On our workers' wages and on our negotiations, and finally and most importantly, the promise
of NAFTA, the potential of NAFTA, is that we will have a market in which to sell our
products.
Henry Ford had it right.
If you don't pay the workers a decent wage, they can't buy the cars that they're making.
We've got to get Mexican wages to go up.
This agreement tells Mexico that change is not necessary.
It ratifies a system that's in place.
But when we negotiated this agreement, our business people rightly went to our negotiators
and said, we must have protection of our investment.
We must have protection of our intellectual property.
And they were right to ask for that.
But when we went and said we must also have protection for the rights of their workers
and ours, there was not an answer of assent.
We must not approve a treaty that only protects the rights of business but does not protect
the rights of workers.
You're listening to live coverage of the NAFTA debate on WBAI New York.
We will resume our normal programming after the vote.
The defect is to do with money.
All of us know the problems that have been created at the border and many of them are
our fault.
We set up a McHelodora program 30 years ago and millions of workers were drawn to that
border to work.
And never was the right infrastructure put in place to support all of those people.
The sewer systems, the water systems, and the road systems that should have been there
have never been there.
And I submit to you tonight that this treaty is insufficient on providing the monies that
will be needed over 20 and 30 years to put those very needed things in place.
I don't want to go to that border five and ten years from now and find conditions are worse
and not better.
And when will we finally stop lying to ourselves and creating myths and illusions?
If you want to bill things, you have to pay for it.
This treaty doesn't pay for it.
It doesn't make it happen.
And one more moment.
I said two and a half years ago, let's have a cross-border transaction fee.
Why did I say that?
Not because it's popular, but because the money's got to come from somewhere.
And I believe it should come from the people who are most benefiting from the trade between
the countries.
Let's have a fee that pays for the things that we believe are important to do.
Now, let me say that many say that we are at a fork in the road.
The proponents say that we will go down the right road or the wrong road.
Well, I agree that we're at a fork in the road, but I think the right road is to follow the
kind of agreement that leads to the new world of commerce and trade that we're in.
The issue is no longer whether to trade, it's how to trade.
It's what are the rules of engagement.
The old issue between protectionism and free trade is over.
It's history.
The argument over the rules of fair trade and how to get our workers and businesses on a
level playing field is the debate of the present and the future.
Our goal must be over time to achieve compatibility, compatibility between all countries that are
trading, just as we have compatibility between all of the states of the United States.
This debate started before the Cold War ended and before the wall fell in Berlin.
And in most of the Cold War period, our standard of living was rising and we were locked in a battle
with communism.
We didn't care too much about trade treaties.
We've never had a debate on this floor that I can remember about a trade treaty like this
because we just assumed economic growth.
And we always put trade treaties to be subservient to defense our foreign policy.
It just wasn't that important.
Ladies and gentlemen, this NAFTA tonight is the last of the old world trade treaties.
Americans now realize that our standard of living has been declining for over 15 years.
They realize that our most important national goal must be a rising standard of living.
Proponents of this NAFTA represent the past, represent the status quo, and fear of real change.
And they must understand that this country's greatness was not built on cheap labor.
I ask you tonight to remember for whom you stand tonight.
On whose behalf do we ask for this fairness?
Over many days in the last three years, I've stood in villages in Mexico and I've had Mexican workers come up to me and say,
Will you, Mr. Congressman, insist on a NAFTA that fights for fair wages for our hard, productive work?
Mr. Congressman, will you insist on a NAFTA that really provides monies for sewer systems and water systems and roads so that we can raise our families in dignity and security and safety?
And I've met countless United States workers who have said, Mr. Congressman, will you insist on a NAFTA that gets me on a level playing field and that will have real funding for training programs if perchance I lose my job?
I have not met one person who shrinks from the competition of fair trade.
Our workers are not afraid.
Mexican workers are not afraid.
But I've met lots of people who have very high expectations of us.
They expect us to be a force for genuine progress.
They expect us to be a force for a NAFTA that will increase wages in all three countries.
This NAFTA doesn't meet those expectations.
We can and we must do better.
As you vote tonight, as you put your card into the machine, put yourselves in the shoes of the people you represent.
Think of them.
Think of their hopes.
Think of their dreams.
Think of their families.
Think of Anna Mingus, who worked for Zenith in Springfield, Missouri, who, along with her coworkers, froze their wages over eight years so they could keep their job.
They, in 1989, cut their wages by eight percent so that she was making $7 an hour to keep their jobs, who then saw their plant go from 4,000 jobs to 1,000 jobs to 100 jobs tonight as they do the work to finally close the plant that's gone to Mexico.
Think of Anita Mingus, who believes her co-worker husband died of a heart attack because of the stress of losing his job.
I talked to her on the phone this morning.
She said she's going to school to be a printer.
She's supporting herself and her 13-year-old son with a part-time minimum wage job.
She said she's not afraid, and she's not bitter.
She knows we've got to compete, and she's optimistic about her future.
But she said, I'm a survivor, Mr. Gephardt.
The Lord always takes care of me.
And then she said, but tonight, Mr. Gephardt, I'm counting on you.
When you vote tonight, think of Anita Mingus and the millions like her who count on us and only have us to count on.
She believes we can renegotiate this agreement, and she believes we can get a better agreement.
Say no to this, NAFTA.
Say yes to Anita Mingus and millions like her.
Let us live up to her expectations.
Say yes tonight to a better NAFTA.
House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, Democrat from Missouri,
urging his colleagues to say no to NAFTA.
Chairman from Illinois, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the Speaker of the House,
Representatives, Representative Fulton.
