The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour (PBS) - 1992-08-12

Channel: malgent

Transcript

Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)

[0:00] dental coverage and responsive service.

[0:10] >> Good evening. I'm Robert McNeel in New

[0:12] York.

[0:13] >> And I'm Judy Woodruff in Washington.

[0:15] After our summary of the news this

[0:17] Wednesday, we turn to the North American

[0:19] Free Trade Agreement announced today by

[0:21] President Bush. His trade ambassador

[0:24] explains the details. Then two

[0:26] businessmen, an environmentalist, a

[0:28] union official, and two members of

[0:30] Congress debate its value and weigh its

[0:33] prospects. Finally, Ann Taylor Fleming

[0:36] has some thoughts about a budding

[0:38] American writer.

[0:40] Part of helping the world live and

[0:42] communicate better is keeping it well

[0:45] informed.

[0:47] That's why funding for the McNeel Lair

[0:49] NewsHour is provided by AT&T

[0:54] and by PepsiCo.

[1:02] >> PepsiCo

[1:04] and by the Corporation for Public

[1:06] Broadcasting

[1:07] and viewers like you. The US, Mexico,

[1:11] and Canada today struck a deal to create

[1:13] the world's largest trading block. The

[1:15] North American Free Trade Agreement will

[1:17] eliminate all tariffs and other barriers

[1:19] within 15 years. The resulting market

[1:22] would encompass 360 million potential

[1:25] consumers. President Bush announced the

[1:28] agreement at the White House this

[1:29] morning.

[1:30] >> This agreement will level the North

[1:32] American playing field, allowing

[1:34] American companies to increase sales

[1:36] from Alaska to the Yucatan.

[1:39] The agreement drew opposition from

[1:41] organized labor. AFL CIO Secretary

[1:44] Treasurer Thomas Donahghue called it a

[1:46] bad deal for American workers. He spoke

[1:48] at a Washington news conference. The

[1:51] agreement is not an agreement about free

[1:54] trade, nor is it about development in

[1:56] Mexico. It's about guaranteeing the

[1:59] ability of US investors to move their

[2:02] plants to Mexico to take advantage of

[2:05] cheap wages and poor working conditions.

[2:08] The agreement will have to be ratified

[2:09] by Congress, the Canadian Parliament,

[2:11] and the Mexican Senate. We'll have much

[2:14] more on the story right after the news

[2:15] summary. Judy,

[2:17] >> Governor Bill Clinton said today he

[2:19] would support a free trade pact with

[2:21] Mexico and Canada as long as it provided

[2:24] protection for workers, farmers, and the

[2:26] environment on both sides of the border.

[2:28] The statement by the Clinton campaign

[2:30] said that he would be reviewing the

[2:32] details of the agreement to see exactly

[2:34] what it provides for. It also said he

[2:37] would follow closely congressional

[2:38] hearings on the subject. Clinton and his

[2:41] running mate, Senator Al Gore, met with

[2:43] Israeli Prime Minister Yitsak Rabbine

[2:45] this afternoon in Washington. Afterward,

[2:48] Clinton said he was committed to

[2:49] maintaining a strong relationship with

[2:51] Israel.

[2:53] >> I support strongly the extension of loan

[2:56] guarantees to Israel as I have for many

[2:58] months and I am pleased that progress

[3:01] has been made on that front. And

[3:03] finally, uh, I convey to the prime

[3:05] minister my intense desire not to let,

[3:08] uh, the partisan difficulties of the

[3:10] election here in the United States in

[3:13] any way impede the peace process. I

[3:16] support it. I hope more progress will be

[3:17] made in the next few months, and I am

[3:20] fully committed to maintaining a strong

[3:23] continuity in that peace process after

[3:25] the election.

[3:27] >> There were more reports today that a job

[3:29] switch for Secretary of State Baker is

[3:31] imminent. The Associated Press quoted

[3:34] Republican party leaders as saying the

[3:36] announcement that Baker will move to

[3:38] take over the president's reelection

[3:40] campaign would be made Thursday or

[3:42] Friday. It was unclear whether Baker

[3:44] would resign his cabinet post or take a

[3:47] leave of absence. The Senate Ethics

[3:50] Committee today rebuked Oregon

[3:51] Republican Mark Hatfield for repeatedly

[3:54] failing to disclose gifts. The committee

[3:57] did not recommend tougher action such as

[3:59] censure because it said there was no

[4:02] credible evidence Hatfield intentionally

[4:04] violated Senate rules. In economic news,

[4:08] inflation at the wholesale level

[4:10] remained low last month. The labor

[4:12] department said today the producer price

[4:14] index rose.1%

[4:16] in July. Lower prices for fuel and

[4:19] computers kept the figure low. Today in

[4:22] Sarah, more than 300 women and children

[4:24] did what many in Bosnia want to do. They

[4:27] got out. Their evacuation was permitted

[4:29] by Serb forces besieging the city for

[4:32] more than 3 months. The consiliatory

[4:34] gesture came as the United Nations moved

[4:36] towards increasing pressure on the Serbs

[4:39] for their aggression in Bosnia.

[4:41] Tomorrow, the Security Council is

[4:42] expected to approve the use of force to

[4:44] protect relief operations and open

[4:47] detention camps in the former Yugoslav

[4:49] Republic. The Red Cross today said it

[4:51] had gained access to two camps where

[4:53] atrocities are alleged to have been

[4:55] committed. A US official accused the

[4:58] Serbs of moving many prisoners out of

[5:00] the camp to hide evidence of

[5:01] mistreatment from the Red Cross. We have

[5:04] two independent television news reports

[5:06] beginning with Paul Davies on the

[5:08] evacuation from Sievo.

[5:10] >> In the ruins of the city that was their

[5:12] home, the weakest victims of this war

[5:14] cue for an opportunity to leave.

[5:19] A roll call reveals the names of the

[5:21] fortunate few. There will only be room

[5:23] for 350 on the convoy. Husbands must

[5:26] stay behind. Here, a fighter whose

[5:28] family are leaving receives comfort from

[5:30] his youngest son.

[5:34] >> But for these children, the parting is

[5:36] particularly traumatic. They lost their

[5:39] parents in the fighting. Now they must

[5:41] say farewell to the friends they made in

[5:43] the orphanage. For more than three

[5:45] months, they've comforted each other in

[5:47] their shared grief. Now, they're heading

[5:49] in separate directions. Such goodbyes

[5:51] come hard. But for those who've lost

[5:54] everything, like 14-year-old Sners,

[5:56] there's simply nothing to stay for.

[5:59] >> My my apartment burned out. My mother

[6:02] died. And I don't know where is my

[6:05] father.

[6:06] >> After a 5-hour delay in the sweltering

[6:08] heat, the coaches finally arrive. Only

[6:11] now they're aroused between the

[6:12] organizers and those who feel their

[6:14] children should also be evacuated.

[6:16] Militia men intervene

[6:20] and only when order is restored at

[6:22] gunpoint can the hazardous journey

[6:24] begin. To reach safety, the children's

[6:27] convoy must pass under the barrels of

[6:29] countless snipers and negotiate their

[6:31] way through the barricades and

[6:33] checkpoints that surround this city.

[6:35] They have been promised safe passage,

[6:37] but even children here know that

[6:38] promises are frequently broken. UN

[6:41] troops are riding shotgun on the convoy.

[6:43] Two infants were killed during the last

[6:45] attempted evacuation. As they passed

[6:47] hundreds of well-wishes, through the

[6:49] checkpoints and out of the city, the

[6:51] children sang a song of celebration.

[6:57] >> On the road to Trinopol, one of the

[6:59] camps we visited last week, we found

[7:00] Muslim refugees fleeing their burning

[7:02] villages. Sabrina Reddic said her

[7:05] husband had been shot and her house

[7:06] torched by advancing Bosnian Serb

[7:09] troops.

[7:10] >> When did when did they burn your house?

[7:13] >> Her fear is in part terror of what lies

[7:16] ahead at Trinopoly. Will she and her

[7:18] children be safe at a Serbian run camp?

[7:20] The Red Cross were going to help you.

[7:21] They're going to tell you.

[7:24] >> She doesn't know.

[7:25] >> They will be there. They will be there.

