Return to Transcripts main page


Trump to Announce New Canada/Mexico Trade Agreement; White House Under Fire for Trying to Limit Scope of Kavanaugh Investigation; Kavanaugh Accused of Lying to Judiciary Committee; Trump Speech on USMCA. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired October 1, 2018 - 11:00   ET


[11:00:00] NICK WATT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Cristiano Ronaldo also appeared to deny the allegations in an Instagram live. She is seeking damages for physical as well as emotional loss.

Back to you.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: The details in the allegations are chilling, for sure.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you very much, Nick Watt. We'll keep everyone posted on that as it develops.

Thank you for being with us today. I'm Poppy Harlow.

SCIUTTO: I'm Jim Sciutto.

"AT THIS HOUR" with Kate Bolduan starts right now.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Kate Bolduan.

Any moment now, President Trump will be live in the Rose Garden of the White House. After more than a year of high-stakes talk that included many a standoff, many a breakdown, and many a threat, the president will announce a new trade deal, making good on an old campaign promise. Say good-bye to NAFTA and say hello to the United States, Mexico, Canada, Agreement, otherwise known as the USMCA. Rolls right off the tongue. What's changed and who benefits? We'll bring you his comments live. And they'll be beginning any moment.

But it's not all good news at the White House this morning. The White House is facing a new investigation into Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh and facing new charges that they're working behind the scenes to limit the scope of that investigation.

And Kavanaugh is facing a new accusation he wasn't telling the truth when he testified to the Senate.

Let's get over to the White House. CNN White House correspondent, Kaitlan Collins, is there in the Rose Garden, keeping an eye over your shoulder, Kaitlan.

What are you hearing, first? What are we expecting to hear from the president any minute now? KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kate, we're

expecting President Trump to come out here and tout this as a big win for him. Of course, you know since he became president, he has repeatedly criticized NAFTA saying it was unfair to the United States. And thanks to some last-minute negotiations in the 11th hour before the midnight deadline last night, they have now come to an agreement where it's still going to be the same countries that were in NAFTA, just with a different name. So it's Canada, Mexico, the United States.

There are some key provisions in this that the United States is going to say is a big win. One of those being that Canada has agreed to open up its dairy market to the U.S. more. That's a really big sticking point for President Trump as well. As stipulations about automobiles and those tariffs as well. Expect President Trump to come out here and celebrate. He's going to be excited about this.

And this is something, Kate, we weren't exactly expecting to happen. Last week, we heard from President Trump when he was in New York at the United Nations meeting and he said he rejected a meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and he didn't like their trade representative.

So President Trump is going to come out here. That was a lot of late- night work last night. He's going to tout this as a big win for him. But, Kate, of course, one big question is going to be, they have about 60 days or so to sign this, and then it's got to go through Congress. Now, if that doesn't go through Congress until next year and it's after the midterms and we see a lot of Democrats win seats in the House, that's going to be a big question for this White House, if that can even get passed in Congress. So that's what we're looking to see.

But expect today there to be a lot of celebrating at the White House for President Trump on this big trade agreement.

BOLDUAN: Something the president promised from the campaign trail onward, that he would tear it up or renegotiate it. And today, he's coming out to announce it's been both, torn up and renegotiated, I guess we could say.

Kaitlan, great to see you. But also, I do want to ask you, though, about Brett Kavanaugh, Kaitlan.


BOLDUAN: The other thing that is bearing down on this White House. What are you hearing from the White House about who is controlling the FBI investigation now into his past?

COLLINS: Well, Kate, NAFTA is the big topic out here today, but of course, that Brett Kavanaugh confirmation and the drama surrounding it is looming pretty large over this White House because the FBI is in the middle of its investigation. That investigation that came at a last-minute request from some people who are going to be key votes, if they do vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, Senator Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski. We know that investigation is under way, but right now, there are big questions about the scope of that investigation. And a lot of criticism from Democrats who believe that the White House is interfering with that too much and they're trying to limit the scope of that investigation and who the FBI can talk to, to talk about these accusations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Of course, the White House is saying they're not limiting the scope of it. President Trump tweeting he wants them to interview and talk to whoever has these allegations so they can get this cleared up. But then President Trump, of course, tapping into that criticism from Democrats saying, essentially, will be good enough for them and now they're trying to complain that this investigation may be too narrow.