Jim.
And the discussion on NAFTA continues.
Gentleman from Washington, the distinguished Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a long debate.
Not only a long debate today, but a long debate over recent weeks and months.
And it has been a difficult debate.
Difficult in so many ways for so many of us.
We find our parties divided.
Not one against the other, but internally divided.
Our leadership's divided.
Our members divided.
And we find ourselves so many in a difficult disagreement.
Not only with our colleagues, but with so many associates and friends outside this chamber.
With whom we have had so many years of association and respectful cooperation.
And that has been difficult.
It has been an emotional debate to some degree.
Because it is a debate about consequence.
Consequence for our future.
Consequence for our constituents.
We are the House of Representatives.
We have that solemn duty.
That tremendous opportunity.
To represent 600,000 or so of our fellow citizens.
And I stand here tonight.
As all of us have stood here.
As a representative of my constituents.
And I have had to ask the question, as each one of you has had to ask himself or herself the question.
Is this a good agreement?
Not only for our country.
For our states and regions.
But it is a good agreement for our constituents.
Those we have that high responsibility and opportunity to represent.
For myself, I have given the answer, it is.
It is not a perfect agreement.
We don't pass perfect laws.
One can always ask for something better.
One can always find defects and deficiencies.
One can always hope for some more perfect instrument.
But this is, for this moment, an opportunity to expand our trade.
To reach out beyond our borders.
To continue our leadership.
To seize the future.
And to do so on behalf, first of all, of our constituents and our citizens.
But with the knowledge that it will be to the benefit of those neighbors north and south on both sides of the border.
Can anyone believe that the conditions on the border will be better if we reject NAFTA?
That opportunities in Mexico will be less if we reject NAFTA?
Our standard of living lower if we reject NAFTA?
I believe that the standard of living of our neighbors in Mexico will rise because of NAFTA.
And that will be good for the standard of living of Americans.
Of our opportunities to export.
Of our opportunities to protect our standard of living.
Of our opportunities for a brighter future for our citizens.
I think, despite our interest in our neighbors, we must probably decide this issue selfishly.
Is it good for America or not?
If it is not, we should reject it.
But I believe passionately it is good for our country and good for our future.
But I understand, I appreciate the attitudes of others.
And it has been especially difficult for me to have divisions of opinion with, among others, two of my fellow leaders for whom I have the greatest respect, Dick Gephardt and Dave Bunyan.
They represent, as you have heard tonight, an intense feeling opposite of mine.
Not in our goals, not in our hopes, not in our visions, but in our beliefs of what brings our country to those goals that we all see.
Each one of us now, in a few moments, will have to cast a vote.
This is the place where a decision must be made on this issue.
More than in the other body, this is the critical place for a decision tonight.
Almost 200 years ago, in I think this part of the gallery, a British visitor asked Alexander Hamilton, as he watched a particularly fractious and difficult debate,
what was going on on the floor?
And Alexander Hamilton answered, sir, there the people govern.
To govern is to choose.
And we must make our choice.
But whether we make it for approval of the NAFTA agreement, as I hope and believe we will and should,
or in opposition,
let us take from this chamber,
in addition to the decision
that we make for our fellow citizens and for the American people,
a respect for each other,
a dignity that each one of us should give to all, on all sides of this question,
that each has acted for what he or she believed to be the good,
if not the best of the good for our fellow citizens and for the future of our nation.
Let not this debate or our decision rend the fabric of our democracy.
Let it be something to strengthen us as we face the challenges of the future.
I go now to the chair to put this question to the House.
And I do so with the prayer that it will be the right decision for our people
and the right decision for this great institution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker of the House, Thomas Foley.
A final speaker in today's very long debate on the House floor
on the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The House will very shortly be going to a vote on NAFTA.
It's been a historic day of debate,
and we're headed towards that historic vote now.
The whole time has expired under the rule that committee rises.
You are listening to Pacifica's live coverage
of the House of Representatives' debate and vote on NAFTA.
The committee of the whole House on the State of the Union
has had under consideration the bill H.R. 3450.
In pursuant to House Resolution No. 311,
I report the bill back to the House.
The chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
reports that the committee has had under consideration
the bill H.R. 3450.
In pursuant to House Resolution No. 311,
reports the bill back to the House.
Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
So many of those in favor will say aye.
Aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
Third reading of the bill.
A bill to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Question is on the passage of the bill.
So many of those in favor will say aye.
Aye.
Opposed, no.
Aye.
The ayes have it.
Mr. Speaker.
For the purpose of the gentlemen from New York are on.
I was going to let it go through on a voice vote,
but may I respectfully ask for a recorded vote.
Gentleman from New York demands a recorded vote.
So many of those in favor of taking the vote by a recorded vote
will stand and remain standing.
Aye.
Evidently, a sufficient number having arisen,
the ayes and nays are ordered.
So many as are in favor of the passage of the bill will vote aye.
Those opposed, no.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
Aye.
And the House begins its vote on the North American Free Trade Agreement.
This is Julie Driessen with Charles Tate
and the studios of WPFW in Washington, D.C., Pacifica Station.
We've been with you since 8.30 this morning
at the beginning of our so-called pre-game show.
And the House of Representatives has been discussing
every possible aspect just about of the North American Free Trade Agreement
in about 12 hours of debate.
We've come to the final moment, the vote on NAFTA.
And in the final speakers, we did hear from the leadership
of the Democrats and Republicans, Bob Michael, Dick Gebhardt,
and Tom Foley, making a passionate plea for people to vote
the way that they want to vote.