[7:28] >> At Trenopoly, the International Red

[7:30] Cross had just arrived. This is the

[7:32] first time they've been allowed inside,

[7:34] and it's only the second camp they

[7:36] visited. For the moment, Sabrina and her

[7:38] children are safe. Patronopoly has

[7:40] changed. There's now some food getting

[7:42] through, although cues are long. There's

[7:44] also shelter and clothes provided by the

[7:46] Serbian authorities, and the barbwire

[7:49] fence that shocked the world has been

[7:50] torn down from its posts.

[7:53] Many are in these camps. Men like

[7:55] 26-year-old Seir Hukanovitz, held up by

[7:58] his elder brother. He was a television

[8:00] repair man before the Serbs took him.

[8:03] >> The International Red Cross yesterday

[8:05] gave out registration forms to the 2,000

[8:07] now in Chernoplier. A small start in one

[8:10] camp. There are hundreds of others they

[8:12] need to reach. And the men responsible

[8:14] for running this camp and the others

[8:15] admit mistakes were made.

[8:20] >> War is war. Some people they lose

[8:22] control and then they

[8:24] >> they they they beat some people and

[8:27] >> but our Serbian hosts who still control

[8:29] the limited access we have to the camps

[8:31] were anxious to stress that equivalent

[8:33] atrocities have been inflicted on their

[8:35] own side. This video they said showed

[8:37] some of the 6,000 Serb civilians killed

[8:39] by Muslims and they deny they're using

[8:41] terror to force Muslims from their

[8:43] villages. But there is evidence that

[8:45] they are. Kazaraj, for example, was once

[8:47] a village of 26,000. Now there's no one

[8:50] left.

[8:52] >> The United Nations secured agreement

[8:54] today with leaders in Somalia to deploy

[8:56] 500 armed guards in the East African

[8:59] nation. They will take control of the

[9:01] port of Moadishu and escort convoys

[9:04] distributing food to the city's starving

[9:06] people. Relief officials have called the

[9:08] country's humanitarian crisis the worst

[9:10] in the world. Hundreds of Somali die of

[9:13] hunger every day because of a drought

[9:16] and a savage civil war that hampers

[9:18] distribution of food. That's it for the

[9:21] news summary. Just ahead, the North

[9:23] American Free Trade Agreement and an

[9:25] Anne Taylor Fleming essay.

[9:41] Our principal focus tonight is the plan

[9:44] to create the world's largest and

[9:45] richest market. President Bush announced

[9:48] it today in Washington after more than a

[9:50] year of negotiations among the US,

[9:52] Canada, and Mexico. In the White House

[9:54] Rose Garden, the president stressed that

[9:56] trade equals jobs.

[9:58] >> Historic trade agreement will further

[10:00] open markets in Mexico, Canada, and the

[10:03] United States. And it'll create jobs and

[10:06] generate economic growth in all three

[10:08] countries. Increased trade with North

[10:11] America will help our nation prepare for

[10:14] the challenges and opportunities of the

[10:16] next century. The Cold War is over. The

[10:19] principal challenge now facing the

[10:21] United States is to compete in a rapidly

[10:25] changing, expanding global marketplace.

[10:28] Open markets in Mexico and Canada mean

[10:31] more American jobs. Our nation is the

[10:34] world's leading exporter, well ahead of

[10:37] Japan and Germany. And today over 7

[10:40] million Americans are hard at work

[10:42] making products that will be sold around

[10:45] the world. Export related jobs pay 17%

[10:49] more than the average US wage. These

[10:52] jobs are the kind that our nation needs

[10:54] to grow and prosper. The kind that

[10:57] showcase American talent and technology.

[11:01] The agreement called the North American

[11:03] Free Trade Accord would bring Mexico

[11:05] into the existing pact between the US

[11:08] and Canada. Over the next 15 years, the

[11:11] accord would remove almost all import

[11:13] duties and other restrictions to the

[11:15] movement of tens of thousands of goods

[11:17] across North American borders. If

[11:19] approved by the legislatures of all

[11:21] three countries, it would unite 360

[11:24] million consumers. Virtually every

[11:26] industry would be touched by free trade.

[11:29] automobiles, advertising, agriculture,

[11:32] banking, buses and trucks, computers,

[11:34] glassware, insurance, oil and gas,

[11:37] textiles, and telecommunications.

[11:40] Each country would be free to follow its

[11:42] own health, safety, and environmental

[11:44] regulations. Even if, for example, a US

[11:47] rule on meat inspection kept out Mexican

[11:50] beef. There would also be a special

[11:52] three-nation commission to resolve

[11:53] disputes and a plan to clean up the

[11:56] badly polluted US Mexican border. For

[11:58] more on the accord from the woman who

[12:00] negotiated it, we go to US Trade

[12:02] Representative Carla Hills. Miss Hills,

[12:04] thank you for joining us.

[12:06] >> Pleasure.

[12:07] >> Great stress is being put on this for

[12:09] obvious reasons on jobs. How does it

[12:12] create more good jobs in the United

[12:14] States? Can you give us some examples of

[12:17] how it would create jobs here?

[12:19] 70% of the growth to our economy at the

[12:22] present time comes from exports. And for

[12:25] every billion dollars worth of exports,

[12:27] we generate 20,000 jobs. So we must

[12:31] figure it out. Export opportunity. It

[12:33] really is our best job machine today.

[12:36] And Mexico is our fastest growing export

[12:39] opportunity. Mexicans today with all

[12:41] their trade restrictions by 35% more

[12:44] from us per capita than does the much

[12:46] more affluent European community on a

[12:49] per capita basis. What this trade

[12:51] agreement does is to bring down the

[12:53] barriers tariffs which where Mexico's

[12:56] tariffs are 20 250% higher than ours.

[13:00] They have licensing on 25% of our

[13:02] agricultural products that we we export

[13:05] to them. and they have performance

[13:08] requirements that keep out our

[13:09] automotive and transportation equipment,

[13:12] our auto parts uh equipment. And if we

[13:16] can dismantle these trade barriers, our

[13:18] exports will go up and our job creation

[13:21] will go up. And that's what this

[13:23] agreement is all about. What is this is

[13:25] a point that's often raised and I'm sure

[13:27] you're going to hear it again in a few

[13:28] minutes, but what is to stop companies

[13:30] moving their own manufacturing to Mexico

[13:34] where wages are so much lower? For

[13:36] instance, Smith Corona recently

[13:38] announced that it was going to move its

[13:39] last typewriter manufacturing plant in

[13:42] the US to Mexico.

[13:43] >> Some will move, but not because of the

[13:45] free trade agreement. Because our

[13:47] average tariff barrier to Mexico is

[13:49] lower than 4%.

[13:52] If they were going to move, they could

[13:53] have moved before the agreement. If they

[13:55] want to move, they may. And that again

[13:59] is better than to have them move to more

[14:01] distant shores because Mexico spends 70%

[14:04] of every trade dollar in this country.

[14:07] Indeed, a company that locates in Asia

[14:10] buys about 10% of its inputs from the

[14:12] United States where a company located in

[14:14] Mexico buys 300% more. So, it's it both

[14:19] sides help us. And we have companies

[14:21] across the United States who say that

[14:23] they have been kept alive in this heavy

[14:26] global competition by collaborative

[14:28] production with Mexico. That by a a

[14:30] small investment in Mexico, they

[14:33] actually secure their jobs here in the

[14:35] United States. GE is one. It says for

[14:38] every job at places in Mexico, it

[14:40] secures three jobs in the United States.

[14:43] And we now have access to a market of

[14:46] 360 million people with a$6 trillion

[14:49] dollar output that makes us globally

[14:51] more competitive.

[14:52] >> What particular sectors of the US

[14:54] economy do you think benefit from this?

[14:57] >> The uh studies the economic studies and

[15:00] there have been many show small

[15:01] incremental gains across a broad

[15:04] spectrum. Aerospace, pharmaceuticals,

[15:06] machinery of all kinds, chemicals,

[15:10] uh I can go on and on. Uh, suffice it to

[15:14] say, we make products, particularly

[15:17] capital equipment that Mexico needs.

[15:20] It's a net importer of food, and we're a

[15:22] wonderful producer of food. And, uh, we

[15:26] have an 8 billion surplus today with

[15:28] Mexico. On an annualized basis, we'll be

[15:31] selling them 44 billion worth of goods.

[15:34] It's a very good market for us. And that

[15:36] translates, as I mentioned, into jobs.

[15:39] You accept that there must be losers as

[15:41] well as winners in any in any deal like

[15:44] this. For which Americans is it a bad

[15:46] deal?

