Bill Clinton: “Let me mention the NAFTA first and then I'll answer the larger question. First, on the narrow issue of the lawsuit, we…”

“Let me mention the NAFTA first and then I'll answer the larger question. First, on the narrow issue of the lawsuit, we announced within an hour after the court's decision that we would appeal. And we believe we can win an appeal, and we can win it within the appropriate time. There may also be some other avenues which will permit us to do some kind of environmental impact statement and still meet the time limit. There is a strong opposition to the agreement in some quarters in the United States, and the relative economic problems that we all face now make that more difficult. That is, when unemployment is up and growth is down, people are more insecure. It makes some in Europe less enthusiastic about the GATT now. It's the same reason--it's just--a part of it is almost endemic to the human condition. I do think we have the votes to pass NAFTA in the United States Senate. And I think that--and we do not have today the votes to pass it in the United States House. But I think we can get the votes to pass it essentially by doing three things: First of all, by successfully concluding the agreements now subject to negotiation between Canada and Mexico and the United States to strengthen our common efforts at lifting labor standards and environmental quality, particularly along the Rio Grande River, which has been a huge problem. And I should say by way of background for the rest of you, the reason the labor standards issue is so big is that there was a report issued in this country last year that indicated that the Caribbean Basin Initiative of the United States, where we tried to get investment in Caribbean countries and put plants down there, had not led to increasing the per capita incomes of the people working in those businesses; that because the people were so poor, that a lot of the people who had taken the money that the United States Government had put out had still depressed their wages and increased their profits. So we've given some thought to this labor standards issue here and the environmental issue. So I think if we get those agreements that will help. The second thing that will help is if--we have to just make the case, you know. Now when we have an agreement, it's a lot easier to defend the jobs argument. Right now there's a simple argument against NAFTA being waged by, articulated by Mr. Perot in this country and others, that you can't make a trade agreement that takes down all the barriers with a country on your border with a per capita income that's only one-eighth as much as yours is. Everybody will take their money and invest in the other country. Well, it has great superficial appeal, but the truth is that anybody who wants to go to Mexico and invest their money for low wages can do so today. But the market opening measures that have been taken by President Salinas in the last few years have led the United States from a $5 billion trade deficit to a $6 billion trade surplus with Mexico. Mexico is now our second biggest purchaser-- manufacturer. And we are in effect--because Canada, as you know, is our biggest trade partner--we are now building this hemispheric economic bloc that we want. And so I think we can refute it on the merits. The third thing we have to do is ask the economists to consider what will happen if we do not pass the trade agreement. Our relationships with Canada are secure, and we have a bilateral agreement, and that's fine. But we could go back in our relationships with Mexico, which would mean economic problems for Mexico, more trade barriers, fewer jobs in America, more illegal immigration. A lot of problems could develop for the United States if we do not do the NAFTA. I think when those three things become crystal clear, we will prevail there. Now on the larger issue, there is no easy or simple answer to the conflict between the environment and the economy in any of our countries individually or in the globe as a whole. However, I believe that our goal ought to be to find ways to make preserving the environment good economics. At the Rio conference last year, Japan, Germany, and many other European countries were proving that you could do that because they were down there promoting environmental technology while the United States was trying to stop the environmental agreements. I think that our country was not as wise as many of the nations here represented in the way they approached the Rio conference. We have now signed on, the United States has, to the Biodiversity Treaty. And we have basically adopted a policy of long-term environmental preservation with an aggressive effort to figure out how to make jobs and incomes and prosperity flow out of that. And I believe that there are lots of opportunities to do that. If I might just mention one, our bilateral aid package to Russia that is now making its way to the Congress focuses heavily on what we can do with our technology to help them to reduce the problems that their nuclear industry--and not simply their bombs but their nuclear power plants, for example--present to them, and what else we can do in the area of energy and the environment to help to clean up their environment in ways that are good for their economy and good for ours. So I think there's a lot of opportunity there. GATT and the G-7”