What we're waiting to see, of course, and only people whose opinions matter are the key Senators who will be key votes for Brett Kavanaugh. We could hear from President Trump out here while he's talking about NAFTA today. We'll see, Kate, if he answers our questions.

BOLDUAN: And though this investigation, we would assume, started on Friday when this all went down, it's still a big question mark about the scope and scale of this investigation.

Great to see you, Kaitlan. We'll see if he takes any questions as soon as he comes out. I really appreciate it.

From the White House now, to this new accusation against Brett Kavanaugh. This time, coming from another former Yale classmate, who says that Kavanaugh was not telling the truth when he answered questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his drinking.

CNN politics reporter, Lauren Fox, is joining me from our Washington bureau with much more.

Lauren, this former classmate isn't just talking. He's talking to the FBI and he's released a statement. What's he saying?

[11:05:15] LAUREN FOX, CNN POLITICS REPORTER: That's right. Chad Ludington released a statement last night. He's a former classmate. And he said Brett Kavanaugh was not honest in what he said before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

Now, this is exactly what Ludington said in his statement. Quote, "When I watched Brett deliver his testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, I cringed. For the fact is, at Yale, and I can speak to no other times, Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker. I know because, especially our first two years of college, I often drank with him."

His statement, Kate, goes on to say he was deeply troubled by what he heard from Kavanaugh, that it was a blatant mischaracterization of his time at Yale and his drinking habits there. He planned to share what he knew with the FBI.

But he's not the only classmate we have heard from. We also heard from Liz Swisher, another classmate. Here's what she had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LIZ SWISHER, FORMER KAVANAUGH YALE CLASSMATE: There's no problem with drinking beer in college. The problem is lying about it. He drank heavily. He was a partier. He liked to do beer bongs. He played drinking games. He was a sloppy drunk. He was more interested in impressing the boys than he was in impressing the girls. I never saw him be sexually aggressive, but he definitely was sloppy drunk.


FOX: Now, Kate, we talked to a wide range of people who knew Kavanaugh in college, including friends who are saying this was not who Kavanaugh was. I spoke with Chris Dudley, another former basketball player and friend of Kavanaugh's, last week. He said this is not at all who he remembers. Kate, a lot of mixed messages out there this morning.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely.

Lauren, great to see you. Thank you so much.

FOX: Thanks, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Let's talk about the state of things, the scope of this FBI investigation, what the accusation means and all of it.

Joining me now, James Gagliano, Josh Campbell, both retired FBI special supervisor special agents and both CNN law enforcement analysts. Mark Preston is also here, CNN's senior political analyst, and CNN senior political reporter, Nia Malika Henderson.

Great to have you here.

Again, keeping an eye on the Rose Garden. We'll take you there when President Trump comes out.

Josh, if you're back at the FBI and Chad Ludington comes in with this statement this morning, what do you do with it?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Looking at the statement, I read through it, there are some damning allegations that are in there, but we have to remember what they are now, simply allegations. It will be up to the FBI to determine the veracity of the claims. Questions you're going to ask yourself, is this someone I believe, someone who seems to me at least to be truthful. And, secondly, what is the motivation for this person, what is causing them to come forward to provide this information. Those will all be part of this calculus.

The larger issue is, if it is corroborated what is in the reports, is that something the FBI will be able to look into further. We know we reported over the weekend that this investigation is very limited in scope, and the question, at least what we're determining now is that does not include his overall drinking history. With allegations like we saw from Mr. Ludington, will it be a part of it. The last part, which is very interesting, the overarching issue for

this investigation is there's this pattern, I think, I see where people come forward, witnesses, and there's this inclination to say, well, there must be some ulterior motive, we can't trust them. That's counter to what people in law enforcement try to do. I spent a decade in the FBI trying to implore the public, come forward, if you see something, say something. We see people coming forward with allegations that are serious and the White House is handcuffing the FBI's ability to look into it, what message does that send to the rest of the public?

BOLDUAN: Being a sloppy drunk is not disqualifying, when you're in college, for the job, necessarily, James. But when it comes to you have people now coming forward from college saying that he was not telling the truth about describing the nature of his drinking, if he had ever blacked out or not, during his Senate testimony. If he was an aggressive, belligerent drunk, would this have come up in the previous six background checks?