[15:48] >> Well, I wouldn't say it's a bad deal,

[15:50] but I would agree that there will be

[15:52] some dislocation. The reason I say it

[15:54] isn't a bad deal is if we have a

[15:57] business in the United States that is

[15:59] not globally competitive, it can die the

[16:01] death of a thousand slashes and

[16:04] literally be driven out of business.

[16:06] where it's is if it can have

[16:08] collaborative production with a lowerc

[16:10] cost partner that may make it survive

[16:14] and that's what Japan has made an art of

[16:16] and what Europe today wi is making an

[16:19] art of but there are some dislocations

[16:22] and I would say in in some agricultural

[16:25] products

[16:26] uh perhaps in the low end of the

[16:29] glassware market we have greater

[16:31] sensitivities that's been documented and

[16:34] that's why we have negotiated long

[16:36] transitions and uh a safeguard mechanism

[16:39] in case uh the uh entities are not able

[16:43] to uh uh adjust plus the fact of course

[16:46] the president has said that he wants to

[16:48] work with Congress and develop a good

[16:50] worker adjustment package and we're in

[16:53] the process of doing just that.

[16:55] >> Well, Miss Hill stay with us now as

[16:57] we're joined by four people with special

[16:59] interests in the trade agreement. Thomas

[17:01] Donahghue is the secretary treasurer of

[17:03] the AFL CIO, the Labor Federation of 88

[17:06] unions. He's also chairman of the Labor

[17:08] Advisory Committee, one of several

[17:10] committees set up to advise Ms. Hill's

[17:13] office on trade negotiations. John Kan

[17:16] is president of the Business and

[17:17] Industrial Council, a conservative

[17:19] business advocacy group with 1500

[17:22] members, mostly medium-siz manufacturing

[17:24] firms. He's also a founder of the

[17:26] American Trade Coalition, a broad-based

[17:29] group opposed to the free trade

[17:30] agreement. Carl Pope is the associate

[17:33] director of the Sierra Club, a national

[17:35] environmental group. He joins us from

[17:37] San Francisco. And Kay Whitmore is

[17:39] president and CEO of Eastman Kodak

[17:42] Company. He also chairs the US Mexico

[17:45] trade group of the business roundt whose

[17:47] members are executives of large

[17:49] corporations. He joins us tonight from

[17:51] Rochester. Starting with you, uh, Mr.

[17:54] Donna Hugh. Earlier in a clip we saw in

[17:56] our news summary, you called this a bad

[17:59] deal for American workers. Why do you

[18:01] think it is?

[18:02] >> Because we will lose somewhere between

[18:05] 500 and 600,000 US jobs in the uh

[18:09] remaining years of this decade. We will

[18:12] continue to see the outflow of US

[18:14] production to Mexico. Uh and we will

[18:17] lower American wages of the jobs that

[18:19] remain. we'll be uh suddenly competing

[18:22] with a low-wage neighbor to an even

[18:25] greater extent than we are now.

[18:27] >> Miss Hills, how do you reply to that?

[18:29] >> Uh actually, um Mr. Donahghue is an

[18:33] error here. The uh jobs that will be

[18:35] created in Mexico will be higher paying

[18:37] jobs. We're already competing with

[18:39] Mexico. Our average tariffs are 3%. Uh

[18:42] we are opening up a market, our fastest

[18:45] growing export market and uh we have

[18:48] 600,000 Americans who rely upon Mexico

[18:51] for their jobs in the United States and

[18:53] by 1995 that will be over a million and

[18:56] that's because they are employed by

[18:59] industry that is selling goods to

[19:00] Mexico.

[19:01] >> Mr. Donor Hugh, um do you accept that

[19:04] any jobs will be created as a result of

[19:06] this? If if our exports increase over

[19:10] the long term, those would be additional

[19:13] jobs. They'll be far less than the

[19:15] outflow of jobs. Uh the proposition that

[19:18] we are getting a marvelous deal here

[19:21] because we're opening up this wonderful

[19:23] market in Mexico is facious. Uh there

[19:26] are 90 million people in Mexico.

[19:28] Unfortunately, most of them are poor.

[19:30] This is not a great market. When we have

[19:32] this wonderful connection of 360 million

[19:35] people, we're adding about 80 million

[19:38] poor people to it. We could sell more

[19:40] product in the United States if we

[19:43] concentrated on those policies which

[19:45] would create US employment. We might

[19:47] begin to take the people out of poverty

[19:49] who live in poverty in the United States

[19:51] because we have 17 million people

[19:53] unemployed.

[19:54] >> Well, what do you see as the drive then

[19:56] or the reason for the drive for this

[19:58] trade agreement? purely political

[20:00] considerations of the president and of

[20:02] the Republican administration. Uh they

[20:04] want and and this administration and the

[20:06] president has said consistently the uh

[20:09] Selenus administration has changed the

[20:12] economic face of Mexico. That means they

[20:14] have privatized and moved into a more

[20:17] quote capitalistic system if you will.

[20:20] Um and we want to quote lock in those

[20:23] changes. We don't trust the Mexicans.

[20:25] They might go back on the deal. So we

[20:27] need to lock in those changes. is purely

[20:29] a political interest of this

[20:31] administration.

[20:32] >> Miss Hills, how do you reply to that?

[20:34] >> Well, of course, we want to lock in the

[20:36] economic uh reforms that President

[20:38] Selenus has put in place. We want Mexico

[20:41] to be outwardlooking and to accept our

[20:43] goods. He has turned around a country

[20:45] that was uh full of protectionisms. But

[20:48] to say that Mexico is too poor and buys

[20:51] nothing from us and it's not worth the

[20:53] effort of opening their market is

[20:55] disclaimed by the facts. Mexico is our

[20:58] fastest growing export opportunity. It

[21:00] buys 35% more from uh per capita from us

[21:03] than does the much more affluent uh

[21:06] European community and uh we find it a

[21:10] fabulous export opportunity that will

[21:13] translate directly into jobs. Uh as I

[21:16] mentioned we'll have over a million jobs

[21:19] connected with our trade with Mexico by

[21:22] 1995.

[21:24] >> Mr. Let's move on to John Kan of the um

[21:28] American of the Business and Industrial

[21:30] Council. Your organization, your trade

[21:32] organization has been opposed to this

[21:34] agreement as it was being negotiated.

[21:36] What do you think now that you've heard

[21:37] the broad outlines?

[21:39] >> Well, we support eventually a uh a US

[21:42] Mexico free trade agreement and and we

[21:44] agree that it's in our interest to have

[21:45] a uh economically liber liberalized and

[21:48] a politically reformed Mexico. What what

[21:51] we have a problem with is the speed with

[21:53] which this this was negotiated. I don't

[21:55] understand why we had to have the

[21:57] negotiators locked up in a hotel room

[21:58] for day after day after day when the

[22:01] only deadline that I can see is is

[22:03] really a self-imposed one. There is

[22:05] there is nothing that Congress can do

[22:06] this year under the uh law the fasttrack

[22:09] legislation. So the only deadline I

[22:11] guess is uh a sort of panicked rush to

[22:13] have this agreement before uh the uh

[22:16] convention next week.

[22:17] >> Let's just ask Miss Hills about that. Is

[22:18] that why you rushed to get it done this

[22:21] quickly?

[22:21] >> Not at all. And we gave notice that we

[22:23] would commence these negotiations in uh

[22:26] September of 1990. You know, trade

[22:29] negotiations cannot be speeded along. Uh

[22:31] this was a complex comprehensive

[22:33] agreement. Nor can they be slowed up or

[22:36] you lose momentum and they just don't

[22:38] come to fruition. We stayed at the

[22:39] bargaining table because we wanted to

[22:41] harvest the gains that could come from a

[22:44] successful outcome of the agreement. And

[22:46] this is a good agreement. This slashes

[22:49] uh the tariffs uh immediately on 50% of

[22:53] the goods that we sell to Mexico. In 5

[22:56] years, 65% of our goods will get into

[22:59] Mexico at zero tariff. This is very good

[23:03] in terms of our competitiveness.

[23:05] >> Mr. Kan, why do your the people you

[23:07] represent, some 1500 medium-sized uh

[23:11] businesses, mostly manufacturing, why

[23:13] don't you think it's why don't they

[23:15] think it's a good opportunity for them?

