The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington.

MR. MacNeil: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary we have reaction to President Clinton's NAFTA victory from Mexico City to Washington, plus political analysis by Mark Shields, Vin Weber, and David Broder. Then a preview of the Asia Pacific Economic Conference in Seattle by Assistant Secretary of State Winston Lord, and finally the story of an inner city park with political roots. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton today thanked members of Congress who voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement. He told those who didn't that he respected their opinions and convictions. The President spoke as he left the White House this morning for an economic summit with Asian and Pacific leaders in Seattle. He said last night's vote had strengthened his hand as he tries to open new markets.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The 15 Asian Pacific economic partners that I will meet our dynamic and powerful traders and competitors. From the creative tension between their nations and ours can come an economic expansion that will sustain us for years to come. The fastest growing part of the world economy is in Asia. One thing is clear. By taking the courageous step of opening trade in our own hemisphere we have the economic, the political, and the moral standing to make the case that that ought to be done throughout the world, that America is serious about lowering trade barriers and promoting growth in our country throughout the globe. I look forward to this trip and to continuing the fight.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Clinton called for the cooperation of labor and management in helping to implement NAFTA. He promised to push for education and retraining programs to help workers who may be hurt by the agreement. Organized labor had lobbied strongly against NAFTA. Today its leaders held a news conference in Washington to comment on the results. One of them accused the President of buying congressional votes.

WILLIAM BYWATER, Electronic Workers Union: President Clinton opened up the biggest candy story in the world and said, now what do you want? You need a bridge, you need a bank, here it is for you, a little protectionism, that's all right too, even though I'm for free trade, yeah, tomatoes, we'll protect your tomatoes, we'll protect your wheat fine, but we want your vote. And he got the votes. He did not get it on the merit. He got it by bribing those congressmen to vote against their conscience. We will not forget those congressmen, and I guarantee in November my union and many other unions that feel as I do, we're going to make sure we get even at the polls.

MR. LEHRER: The Senate began debate on NAFTA today. A vote is expected early next week. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: American Airlines flight attendants walked off their jobs today after contract talks fell through. The company threatened to fire them and replace them with new workers. Picket lines first went up this morning at airports throughout the country, and American was forced to cancel some flights. The flight attendants vowed to stay off the job through the busy Thanksgiving holiday. The carriers' pilots will decide tomorrow whether to strike in support of the flight attendants. The dispute between American, the nation's largest airline, and the 21,000-member flight attendants union centers on the wages and work rule changes.

MR. LEHRER: The Senate passed a bill today reviving the Independent Counsel Law. Independent Counsels are appointed by a special federal court to investigate suspected wrongdoing by high level federal government officials. The original law expired last December after 14 years. The Senate today authorized a five-year extension. The House this evening passed legislation placing stiff penalties on people who attack patients and workers at abortion clinics. It also makes it a federal crime to block a clinic entrance. The bill must now be reconciled with a less stringent version passed by the Senate Tuesday. Republican political consultant Ed Rollins appeared before a federal grand jury in Newark, New Jersey, today. He arrived at the courthouse through a crush of reporters and photographers. He was expected to testify about his comments last week that campaign supporters of New Jersey Governor-elect Christine Whitman paid money to suppress black voter turnout. Rollins was Whitman's campaign manager. He later retracted his remarks. Whitman has denied there were any payoffs.

MR. MacNeil: With a United Nations arrest order against him lifted, Somali clan leader Mohamed Farrah Aidid came out of hiding today in Mogadishu. Thousands of cheering supporters turned out to greet him. He called it a day of victory and said the Somali factions would be able to solve their problems without outside interference. He went into hiding five months ago after the U.N. blamed his militia for killing 24 Pakistani peacekeepers and ordered his capture. U.S. envoy Robert Oakley met with Aidid before the rally and said the clan leader would have a chance to show he could play a constructive role in the political reconciliation process.

MR. LEHRER: The parliament of Ukraine ratified the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty today but with conditions that could delay its implementation for years. For now, Ukraine would only give up about half the nearly missiles and 12 hundred nuclear warheads on its territory. Ukrainian lawmakers said complete disarmament would take place only after the West provided security guarantees and money to get rid of the weapons. Bosnia's warring factions signed an agreement in Geneva today on humanitarian aid. It guarantees U.N. aid convoys safe passage throughout the country this winter. U.N. officials said it would help avert a humanitarian catastrophe, but many such agreements have fallen through in Bosnia in the past. U.N. officials in Sarajevo said today, the latest victims of the humanitarian crisis were five patients who died at a mental hospital outside the capital which no longer has heat, electricity, or running water.

MR. MacNeil: That's our summary of the news. Now it's on to NAFTA reaction and analysis, a preview of the Asia Pacific Conference, and a park in the city. FOCUS - NAFTA - HOW HE DID IT

MR. LEHRER: The House vote on NAFTA is our lead story tonight. The battle over the North American Free Trade Agreement made a tossed salad out of some traditional political alliances. Why and what now are the questions we will examine after this set-up report by Kwame Holman.

MR. HOLMAN: The morning after the President's big victory on NAFTA Howard Pastor, the President's point person on Capitol Hill and New Mexico Congressman Bill Richardson sat and compared notes on their successful efforts to get out the vote.

REP. BILL RICHARDSON, [D] New Mexico: I was very proud on the Democratic -- I was off by one. I had 102.

HOWARD PASTOR: It was 102.

REP. BILL RICHARDSON: No, I had 103.

HOWARD PASTOR: I took him off. I could have saved you that trouble. He did return the President's call yesterday.