JAMES GAGLIANO, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: It speaks to character reputation, certainly. When it comes to the six previous background checks, understand the difference between a criminal investigation and an FBI background check. People that are being investigated by the FBI for background, for suitability, fitness for office-type of things like a judicial nominee, they supply the FBI with a list of names and contacts to contact and get in touch with. So you're going to give them people that are probably sympathetic to you. That's a starting place for the FBI. Then they go from there.

Now, I believe this whole thing about the White House trying to curtail or limit or the scope of this thing is a tempest in a teapot. Why? Because this is different again from a criminal investigation where the White House is not allowed at all to weigh in on. This is a background investigation of somebody that the president has put up. Of course, his counsel and he are going to have some concerns and issues and interest in this. They can supply whatever recommendation to Director Wray they want to. He doesn't have to listen to one of them. If an FBI interviews somebody and that somebody gives somebody else's name or gives something of criminal activity that potentially the judge had been involved in, no one is going to stand in front of an FBI agent and say you can't go talk to people. This is a tempest in a teapot.

[11:10:22] CAMPBELL: I would respectfully disagree. What you described is how we want the investigation to be done. We don't want the FBI to be handcuffed. We've talked to a number of folks --


GAGLIANO: What's going to handcuff them? What's going to handcuff them?

CAMPBELL: I'll explain that. A number of people over the weekend that are familiar with the investigation that say background investigations are different from criminal investigations. In this case, the White House is the client. These are people very familiar with what's going on who are saying --

GAGLIANO: Sources?

CAMPBELL: -- the White House is setting the parameters on what is taking place here, and the White House, we saw --


BOLDUAN: Who they should speak with, yes.

CAMPBELL: Who they should speak with and what they can follow-up on. And what they're saying is the FBI comes up with additional information and they have to provide that to the White House and say this is beyond that mandate, can we go further? That's going to be the question, if the White House permits them to.

BOLDUAN: To the White House, can we -- can we take the next step?

CAMPBELL: That's right.

GAGLIANO: To the president's tweet, the president's tweet, we'll say right here, is absolutely untruthful. We don't believe what he's saying when he's saying the FBI has free reign.

BOLDUAN: Free reign.

GAGLIANO: The president's tweet is inconsistent with our reporting.

CAMPBELL: That's a lie, right?


CAMPBELL: And I'll explain it this way. Say you're in the FBI, and you go into a house, someone told you there's narcotics in the house. If you come in, as the White House or some authority, and say, you can't look anywhere in this house but this bedroom, but in that bedroom, you have free reign. That's not a fulsome investigation.


GAGLIANO: You believe Director Wray is instructing his agents, go out, ask these people questions. If anything comes out of that, you are not allowed to take an actionable lead, Josh? Which is what we do, right? We get a lead, we follow that to another lead. You believe Director Wray -- I don't believe he would ever say you --

BOLDUAN: Cannot take the next steps.


GAGLIANO: -- cannot take the next step.

CAMPBELL: That's how background investigations work. They're different than criminal investigation. The White House as a client sets the parameters and then the FBI will take that to the White House and say -- we saw over the weekend that Ms. Ramirez came forward and said here are a number of potential witnesses. The question is, will the White House permit the FBI to go beyond that scope. That's how we'll know --


GAGLIANO: I'm going to go on record right now.


GAGLIANO: The White House will not be able to restrict FBI agents from interviewing whoever they deem essential and necessary to the conduct of this investigation. The president can say what he wants. We know sometimes he can be intemperate with what he says and tweets. But I believe in my heart of hearts, from what I have seen thus far of this director, the eighth director of the FBI, I cannot imagine him not immediately tendering his resignation if the president says, you're not allowed to ask about this. You're supposed to look at character, associations, reputation, loyalties, abilities, finances, bias, and alcohol and drug usage. How can you restrict that and say you can talk to these eight people, but if they give you more names, Josh, which you know is what usually happens, you're not allowed to talk to them and you can't ask anything about one of the nine essential characteristics off a background investigation --


BOLDUAN: When Chad Ludington comes forward with a statement to the FBI and said it's about Brett Kavanaugh, they have a responsibility as the bureau to apply that to his background?