[23:16] >> Well, I'm sure we do, and I know we do

[23:18] have members that uh that support this

[23:20] agreement as it is, and we have many

[23:21] that support an eventual agreement. The

[23:24] problem we have is that we think that

[23:26] this agreement is tilted more toward the

[23:28] uh the Fortune 100 companies, the

[23:30] multinational, the transnational

[23:31] companies that have large economies of

[23:34] scale. uh international divisions of

[23:36] labor that can have assembly plants in

[23:38] Mexico uh enjoy workers for 80 cents an

[23:42] hour and our companies and and we are a

[23:44] conservative organization have to uh

[23:46] stay in um are primarily located in this

[23:49] country and they're facing these uh

[23:51] regulatory burdens some of the most

[23:53] burdensome that we've ever had very high

[23:55] tax rates and I think that it's a little

[23:58] u bit of a double standard for uh the

[24:00] government to impose these regulations

[24:02] and these high taxes and then with a

[24:03] little wink and a nod say, "Well, if you

[24:06] want to go to Mexico, you can hire

[24:07] workers for 80 cents or a dollar an

[24:09] hour. You don't have to have these

[24:11] regulations. You don't have to have

[24:12] these taxes, and you have an advantage

[24:14] over the medium and smallsiz

[24:16] manufacturing companies."

[24:16] >> Well, what about what about the

[24:18] contention that it's going to create

[24:20] jobs? I mean, a lot of jobs are created

[24:21] by small and medium-sized businesses

[24:23] like the ones you represent. Won't your

[24:27] companies be creating jobs?

[24:28] >> Well, that's exactly the point. it was

[24:30] uh our kinds of companies that created

[24:32] the overwhelming majority of the jobs in

[24:35] the 1980s. And I do think that in the

[24:37] near term, you're going to see a

[24:39] ballooning of our trade surplus with

[24:40] Mexico. I agree that in the first couple

[24:42] of years, you're going to see a an

[24:44] increase in our trade surplus as we are

[24:46] transporting capital uh factories, if

[24:49] you will, down to Mexico. But then I

[24:51] think you're going to see a dramatic

[24:52] turnabout. I think that you're going to

[24:53] see bigger and bigger trade deficits.

[24:56] And as uh as Ambassador Hills correctly

[24:58] points out, we do gain 20,000 jobs for

[25:01] every billion dollars of exports. But

[25:02] it's also true that we lose 20,000 jobs

[25:05] for every billion dollars of imports.

[25:07] And there is no real Mexican middle

[25:08] class that we're going to sell goods to.

[25:11] That the Mexicans are not basing their

[25:13] economic reforms on imitating the United

[25:15] States, free enterprise American style

[25:17] capitalism. They're basing their

[25:18] economic reforms on on looking east,

[25:21] looking at the East Asian economies,

[25:23] basing uh their rapid economic growth on

[25:25] exports. And I fear that the majority of

[25:27] those exports are going to be headed to

[25:29] the American market.

[25:30] >> I'm going to ask Kay Whitmore of Kodak

[25:32] to respond to you, Mr. Kan, because he

[25:35] is a a member of a very the head of a

[25:37] very big American company and he's fully

[25:39] behind this trade agreement as I

[25:40] understand. Mr. Whitmore, is that

[25:42] correct?

[25:43] >> Uh Robin, that's correct. uh I represent

[25:45] a large company and I'm part of the

[25:47] business roundt and that organization

[25:49] along with a coalition of other

[25:51] organizations have enthusiastically

[25:53] endorsed this negotiation.

[25:55] >> So how are you going to help sell it to

[25:57] comp to organizations like Mr. Kans who

[26:00] for example say that it's it's tilted in

[26:03] favor of companies like yours uh

[26:05] multinationals which can move a lot of

[26:08] their manufacturing operation into

[26:10] Mexico for example to take advantage of

[26:12] the low wages which is not possible for

[26:14] the smaller companies he represents.

[26:17] >> Well I would of course disagree with his

[26:19] point. Uh part of the phenomena of the

[26:22] business support for the NAFTA agreement

[26:25] working with Ambassador Hills and others

[26:27] has been that the business community has

[26:29] represented a broad coalition of

[26:30] organizations. The Chamber of Commerce

[26:33] which represents companies of all sizes.

[26:35] The American Business Council which

[26:36] represents small and midsize companies

[26:39] have also been enthusiastic supporters

[26:41] of this negotiation and and feel I

[26:44] believe generally that this has been an

[26:46] excellent negotiation that the US trade

[26:49] representative have given us an

[26:50] excellent agreement that it is in fact

[26:52] going to create jobs in this country and

[26:54] that companies of all sizes are going to

[26:56] benefit from this opportunity now to

[26:59] export to Mexico. Well, are you for

[27:01] instance in Kodak going to create jobs

[27:04] because of this agreement? And if so,

[27:06] how and where?

[27:07] >> The Mexican market for Eastman Kodak and

[27:10] for many other companies is an excellent

[27:11] market. It is a growing market. It has a

[27:14] very robust economy right now and and

[27:18] the government of Mexico has given the

[27:20] most positive relationship to the United

[27:22] States and has given a very positive

[27:24] economic plan that we're enthusiastic

[27:26] about and we would support the idea of

[27:29] building that into our basic agreements

[27:31] so that we can rely on those into the

[27:33] future and that we can produce products

[27:35] in this country and supply them to

[27:36] Mexico.

[27:37] >> Well, Miss Hills says that uh that it's

[27:40] going to create jobs here. Will Kodak be

[27:42] hiring more people in order to exploit

[27:45] this new market?

[27:47] >> Kodak has a very full participation in

[27:49] Mexico now. We have a manufacturing

[27:50] facility in Mexico, marketing facilities

[27:53] of various types, and we have the

[27:55] facilities there we need to serve the

[27:57] Latin American market that are unique to

[27:59] that market. We supply those markets

[28:02] from bases of technology, raw materials,

[28:05] equipment, sophisticated components into

[28:08] that into those manufacturing

[28:09] facilities. And I've said that this

[28:11] agreement, the growing Mexican market

[28:14] and our ability to service with new

[28:16] products and services will in fact

[28:18] increase our ability to to protect the

[28:20] jobs we have and to increase those jobs.

[28:22] Yes,

[28:23] >> Miss Hills, how do you reply to Mr.

[28:25] Kan's point that what the government is

[28:27] doing with this agreement is giving a as

[28:29] he put it a wink and a nod to big

[28:33] businesses that if they can move down to

[28:35] Mexico or roof some of their operations

[28:37] there they can avoid what he regards as

[28:39] ownorous regulations and taxes here but

[28:42] that smaller companies can't have that

[28:44] advantage. Now, interestingly enough, we

[28:46] did an environmental review to study how

[28:49] the North American Free Trade Agreement

[28:50] would affect the NAFTA, the North the

[28:53] the environment, and one of the things

[28:55] we found we we studied was whether the

[28:58] uh costs of of enforcement of

[29:00] environment in Mexico would attract a

[29:03] relocation, and we found it would not.

[29:05] The cost of relocating are much greater

[29:09] than the costs of maintaining uh the

[29:12] environmental protections. And so I

[29:14] there's no wink, no nudge here. I was

[29:17] surprised to hear Mr. Kan say that he

[29:19] thought that this was only good for

[29:21] small for larger businesses because

[29:23] actually we've had so much applause and

[29:25] interest from smaller businesses who

[29:27] feel that their scale is uh more readily

[29:31] adaptable to the Mexican market. And so

[29:34] they're very enthusiastic about the

[29:36] niches that they see and the

[29:38] opportunities they see to sell their

[29:40] their products into Mexico with this

[29:42] dramatic slashing of restrictions.

[29:44] >> Mr. Kan, come back to you for a moment.

[29:47] Do you think what is your view? You

[29:49] heard what Mr. Donahghue said earlier.

[29:51] What organized labor says, is this going

[29:53] to create jobs in this country or in net

[29:57] terms lose jobs? What do you think?

[29:59] Well, I think in the short term that it

[30:01] may create some net new jobs. It's

[30:03] interesting that uh the most ardent

[30:06] proponents of this treaty uh tout the

[30:09] fact that it's going to create 400,000

[30:11] jobs, but only about 130,000 net jobs.