MR. HOLMAN: Richardson is one of the Democrats' chief deputy whips and the highest ranking vote getter working for NAFTA, but while he succeeded in rounding up enough of his colleagues to ensure NAFTA would pass, he did so at the expense of other top Democrats opposed to the trade agreement.

REP. BILL RICHARDSON: The party needs to heal. We have some wounds that hopefully because of the number of issues we have to face in a short order, that those wounds will heal rapidly, but within our Democratic Caucus we do have to start working together again. We have to start putting NAFTA behind us. We have to start looking forward to Christmas and Thanksgiving when we get a little time off. But the healing has started. We've made a good start the morning after, and we're all trying to put NAFTA behind us. But you can't, because it's like this huge cloud and this huge weight that still lingers.

MR. HOLMAN: Even during last night's debate, Democrats danced delicately around their differences.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, Majority Leader: It's been especially difficult for many of us on this side who are in disagreement tonight with our President. He worked hard, in my view, to fix an agreement that he was handed by President Bush. I worked hard with him to try to get it right. And at the end of the day, unhappily, I came to the conclusion that it wasn't right, but I respect his conclusion that it was, and I respect the fight that he's put up for his position.

REP. TOM FOLEY, Speaker of the House: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 Bonior. 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 seek.

MR. HOLMAN: It was Bonior, the House Majority Whip, who led the opposition to NAFTA, and just after noon today he got a visit from his chief deputy, Bill Richardson, and it appeared the two would be able to put their differences over NAFTA behind them. But for others, the vote on NAFTA won't be easy to forget. This morning, officers from a number of national labor organizations appeared before the media, angry, upset, and claiming betrayal by the President and by House Democrats who voted for the trade agreement.

LANE KIRKLAND, President, AFL-CIO: The flurry of horse trading surrounding the final push to enact this agreement has demonstrated what NAFTA is really about. It was supposed to be voted up or down on its merits, with no changes allowed. Yet, the agreement was changed many times in order to buy the votes that representatives seeking protections for their own special interests.

RON CAREY, Teamsters Union: This is wrong. We will do everything we can to hold those legislators responsible for not connecting between the two, between corporate interest and between public interest, between the needs of this country, the needs of workers, who, by the way, based upon what we've heard, really don't count anymore.

WILLIAM BYWATER, Electronic Workers Union: We will not forget those congressmen, and I guarantee in November my union and many other unions that feel as I do, we're going to make sure we get even at the polls.

MR. HOLMAN: Late last night, in the immediate wake of his victory, President Clinton tried to put the best face on the strained relations with labor.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: One of the things I learned, again, in this fight is that they have an enormous amount of, of energy and ability to organize and ability to channel the passions and feelings of their workers.

MR. HOLMAN: But Congressman Richardson had a darker view of labor's intense reaction.

REP. BILL RICHARDSON: Well, I think that's very unfortunate. That's divisive. It's not going to be helpful. Labor has a lot of issues before the Congress too that they care about. They want to engage in polemics and threats. I would suspect members would have to respond also. I hope that's not going to be the long range policy. It may be just morning after frustration, and maybe we need a little cooling off period, but I'm ready to heal the wounds. I'm ready to bring my group of Democrats that voted the way they did to constructively discuss our differences and see if we can patch up, but if they don't want to patch up, if they want to be negative, that's going to be their choice, and they will threaten us, and we will have to deal with that also.

MR. HOLMAN: Ironically, the only relationship that wasn't strained by the NAFTA vote was the one between Democrats and Republicans. The minority party supplied the majority of votes for NAFTA in a rare display of bipartisanship.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Minority Whip: I think this was a healthy experience for all of us. I think it was good for the House to have a team that was trying to reach out across the party lines and try to get things done. And I think if we can find common ground and common values in doing some things thatwe can do an awful lot for this country.

REP. BILL RICHARDSON: I see myself working with Newt Gingrich on more issues. I think it's in the best interest of the country that we try to come together on some issues, and it's the first time that's happened, and the morning after, it feels good. If we actually got something done on a bipartisan basis that's good for the country, that helps the President, that makes us more competitive internationally, I like the feeling of bipartisanship. We're going to try it again.

MR. LEHRER: Now some analysis of this NAFTA battle. It comes from our regular syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Vin Weber, former Republican Congressman, now president of Empower America, a GOP research group, and Washington Post reporter columnist David Broder. Mark, in the final moments, the final vote, it seemed almost easy after all of the hullabaloo going in. What happened?

MR. SHIELDS: They had the votes. There was no question about it. The wind had gone out of the sails once it was Monday afternoon between three and seven, when the, when the tide just changed.

MR. LEHRER: Is there any particular --

MR. SHIELDS: The Florida delegation --

MR. LEHRER: -- thing, anything that changed?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, there's an old line that comes out of New Mexico politics where when you see people start switching their votes, people who have said they are with you publicly and then they change. The line that in Mexico politics goes, well, yeah, I did give you my word but I actually didn't make a commitment. And that, that really, that was happening, and --

MR. LEHRER: Why are you picking on the people of New Mexico?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, it's a New Mexico story, and I think they drove the fellow out after. He probably went to Oregon, I don't know. That's what was happening. There were deals being cut. The President deserves the credit which he's receiving. It was -- he was a man absolutely obsessed and totally committed to this. There's no doubt about it. It was Bill Clinton's big victory.

MR. LEHRER: Do the Republicans deserve the credit they're getting Vin?

MR. WEBER: They sure do, and especially Gingrich, who loved the effort, and Dick Armey, and the other Republicans, but there was a lot of pressure on Republicans to -- internally to say, even though this is consistent with our principles, let's not give Bill Clinton a victory. And there were, of course, Republicans a la Pat Buchanan that argued you shouldn't back this on the merits of the treaty. In the face of that, people thought the Republicans will never get more than maybe 110 of 120 votes they thought they needed. In the end, they got 132 votes. It was a wonderful display of both unity on the part of House Republicans and dedication to principle on the part of House Republicans.

