dynamic regions, I ' l l be
in Indonesia t o meet with leaders of the Asia P a c i f i c Economic
Cooperation Forum. I ' l l be following that up with meeting with 33
democratically-elected leaders of our hemisphere at next month's
Summit of the Americas down i n Miami.
And in the midst of these meetings, as Congress
reconvenes, w e ' l l be engaged i n an h i s t o r i c e f f o r t to pass GATT, the
largest most comprehensive trade agreement ever. In t h i s century
there have been a handful of congressional votes that have
demonstrated what kind of country we are and what kind of people
we're going t o be. The vote on the League of Nations after the f i r s t
world war was one. And -'hen the United States f a i l e d to engage we
paid a t e r r i b l e price and so did the r e s t of the world in economic
stagnation, i s o l a t i o n , and eventually another world war.
After the second war, Congress faced a vote on the
Marshall Plan. At that time we rose to the challenge and put aside
our partisan differences and helped to launch 50 years of peace and
prosperity, not only with the Marshall Plan but with other
i n s t i t u t i o n s that r e b u i l t our former enemies and constructed the
framework of s e c u r i t y which enabled us ultimately to prevail i n the
Cold War.
Now, once again we face such a t e s t . The United States
has been leading the world i n pushing for the adoption of GATT. And
now we've got to follow through and lead once again. W should not
e
delay GATT. That w i l l jeopardize our leadership and our prosperity.
Negotiations among scores of nations have produced an agreement that
w i l l produce the biggest tax cut in history, and in the long run help
t i e together a global economy and usher in a new era of prosperity.
I t i s the key l i n k to free trade, more open s o c i e t i e s and economic
growth a l l around t h i s world.
MORE
�- 9 -
For the United States i t means both free and f a i r trade.
For 40 years our markets have been more open than those of other
major economies. These rules are not right for 1994. GATT w i l l
require a l l nations to f i n a l l y do what we have already done — cut
t a r i f f s , eliminate non-tariff b a r r i e r s , protect copyrights and
patents. I t w i l l create hundreds of thousands of new jobs here i n
the United States, good-paying jobs, and i t w i l l l e v e l the playing
f i e l d for our companies, our workers, our farmers. I t w i l l make our
exports more competitive, exactly when our a b i l i t y to send more
American products and services overseas i s expanding.
For eight years, presidents of both p a r t i e s , from
President Reagan to President Bush to our administration, have worked
hard to complete t h i s agreement. We were able to do i t . GATT has
enjoyed the kind of broad bipartisan support in Congress that NAFTA
did. And i t ' s supported by a wide range of business and consumer and
farm groups.
I i n v i t e the leaders and the members of both parties
once again to put aside our partisan differences and do what's right
for a l l Americans. And I'm confident that Congress w i l l r a t i f y the
GATT t h i s month.
While we work to pass GATT, I ' l l also be looking ahead
to continue to cement our r e l a t i o n s with two of the f a s t e s t growing
regions i n the world, Asian and L a t i n America. For decades, our
sights have been s e t on t r a d i t i o n a l economic relationships, the
large, mature economies of Europe and Japan. These nations w i l l
remain close a l l i e s , key competitors and c r i t i c a l markets for us.
But the new century demands a new strategy, and i t i s c l e a r that they
young, vigorous economies of Asia and the Western Hemisphere offer
enormous untapped potential for our people to prosper.
Consider t h i s : Asia's dynamic economies account now for
four out of every 10 dollars of world trade. Almost one-third of our
own exports go now to the P a c i f i c Rim. Markets in Asia have already
created more than two million American jobs. And over the next s i x
years the Asian members of APEC plan to invest $1.1 t r i l l i o n in
infrastructure, enough to rebuild 15 Santa Monica freeways every day.
Yet, despite these opportunities, the presence of s t i f f
economic competition and the end of the Cold War have l e f t some
Asians to wonder whether we're ready to withdraw from the region.
Nothing could be further from the truth. That's why, a f t e r v i s i t i n g
s i x countries in three days in the Middle East, and coming home for
eight days of t h i s campaign, and t r y i n g to stand here without missing
a beat on my speech — (laughter) — I am going to Indonesia to say
we remain engaged. (Applause.)
We must say to the world, we w i l l maintain and
strengthen our b i l a t e r a l security relationships with Japan, with
South Korea, with A u s t r a l i a , with the Philippines, with Thailand and
others — including the forward presence of our troops to deter
c o n f l i c t . We w i l l encourage stronger regional security structures,
and we w i l l continue our active work to implement the agreement for a
non-nuclear Korean Peninsula.
We are also committed to expand our economic t i e s across
the P a c i f i c . And as I said, in s p i t e of a l l the events of the l a s t
few days, and the f a c t that I'm a l i t t l e b i t jet-lagged from the
f i r s t round, I think i t ' s important for the United States to be in
Jakarta. When we met in Seattle a year ago i t was at my invitation,
because I wanted the leaders of the 14 Asian economies to come
together for the f i r s t tine; to invigorate APEC, to embrace a v i s i o n
of a new Asia P a c i f i c comi-unity with no a r t i f i c i a l dividing line down
the middle of the P a c i f i c .
MORE
�- 10 -
Next week we'll move from a common v i s i o n to a common
direction. We'll work to set concrete goals to open the way for
doing business i n Asia, taking down t a r i f f walls and eliminating nont a r i f f b a r r i e r s ; simplifying procedures and standards to smooth the
flow of goods. I hope and I expect we'll set a target date for
achieving free and open trade among a l l the Asian P a c i f i c economies.