GAGLIANO: If it's to be done right, absolutely, Kate.

CAMPBELL: That's right. You described a framework that we all hope is the case. Again, what I'm talking about is the reality now --


BOLDUAN: What happens at that moment when something new comes up --

CAMPBELL: That's right.

BOLDUAN: -- in layman terms, when something news comes up in any conversation or interview, and they say, the White House, we need to go now this direction, what does the White House do in response?

CAMPBELL: That's how we'll know whether this is serious.

BOLDUAN: I wonder if we'll hear about it until after the fact. Kind of a big question.

GAGLIANO: You'll see it in the report.

BOLDUAN: That's very true.

I want to talk about that in a second.

Vice President Mike Pence is coming in, which means the president is shortly on his tail.

Let me bring in Mark Preston on the politics of what we're discussing.

Mark, Ludington said Kavanaugh did not tell the truth in his testimony, specifically when he was asked about if he has ever drank to the point of blacking out. Jeff Flake was asked about it on "60 Minutes," the idea of lying. He's obviously a key voice. I won't play the sound because we're probably going to the president soon. But if he was lying, if he was shown to have lied to the committee, is the nomination over, and Jeff Flake says, oh, yes. Did Flake paint himself into a corner here, do you think?

MARK PRESTON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think Jeff Flake, you know, ever since he made that decision in the committee hearing to delay the vote basically on Judge Kavanaugh, he's kind of cut his path forward.


PRESTON: I will say this, though, Kate. I will say this, though, is that there's going to be a lot that comes out about Judge Kavanaugh. Who knows how much is true or false, but it is all going to come into play, certainly in the court of public opinion, and in the minds of the three Senators, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Jeff Flake, as they are, you know, when they have to vote on this later this week.

BOLDUAN: Overarching, Nia -- let me bring you in -- I'm so confused, again, why there's uncertainty about the scope of the nomination. It should be pretty straightforward. But you have the president saying free reign. You have sources saying the White House is limiting it to a handful of interviews. It should be hammered out by now what the scope is or isn't.

[11:15:10] NIA MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER: One would think. That's the story of this administration, right? Conflicting narratives out of White House and then the aides saying different things and then sources telling CNN and other outlets something else. The president saying there's free reign. You had Kellyanne Conway saying this isn't meant to be a fishing expedition. And then you have Senate Republicans having a role in here, too, likely instructing this White House and sort of what they want to see and perhaps keeping it within the bounds of the testimony we saw last week.

So again, I mean, what's interesting is we went into this, if you're Jeff Flake and if you're Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, you went into this wanting some kind of clarity, wanting the FBI to be kind of a neutral arbiter, kind of a referee, and now it looks like a lot of the stuff is going to be shrouded in politics. And we'll see if at some point it comes out, what was the instruction from this White House to the FBI, did the Senate Republicans weigh in as well? But the question is, will we find out before the FBI is done with this? Will we get more names as to who's on that witness list or is it going to come out after?

BOLDUAN: Josh, it was part of the discussion with Jeff Flake and Chris Coons on "60 Minutes" as well, the question of, what are the chances that after this week, whatever, amount of investigation, that we all end up in the same place where we are right now? What do you think?

CAMPBELL: I think a lot is going to come down to transparency and how much information is provided to the public. We talked about the FBI report, a series of reports that will go to the White House. They'll determine suitability. My question is, does that then become public. In this case, very contentious issue, very contentious confirmation process, there's certainly a public interest here. The public wants to know. The Senate wants to know what the FBI found. If what happens and those reports are handed over to the Senate and they're not made public, there will be this lingering question as far as what was the thoroughness, what did they find, and are we taking the White House's word for it? I think in this case, I hope they opt for transparency.

BOLDUAN: What the FBI sends to the White House, does the FBI send to Congress?

GAGLIANO: They would issue a report to the Senate Judiciary Committee in this instance. Let's look at past being prologue. Let's go back to 1991 when Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, the famous hearing in 1991. The FBI took three days to investigate transgressions that supposedly happened some eight or nine years earlier at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when both worked there. They prepared a report. No one told them, put a finger on the scale, told them what they could investigate or couldn't. That's the way it should be, as Josh pointed out. That's the way it will be here, too, as well. What then happened next was they sent it to the White House. The Bush administration then read the report, and then they read into it what they wanted. They came back and said none of Ms. Hill's claims could be corroborated. They didn't call her a liar. They just said they could not be corroborated. My guess here is it's going to be the same thing. That report will go to the White House, the White House will make political hay out of it however they want. It will then go to the Senate Judiciary Committee. As everything leaks in D.C., we'll have it online or on the set here moments later.