MR. LEHRER: And what do they get out of it?

MR. WEBER: Well, they get the --

MR. LEHRER: They get the comments from you and others that they did the right thing?

MR. WEBER: Well, sure, House Republicans, remember, have been, to the delight of Mark, in the minority since 1954, and he hopes for the rest of his life they're in the minority, but they don't get an opportunity to be in the majority, to govern very often. What they get is, is the opportunity to go home this weekend and think on an issue of critical importance to the country. We made a critical difference. We were part of a governing majority.

MR. LEHRER: David, what do you think is the thing that should be most remembered about what happened last night? What's the most important thing?

MR. BRODER: I think this says much more about the internal dynamics of the Democratic Party than it does about any lasting coalition of Republicans and Democrats. I would give the Gingrich- Clinton alliance a half-life of maybe 3.7 seconds. These two are going to be at each other's throats very quickly. But it's very important inside the Democratic Party. What we heard in the debate last night from people like John Lewis, the civil rights hero --

MR. LEHRER: From Georgia, Democrat from Georgia.

MR. BRODER: David Bonior from Michigan, a labor loyalist, were appealing to the history and tradition of the Democratic Party which thinks of itself as the voice of the little people, and they were saying don't abandon the little people. And what Bill Clinton was saying was we will provide education, training and so on for those who may be losers in this economic change that we're taking part in here, but we are not going to try to slow down the change and we are going to ally ourselves with those who will be advantaged by this change, meaning basically those with better educations, better training, better backgrounds for it. Bill Clinton made that shift, and that is historic for the Democratic Party. But he was not able to carry his party with him. Three out of five Democrats voted against that shift. And what that says to me is this battle has many more chapters before it's over inside the Democratic Party.

MR. LEHRER: What's it say to you, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: David is absolutely right. I would only add this, that the Democrats today, the biggest victory they've had on a presidential issue where the President identified it as being seminole, as being central to his presidency and his definition f the future of the party, they woke up this --

MR. LEHRER: And he said in terms that were almost --

MR. SHIELDS: He --

MR. LEHRER: Anybody who didn't hear that didn't hear anything.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right. No, he did a couple of things. First of all, he ended forever being able to charge the Republicans with gridlock. The Republicans are no longer obstructionists. They in his moment of need were there.

MR. LEHRER: 3.7 seconds now they can go back to it but they've got --

MR. SHIELDS: Never again --

MR. LEHRER: -- it claimed now.

MR. SHIELDS: -- can you say -- I don't care what they do in health care --

MR. LEHRER: Right.

MR. SHIELDS: -- you can't go back and say they were obstructionists because on what he said was important. Secondly, the Republicans are the stepchildren of American politics. Nobody knows who they are. I mean, when Republican Presidents were in the White House, they had to deal with a Democratic Congress, so they were nice to John Dingell, they were nice to Danny Rostenkowski, and they knew Vin Weber because he was a hell of a guy. But basically nobody knows them. Now they do. New Gingrich had a big, big night. It was a big night for him. He did deliver. It's going to make candidate recruitment for Republican House candidates a lot easier because they are now players. They are now players for the first time.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Vin?

MR. WEBER: It's already happening. I talked to people today. Literally today has an been an outpouring of interest in running for office as Republicans.

MR. SHIELDS: Now, what does that do for the Democrats? Now, I mean, this is the leader of the Democratic Party. Our sense of political parties is determined and defined by presidents. All right, the greatest moment of increase in Democratic Party identification were the first two terms of Franklin Roosevelt.

MR. WEBER: But,Mark, over the last 12 years, this party's become a congressional party. That's one of the problems that was illustrated last night.

MR. SHIELDS: I agree. I'm not, I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is Bill Clinton is taking it down a road that is uncertain at this point, unclear, and contradictory.

MR. LEHRER: Let's take it another step down the road, David. Is it possible that President Clinton has now set a precedent for a separate coalition for each issue in his presidency? Is he, in other words, this time he needed the Republicans and he needed -- he didn't very many Democrats. The next one he may get and need all the Democrats and no -- in other words, he each time's going to go, it's going to be different. Nobody can count on anybody going in.

MR. BRODER: That's right, because there is very little party loyalty or cohesion certainly on the Democratic side.

MR. LEHRER: But that was true even before Clinton came along, wasn't it?

MR. BRODER: It was before Clinton, but it's particularly true when you win with 43 percent of the vote, and nobody feels that they owe you a vote for any, any reason. But what I'm curious about, because both of my colleagues here seem to saying that there is something significant and maybe longer term that's happening between the Republicans and Clinton. Do you -- can you see another issue on which they're going to be together?

MR. WEBER: Yes. There could be and there should be. First of all, Mark mentioned a number of the things that Republicans gained last night. And he was right about all but there's one more thing that they gained. Every issue that comes up now, health care, taxes, you name it, they're going to bee able to say wait a second, Mr. President, you laid in front of the country the vision of an America competing in an international marketplace, you laid before us the disadvantages internationally of government regulation and taxes, which is what tariffs and protectionism are all about. You cannot then look at the internal dynamics of the American economy and say that doesn't apply, say we can have more taxes, more regulations, and bigger government here and it's irrelevant. That's an argument that they're going to use in every issue that comes up from now on.

MR. BRODER: And because of that argument that Hillary Clinton will say I made a big mistake in this help, and that --

MR. WEBER: Well, David, you're explaining why the President won't do what he should do, and I probably agree with you.