But Tom Foley ultimately saying that he believes
that everybody would vote their conscience
and that members of the House would have to come together again
after being so divided within each party once this vote is over.
The issue has been an issue of surprises for the country.
I think for the people in the country
and certainly for the members of the House.
And while the Speaker made a gallant and eloquent plea for reconciliation,
the question is whether or not, in fact, something has been ruptured
and whether it can be put back together again.
Well, President Clinton, the first Democratic president that we've had in a long time,
has had to lean very heavily on Republican support in order to get NAFTA passed.
And the Associated Press surveys tell us that it is likely to pass 13 more minutes
until the final tally is ready.
In the meantime, Ken Longmire is with us.
He's the Director of International Affairs at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
here in Washington.
Ken?
Yes, I'm here.
Have you been following the debate today?
Yes, I have.
And my understanding is that you've been a supporter of NAFTA,
one of the underlying assumptions of the North American Free Trade Agreement,
which was an idea we heard today on the floor,
a vision of President Ronald Reagan,
and articulated and put onto paper by President George Bush,
finally supported here by President Clinton,
is trickle-down economics,
which I believe the jury has not been successful.
I'm wondering your thoughts on that.
Well, if you can have a couple of seconds to sort of lead into it,
I've been thinking about it,
and one of the things that saddened me during this whole debate,
it's revealed a certain alienation within our people,
that I talked to many people who, in the black community especially,
and in the labor community,
who did not challenge too much the assertion that NAFTA would enrich the United States as a whole,
but they felt that they or their people would be excluded from the benefits of NAFTA.
And I think that there's enough blame to go around on that sense of alienation.
And one of the things that I've heard, especially from labor,
is that when NAFTA was being drafted,
when the American positions were being drafted,
and when they were being negotiated,
that labor basically was excluded.
And I'm going to go back and check on that,
because if that is true,
then it is not at all surprising that labor and blacks tended to be very suspicious of it.
But that worries me a great deal.
I wonder if,
and maybe when you go back and take a look at it,
it seems to me that the deal that got made between Richard Gebhardt and George Bush
was that if Gebhardt would support Fast Track,
then Bush would, of course, be accommodating,
or at least forthcoming,
with regard to writing, having, supporting in the enabling legislation,
those elements that Gebhardt outlined tonight.
Is your recollection pretty much along those lines?
I'll have to pass on that.
I'm just terribly not sure, and I don't want to be wrong.
But one of the things we did at the Joint Center where I work,
the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies,
earlier in the spring,
is we held a meeting one day,
invited leaders of the black community,
a lot of the people from labor,
from the economic institutes,
from commerce,
from the State Department,
from the USTR,
and it revealed,
the conversation revealed that a lot of the technocrats in the government,
one of which I used to be myself,
really were not sensitive to labor and black concerns about NAFTA.
And I think that, again,
that just makes a point that people,
if they are not excluded,
if they're not at the table in shaping a policy,
when it comes times to ask for political support for that policy,
you don't get it,
or it becomes very, very hard to get,
and it's rather divisive exercises that we've seen tonight.
Given that kind of feeling,
why is it, do you think,
that Bill Clinton,
who came into office with those groups
who perhaps feel alienated as a core constituency,
and certainly the black community gave him 30, 40 percent
of the net vote he needed to win?
Right, and the black community gave,
I think it was 86 percent of the black vote went to Clinton.
That's the highest community vote in America.
Why, then, do you think that,
at the point that this became a Clinton initiative,
that those people were not invited in?
Well, again,
I was not really that close to it at that point,
but I think that by then,
most of it,
with the exception of the side agreements,
had been pretty much set in concrete.
Now, as I say,
I want to go back and check on this.
I've just been hearing it,
especially in the last couple of days,
and I haven't had a chance to really check it out.
And I'm saying,
if it is true,
then there's a terrible lesson to be learned there
for the future,
for all administrations.
And the word from the House floor
is that NAFTA has passed 222, 224,
and still counting votes in favor of NAFTA,
enough for it to pass 179 tallied so far against.
So the North American Free Trade Agreement
has passed the House of Representatives,
and will soon go to the Senate.
And I want to thank all of you for staying with us.
We're going to wrap up momentarily.
One final thing I wanted to ask you.
Can, Dick Gephardt,
in his final plea against NAFTA,
said this country was not built on cheap labor,
which seemed to be not the fact
that this country was built on slave labor,
immigrant labor,
indentured servitude,
and child labor.
And he was trying to tell people
that we would not go back to days
where we depended on cheap labor,
or we would not support cheap labor.
And in Mexico,
one of the arguments against NAFTA
has been that it will lower wages in this country.
Your thoughts on that?
Are you still with us?
Oh, I'm sorry.
Ken Longmire is no longer with us.
I want to thank you all for joining me.
I'm Julie Drizzen here in Washington
at the studios of WPFW.
With me for the last 14 hours
has been Charles Tate
of the Booker T. Washington Foundation.
It's been nice working with you, Charles.
Julie, it's been a pleasure.
It's really been a long,
but really a good and rewarding day.
And votes are still being tallied on NAFTA,
but as predicted,
President Clinton has gotten the 228 votes,
mostly Republicans,
in favor of NAFTA
to make the agreement into law.
You've been listening to
Pacifica Radio's live broadcast
from Washington, D.C.
on the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Thank you all who've called in
to support the program
with your pledges.
And this is Julie Drizzen
saying good night.
And this is WBAI New York.
After a short pause
while I find out exactly
what's on the newswire,
we will continue a little discussion
of what's happened
or what hasn't happened today.