BOLDUAN: Nia, from the political perspective, we're not sure if we'll be in the same place one week from now, kind of from an investigative standpoint. From a political perspective, will we be?

HENDERSON: Probably. A lot of this seems to be baked in. If you're a Democrat, a progressive, you likely aren't going to be changed in terms of how you feel about Brett Kavanaugh and his appropriateness of him joining the court. If you're a conservative and a Republican and you see that Kavanaugh could be a decisive member of the court and make the court conservative for decades, it's unlikely your mind is going to be changed by what comes out of this FBI report.

BOLDUAN: We will see.

I will leave that -- I will leave it right there, as President Trump is coming out right now. He will be talking about the United States/Mexico/Canada agreement. The new NAFTA, if you will. Let's listen in.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's really great to see everybody on this beautiful, beautiful day in Washington, D.C. Some people say the swamp, but I will not say that today.


I refuse. This is too important, what we're doing. One of the most important deals, and the most important trade deal we have ever made by far.

I want to thank Senator Joni Ernst for being here.

Joni, thank you very much, of Iowa.


TRUMP: And I'll be there very soon. We'll be doing something very important in Iowa. But this is maybe more important than all of it put together, right, Joni? I want to thank you for being here.

Congressman Holding, Congressman Rowe, Congressman Newhouse, and Congressman Meadows, thank you all for being here. We very much appreciate it. You have been very instrumental. Thank you.


[11:20:04] TRUMP: I'm thrilled to speak to the American people, to

share truly historic news for our nation and, indeed, for the world. I want to thank Vice President Pence for joining us this morning.

My great honor to announce that we have successfully completed negotiations on a brand-new deal to terminate and replace NAFTA and the NAFTA trade agreements with an incredible new U.S./Mexico/Canada agreement, called USMCA. Sort of just works. MCA.




TRUMP: That will be the name, I guess, that 99 percent of the time we'll be hearing, USMCA. Has a good ring to it.

I have long contended that NAFTA was perhaps the worst trade deal ever made. Since NAFTA's adoption, the United States racked up trade deficits totaling more than $2 trillion. And it's a much higher number than that. With Canada and Mexico, it lost vast amounts of money. And lost 4.1 million manufacturing jobs and one in four auto jobs. Lost about 25 percent of our auto jobs, even more than that.

Throughout the campaign, I promised to renegotiate NAFTA and today we have kept that promise. But for 25 years, as a civilian, as a businessman, I used to say how

could anybody have signed a deal like NAFTA? And I watched New England and so many other places where I was, just the factories were leaving, the jobs were leaving, people were being fired. And we can't have that.

So we have negotiated this new agreement based on the principle of fairness and reciprocity. To me, it's the most important word in trade, because we have been treated so unfairly by so many nations all over the world, and we're changing that.

We just signed a much better deal with South Korea. We had a horrible, horrible deal, and we just signed that at United Nations. And that's worked out well. And they're happy, we're happy. Good for jobs, good for a lot of things. When that deal was signed, they said 250,000 jobs will be given by signing this transaction. And they were right. I have said it before. They were right, 250,000 jobs to South Korea, not to the United States. So that's changed. And very much for the better. This one is a brand-new deal.

The agreement will govern nearly 1.2 trillion in trade, which makes it the biggest trade deal in the United States history.

I want to congratulate U.S. trade representative, Bob Lighthizer, who has worked -- nobody understands how hard he's worked.


TRUMP: No matter when you called him, he was in the office or in somebody else's office doing the same thing. Bob Lighthizer, he's great. I heard it for years. I said, if I ever do this, I have to have Bob.

I have the USTA standing behind me and in the audience.


TRUMP: Peter Navarro, everybody.


TRUMP: Thank you all.


TRUMP: Thank you.


TRUMP: Fantastic group of people. They love our country.