MR. LEHRER: I take, David, I take it what you're saying is this is a one shot deal and that things will heal and you'll then have Democrats against Republicans and nothing will have changed. This doesn't mean anything?

MR. BRODER: I think that is the likelihood.

MR. SHIELDS: I think it's a one-term thing, but I think a lot of things have changed. I think, first of all, there are people, you saw it in Kwame's set-up piece, of organized labor who feel that they were lied to, deceived.

MR. LEHRER: And they accused the President of bribery?

MR. SHIELDS: More than that. They feel they were betrayed. I mean, I spent an hour with Lane Kirkland, the president of AFL-CIO, and he was very blunt. I mean, he felt that the administration deceived him.

MR. LEHRER: When did they deceive him?

MR. SHIELDS: On the, on the negotiations, themselves, that they - -

MR. LEHRER: I see.

MR. SHIELDS: -- would have the exact same protection accorded Mexican workers that they gave to intellectual property and to, and to investment capital, repatriation guaranteed and all the rest, and thatwas -- the decision was made, they feel a political decision was made to, not to risk that Republican support, that solid Republican support, in fact, there's perhaps some conservatives defecting and cast their lot there rather than try and win over the Dick Gephardts of the party and bring them along on it, so I think that sense of betrayal is there, it's deep. It's -- also some members of the Congress feel there was a sense of betrayal on the part of the administration not totally dealing honestly. This was a big one. You talk about Georgia. You take a state that's got Newt Gingrich, the next Republican leader of the House, and John Lewis, a decorated, wounded veteran of the civil rights movement in this country, and when John Lewis stands up, the deputy whip in the House, and says this administration is obscene, and for 30 pieces of silver, they'll support it, he wasn't talking about just trading jobs. He was talking about this is where the President cared the most, this is where his passion was found, was on the trade bill, not jobs.

MR. BRODER: Just let me underline the point that Mark is making so eloquently. Clinton lost most heavily in the districts where he had run the best, the core --

MR. SHIELDS: That's right.

MR. BRODER: -- Democratic districts of this country. He won in this vote in districts that supported George Bush. He is literally at odds with the core of his own party on this issue. Among other things, I think it raises the likelihood of some kind of a challenge to Clinton in '96 from the left, whether it's a serious challenge of a Kennedy versus Carter kind or would be just a symbolic challenge, I don't know, but I don't think it's at all unlikely that he will be challenged from the left because the anger and sense of betrayal is so deep.

MR. LEHRER: So you don't think it's going to go away. You don't think it's going to go away?

MR. BRODER: Not very quickly.

MR. WEBER: But his dilemma is -- I mean, David and Mark are both right. He's sort of betrayed the core and, and that's a problem. On the other hand, we have some examples of how you do when you are absolutely true to the left liberal core of the Democratic Party. They're called soon to be former Mayor Dinkins of New York, soon to be former Gov. Florio of New Jersey, and Bill Clinton is a smart politician who understood this in the last campaign. That's why he talked about being a new Democrat, Mark. He understood, the voters are not going to ratify a presidency based on traditional, left, liberal, labor politics, and he understood that in this debate. If he simply decides now that all he's going to do is try to spend the rest of his term making up with those elements, I mean, he may well force all the challenges in his party that David talked about, and it'll cause him more troubles, not less, in terms of beating a Republican in the general election.

MR. LEHRER: Because the fact of the matter is he won last night.

MR. WEBER: That's right. And the coalition -- I disagree with my friends -- the coalition is there for him if he wants to deal on health care. It's there for --

MR. LEHRER: You mean the Republicans and others.

MR. WEBER: Republicans and conservative Democrats, moderate Democrats. It's there on welfare reform. It's there on a whole set of issues if he's willing to do it, but it runs exactly, precisely the risk that David Broder just outlined, which is a left wing challenge in his own party.

MR. LEHRER: Do you think that's possible, a left wing challenge, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: I tell you why it is -- I don't think it is possible,and I have no disrespect for Vin's understanding of the dynamic of the Congress, but I don't think it is because what the President spoke of last night was trying to reach out to what David Bonior and Dick Gephardt and John Lewis have spoken about, those who are hurt, those who are left behind, those who are feeling pain, and what he talked about, he talked about job training, he talked about massive efforts of a federal nature to help those people, to retrain them, to prepare them, to push them, the pain that they're feeling. I don't think, quite frankly, that the conservative coalition is going to be there for those efforts.

MR. BRODER: Yeah, but Mark, the money may not be there for those efforts either.

MR. SHIELDS: That's entirely possible.

MR. BRODER: He got 30 percent of the money he was asking for for Head Start. How much is he going to get for job training?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think if he, if he makes it the priority coming out of this, this fight, David, it's going to be pretty tough to deny it.

MR. LEHRER: I have a priority, and that is to say good night, and thank you all three very much.

MR. MacNeil: In Mexico, where the NAFTA battle received almost as much attention as it did in this country, the reaction to last night's vote was curiously subdued. Correspondent Charles Krause files this report from Mexico City.

MR. KRAUSE: The Bolsa, Mexico's stock exchange, opened sharply higher this morning as both Mexican and foreign investors rushed in to show their support for the North American Free Trade Agreement. Within the first half hour, the market was up more than 1 percent, although there was profit taking and it did slide back later in the day. Still, the Bolsa has risen more than 10 percent over the past week in anticipation NAFTA would be approved in Washington. Stock market analyst Felix Boni says he expects, as a result of last night's vote, an avalanche of foreign investment in Mexico. NAFTA, he says, is viewed by investors as guaranteeing economic continuity and political stability.