But that will be following
a couple of messages.
Hi, Richard B. Isles here.
As executive producer
of Musical Expressions,
I'm pleased to announce
that after a five-month hiatus,
Musical Expressions
will be returning to the air
on Friday mornings
beginning December 3rd
in our old time slot
from 9.30 a.m. to 12 noon.
Musical Expressions
remains committed
to the perpetuation
of America's indigenous art form, jazz.
And to that end,
I hope to make the show
even better than it was before.
So mark December 3rd, 1993
on your calendar
as the date
that Musical Expressions
returns to WBAI New York.
99.5 in the center
of your FM dial
where there's always
something stimulating
going on.
It's great to be back.
We can get it
if we organize
We can get it
if we organize
We can get it
if we organize
We need to fight
Fight and fight
Building Bridges
Community Labor Report
Thursdays, 7.30 through 8.30 p.m.
People in Motion
where they live
where they work
how they organize
An exploration of people
and issues
that shape these important
movements for social change
Building Bridges
a Community Labor Report
Thursdays, 7.30 through 8.30 p.m.
over WBAI 99.5 FM
And it's just about 10.30 p.m.
And we have here
without a windscreen
but he'll get on mic anyway
Emmanuel Goldstein
The people at home
don't even know
what a windscreen is
They could learn a little
It's this device
that's on top of a microphone
that does something
I don't know why
Peacocks
Yeah
You could make them
like crazy
I won't say any words
of peas in them
but we're here tonight
to discuss NAFTA
and what it means
and where it's going
Off the Hook
will not be on tonight
We'll be back next week
at 10 o'clock
as will the Personal Computer Show
at 9 o'clock
and Explorations at 8
And you should feel free
to call in
I don't know
that we have a lot
to add to the discussion
there was plenty of it
I'd like to hear
what our listeners
have to say about it
what BII listeners think
if NAFTA is a good thing
or not
I don't think I've ever
seen an issue
that has torn
left and right
Democrat, Republican
and whatnot
so much as this
Well it does seem
in any event to me
it seems
that it makes clear
that there's one
political party
the Republicans
or Demublicans
whichever you prefer
Yeah
something very strange
Clinton followed through
on a treaty
negotiated by a predecessor
that he apparently
was somewhat dubious of
before he got into office
Caller, you're on the air
Hello
Yes, hello
I'd like to blame NAFTA
on the staff at WBAI
and may I tell you why
This ought to be good
This should be
Yes
Go, please
Because BAI was given
to the Pacifica Foundation
for the benefit
of the listeners
on the outside
for alternate radio
What has happened
is the staff
have been ripping BAI
off to put on
their own propaganda
with the result
that nobody listens
If BAI were to put on
what we on the outside
won
you get an audience
of maybe 4%
or maybe even 10%
instead of the 0.2%
and BAI
would make
$20 million
would be the most
powerful influence
there is
But no
we have to have
this propaganda
Sir, you're out there
on the outside
what do you want?
I'd like
well I'm just one person
out of a million
possible listeners
it's what the alternate
public wants
not what I want
not what you want either
So you don't know
what you want?
I do know what I want
but I'm not going to say
because it's irrelevant
What's relevant
is what a million people want
not what one person wants
Okay, so when the
million people call
we'll start asking them
And as a matter of fact
we have five people
on the line
and I'd like to hear
what this one has to say
Yes, NAFTA
is a scab
Watch what
organized labor
does to this scab
Just watch
What do you think
it'll do?
As a matter of fact
they've made serious
threats about congressmen
who vote for the thing
and it's questionable
whether they can make
good on those threats
or whether it's wanted
What do you think?
Well, I watched
what happened in Canada
and I think out of 144
only two retained their seats
I know in November
these $2 whores
will be turned out
into the streets
and I'm going to help
anything I can do
to defeat this NAFTA
When I say this NAFTA
we'll go for a treaty
we know we have to have one
Europe has organized
we know we have to have one
but not this one
and not led by this bum
Well, sir, can I ask you
what do you think
is wrong with NAFTA
specifically?
First of all
all incompetent statements
it's anti-labor
I'm labor all my life
it's anti-labor
even if I own a small company
when you've got to give me
55 cents an hour
and I'm paying $8 an hour here
and hospitalization
and everything else
I'm going south
it makes sense
Well, thank you, Colin
We have a few others
on the line
I do appreciate your call
Thank you
Sounds like two against
so far
I think you're going to find
that a lot of the listeners
here are going to be
very skeptical
Colin, what do you think?