I also want to thank Secretary Mnuchin, Secretary Ross, Secretary Nielsen, Secretary Perdue, Jared Kushner, Peter Navarro, and the United States ambassador to Canada, Kelly Kraft.

Thank you. Thank you, Kelly.


TRUMP: I also want to thank President Pena Nieto of Mexico, who we had a few disagreements, but I really like him a lot. I think he may like me. I'm not sure.


But I think he's a terrific person. And he'll be leaving soon, but he's really done a good job. And wonderful, wonderful person.

And the Mexican president-elect, Lopez Obrador, who has given his support to the agreement. And we're developing a really good relationship, which I think is very important for our country, frankly, and for Mexico.

And so they worked together on this. This was done by both. I said, look, I don't want to sign an agreement and then a new president comes in, they don't like it and we have difficulty. They worked very much together on it. And I appreciate it from both.

[11:24:57] I have to certainly give my highest regards to prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau. Lot of stories came out about Justin and I. Having difficulty together. We did over the trade deal. But I tell you, it's turned out to be a very, very good deal for both. And a very, very good deal for all three. It puts us in a position that we have never been in before. It's very good when you look at the world and what the world is doing and when you look at the unfair trade practices that countries are using against the United States. This is a terrific deal for all of us.

Once approved by Congress, this new deal will be the most modern, up to date, and balanced trade agreement in the history of our country with the most advanced protections for workers ever developed. If you look at the reviews, people that would normally not, under any circumstances, say good things, because, automatically, they have to say bad. Even some Democrats say that's amazing. We had some -- they haven't been given the sound bites, I guess, Mike. But you had some Democrats say this is really amazing if he really got all of that. But by tomorrow, I would suspect they will change their tune, but that's OK because people know how good it is. It's an amazing deal for a lot of people.

Likewise, it will be the most advanced trade deal in the world with ambitious provisions on the digital economy, patents -- very important -- financial services, and other areas where the United States has a strong competitive advantage. Mexico and Canada have agreed to strong new labor protections, environmental protections, and new protections for intellectual property. So important.

This new deal is an especially great victory for our farmers. Our farmers have gone through a lot over the last 15 years. They have been taken advantage of by everybody. Prices have gone way down. And we're working on some other deals that are going to make them very happy, also, but this is a very, very big deal for our farmers. Mexico and Canada will be opened up a lot more than they are now. And I think there will be a better spirit between the three countries, which is important for our farmers.

The agreement will give our farmers and ranchers far greater access to sell American-grown produce in Mexico and in Canada. The deal includes a substantial increase in our farmers' opportunities to export American wheat, poultry, eggs, and dairy, including milk, butter, cheese, yogurt and ice cream, to name a few. I want to be very specific. I want to be very specific.



TRUMP: I want to be very specific. Right?


TRUMP: And many other products, but those products were not really being treated fairly as far as those that worked so hard to produce them. And now they're going to be treated fairly. These measures will support many hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

This is also a historic win for American manufacturers and American autoworkers, who have been treated so badly. We lost so many jobs over the years under NAFTA.

Under the current new deal, and if you look at the current NAFTA deal, the new deal is taking care of all of these problems because NAFTA, foreign companies have been allowed to manufacture many of their parts overseas, ship them to Mexico and Canada for assembly, and send their foreign-made cars into the United States with no tax. So we let all our people go, we fire everybody. They make cars, they make products, they make everything in another country. They send them into the United States, no tax. And the cost is very little difference. Sometimes it's more for those people that like to talk about cost. With this agreement, we're closing all of these terrible loopholes. They're closed. They're gone. They were a disaster.

For example, we're requiring a large portion of every car to be made by high-wage workers which will greatly reduce foreign outsourcing, which was a tremendous problem, and means more auto parts and automobiles will be manufactured inside the United States. We'll be manufacturing many more cars. And our companies won't be leaving the United States, firing their workers, and building their cars elsewhere. There's no longer that incentive. Before, under the NAFTA deal, they had that incentive. They have the opposite incentive. We're not losing our companies. That was, to me, the most important thing. I don't want to see our companies leave and fire our workers, and our workers never get jobs to replace those jobs. Those days are over.

This deal will also impose new standards requiring at least 75 percent of every automobile to be made in North America in order to qualify for the privilege of free access to our markets.