FELIX BONI, Mexican Stock Analyst: Investors are enthusiastic about NAFTA first of all because they think that with NAFTA the changes that have been made by Salinas will not be altered in the next presidential administration, No. 1. No. 2, there's also the fact that the -- Mexico or companies based in Mexico will have better access to the United States and to the United States' market, and basically that we were going to have more direct foreign investment in Mexico which will be able to create jobs, increase the level of gross domestic product, and increase corporate earnings.

MR. KRAUSE: During the debate over NAFTA in the United States there was talk of companies moving from the U.S. to Mexico to take advantage of cheap labor. Do you think that's going to happen?

FELIX BONI: Yes. Certainly that's the expectation here. That's the hope that companies will take advantage of less expensive Mexican labor now, and we hope that in the longer-term will take advantage of the fact that the Mexican government has been engaged in a policy to substantially improve the infrastructure of Mexico, so hopefully we won't be as behind the states in that area but when we're talking about the movement of companies here, Mexico, that does not necessarily mean that we're going to have movement of companies from the United States to Mexico. There also is the expectation that there might be the movement of industrial processes that are labor intensive that might be moving from Asia into Mexico to take advantage of the NAFTA and to take advantage of the perception of Mexico as a better place to do business.

MR. KRAUSE: Do you think that NAFTA represents a major shift in the way Mexicans view the United States?

FELIX BONI: The idea that the closer U.S.-Mexican ties are, the better, that's a change. Historically Mexico has thought of the United States as an enemy, as someone to be feared, as someone to be protected from, and this is really a, a totally dramatic change.

MR. KRAUSE: As recently as 10 years ago approval of a free trade agreement like NAFTA in Washington would almost certainly have resulted in anti-U.S. demonstrations in Mexico. But today there wasn't even a hint of extra security at the American embassy. Instead, it was visas and business as usual. Consuela Gonzalez told us she thinks most Mexicans like the idea of closer economic ties to the United States.

CONSUELA GONZALEZ: Well, I think so. It's very good for Mexico, because we, we have more work, I think.

MR. KRAUSE: More jobs.

CONSUELA GONZALEZ: Work, jobs, yes, yes.

MR. KRAUSE: The first official reaction to the House vote came last night when Mexico's Mexico Carlos Salinas met with reporters at Los Pinos, his office and residence in Mexico City. Salinas appeared upbeat, clearly relieved the long debate and down-to-the- wire vote was over. In many ways, Salinas was the author of NAFTA and could have claimed personal victory. Instead, he told his countrymen last night NAFTA was one of several steps his government has taken to "create more jobs and opportunities in Mexico." It almost seemed that having succeeded, Salinas was downplaying the importance of NAFTA. In part, that could have been because he knows there could be a down side for Mexico, rising unemployment among small farmers and small businessmen unable to compete with cheaper imports of food and goods from the United States. Opposition political figures have also warned that NAFTA could strengthen Mexico's tradition of authoritarian, one-party rule. Still, those concerns seemed less important today than the promise which most Mexicans seem to think NAFTA holds for them and for their country. Already, imported goods have changed Mexico's buying habits, and retailers from the U.S., like Wal-Mart, have moved in to take advantage of what appears to be a booming, new market. For all the talk about impoverished Mexicans, this morning we met Patricia Arubareina, who had just bought nearly $6,000 worth of consumer goods at Wal-Mart to be given away at her company's office Christmas party.

MR. KRAUSE: Pretty much everything is made in the United States.

PATRICIA ARUBAREINA: Yes, more of the -- all of the -- only some products I bought from Mexico, but the majority is from the states.

MR. KRAUSE: Why is that? Why do you buy U.S. products?

PATRICIA ARUBAREINA: The price is good, and I think that the quality is good, and I bought more than can I buy with other products.

MR. KRAUSE: Arubareina said she supports free trade, followed the NAFTA debate closely, and like many Mexicans was especially angered by the way Ross Perot characterized her country.

PATRICIA ARUBAREINA: He says that Mexico is 85 millions people, of poor people, and that's not true. We are -- we have a very good people here, and I think that -- I don't like to hear about that.

MR. KRAUSE: As in the United States, the debate over NAFTA caused some serious wounds in Mexico. But last night's vote seems to have begun the healing process in both countries. For most Mexicans, there seems to be a clear understanding that NAFTA offers real benefits, jobs, consumer goods, foreign investment, and economic development.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Winston Lord and a city park. NEWSMAKER - APEC

MR. MacNeil: Next tonight, the meeting on Asia-Pacific Cooperation, known as APEC, that got underway today in Seattle. A key administration argument for passage of the NAFTA Treaty was strengthening the President's hand in his trade talks with Asia's top leaders. To discuss the NAFTA impact on these negotiations and U.S.-Asian relations in general we're joined by Winston Lord, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, former U.S. ambassador to China. He joins us from Seattle. Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us.

AMB. LORD: Glad to be with you, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: How does this victory strengthen the President's hand and to do what specifically in Seattle?

AMB. LORD: It strengthens it greatly. You can just feel a boost up here as of about 7:30 local time when the vote came through, a little bit later than that. The spirits rose. The foreigners were as excited as the Americans. And it's going to make for, I think, a triple play over the course of the coming months. Indeed, now with the NAFTA vote passed, this unprecedented gathering of Asian leaders here in Seattle and then the Uruguay deadline of December 15 -- and that's the most important because that's global trade negotiations -- you're apt to see 30 days that shook the economic world. I think you're apt to see -- again, with a successful Uruguay round, and that's a big if at this point -- the most important brief period in international economic relations since Breton Woods after World War II, and I think the President, by demonstrating his personal leadership, by overcoming heavy odds by taking on some of his traditional constituencies, and by showing that America is looking to the future and toward growth, rather than retreat, will be able to have much more influence here in Seattle and then to bring the Uruguay round to a close in the middle of December.