I wanted to ask you
what do you think
about
SA-BG
Well, no
I know precisely
what he was getting at
That's going to be
a neutral vote
That was
the all-purpose racist vote
and Caller
you're on the air
Caller
Hello
Hi
Go ahead
Hello
Yes, you're there
You really are
Talk
Roll off the hook on
A vote for you
That is a vote
I'm not running
for this thing
Caller
What do you have to say
about NAFTA
I'm not quite sure
but it sounded like
NAFTA seems to be
having a bad effect
on people
in one way or another
Yes, let's see
what this caller
has to say
Yeah, I'm disgruntled
but I'm not
a prank caller
One thing I would
like for somebody
to propose
if this is only
a terrorist bill
and this has nothing
to do with getting
all that cheap
Mexican labor
then why don't
they write part
of the NAFTA bill
that says
any company
dealing with
Mexican employees
has to pay them
the exact same rates
that they pay
their American employees
and that no
American company
should be allowed
to deal
with foreign companies
and pay them less
and they pay
equivalent American workers
and let's see
how much overseas
running they do then
They clearly wouldn't
They don't have any
interest in paying
anything over
the market rate
whatever makes
that market
what it is
and by the way
actually what wasn't
discussed is
financial implications
that there was
an article in
Business Week
two months ago
saying in their
headline something
like gringo banks
drooling over Mexico
and the Mexican banks
have a much higher
rate of profit
than American banks
and the American banks
will they expect
blow the Mexicans
away
A lot has been said
about the political
situation in Mexico
the fact that they're
not a nice
democratic country
like us
and that might
be true and all
the question I have
is with this treaty
will we be more
in a position
to pressure them
to be more like us
perhaps
more enlightened
yes that sounds
like a constructive
engagement that
Bush used to have
in South Africa
we shall see
business is business
caller you're on
the air
caller
you were
you had your chance
and now this caller
is on the air
yes
turn your radio
down okay
yes I'm going to
do that right now
hold on
our number is
212-279-3400
and you can call
we have several
calls but we do
have an empty line
and okay hello
yeah
what
where I'm going to
come from is
a little different
and this NAFTA
thing seems like
they want to
legitimatize
where they
what they've been
doing all along
a lot of companies
have relocated
and I
I just think that
it's like
their conscience
is you know
bothering them
these companies
so they're
pressuring
for this
NAFTA to pass
so it legitimatizes
and eases
their conscience
for what they've
been doing
anyway
well it sounds
a little
you know
it's a little
left fieldish
you know
and I admit it
but
I
I just can't
help but think
that the way
they're struggling
to pass this
thing so fast
it
it sounds like
their conscience
this is bothering
them
and they want
to legitimatize
what they've
been doing
all along
that's
that's the way
you know
kind of
I
I kind of
feel that
sense that
slightly
you know
let's get it
let's get it
let's get it
do you think
NAFTA will result
in less jobs
more jobs
leaving this country
yeah it has
it has already
if
NAFTA
NAFTA doesn't
exist yet
excuse me
NAFTA doesn't
exist yet
do you think
it's going to
increase
it's going to
legitimatize
what they've
been doing
all along
that's
that
the space
of their
conscience
is bothering
them
that's what
I really
think
and
you know
it's like
you know
they got
their hands
stuck in
the cookie
jar
and now
they want
to legitimatize
what they've
been doing
because
a lot of
people
have lost
their jobs
I've
been in
the electronics
I was in
the electronics
industry
out in Long
Island
and I've
really seen
the effect
that it had
I mean
when I
started pulling
stuff off
the shelves
assembled
in Mexico
I mean
it really
started hitting
home that
there was
something
you know
with this
Mexican
I'm going
back to
85
you know
I'm pulling
parts like I
said
components off
the shelf
assembled in
Mexico
in 85
so and
I've seen
the electronics
industry out
in Long
Island
go down
on a 45
degree angle
since 85
that's better
than 90
if you go
out on Long
Island
and you
just
look at
the electronics
industry
and what's
happened to
it
it's been
on a steady
decline
since 1985
I just
like to ask
a question
when we go
to our
next call
for people
to look at
this in a
slightly different
way
how does this
affect Mexico
is this good
for Mexico
or is this bad
for Mexico
I know we're all
here in the United
States and we're
primarily concerned
with how it
affects us here
but the way I've
been looking at
this because it's
very confusing
it really is
how does it
affect this
for all intents
and purposes
third world
country that's
right next door
to us
that has a
lot of poverty
is this
something that's
going to be
good or
something that's
going to
wind up hurting
even more
that's something
I'd like to
address
and actually
I'd like to
respond to
something a
caller said
about congressman's
consciences
bothering them
I can't believe
that
they are
in effect
the agents
of very wealthy
men who care
about business
is it good
for business
and congress
does some
awful things
as anybody
who reads
the newspaper
critically knows
they preempted
off the hook
tonight
that's one
thing
hello
you're on
the air
yeah hello
I just heard
that speech
of Gephardt
representative
Gephardt
that you
broadcast
certainly he
was one of
the people
speaking
he was very
against NAFTA
but I didn't
hear it myself
oh well it
was really
amazing
I mean you
know you
just hear all
this like
blah blah blah
and suddenly
he said
that
he
disclosed
something that
happened during
the negotiations
he said
he thought
that Clinton
sort of inherited
this bad
bill from Bush
but he tried
to fix it
and he was on
the team
that was supposed
to try to fix it
and they said
that
they were willing
to pass it
like he was
willing to give