[30:14] Well, now we lose or gain that many jobs

[30:16] in a month. That's not uh those aren't

[30:19] the major kind of jobs. And I think it's

[30:22] uh that we've created a uh two classes

[30:24] of jobs in this country. And for the

[30:25] kinds of companies uh that that I uh

[30:28] represent that primarily serve the

[30:30] American market, the the two jobs are

[30:32] are a good job and a bad job. A good job

[30:34] is that that is created when we export

[30:36] and a bad job is that that we've lost

[30:38] through to through imports. Now, as

[30:41] President Bush has said, we've created 7

[30:43] million jobs through exports uh during

[30:46] his administration, but we've only

[30:48] created 1 million net new jobs. That

[30:50] means we've lost a number of jobs. And

[30:52] what about the 90 million other

[30:53] Americans that that are employed uh

[30:56] through uh other than exports?

[30:58] >> Yeah. Well, Miss Hills, you want to

[31:01] reply to that?

[31:02] >> Well, the um

[31:06] the jobs are created through exports

[31:09] because trade is contributing

[31:12] 70% to the growth of our economy and

[31:15] that is really the job machine. If we

[31:18] just turned inward and looked to our

[31:20] domestic market, we would not have

[31:22] nearly the job creation. And so we must

[31:25] look for opportunities to export if

[31:29] we're going to create jobs in this

[31:31] global marketplace.

[31:32] >> Let's let's move on uh finally to an

[31:35] area that the president and you, Miss

[31:37] Hills have put great stress on, saying

[31:39] that the agreement is environmentally

[31:41] sensitive. Let's bring in Carl Pope of

[31:44] the Sierra Club. Um, how do you see it

[31:46] now that you've had a chance to look at

[31:48] the uh broad outlines?

[31:50] >> Well, this agreement, unfortunately,

[31:52] could have been good for the

[31:54] environment. It should have been good

[31:56] for the environment, but the

[31:58] administration never really took

[32:00] seriously the things that would have

[32:02] made it good for the environment. It's

[32:04] got three major loopholes and we think

[32:06] each of these needs to be repaired by

[32:08] renegotiating the agreement.

[32:10] >> Why don't you tell them one at a time

[32:11] quickly so then then we can get Miss

[32:13] Hill's reaction. Well, the first is that

[32:15] in fact the agreement does expose a wide

[32:17] variety of US environmental standards

[32:19] and programs to challenges. There is an

[32:22] elaborate procedure in fact for such

[32:24] challenges and the people who will make

[32:26] these decisions are unelected

[32:28] bureaucrats who will principally based

[32:30] on our experience with previous trade

[32:31] agreements be looking at trade not the

[32:34] environment. For example, we suspect

[32:36] that under this agreement, allowable

[32:38] levels of pesticide residues coming into

[32:40] this country on Mexican produce may very

[32:42] well be increased. That's our first

[32:44] major concern. The administration

[32:46] promised they wouldn't allow that, but

[32:48] they quite specifically have allowed for

[32:51] it.

[32:51] >> Miss Hills, how do you respond to that?

[32:53] >> Well, the the gentleman is an error. Uh

[32:56] the agreement specifically in both the

[32:58] standards and the sanitary and

[33:00] phytoanitary text maintains the

[33:04] stringent US standards and uh in fact it

[33:07] goes so far as to permit a state that

[33:09] wants to have higher standards to stand

[33:13] upon those standards. All we ask is that

[33:15] they not apply them in a discriminatory

[33:17] fashion. California wants to have more

[33:20] stringent standards than Mexico or the

[33:22] United States as a whole. It simply must

[33:25] be willing to live with those standards

[33:26] itself.

[33:27] >> So in other words, are you saying to Mr.

[33:29] Pope that the uh trade agreement cannot

[33:32] be used as a way of claiming that US or

[33:36] state environmental standards are a

[33:38] barrier to trade and therefore may be

[33:40] illegal and overruled.

[33:42] >> I'm saying something even more than

[33:44] that. uh this is the greenest trade

[33:46] agreement that has been negotiated in

[33:49] the history of the world that in point

[33:51] of fact the environmental provisions are

[33:54] are protective of our environment and

[33:58] that uh the standards that we have in

[34:00] this country will not be bent and cannot

[34:03] be challenged by any provision that

[34:04] we've negotiated in the agreement.

[34:06] >> Mr. Pope, what is your second objection?

[34:08] Well, my second concern is that while

[34:10] there is an agreement which promises

[34:12] that the border will be cleaned up, that

[34:14] agreement in fact has no teeth. Uh we've

[34:17] had a lot of experience unfortunately

[34:19] with what I think were well-intentioned

[34:21] agreements to clean up the border. But

[34:23] they have lacked enforcability. And this

[34:26] agreement or the side agreement which

[34:28] deals with border cleanup is similarly

[34:30] lacking in the tough mechanisms that we

[34:33] know from experience here in the United

[34:35] States are essential if we're actually

[34:37] going to clean up a tough pollution

[34:39] control program.

[34:40] >> Let me get Miss Hill's reaction to that.

[34:42] I think that uh the border plan, the

[34:45] master plan that we have for the border

[34:47] that we've developed collaboratively

[34:48] with Mexicans is one of the grand

[34:50] stories that we have to tell about this

[34:52] negotiation. What we have is a 10-year

[34:55] plan. President Selenus has allocated

[34:58] substantial resources, $460 million over

[35:01] the next three years to clean up the

[35:03] environment. and that uh uh our

[35:06] administration has put forward $240

[35:09] million over this year. It was somewhat

[35:12] trimmed back. A hundred million was

[35:14] trimmed back by Congress in this past

[35:16] session, but uh I I think we can

[35:19] persuade Congress to uh meet the

[35:22] obligations of dealing with

[35:24] environmental problems at the border.

[35:26] >> Finally, uh Mr. Pope, your third point.

[35:29] Well, I think we need to understand the

[35:30] problem here is not whether the Mexican

[35:32] government is willing to make some

[35:33] investment. The question is whether

[35:35] factories in Mexico have to meet

[35:37] environmental standards. We also

[35:39] believed that this agreement should

[35:41] provide that American companies, which

[35:42] after all are American citizens, when

[35:45] they locate in Mexico, should have to

[35:47] meet US environmental standards and

[35:49] should be subject to enforcement in US

[35:52] courts. Because we've had a long history

[35:54] in Mexico of environmental standards

[35:57] which the government doesn't enforce and

[35:59] which the Mexican courts won't take

[36:01] action on, and Mexican citizens don't

[36:03] have the rights that we have here in

[36:05] this country to go into court to protect

[36:07] themselves. Miss Hills,

[36:09] >> the Selenus administration has passed a

[36:11] regulation that is more stringent than

[36:12] our own. It requires new investors when

[36:15] they invest in Mexico to show how

[36:17] they're going to meet their

[36:19] environmental obligations. And unless

[36:21] they show how they're going to deal with

[36:23] sewage, air, and water, they're not

[36:26] permitted to invest. So, they have an

[36:28] upfront uh uh uh in environmental

[36:31] enforcement mechanism that is really

[36:34] rather unique and very positive. But

[36:36] this mechanism requires the willpower of

[36:38] the Mexican government to enforce it.

[36:40] And there is a long series of

[36:42] regulations put in place by the Selenus

[36:45] administration which have been

[36:46] consistently and regularly ignored by

[36:49] the regulatory officials in Mexico. The

[36:51] only way that in a context like Mexican

[36:54] you can really be sure you're getting an

[36:56] enforcement of environmental laws is to

[36:58] give the citizens of Mexico the right to

[37:00] insist on that enforcement. Something

[37:02] this agreement does not provide. Our

[37:04] brief reply, Miss Hills, then we need to

[37:06] move on.

[37:06] >> The Selius administration has closed

[37:08] more than a thousand industrial

[37:10] facilities that have failed to meet

[37:12] their environmental standards this year.

[37:14] I think their environmental record

[37:15] speaks for itself.

[37:16] >> Okay, we're going to move on. Judy,

[37:19] >> the next stop for the trade agreement is

[37:21] Congress. And to gauge the reception,

[37:22] it's likely to get there, we are now

[37:24] joined by two members of Congress. Jim

[37:26] Colby is a Republican from Arizona. His

[37:29] district is located along the US Mexican

[37:32] border. Richard Gart is the House

[37:34] Majority Leader and a Democrat from

[37:36] Missouri. Congressman Gart, you have

[37:38] raised concerns uh over a period of time

[37:41] about this agreement. Now that it's out

[37:44] and you've heard the objections that

[37:45] have been raised here tonight, uh what

[37:48] what are what are your objections? Are

[37:50] they do they go across the board? Are

[37:52] they at the heart the concept of what

[37:54] this agreement is or what?