MR. MacNeil: Let's -- let me ask you what the U.S. goals are there in Seattle, and let's start with China. What are the -- what does President Clinton hope to achieve with China in Seattle?

AMB. LORD: I will get to China in a minute, but let me step back. There's two things going on out here really, even three. There is the multilateral meeting, we can come back to that if you like.

MR. MacNeil: I'd like to, yeah.

AMB. LORD: Underlines our stakes in Asia generally. Then there are some important, bilateral meetings, including the meetings with the two presidents. This meeting, of course, occurs because a meeting, in any event, in a multilateral setting, this APEC Conference, and so the President invited President Jiang for a separate, bilateral to take advantage of this, this conference out here. I think it underlines both sides' desire to try to restore momentum in the relationship. We've had a difficult period the last few months, and it was our view that in order to make progress on the issues of great concern to us, and there had been very little progress in recent months, that we would offer a more comprehensive engagement policy toward the Chinese to give them a broader parameter to move on issues that are very much of concern to us. So this is a -- one in a series -- obviously the most important - - of meetings that have already started to take place both in Beijing and Washington, and which we expect will continue. So one signal the President is conveying is his desire for better relations, comprehensive engagement, but an equally forceful message -- and I expect this to be sounded by him tomorrow in their meeting -- is the need for early and steady progress on areas like human rights, nonproliferation, and trade, so a double-barreled message. China's an important country. We want good relations. We have great potential in this relationship on regional and global matters, as well as bilateral, but in order to tap that potential we have got to have early and rapid progress on some key issues that have been bedeviling our relationship.

MR. MacNeil: The Chinese foreign minister said out there today the forum should concentrate only on economics and not try to find common values among members, as though they are not interested in a more comprehensive framework.

AMB. LORD: Well, I think we have to separate two things out, Robin, as I was saying. In the multilateral APEC meeting, the informal leaders retreat on an island on Saturday that will only concern economics, and in that sense, the foreign minister's absolutely right. We'll be looking to the future, the economic future of the most dynamic economic region in the world, the one most relevant to American exports and jobs. But I was referring to their bilateral meeting between the President and the Chinese president, where not only economic issues but other questions like nonproliferation, human rights, Korea, and other regional and global problems should be addressed.

MR. MacNeil: Well, on human rights, responding to the strong words from Sec. Christopher yesterday, the foreign minister said they would make no gestures on human rights because he said, "We are not actors." How do you read that?

AMB. LORD: Well, I wouldn't have read it quite that literally. They have recognized that human rights is a legitimate topic for discussion. Asst. Sec. for Human Rights, Mr. Shattuck, went to China a few weeks ago, resuming that dialogue. He has detailed, four-hour discussions on human rights here in Seattle yesterday. He will go back to China in a few months, and so they've accepted this as a legitimate area of discussion. They have differences on how to approach it, of course. Furthermore, although it's only a beginning -- and I stress that, they have begun, as a result of the President's strategy of engagement, to make some modest movement in the human rights area, for example, the publicly announced willingness by the foreign minister, himself, to entertain Red Cross visits to their prisons. This is an objective that human rights organizations and the U.S. government have been trying to achieve for many years. Now, this still has to be worked out in detail, so it's now a potential step forward. It hasn't been consummated yet, but it's a significant one. Now there's a lot more work to be done in many other areas, so this is only a beginning, but it's a rather promising beginning.

MR. MacNeil: What improvements in human rights do you think would justify -- and I know that they've been told January is the real deadline in order that the Congress be able to evaluate it and prepare for renewing Most Favored Nation treatment by next summer. What improvements in human rights does the administration demand to justify that continuation?

AMB. LORD: First of all, I don't like to use the word "demand." We are making a request and suggestions not to impose American values but for China's own self-interest in terms its world reputation and the quality of life for its people to live up to its universal rights, universal obligations under the Human Rights Charter of the United Nations. Now to get to your question, I would refer you essentially to the President's executive order and Most Favored Nation trade status last spring which laid out about seven areas, most of them covered by the overall phrase of "overall significant progress." It includes emigration, prison labor for export, releasing of prisoners, accounting for prisoners, political prisoners, Tibet stop jamming, Voice of America, these are the kinds of areas that we're looking for progress in.

MR. MacNeil: The administration has been indicating as part of this more, what you call a comprehensive constructive engagement, indicating that Beijing has been helpful with influence on North Korea. What, what is the evidence of that?

AMB. LORD: The evidence is drawn from our constant consultations on this issue. Their positions that they relay to us privately, the fact that we know they have been talking about Korea, and what they've said publicly, the fact is that China has a great self-interest of making sure that the Korean Peninsula does not become infested with nuclear weapons. If that happens, it's a threat over time to China, itself, that could cause Japan to re- arm. So acting in its own self-interest, as great nations do, China is doing everything it can to discourage this from happening. So they have -- if any country has influence with North Korea, and they are rather isolated, it's probably China. We believe they've been weighing in with North Korea to cooperate with us. They do counsel us to be patient in our diplomacy. We are patient but time is, you know, running out, we're going to have to make progress soon with North Korea. But we want to solve this diplomatically, as Sec. Christopher said in his very important speech on Asia yesterday in Seattle. And one of the reasons you have to practice diplomacy is to bring the world along. And this is a world problem, not a U.S. problem, and demonstrate if you ever have to go to the U.N. for other measures that you've tried every possible route to solve this peacefully and through diplomatic means. And, of course, the Chinese are especially important because they have a veto in the U.N. Security Council, and they would have to help carry out any sanctions if we ever got to that, that would be implemented.