his support
if Mexico
would have allowed
labor to organize
like the right of
labor to organize
to allow
like its wages
to become
more like us
as opposed to
you know
building the whole
thing on the
backs of labor
and that
although the
Mexicans agreed
to certain
child labor laws
and other
sorts of things
they adamantly
refused that
provision
that actually
would sort of
allow free labor
unions
and it was
his position
that the
Mexican government
was sort of
in favor of
extremely low
labor wage
in Mexico
and that
that's what
the American
worker was
fighting against
that sort of
an organized
attempt
coordinated by
the whole
Mexican government
to keep the
Mexican labor
wages low
and I was
surprised that
this hadn't
been brought
out by anybody
before
it was sort
of amazing
that actually
in the middle
of a debate
somebody said
something that
was like
really super
intelligent
it made the
whole thing
much clearer
suddenly
thank you
caller
Emanuel
you're
something
a piece
of news
well
just the
official
report
from
Reuters
for those
just tuning
in
wondering
what's
going on
the
House of
Representatives
passed
the
North
American
free trade
agreement
by a
wider than
expected
margin
earlier
tonight
giving
President
Clinton
an
important
come from
behind
victory
he must
be
feeling
really good
about now
having a
beer or
something
the vote
in favor
of the
pact
was 234
to 200
the Democratic
White House
had needed
just 218
votes
to pass
the measure
which was
negotiated
under the
administration
of Republican
President
George Bush
132
Republicans
joined 102
Democrats
to pass
the measure
just last
week
it looked
likely
that Clinton
would suffer
a stinging
defeat on
NAFTA
but intense
deal making
turned the tide
in the final
days
the pact
to link
the United
States
Mexico
and Canada
in a free
trade bloc
now goes
to the Senate
approval there
in the next
few days
is considered
a safe bet
paving the
way for the
three nations
to join forces
next year
the highly
charged
debate
pitted
Clinton
against
many
in his
own
Democratic
Party
who fear
big job
losses
to Mexico
and it
had been
viewed
as a
crucial
test
of America's
direction
in the
post-Cold
War world
certainly
history is
being made
here tonight
well we
don't know
it does
seem
that in
all these
debates
and there
was plenty
of it
there was
never a
feeling
at least
I never
had a
feeling
that it
was being
argued
in good
faith
this is
a very
very big
economic
deal
and
these
people
like
Ross Perot
and Al Gore
when they
debated
both of them
know where
everybody is
buried
and Al Gore
buried a few
of them
personally
I'm sure
and they
never talked
about
why
certain
industrialists
the owners
of these
companies
would be
for it
and some
against
and it
would have
been refreshing
had we
heard real
debate
but
the
common
people
need not
take part
in such
a debate
or even
know about
it
BAI
you're on
the air
I
get
cutting in
and out
in good
faith
and we
respect
you
on the
other
side
of making
the right
decision
those people
are being
paid off
man
and it's
so evident
that they're
being paid
off
and then
he gets
this
come from
behind
victory
that's
such
bullshit
well if
you could
watch your
language a
little
we could
keep you
on a
little
longer
politics
makes
people
say
things
like
that
well
in the
smoke-filled
rooms
I'm sure
they speak
only like
that
but
what the
caller says
makes
quite a bit
of sense
I don't
know that
this was
preordained
it was
foreordained
but
Bill Clinton
worked very
hard
building bridges
all over the
country
and dams
or whatever
else
people wanted
or making
deals
I believe
you made
a deal
with the
Florida
citrus
growers
were very
afraid
of Mexican
citrus
coming in
you know
it's
interesting
because
there were
all these
deals
being made
and I
have to
wonder
what about
those poor
congressmen
that were
supporting NAFTA
from the start
and didn't get
anything special
for their
efforts
they must
feel kind
of foolish
right now
because
it also
sends some
kind of
a signal
saying that
if you
oppose the
president
on something
important
like this
it's actually
better for you
because when you
finally come
around to
his side
you'll have
all this
free constituents
I mean
you know
if our
elected officials
down here
had come out
in support
of NAFTA
we might have
gotten some
neat bridges
or something
who knows
something we
could have
used
listen
listener
you're on
the air
caller
yeah
good evening
good evening
I agree
with the
the previous
caller
you know
it was
disgusting
to see
how this
country
is put
together
you know
it's nothing
but big bucks
you know
I mean
the lack
of sensitivity
they have
towards us
you know
and how
they insult
everyone's
intelligence
and you know
it's just
it was
I don't know
what to call
it you know
but I've
completely lost
faith in
you know
in this whole
system you know
it's not going
to benefit us
you know
the working
people
I don't know
what to call it
what is it
a new brand
of capitalism
under another
I mean
down the line
what do we do
go into Mexico
and raid them
and kill them
because we have
interest there
you know
good night
this really
is getting
people upset
a lot
I mean
we've talked
about some
controversial issues
before
but that
really seems
to be
hitting
home
people are
very worried
very afraid
the economy
looks like
it's going
absolutely
nowhere
well now
the question
I have to
ask here
is how
much of an
effect can
Mexico
possibly have
in worst
case scenario
well the worst
case scenario
I think
is that
it will
have a
devastating
it will
hold down
wages
even if
tens of
millions of
jobs don't
go down
there
yeah but
we had
Reagan
great years
I mean
that held
down wages
pretty much
how much
can Mexico
do
I'm not
you know
I'm not
I'm not
saying this
is necessarily
a good
thing
but I'm
just wondering
if people
might be
worrying a little
bit too much
I see a lot
of Mexico
bashing going
on and that
makes me
kind of
kind of
queasy
here
I mean
the race
question
comes in