[37:55] >> Well, first we have to put aside the

[37:58] provisions of the agreement. It is still

[38:01] classified. We won't see that for a

[38:03] number of weeks. So, it's hard tonight

[38:06] to make a lot of conclusive comments

[38:08] about this tariff or that industry and

[38:10] how everything was exactly treated.

[38:12] >> So, you don't you don't have access to

[38:14] the to the language yet.

[38:16] >> We have an outline. We have a a general

[38:19] uh expression of what is in the treaty.

[38:22] We haven't seen the language and won't

[38:24] see that. It's it's not available until

[38:27] all the interpretation is done. And

[38:28] that's a normal situation at the end of

[38:30] a negotiation. But beyond that, let me

[38:33] say that my view in general is that we

[38:36] can do a good agreement with Mexico that

[38:39] can be in the interest of both countries

[38:41] and the people of both countries, but it

[38:44] has to be done the right way. And the

[38:47] major deficiency that I see so far is

[38:50] that there is not credibly in place

[38:54] funded programs and ways to deal with

[38:58] both the environmental, the

[39:00] infrastructure and the employment

[39:02] challenges, the human challenges that I

[39:05] think are presented by this kind of a

[39:06] treaty. Clearly, as Carla Hills has

[39:09] said, there will be jobs created, there

[39:11] will be jobs lost. uh if the people who

[39:14] lose their jobs are to find new jobs,

[39:18] it's going to take a concerted effort

[39:21] here in the United States on the part of

[39:23] the private sector and our government to

[39:26] see that people are put into a position

[39:29] where they can gain new employment.

[39:32] That's not been dealt with. And and I

[39:34] think what's primarily missing are the

[39:37] resources that are going to be needed on

[39:40] our part and Mexico's part in order to

[39:42] deal with the environment, deal with the

[39:44] infrastructure, and deal with the human.

[39:46] >> You mean the money appropriated in the

[39:47] US budget? Is that is that what you're

[39:50] talking about?

[39:50] >> Correct. If we're going to have, for

[39:52] instance, a meaningful long-term

[39:54] training and job placement program,

[39:58] uh we know that it's going to cost a

[40:00] good deal of money. Uh in the past uh we

[40:03] have had programs to take care of

[40:06] transition in trade agreements. We have

[40:08] a program called called trade adjustment

[40:11] assistance. Uh it has been gutted by

[40:13] both the Reagan and the Bush

[40:15] administrations. It has never been

[40:16] funded the way it should be. And in my

[40:19] view, the funds will not be there with a

[40:22] budget that has a $400 billion deficit

[40:25] unless we can identify a revenue source

[40:28] that I think should ideally come from

[40:31] the activity of trade between the two

[40:34] countries. And that's why I've suggested

[40:36] some kind of crossborder transaction fee

[40:40] that could be used to fund all of these

[40:42] activities that are needed to meet these

[40:44] very important challenges.

[40:46] >> A kind of a tax, in other words, and I

[40:48] want to ask you about that in a moment.

[40:49] Congressman Colby, you've heard what

[40:50] what Congressman Gart is saying that the

[40:52] fun he doesn't see that the funds have

[40:54] been provided for to take care of some

[40:56] of these very real concerns.

[40:57] >> Well, I' I'd make two points on that.

[40:59] The administration did put $241 million

[41:02] in its budget uh for EPA and for other

[41:05] agencies to deal with some of the

[41:07] immediate problems along the border.

[41:09] Half of that was gutted by the

[41:10] Democratic uh appropriations committee

[41:12] in the House. They took every dime out

[41:14] that was provided for the EPA for the

[41:17] projects along the border. I think it's

[41:18] simply outrageous. You can't have it

[41:20] both ways. You can't say the

[41:20] administration is not doing enough and

[41:22] then take out the money that is in there

[41:24] for that.

[41:24] >> And what about that, Congressman Deon?

[41:26] Well, it was taken out because there are

[41:28] so many other competing considerations

[41:30] in a very tight budget that has a $400

[41:33] billion deficit. And I think it's pretty

[41:36] hard to ask people in Missouri or

[41:37] Michigan or New York who are paying

[41:39] their taxes into the federal budget to

[41:42] say that their money should be taken to

[41:44] solve problems that are coming out of

[41:46] increased trade between two countries

[41:48] that hopefully will be increased because

[41:50] of this treaty.

[41:51] >> You mean because they would lose

[41:52] benefits for other federal projects that

[41:55] were cut back. If the environment is a

[41:57] problem, and it is on the border, and if

[42:00] we're to deal with those environmental

[42:02] problems and to help Mexico have the

[42:04] resources to enforce their very good

[42:07] law, it seems to me the monies to do

[42:10] that, and they're going to be

[42:11] considerable, in my view, should come

[42:13] out of the transaction of trade that is

[42:16] going on between the two countries. It

[42:18] shouldn't come from general taxpayers in

[42:20] other parts of the country.

[42:22] >> Is that a viable idea? Well, this

[42:24] suggestion reminds me of uh Abraham

[42:27] Lincoln's comment about the guy who's

[42:28] being led to the gallows. He said,

[42:29] "Except for the honor, I think I'd

[42:31] decline." Uh if I were in the business

[42:33] of negotiating a trade agreement here, I

[42:35] think I'd decline if this was the option

[42:36] here. What he because what he's

[42:38] suggesting is we're going to have a free

[42:39] trade agreement. We're going to have a

[42:41] tax as a part of that, a new tax as a

[42:43] part of that free trade agreement.

[42:44] That's exactly what free trade

[42:46] agreements are supposed to get us away

[42:47] from. Environmental problems are

[42:49] national problems. We have super fund

[42:51] that is paid for nationally. All of our

[42:52] environmental problems we understand are

[42:54] national ones. These problems along the

[42:56] border are international.

[42:57] >> So when he says that Missouri and other

[42:59] states shouldn't be asked to pay for the

[43:01] cleanup of among other things of what

[43:03] has to happen along our border with

[43:04] Mexico, that's not a you you don't buy

[43:08] that argument.

[43:08] >> I don't buy that argument. I think the

[43:10] problems that exist along the border

[43:11] come from the pressures that exist uh uh

[43:14] from on both sides of the border. We pay

[43:16] a lot in along the border for clean, not

[43:18] only cleaning up the environment, but

[43:20] for the problems that exist, the health

[43:21] problems, the law enforcement problems.

[43:24] They pose a real problem for those of us

[43:25] that live along the border.

[43:27] >> Well, those problems are not being

[43:28] solved. If you go down on the border on

[43:30] either side, in most places, you'll see

[43:33] tremendous environmental problems. Uh

[43:35] creeks with uh all kinds of pollution in

[43:38] them. Air is polluted. You'll see

[43:40] children and people on both sides of the

[43:43] border living without sewage, living

[43:45] without roads, living without water.

[43:48] These are problems that government and

[43:50] the private sector together have to

[43:52] solve. Whether or not you have a Mexican

[43:54] free trade treaty, we've got to find a

[43:56] way to solve these problem. Let me let

[43:58] me just give you Europe as a model. They

[44:00] the European community has brought in

[44:02] Greece, Spain, and Portugal, countries

[44:04] less developed than the rest of the

[44:06] community. Since 1986, they've spent a

[44:09] hundred billion dollars on structural

[44:11] adjustment assistance that has come out

[44:13] of the budget.

[44:14] >> What does that mean?

[44:16] >> Well, they provide for training on in

[44:18] both the community and the

[44:20] >> workers lose their jobs.

[44:21] >> Exactly. They they also take care of of

[44:23] health problems. They take care of

[44:25] environmental cleanup and they have

[44:27] activities with regard to

[44:28] infrastructure. If that's what they're

[44:31] doing with a country that is say a 2:1

[44:33] wage disparity with them, we're talking

[44:35] about a country here that has a 10:1

[44:38] wage disparity with the United States.