APEC i s fundamentally an economic i n s t i t u t i o n , so our
meetings w i l l focus on those questions. But there w i l l be private
meetings, and doing them, I w i l l also r a i s e some other questions.
I ' l l r a i s e our concerns about many other issues, including the
progress of human rights and democracy in the region.
These things require patience and persistence, but we
must not give up on our commitment to the values i n which we believe,
even as we pursue our own economic interests. Over the long run, we
have learned i n America that j u s t i c e and progress go hand i n hand,
and i t w i l l a l s o be true for our interests i n the world.
Even though there may be no sudden breakthroughs, we
must continue to be persistent. As i n the past, I w i l l be doing
everything I can to be frank i n terms of our differences as w e l l as
our potential partnerships with the Chinese, with the Indonesians,
and with others.
I don't think we have to choose between increasing trade
and fostering human rights and open s o c i e t i e s . Experience shows us
over and over again that commerce can promote cooperation; that more
prosperity helps to open s o c i e t i e s to the world; and that the more
s o c i e t i e s are open the more they understand that maximizing freedom
and prosperity can go hand in hand. The rule of law, accountable
government, the free flow of ideas — a l l these things encourage
economic development and p o l i t i c a l maturity and freedom.
The advance of human rights and democratic values also
requires strong government-to-government contacts. So I ' l l continue
to promote without apology those rights and values i n Asia and around
the world. We have a long history of friendly relations with
Indonesia, with other countries, but we are engaged in a range of
b i l a t e r a l and global issues with the Indonesians, with the Chinese,
and with others. We recognize and we respect the differences among
cultures. L i k e a l l Americans, I struggle with our own society's
ongoing tensions and inequities and very d i f f i c u l t s o c i a l problems.
But I don't believe the search for human dignity i s peculiar to the
American culture.
Everywhere people aspire to be treated with dignity, to
give voice to t h e i r opinion, to have a say i n choosing their leaders.
At a time when we are strong enough to inspire people around the
world, we have to keep pressing on for freedom. In Asia and
elsewhere, we have good reason for hope. We have good reason for
progress because free markets and democracy are on the move. The new
global community i s taking place a l l around the world, enshrouding
the values of tolerance and l i b e r t y and c i v i l society. I guess I
r e a l l y do b e l i e v e that history i s on our side, and we have to keep
trying to push i t along.
I f we're looking for further confirmation of these
trends, of course, we can find them in abundance in our own
hemisphere. One month from now, leaders from South and Central
America, the Caribbean and North America w i l l be in Miami at our
i n v i t a t i o n to discuss the future of our hemisphere and to celebrate
the spread of freedom and democracy. Think of i t : 33 leaders,
including President Aristide of Haiti w i l l attend the Summit of the
Americas, the f i r s t such hemispheric gathering in almost three
decades; a l l democratically-elected leaders.
There, we'll be able to work to strengthen the roots of
those democracies through sustainable development, we'll be able to
take c r u c i a l steps to increase trade, to maintain growth in the
�- 11 -
region, to lay concrete plans to open markets, to expand trade.
We'll have a partnership for prosperity that stretches from Canada to
the t i p of South America. I t means more jobs and higher incomes. I t
also means more peace, more freedom and more security.
As with GATT and APEC, the Summit of the Americas will
move us toward a future of greater prosperity. I t w i l l t i e us to new
partners. And i f we follow through, historians w i l l look back at
these events and see that our generation reached across the oceans
and the borders to cement relationships with nations that w i l l rank
among the economic and political powers of the 21st century. W w i l l
e
have demonstrated that the American people have learned the lessons
of the past, have learned the lessons of the present, and our ready
for a l l the challenges that l i e ahead.
Thirty yearr ago in this hall, Carroll Quigley told the
class of freshman that I was a part of that our greatness rested on
the extraordinarily American belief that we could make the future
better than the past. Many Americans today don't believe i t , but the
evidence i s there, the future i s there. We have to have the courage
to act on that belief, to seize that future, and to keep our people
optimistic, outward-looking and strong. I f we are strong in our
convictions, the reality i s that our future w i l l be strong as well.
Thank you a l l and God bless you.
END
(Applause.)
12:17 P M EST
..
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Michael Waldman
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Waldman was Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting from 1995-1999. His responsibilities were writing and editing nearly 2,000 speeches, which included four State of the Union speeches and two Inaugural Addresses. From 1993 -1995 he served as Special Assistant to the President for Policy Coordination.</p>
<p>The collection generally consists of copies of speeches and speech drafts, talking points, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, handwritten notes, articles, clippings, and presidential schedules. A large volume of this collection was for the State of the Union speeches. Many of the speech drafts are heavily annotated with additions or deletions. There are a lot of articles and clippings in this collection.</p>
<p>Due to the size of this collection it has been divided into two segments. Use links below for access to the individual segments:<br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+1">Segment One</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+2">Segment Two</a></p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Michael Waldman
Office of Speechwriting
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1999
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
Segment One contains 1071 folders in 72 boxes.
Segment Two contains 868 folders in 66 boxes.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] POTUS Speeches/Remarks [Binder] [4]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Michael Waldman
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 50
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36404"> Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763296">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F Segment 2
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
6/3/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
7763296
42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg2-050-006-2015