it always
seems to
in this
country
we have
the right
to back
out after
six months
though
that's how
I understand it
six months
after this
thing goes
into effect
if it's
not working
out
we have
the right
to back
out
well
we
you and I
have
a difference
in pronouns
yeah but
theoretically
well the
US government
has the right
to back
out
Clint would
make such
a decision
bloody
unlikely
he will
BAI
you're on
the air
hello
hello
hi
I read
something in
the Times
yesterday
that was
particularly
distressing
on the op-ed
page
I don't know
if you saw
the article
that
governmental
initiatives
could be
labeled
barriers
to trade
I didn't
see that
but that's
quite true
well that's
pretty scary
the conclusion
they mentioned
something that
happened in
Ontario
do you want
to hear it
in 1990
Ontario's
provincial government
proposed a
universal public
car insurance
oh right
yes I've
heard of that
yeah
and US
insurance
companies
invoked
the free
trade agreement
with Canada
and demanded
two billion
dollars
compensation
Ontario
backed down
and the
conclusion
they draw
is that
that could
happen to
us
if we
tried to
institute
a single
payer
health
insurance
program
or subsidize
solar energy
or recycling
that same
kind of thing
could happen
to us
which is
really
very scary
well something
similar has
happened in
Europe
a year or
two ago
maybe more
they had
laws
they were
passing
laws
against
hormone
enriched
beef
cows
that had
been grown
with growth
hormones
so they
could give
more milk
and grow
faster
and with
less fat
or more
fat
or whatever
they wanted
and the
US took
that up
at GATT
which is
the general
agreement
on carousel
trade
which is
a little
bit of
a wealthy
country's
club
economic
club
and beat
the US
down as I
recall it
because the
US was
using these
hormones
the Europeans
didn't want
it
the US
called it
a trade
issue
the Europeans
were saying
it was a
health issue
and it's a
very similar
situation
that these
kind of
agreements
tend to
bring down
levels
to the
lowest
there is
right
well
Kola
thank you
for talking
about that
in Congress
they have a lot
to talk about
for years
to come
it seems
I don't
think
that they're
going to
back out
of this
one
in any
six months
but Kola
thank you
for that
and
Emmanuel
yes
I just
thought you
might have
something
about that
nothing
at the
moment
Kola
you're
on the
air
yes
if you
think
Mexico
is the
last
of this
apparently
the
Caribbean
is
interested
in getting
a great
trade
agreement
like this
started
and you
can
probably
expect it
from other
low wage
countries
check out
this week's
voice
well
is that
necessarily
something
bad
well
yeah
because
apparently
what it
does
it
causes
American
workers
to have
to compete
with
countries
that are
paying
their
people
slave
wages
and it's
going to
depress
American
wages
why should
companies
want to
stay here
when they
can freely
travel
I mean
people say
that NAFTA
is
they make
these claims
about tariffs
and what
they're really
saying is
well
if you've
got a
one inch
hole
in the
bottom
of your
boat
then it's
better to
drill a
12 inch
hole
in the
bottom
of your
boat
and let
the
water
out
faster
you know
it's
just a
dumb
argument
what it's
really
going to
do
is
going to
make
it
easier
for
companies
to go
abroad
like people
say
it's
going to
apparently
if we
have
laws
constitutionally
based
laws
in this
country
that
are
in
opposition
to
agreements
they've
signed
in NAFTA
for Mexico
let's
say
then
apparently
NAFTA
takes
precedence
as far
as
environmental
regulation
or the
use of
pesticides
or you
know
people
can
name
you can
name
several
things
and
Mexico
is
maybe
just
a
test
case
for doing
this
more
and more
in other
countries
I mean
that's the
way it
appears
if I'm
reading this
article
in the
voice
it says
well people
are talking
about
doing
the
you know
there's
a lot
of interest
doing
the same
thing
in the
Caribbean
and other
places
where they
can get
workers
for dirt
cheap
I mean
we have
the same
problem
in this
country
with the
sugar
workers
here in
Florida
you know
they've
got
they're
paying
the
Jamaican
government
is
sort of
working
in collusion
with the
United
States
government
to have
these
people
come over
from Jamaica
to cut
sugar cane
and they
keep them
in horrible
conditions
pay them
just enough
money
so they
can survive
until the
next
cutting
season
and they
ship
them back
and forth
to Jamaica
and they
have
terrible
working
conditions
and no
rights
and they
work
in peonage
and Congress
knew this
for 40
years
so this
is not
like
NAFTA
is not
a new
thing
it's just
a continuation
of the
same old
okie-dope
that's been
going on
and that's
what's so
horrible
is that
they're
ratcheting
it up
just another
step
that's an
interesting way
of looking at it
it does seem
I think
in putting
a different
way
something I
said before
that just
as there's
what's called
a reserve
army of
unemployed
there can
also be
a reserve
army of
poorly
paid
that
tends to
have a
downward
effect
on wages
that are
paid
just as a
general
downward
it forces
down
wages
unfortunately
this
I wish I
knew more
about this
and
it hasn't
exactly been
explained very
clearly to
anybody
the media
I think is
just about as
confused as
anybody
you have
split
loyalties
you have
Republicans
following
Clinton
and Democrats
opposing him
it's kind
of weird
it's really
very strange
and in the
months ahead
we're going
to be
learning a lot
more about
this
believe me
because
it is going
to affect us
in some way
we don't know
exactly how
it's going to
affect us
we don't know
really what's
going to
happen
but
I'm trying
to keep
myself open
to all
possibilities
a lot of
people seem
to think
it's going
to be a
bad thing
maybe they're
right
maybe there
will be
some good
that comes
out of this
somehow
maybe
Mexico
and other
countries
will have
more livable
conditions
as a result
or maybe
that's just
a naive
way of
looking at
it
and one
thing that
impressed me
was that
the labor
union
seemed
fairly uniformly