[44:40] >> Congressman,

[44:41] >> well, we we certainly agree at least on

[44:42] that one thing that these problems have

[44:44] to be solved whether or not there is a

[44:45] trade agreement. Whether or not we have

[44:47] a free trade agreement, we have the

[44:48] problems. They exist there along the

[44:50] border. But I contend that poverty is no

[44:52] friend of the environment. that to the

[44:55] extent that we can increase the wealth

[44:56] in Mexico, increase their uh their

[44:59] resources, they will apply more to this.

[45:01] Ambassador Hills pointed out they're

[45:02] putting $460 million into it this year.

[45:05] It's more than we happen to be putting

[45:06] into the problems along the border. So,

[45:08] I think they are making a real effort

[45:10] here.

[45:10] >> Ambassador Hills is still sitting with

[45:12] us. And and what about Congressman

[45:13] Gart's point that that there is not

[45:15] enough provision in here to take care of

[45:17] retraining those people who are going to

[45:19] clearly going to lose their jobs when

[45:21] those jobs leave the United States? We

[45:23] have committed to have a worker

[45:24] adjustment program. The trade assistance

[45:26] program that he mentioned has not been

[45:28] well funded, but we've doubled the

[45:29] funding in the last four years of the

[45:31] economic dislocation worker adjustment

[45:34] program because it has a much better

[45:36] beneficiary ratio. But I do take issue

[45:39] with uh the majority leader on having a

[45:42] tax put on trade because that really is

[45:45] what we're trying to do away with. the

[45:47] the trade will create wealth and the

[45:51] beneficiaries of that trade are northern

[45:53] states. The top 10 states that will

[45:56] benefit from trade with Mexico among

[45:58] them number Michigan or uh Ohio,

[46:01] Pennsylvania, New York. And so it is

[46:04] incumbent upon them as a good and

[46:07] vibrant democracy that we are is to

[46:10] arrange the priorities and trade is a

[46:12] priority because it is so job creating.

[46:15] Do you accept that that the states that

[46:17] are going to most benefit from this are

[46:19] the states in the north middle upper

[46:21] central northnortheastern United States

[46:23] >> with a good treaty all of the states of

[46:26] the United States can benefit and all of

[46:28] Mexico can benefit. That's not the

[46:30] issue. The issue is, are we going to

[46:33] have a transition,

[46:35] a way of dealing with the ancillary

[46:38] problems that are created by even

[46:40] greater trade than we have today so that

[46:43] those problems can be dealt with

[46:44] correctly? I think we can, but to give

[46:47] it an elusory promise to say that we're

[46:50] going to jin up a program that we

[46:52] haven't been able to afford in the past,

[46:53] I don't think is a sufficient answer.

[46:55] This has all come up, of course, in a in

[46:57] a presidential election year, and much

[46:58] of what's going to the discussion that's

[47:00] going to take place in Congress is going

[47:01] to take place after the election. But

[47:03] right now, many Democrats are saying, in

[47:05] fact, Governor Clinton put out a

[47:07] statement today and said, "Yes, he's for

[47:09] a good uh sound trade agreement, but he

[47:11] wants to see the details and and but he

[47:14] wants to wait for these hearings."

[47:15] Aren't many Democrats going to be trying

[47:17] to have it both ways at one point?

[47:18] trying to say on the one on one hand

[47:20] they're for free trade but on the other

[47:22] hand they don't want to they don't want

[47:23] to give up some of these frankly

[47:26] protectionist positions that they've

[47:27] adopted over over time.

[47:29] >> No, I think he's been very clear and

[47:31] I've tried to be clear from the

[47:33] beginning that a good treaty done right

[47:35] is good for both countries and the

[47:38] people in both countries. But what we're

[47:40] going to be adamant about and careful

[47:42] about is how this is done and whether

[47:45] the programs that are put in place, both

[47:47] private and public, to deal with the

[47:50] problems we've been talking about are

[47:52] funded correctly,

[47:54] concrete programs that'll get real

[47:56] results and that they're effective

[47:58] programs that will be here not just next

[48:01] month or next year, but 5 years from

[48:03] now. Just quickly, Ambassador Hills or

[48:05] Congressman Colby, how much negotiating

[48:07] room is there on the part of of the

[48:09] administration in terms of what Congress

[48:11] can do with the language here when it

[48:13] goes to the Congress?

[48:14] >> Well, we'll work closely with Congress

[48:16] to develop a bipartisan approach to the

[48:18] implementing legislation of this

[48:20] agreement. The president has already

[48:22] committed before the negotiations

[48:23] commence to work in a bipartisan fashion

[48:26] to to develop the programs such as

[48:28] worker adjustment that he feels are

[48:30] necessary to help those workers in

[48:33] certain sectors that may be affected by

[48:35] the agreement.

[48:35] >> And Congressman Colby, what do you see

[48:37] the climate is on the hill?

[48:38] >> I think it's going to be a tough

[48:39] climate, but I think making a prediction

[48:41] right now would be rather foolhardy.

[48:42] We're looking at a huge turnover for the

[48:44] 103rd Congress. Uh, so I think we'll

[48:47] have to wait till next January and of

[48:49] course also the presidential election

[48:50] will play a big part in this. I hope

[48:52] Governor Clinton will renew his

[48:54] commitment that he made earlier to the

[48:55] free trade agreement and will support

[48:57] it.

[48:57] >> Just quickly, Congressman Gar, do you

[48:58] accept that that it's just too early at

[49:01] this point to say or what?

[49:02] >> We have a long way to go, but this

[49:03] should be an issue that's debated in the

[49:05] campaign for this reason. There's a very

[49:07] different approach here. The Democrats

[49:09] are saying there are things that have to

[49:11] be done and government has to take a

[49:13] role with the private sector.

[49:15] Republicans really believe the private

[49:17] sector will take care of all of this.

[49:18] You don't need to do much of it.

[49:20] >> All right. Well, gentlemen again and

[49:21] Ambassador Hills, we thank you all for

[49:23] being with us.

[49:34] >> We close tonight with an Anne Taylor

[49:36] Fleming essay about a young woman who

[49:38] has a way with words.

[49:51] We were listening to a song that was the

[49:53] hit of that summer. Tracy Chapman's Fast

[49:55] Car. All neatly packaged and sung with a

[49:58] man's voice and met a dramatic guitar

[49:59] strings.

[50:04] >> I want a ticket to anywhere. Maybe we

[50:07] make a deal. Maybe we can get somewhere.

[50:11] I cranked the volume another notch as he

[50:13] cranked the engine another 5 miles hour.

[50:15] I liked it that way. I liked it when the

[50:17] music was loud and blasting and we were

[50:19] going at 75 miles hour and with our

[50:21] windows down, the wind seemed to be

[50:23] serving as a background music. I like it

[50:25] when other nearby cars stare at us

[50:27] thinking somewhere in the back of their

[50:29] heads that we were some wild kids having

[50:31] the grandest time of our lives. But

[50:33] really, we weren't.

[50:36] The reader and writer of this story,

[50:38] Fast Car, is Kuan Jong, a 16-year-old

[50:41] 10th grader at Vanise High School. Her

[50:44] story was the first place fiction winner

[50:46] in a recent contest held by LA Youth, a

[50:48] newspaper put out by and for high school

[50:51] students from all over the city. I met

[50:53] her because I was one of the judges.

[50:55] Reading her story for the first time,

[50:57] typed out on rip and read computer paper

[51:00] stopped me cold with its restrained

[51:02] depth of feeling and tur elegance.

[51:09] I looked at my window and studied the

[51:10] sideway markings, dashed white lines and

[51:13] raised white round dots. I thought about

[51:15] a poet who compared a car to an animal

[51:18] that ate the mouse as it went along.

[51:21] Miles grabbed hold of me when my head

[51:23] went out too far. He took my left hand

[51:25] in his and started toying with my

[51:26] fingers to keep me still.

[51:30] here, my instinct said, was an authentic

[51:32] voice. One of my sprawling city's true

[51:35] young poets. Make that multicultural

[51:38] poets. 500 people come into Los Angeles

[51:41] every day looking for everything

[51:43] imaginable. Most of them from Latin

[51:45] America and Asia. Of the 600,000

[51:48] students enrolled in the LA Unified

[51:50] School District as of 1988, 500,000 were

[51:53] non-white, and among them, there were 96

[51:56] different languages spoken. I don't feel

[51:58] like the need to write much about my

[52:00] culture

[52:01] >> because truthfully I don't know a lot

[52:03] about it and I'm ashamed about it. I

[52:05] really am. I imagine myself having kids

[52:07] in later years and how am I supposed to

[52:10] teach them the language or like the

[52:11] cultures and traditions like certain

[52:13] Chinese holidays

[52:14] >> and certain months you have certain

[52:16] holidays in which you must buy like

[52:17] foods and like pray and offerings

[52:21] >> and I'm afraid and I and I want I want

[52:25] to keep the tradition but I don't really

[52:26] know how.