MR. MacNeil: Speaking of APEC, the larger group here, now increased to 17 today with the admission of Mexico, and one other.

AMB. LORD: Proper New Guinea.

MR. MacNeil: Proper New Guinea.

AMB. LORD: We welcome both of those but what a wonderful timing to have Mexico, the day after this historic NAFTA vote, joining APEC as well.

MR. MacNeil: Right. Well, this new, large APEC, what kind of integration is the United States pushing for among its members?

AMB. LORD: APEC is a regional economic organization. It accounts for half the world's production, 40 percent of the world's trade, therefore is relevant to every American, it's relevant to the President's domestic agenda promoting jobs and exports. It is an early -- it's in its early stages. It's only four years old, and it is a consensus organization. And it includes Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, Ausian, New Zealand, Callender, Australia, so you have very diverse countries, and some what to go rather fast with the organization like Australia. Others are somewhat more cautious, like some of the Southeast Asian countries. So we have to show leadership, particularly this year as chairman, but we also have to be sensitive to the views of others and move ahead by consensus. Now we hope to promote freer trade and investment in the region. The ministers who are meeting now before the leaders get here -- and they're beginning to arrive -- will be issuing a declaration on a trade and investment framework, which begins to take APEC beyond a consulting organization to one tackling practical problems. In addition, there are various work groups that work with the private sector in particular to tackle specific issues like telecommunications, energy, terrorism, marine sources, so it's practical, it's in its early stages. Over time we hope it can stretch its mandate and its vision, but it is above all not a trading bloc. It is a building block for global trade. The ministers and the leaders here will underline their commitment to a successful Uruguay round. Everyone recognizes that we don't want regional trading blocs. We want a global trading bloc. And if we have a successful conference here of these Asian countries, on top of the NAFTA victory, I think we will be encouraging Europe to join with us in completing the Uruguay round on schedule.

MR. MacNeil: How much is the push in with -- across the Pacific intended to send a message quite directly to European countries like France, which from the U.S. point of view have been dragging their feet in the GATT negotiations?

AMB. LORD: Well, we won't do this in any threatening way. Europe is very important to us. They're our allies and our friends, including France. We like to think that the emphasis on freer trade and investment that you see here in Seattle the next few days dramatize what a historic meeting of leaders will show what direction this vast region is going on, right on top of the NAFTA and where the Western Hemisphere is going, and therefore, it should set a good example for Europe, and it perhaps suggests subtly that if we can't get a global trade agreement, other parts of the world are getting on with the business of strengthening the world economic system and creating prosperity and jobs for their citizens.

MR. MacNeil: Some countries in Southeast Asia like Malaysia, whose premiere is boycotting this conference, appear to resent the U.S. sticking its big foot in to the degree it is. Where's the advantage from them in furthering integration? Their economies are doing famously. Their trade among themselves has increased enormously. Why do they need the United States pushing them to integrate more?

AMB. LORD: First of all, we're not pushing them. We're working with them. Secondly, the fact that they feel they need this organization and even freer trade and investment is attested to by the fact that 16 out of 17 members have responded to this unprecedented invitation. The only exception is Malaysia. We respect their decision. We're sorry they're not here. We think their views would be articulately expressed by their prime minister. But we have done everything -- and they are represented at the ministerial level. They're taking a very active role these days. They just won't be here for the Saturday meeting, and we have done everything to structure this conference as an informal conversation, the one on Saturday, among the leaders concentrating on economics but sketching a vision for the future, not try to negotiate something. So we're careful not to push this too fast, but at the same time the President by his invitation to these leaders -- and this is a dramatic event which speaks for itself -- is underlining two of his priorities in foreign policy; one, economic security for America, and two, the importance of the Asia-Pacific region, two of the six priorities that Sec. Christopher outlined a couple of weeks ago. And this will raise consciousness in the United States about our stakes in the Pacific, the fact that we're anchored there. We're going to stay on in our own self-interest not only for economic reasons, which are being emphasized this week, but for some genuine other reasons of security and promoting our values and attacking other issues.

MR. MacNeil: Okay, well, Sec. Lord, thank you for joining us.

AMB. LORD: Thank you. FINALLY - PARK PLACE

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, the story of an unusual inner city park. It's taken 30 years to get off the drawing boards but many residents of San Francisco think it was worth the wait. Spencer Michels reports.

MR. MICHELS: For a full week recently, San Francisco celebrated the long delayed opening of Yerba Buena Gardens and its centerpiece, a granite waterfall dedicated to Martin Luther King, Jr. The memorial to the civil rights leader sets the tone for a controversial urban renewal project with distinctly multicultural themes. Yerba Buena Gardens today consists of three large city blocks, including the decade-old Moscone Convention Center. What s new and attracting critical praise is a five and a half acre park with a gallery and a theater, both designed by world renowned architects and dedicated to exhibiting contemporary and diverse artwork and performance. Across the street, a new and spectacular San Francisco Museum of Modern Art is almost ready to open. Constructed just south of the city's financial and retail center, Yerba Buena is an attempt to change the face of this crowded, American city. According to Pulitzer Prize winning architectural critic Allan Temko, it's a success.

ALLAN TEMKO, Architectural Critic: The function is joy and it opens up the city in the way classical squares do in Europe, so you have this active, American downtown with a foreground of European scale and grace, even splendor.

MR. MICHELS: First proposed in 1954, it is a wonder Yerba Buena was ever built. It was delayed for decades, and in the end, dramatically transformed by city residents. The fight was started by those who were going to be displaced by demolition. Before Yerba Buena, the area looked like this one nearby, a neighborhood of cheap hotels and adult theaters. To the men who lived in those hotels and to their attorney, Anthony Kline, now chief justice of the appellate court, the project not only ignored their needs but insulted them as well.