against this
deal
and
what Clinton
and Gore
seemed to be
saying
was
don't worry
that essentially
they were
working against
their own
interests
that they were
being stupid
and I don't
believe such a
thing
yeah I mean
that's the
strangest part
if this had
been Reagan
Bush proposing
this I really
would have no
trouble seeing
what's wrong
with this
but I mean
did Clinton
and Gore get
injected with
some kind of
drug or something
this is too
strange to
just suddenly
say well
they just
turned into
you know
Reagan Bush
types
they must know
something
there's got to
be something
going on here
that we don't
really understand
right
I'd sure like
to know what
it is
I'd like to
hear some
more straight
talk on
this
well caller
do you have
some straight
talk
well I have
an opinion
I'm
very deeply
concerned with
this
because not
only do I
see that all
the various
people in the
three countries
will lose out
the Canadians
the Americans
and the Mexicans
that the general
public will lose
out in all
three countries
I see only
a few
multinational
corporations
really benefiting
the larger
corporations
who are
outside of
our control
by the Congress
anyway
I see that
happening
more than
it's happened
so far
which is
terrible
for the
economic
state
of all
of us
in North
America
I also
see this
as I
believe
the last
caller
said
as something
even more
serious
if that can
be
and that
is
that we
are going
to have
something
above our
own
constitution
and nothing
could be more
serious
because that's
all there
is
as I
see it
and it's
being eroded
with every
day
or every
week
some
horrendous
decision
on the part
of the
judiciary
the Congress
whatever
and this
is the
most serious
one as I
see it
and I
will personally
work
against the
re-election
of anyone
in my
area
that voted
for this
so that's
my statement
okay
thank you
and she
brings up
a very
good point
at least
to my
way of
seeing it
that there
will be
supranational
bodies
composed
and I
don't know
what
I don't know
what manner
but I do
know that
they are
they will
be secret
and absolutely
unaccountable
to the
people of
any of
the three
countries
involved
and that
is a
great
diminution
of what
are generally
considered
constitutionally
protected
rights
caller
you may
be the
very
last
hello
you're
on the
air
hey
hello
how you
doing
I got
two
questions
real quick
one
how do
you feel
Emmanuel
about
personally
how do
you feel
about it
and the
second
question
is
why all
of a
sudden
a big
push
for
control
on
armament
here in
the United
States
because
the
big
excuse
was
politicians
were
running
on
the
fact
that
there's
too
many
guns
on
the
street
too
many
killings
not
enough
jobs
nobody's
talking
about
drugs
drug
control
and
billions
of dollars
being spent
on it
now more
and more
jobs
are leaving
politicians
are pushing
more and
more for
more control
on arms
and the
country was
founded
on arms
so how do
we control
government
when it's
out of
control
well
government
has been
out of
control
for
quite
some
time
I don't
really
I don't
think we
have the
time to
address
the
arms
issue
as far
as
the
NAFTA
thing
my personal
opinion
is
I'm
really
not
sure
I'm
being
as honest
as I
possibly
can
I've
been
reading
the
papers
I've
been
watching
television
I've
seen
all
kinds
of
conflicting
things
and I
think
at this
stage
in the
game
since
the
thing
has
been
passed
it
it
might
not
seem
like
the
best
way
to
go
about
it
at
this
point
but
it's
really
our
only
choice
we have
to see
what
happens
we have
to see
where
this
thing
goes
and
if
it's
wrong
if
it's
bad
what
do
we
do
about
it
because
I
don't
believe
in
giving
up
I
don't
believe
in
saying
well
this
has
been
passed
and
that's
the
end
of it
because
it's
not
the
I
doubt
it
because
that
doesn't
usually
work
that
way
let's
get
real
this
isn't
the
20th
century
but
it
is
interesting
I'll
say
that
it's
interesting
to watch
this
thing
unfolding
and
to
realize
that
something's
going to
happen
somehow
and
let's
just
keep
an
eye
on
it
and
if
you
listen
to
WBAI
you'll
be
about
as
informed
as
anybody
considering
the
state
of
the
media
and
the
level
of
discussion
on
these
kind
of
issues
an
issue
that
was
a
1300
page
agreement
I
haven't
seen
even
two
of
them
and
Emmanuel
I'm
afraid
that's
all
we
have
time
for
it's
11
o'clock
this
is
WBAI
we
are
going
to
hear
a
message
I'll
tell
you
a
little
recap
of
what's
happened
tonight
and
then
go
to
a
rebroadcast
hey
can I
borrow
your
pen
sure
you
can
what
you
working
on
I'm
finishing
my
holiday
shopping
list
already
yeah
you know
the holidays
are just
around the
corner
you know
you got
a lot
of
stuff
down
there
what are
some
of
those
things
glass
perfume
bottles
pearl
drop
earrings
wool
scarves
wooden
toys
ceramic
vases
leather
wallets
you know
it would
be nice
if you
could get
all of
those
things
in
one
place
well
I
can
where's
that
at
the
WBAI
holiday
craft
fair
you mean
the one
that's held
the first
three weekends
in
December
at
Columbia
University's
Ferris
Buchal
115th
Street
and
Broadway
the first
And this
is WBAI
New York
and about
the only
update
that the
news needs
is the
final result
of the
House
Representatives
vote on
NAFTA
North American
Free Trade
Agreement
it was
234
to 200
that means
that that
was
234
voted
for
NAFTA
200
voted
against
that means
that was
16
votes
more
than
was
absolutely
necessary
to
pass
the
measure
that
aroused
such
controversy
and
such
befuddlement
the news
will
tell you
something
of what
else
happened
today
and
after
that
will
be
Robert
Knight
and
Earth
Watch
here
with
the
news
good
evening
in the
news
tonight
South
Africa
moves
a step
closer
to a
new
constitution
and
in
New York
a call
for the
rescue
of
Jews
stranded
in
war-torn
Bosnia
with
these
and
other
stories
I'm
Jose
Santiago
in
New
York
with
Gloria
Minot
in
Washington
and
this
is
the
news
for
Wednesday
November
17
1993
first
to
Washington
and
these
headlines
topping
the
news
the
Senate
today
voted
to ban
19
semi-automatic
assault
weapons
as
as
as
as