[52:29] >> Kuen herself is both Vietnamese and

[52:31] Chinese. Her parents were born in

[52:33] Vietnam but consider themselves Chinese

[52:35] and the small condominium in which they

[52:37] live here on the hill overlooking

[52:39] downtown LA. Cuyen, her mother and

[52:42] father, one of her two sisters and her

[52:44] brother, is full of three languages, a

[52:46] jumble of close quartered words and

[52:49] tensions and hopes and angers out of

[52:52] which clear as glass come these clean,

[52:54] strong English words of a writer in the

[52:57] making as they've come out of immigrant

[52:59] quarters and ethnic enclaves through the

[53:01] decades of our American history.

[53:08] She loves the freeways, the freedom, the

[53:11] fearful and exhilarating flying out of

[53:13] her culture into a new one. Her parents

[53:16] are ambivalent about her writing, want

[53:18] her to pursue math and science. As it

[53:20] turns out, neither of them can read

[53:22] English. They cannot read what their

[53:24] daughter writes. That too is a freedom.

[53:27] A friend of mine said it gives me more

[53:28] freedom to like to really like create

[53:32] something that I feel strongly about

[53:34] without them really knowing it.

[53:36] >> I think there's a lot of violence and

[53:38] pain in a family cuz that's where

[53:42] a writer writes from what you write from

[53:44] what you know and you write from what

[53:45] you feel deeply about and you write from

[53:47] what you see around you. And I tend to

[53:49] write subjects that kind of like

[53:52] about a person

[53:55] in a realistic world and just trying to

[53:59] grab and struggle to overcome or to deal

[54:02] with the problems they go through. Coen

[54:06] says her father has had a hard time here

[54:07] among so many strangers, a dentist in

[54:09] Saigon. Here he has worked mostly in a

[54:12] sewing factory. Her mother worked as a

[54:14] cosmetologist until the shop was burned

[54:16] down in the recent riots. Money is an

[54:18] issue. Ethnic identity is an issue.

[54:20] Violence is an issue. Fear is an issue.

[54:23] They want everything for their high

[54:24] achieving kids. And there are days, Coen

[54:26] says, when the pressure is heavy. When

[54:28] the writer in her is at war with the

[54:30] mathematician, just as the rebellious

[54:32] American teenager fights the beautiful

[54:34] immigrant daughter.

[54:36] >> Sometimes you don't know where you

[54:39] really belong. A part of you feel like,

[54:41] oh sure, you can go on Saturday night

[54:43] with your friends or you can go on

[54:44] Friday nights and you can just be so

[54:46] Americanized. When you go back to your

[54:48] family, here you are at a different

[54:51] place and you speak to your mom and your

[54:52] dad in different language and

[54:54] >> even them speaking.

[54:56] >> Yeah. And even to them, you speak maybe

[54:59] the same language, but still the

[55:01] meanings come up different cuz usually I

[55:02] end up saying the wrong thing than what

[55:04] I really want to say and makes things

[55:06] hard for them to understand. But

[55:08] underneath it all, all the pushes and

[55:10] pulls, a new American voice is forming.

[55:14] Up out of the angst of adolescence, out

[55:16] of the variegated spill of a vast city,

[55:19] out of the marriage of cultures, a

[55:21] girl's voice, strong and simple, telling

[55:24] a story, fearing, she says that she will

[55:27] explode if she doesn't.

[55:30] >> You got to pass

[55:33] enough so you can fly away. You got to

[55:35] make a decision. leave tonight to live

[55:38] and die this way.

[55:40] >> Under him, I would think about whether

[55:42] that parabola in the pre-calculus test

[55:44] was a function or not and try to

[55:46] remember what was the answer I had put

[55:48] for the domain and range.

[55:50] I wonder if he had noticed the one in

[55:52] scar that mom has lashed with a knife on

[55:54] my upper left thigh.

[55:57] I let my scarlet fingernails gently rake

[55:59] his back the way I wanted to scar dad's

[56:01] face when he raped mom.

[56:12] Later, when it was over, Miles would say

[56:14] he'll marry me in a year or two. I laugh

[56:16] out loud and continued thinking about

[56:17] that calculus test as we drove and

[56:19] listened to Tracy Chapman's fast car.

[56:24] >> So, I remember when we were driving

[56:27] driving in your car, speed so fast, it

[56:29] felt like I was drunk. See the lights

[56:31] stay out before your arm nice grab

[56:34] around my shoulder and I

[56:37] had a feeling that I belong. I

[56:41] had a feeling I could be someone.

[56:51] I'm an Taylor Fleming.

[56:59] Again, the major stories of this

[57:00] Wednesday. The US, Mexico, and Canada

[57:02] announced an agreement to create the

[57:04] world's largest trading block, and more

[57:06] than 300 women and children were

[57:08] evacuated from Bosnia. The action came

[57:10] as the UN Security Council moved toward

[57:13] passage of a resolution on the use of

[57:15] force to protect relief operations. Good

[57:17] night, Robin.

[57:18] >> Good night, Judy. That's the NewsHour

[57:20] tonight, and we'll be back tomorrow

[57:21] night. I'm Robert McNeel. Good night.

[57:25] Funding for the McNeel NewsHour has been

[57:27] provided by PepsiCo.

[57:42] Pexico.

[57:44] Part of helping the world live and

[57:45] communicate better is keeping it well

[57:47] informed. That's why funding for the

[57:49] NewsHour is also provided by AT&T

[57:53] and by the Corporation for Public

[57:54] Broadcasting and viewers like you.

[57:59] Funding for the McNeeler NewsHour has

[58:01] been provided by ODS Health Plan, the

[58:04] group medical plan that meet

[58:08] and drag tall sections of metal up into

[58:10] the woods above Interstate 5. This is

[58:13] why they were doing it. A month ago,

[58:16] people in the area began seeing two bull

[58:19] elk wandering through the park. It is

[58:22] good elk territory except the park is

[58:24] surrounded by city

[58:26] >> and they're almost developing a pattern

[58:28] starting out down there in the morning

[58:30] and coming up at night. They're

[58:31] consistently spending the day up in

[58:33] here.

[58:34] >> Gene Herb is worried someone may get

[58:36] hurt. They have been seen on the

[58:39] freeway. The plan is to trap the two elk

[58:41] in a metal cage, tranquilize them, and

[58:44] transport them to a remote area. And

[58:46] this is probably the levelst place in

[58:47] the whole park.

[58:50] >> Today, they erected the cage.

[58:54] >> There's their trail right there.

[58:56] >> Put it along the path the elk always

[58:58] seem to travel. How long before the elk

[59:00] enter the cage? No one knows.

[59:02] >> We've done it before. You know, we we

[59:04] put them up before and it worked the

[59:06] same night,

[59:07] >> but most likely they will bait it and

[59:08] let the elk get used to it, not be

[59:10] scared to

[59:11] >> it. They'd be real lary for a while.

[59:13] They may just send one in. The big one

[59:16] might tell the small one to go in and

[59:17] kind of check it out for them. But

[59:19] things go slick, I think. Then they'll

[59:20] become very accustomed to it.

[59:28] >> The cage is up. Now comes the waiting

[59:32] for them. And for them,

[59:36] Ray Summers at large.

[59:38] >> Fish and wildlife officers request

[59:40] people stay away from the traps so they

[59:43] avoid frightening the elk.

[59:44] >> Had to find some shade today. Looked

[59:46] like it might be a good place. It was 96

[59:48] in Portland, 101 fieldlike temperature.

[59:51] Randy, tomorrow is looking for Let's let

[59:53] him say. What's our high for tomorrow?

[59:54] >> Well, a little bit cooler. Some of that

[59:55] ocean air that's in Atoria right now is

[59:57] going to work its way in our direction.

[59:59] So, a little cooler, but still way too

[60:00] hot.

[60:01] >> Oh, that's good news, though. Thanks for

[60:03] joining us. We'll be back at 11 o'clock.

[60:05] >> Dan Two Shoes Rather is next.