Gee, for those who won't vote for Hillary because of her "support" of NAFTA, I present John McCain's endorsement (he voted for it, too) of NAFTA right before the vote ... you never hear about him supporting it ...
Mr. President, in 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his fellow Virginian, James Monroe: `I would say to every nation on earth, by treaty, your people shall trade freely with us, and ours with you.'
The votes we cast today on the North American Free-Trade Agreement, like the votes cast in the other body Wednesday evening, will determine for many years to come whether Jefferson's aspiration remains the sincere pursuit of this great Nation.
I am confident that the Senate will approve NAFTA by an even larger margin than it won in the other body. I am very gratified that Congress resisted the often demagogic appeals of NAFTA opponents whose fears about the outside world overcame their confidence in America's strength, and our ability to protect our interests abroad.
America has little to fear from competition with a southern neighbor with an economy one-twentieth the size of ours, and a trade deficit with the United States that exists despite the fact that Mexico currently imposes higher tariffs on our goods than we impose on theirs.
I commend President Clinton for his energetic advocacy of NAFTA over the last 2 months. I would also like to salute the vision and industry of two previous Presidents, Ronald Reagan and George Bush, as well. Ronald Reagan was the first President to draw attention to the idea of a North American Free-Trade Agreement. And George Bush saw the idea through, negotiated the treaty with all the diplomatic skill for which he is rightfully respected by the world. For a President so often criticized for lacking vision, NAFTA could well serve as one of the most visionary endeavors any modern President has ever pursued.
Like President Clinton, I too hope that this success marks a new beginning for the administration. I am sure I need not remind the President of the nature of the coalition which ensured this important victory. Wednesday, over three-fourths of the Republican Members voted for NAFTA. Considerably fewer than half of the Democratic Members followed their example. By any fair reckoning, Newt Gingrich and his fellow Republicans deserve more than half the credit for NAFTA's approval in the other body. And, I am confident that well over half the support which NAFTA will receive in the Senate will come from Republican Members.
It is not clear to me today that Republicans are receiving the credit that they truly deserve. NAFTA was envisioned by a Republican, negotiated by a Republican, and passed by
Republicans. With all due credit to the President, and those Democrats who had the coverage to vote with him, I think it is important that this town not overlook that fact that the vision and courage of Republicans was the difference between success and failure of NAFTA.
Mr. President, while I join in celebrating President Clinton's successful advocacy of NAFTA, I do have some regrets about all the means employed to achieve that success.
Purchasing votes for NAFTA with promises of trade protection for certain industries undermined the very principle of free trade that NAFTA was negotiated to advance. Even more egregious were the bribes of wasteful Federal projects which exacerbate the public's cynicism about their Government.
Every Member of Congress should have had the courage and wisdom to vote for NAFTA for no other reason than it is so clearly in the interests of our Nation. The Clinton administration should have had the courage to base its appeals to Members of Congress in a review of the treaty's many advantages for U.S. economic and political interests--advantages that overwhelm the narrow-minded, fearful arguments of NAFTA opponents.
To be fair, the administration did make an effective case for the treaty by emphasizing the important economic benefits certain to accrue to the United States if NAFTA passed, as well as the visionary quality of the treaty as a potential cornerstone of a hemisphere wide free-trade regime.
Those arguments, however, were diminished in the closing days by the politics as usual vote buying and selling that had little to do with free trade or a vision of a mutually prosperous hemisphere, and a lot to do with pork barrel pursuits.
I also note the President's willingness to send a letter to Republican supporters of NAFTA discouraging Democrats from exploiting the pro-NAFTA votes of Republicans in the next election. That is very generous of the President.
However, as a Republican I am happy to proclaim my support for NAFTA. I am proud of my support for NAFTA. And I am perfectly content to let the people of Arizona judge my support on its merits without a doctor's excuse from the White House.
Let me summarize the argument which should have been sufficient to persuade most Republicans and Democrats alike to support NAFTA.
For Republicans, how our party's divisions over NAFTA are resolved will shape the very heart and soul of Republican philosophy for a long time. Will we remain a party dedicated to the proposition that the people, being infinitely wiser and more practical in pursuit of their own interests than Governments, be allowed to act in their own economic interests with the least interference from their Government?
As a practical economic proposition, NAFTA and free trade generally, rest on the bedrock of Republican economic philosophy--common sense. No less an authority that the founding father of free market economic principles, Adam Smith would agree. He illustrated the folly of Government protectionism this way:
By means of glasses, hot beds, and hot walls, very good grapes can be raised in Scotland, and very good wine can be made of them at about thirty times the expense for which equally good wine can be bought from foreign countries.
This commonsense perception of the negative consequences of high tariffs was well understood by Americans who engaged in the great tariff debates of the last century. It was understood by many of our Founding Fathers, by committed free traders in the 19th century, and by supporters of free trade today who argue persistently that tariffs are unfair taxes on an already overtaxed public and an impediment to prosperity.
Simply compare the Nation's prosperity in the period from 1860 to 1940 when tariff rates averaged 40 percent with the post World War II period when tariff rates averaged 6 percent. The first period was marked by three major depressions. The depression of 1873 was one of the longest in American history. The depressions of the 1890's and 1930's were at the time they struck the worst the Nation had ever experienced. By contrast, the period since World War II has been more prosperous than either the protectionists or free traders of the 19th century could have imagined.
It is with respect for these hard learn economic lessons of the past that the supporters of NAFTA have been so vigorous in their advocacy of the treaty.
Put plainly, Americans have prospered substantially from liberalized trade with Mexico, and they stand to prosper even more under NAFTA. There is no credible argument to disprove that simple fact. It should remain our party's firm resolve that it is the proper function of Government to remove whatever impediments remain to important markets for the goods and services of the American people.
There are, of course, other arguments at stake that transcend partisan economic values. Under President Salinas, Mexico--the only nation with which we share an unstable border--has moved dramatically away from statism, protectionism, and the reflexively anti-American, anticapitalism leftwing policies that have kept Mexico so firmly rooted in the Third World.
Rejecting NAFTA, denying Mexico the benefits of enlightened engagement with the world, might very well have provoked a return to these policies which are so inimical to our own interests.
Finally, there is the vision of our Nation which we have long sought to present to the rest of humanity. Involved in the NAFTA debate was the question of whether we are still a people imbued with the enlightened spirit of the New World or have we become more like the Europeans whose opposition to free minds and free markets our Founding Fathers struggled to overcome.
What NAFTA asks of us is to take counsel of our enduring aspirations, and not our fears, and by so doing help fulfill the promise of the New World--the promise of a hemisphere of free, democratic, prosperous nations, at peace with one another, and serving as the model for the entire world.
That, I submit, is a vision worth casting a vote for.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