ANTHONY KLINE, Lawyer for Former Residents: The federal money that financed the project was only available to renew so-called "blighted areas," and so that the city had to create the idea that this was a slum, and that's one of the things that offended a lot of the elderly men that lived in these hotels. It was not a blighted area. It was not a slum, and that's part of the myth upon which this whole urban renewal project was built.

IRAN NOWINSKI, Photographer: [showing picture to Michels] And this was Eddie Hiter, and he was the plaintiff on the lawsuit.

MR. MICHELS: Those men, many retired seamen and union members, were the subjects of thousands of photographs taken by Ira Nowinski. His portraits documented an eight-year fight to get replacement housing.

IRA NOWINSKI: And they had this great populist thing of it was a good fight, you know, you could fight city hall being a poor person, being a union person, and they had a vision, and they became visionaries. And that was their dream, that if they had to fight city hall, the only thing that they could win was the future for other people, because they were old, and they weren't going to last too long.

MR. MICHELS: What these men wanted, if they had to be moved, was new housing, built by the city at the renewal site. The mayor at the time, Joseph Alioto, says he found plenty of places for them in nearby hotels, but the judge and the residents said that wasn't good enough. Today, more than 20 years later, Alioto is still outraged by the Yerba Buena lawsuit.

JOSEPH ALIOTO, Former Mayor: We don't glorify that litigation. It was obstructionist litigation. I'm an expert, as you know, on litigation. There were the social considerations and some notions of liberal panaceas that had to be served.

MR. MICHELS: After furious and protracted court battles, the city did build 1500 units of new, subsidized housing for low income seniors, something Alioto claims was in the works anyway. Attorney Kline considers the housing a victory for the residents here and across America.

ANTHONY KLINE: Well, we demonstrated for the first time really in this country through the legal services program that, that the rights of poor people could be enforced at enormous cost to a city and to private interests, and so it became cheaper -- people began to realize -- to comply with the law. One of my regrets is that most of those men, because they were elderly, are no longer alive and didn't see the fruits of their victory, but by and large, I would mark it up as a success.

MR. MICHELS: Despite the cost of adding low income housing, the city was determined to go ahead with plans to improve a rundown section and join it to the booming financial and tourist neighborhoods. The plan that Mayor Alioto championed included high rise office buildings, convention facilities, circular parking garages, and a futuristic sports arena.

JOSEPH ALIOTO: We have a fantastic design. You remember who the architects were: Pierre Luigi Nervi, the great Italian urban designer; Tangi, the great Japanese designer. What they have there is fine. I'm glad that it's in there, but it certainly isn't Nervi and Tangi.

MR. MICHELS: Alioto's plan had almost no open space and little room for cultural activities. Like the displaced men, San Francisco's neighborhood activists and artists demanded and got major changes and a role in the design process. Critic Allan Temko says the new design fits the city.

ALLAN TEMKO, Architectural Critic: Instead of two dozen office buildings here and a big, ugly arena on the surface, they have a huge, underground convention facility. We've saved the surface for amenities and for pretty good architecture. The total is more than the sum of its parts.

MR. MICHELS: By opening day, not only had the design changed but the purpose had evolved from mostly business, sports, and conventions, to a more locally oriented open space and cultural center. Politically active locals had pressured local officials to make Yerba Buena a park for neighborhood children, an art gallery for a variety of ethnic groups, a theater for unconventional productions. Critics say that combining those functions plus multiculturalism in one project was an American first.

SPOKESMAN: The facilities are new because they're anti- establishment facilities, they're supposed to be a platform for people who are not generally heard from.

MR. MICHELS: Nearly all the art on display is contemporary and non-traditional. Live honeybees are part of one work; video art is featured in another. Within San Francisco's vast and vocal artistic community, artists had squabbled for years over what and who should be included. The decision was made to emphasize Northern California artists and cultural diversity. Renny Pritikin, director of visual arts, says Yerba Buena has a mandate to be multicultural.

RENNY PRITIKIN, Yerba Buena Art Director: This community is as diverse as any in the world, and it seems appropriate that the art that we show reflect the values and culture of the community. And that doesn't mean excluding anybody, but rather including everybody. I think of us kind of as a sheep in wolf's clothing. We look on the outside like an art palace, major institution, and we are a major institution, but our approach is to be grassroots and people-oriented.

MR. MICHELS: Outside the gallery, security guards patrol Yerba Buena Gardens to make sure people aren't scared away by panhandlers and the homeless, common in this part of town. Some critics have questioned whether it's right to exclude anyone. Redevelopment Agency Project Director Helen Sause.

HELEN SAUSE, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency: I don't think we intend to exclude groups. We just don't intend to allow it to be taken over by any one group, and so if someone that was homeless wished to come here and sit, they're as welcome as anyone else is, it's just that they can't set up camp here.

MR. MICHELS: But some issues remain. Local activists say Yerba Buena is too small, that it doesn't serve 10,000 nearby children, that it still caters to conventioneers. Yet, the city is pressing ahead. On the drawing board are a carousel, an ice skating rink, a bowling alley, a retail complex, movie houses, more museums, and a supermarket. Buoyed by an enthusiastic opening, Redevelopment Agency officials say the recession won't slow down construction, except for office buildings. Judging from its success so far, Yerba Buena probably will expand but not without fights and changes so much a part of this highly politicized city. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the major story today, President Clinton tried to mend fences with organized labor and other opponents of NAFTA following its approval in the House. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.