Hunter Bucks Party Line on Free Trade Pact

It’s not often that conservative Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Coronado) lines up with the Democrats, but on the issue of the North American Free Trade Agreement, he’s their political soul mate.

Hunter, whose district includes all of California’s border with Mexico, is dead set against the trade pact, saying it’s a giveaway to Mexico that will cost America jobs and weaken its economy.

Proponents say the long-term effects of North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, will be to balance the two countries’ economies, create thousands of new American jobs and sharply reduce the “push-pull” forces that send thousands of illegal immigrants pouring north across the border to find higher wages and better lives.

Most San Diego business groups and fellow politicians greeted the agreement with hopeful enthusiasm.

But to Hunter, it was just bad news.

“Anytime you have products flowing across international lines where there’s a great disparity in wages, over time those wages will reach equilibrium. American wages will go down, and Mexican wages will go up. That means there will be less money to rebuild American infrastructure, less money for research and development, social services, for retooling the American industrial base.”

In case the point is unclear, Hunter adds, “Access to American markets is an asset. It shouldn’t be given away for free.”

His passionate opposition to NAFTA leaves him out of step with many Republicans, business associations, farm groups and virtually all other Southwest border congressmen, who generally embrace the notion of free trade.

Out of step, maybe. But supremely confident.

“I’m used to being out there alone, particularly on border issues,” Hunter volunteers cheerfully.

He won’t be alone as the national debate heats up over the historic agreement, announced Wednesday in the White House Rose Garden, that is supposed to bind North America into a powerhouse trading bloc.

Hunter will continue to spread his protect-the-worker message, perhaps proving a variant on former House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill’s adage: All economics is local. The agreement would phase out over 15 years all tariffs on products moving between U.S., Mexico and Canada. It still needs to be ratified by the legislatures of all three countries, and Congress is not expected to see the finished product until next month.

*

So important is the agreement to the Bush Administration that it won “fast track” consideration from Congress.

NAFTA proponents argue that it will create new American jobs by increasing U.S. exports to Mexico, which in turn becomes richer due to increased foreign investment.

Hunter counters that such theories are “fallacious.”

“They may work in the perfect gas of academic models” but not in the real world, Hunter says.

“Free traders say (displaced American) workers always trade up to better jobs, but historically, displaced auto workers never get a job as good as what they had.”

If this sounds protectionist, it is. It also places Hunter, known for his hard-hitting attacks on the majority party, squarely in their midst--at least on this issue.

Democrats, with their strong ties to workers and labor unions, have traditionally opposed dismantling trade barriers when American jobs are at stake.

“When I stood up on the House floor” to lead the debate in May against fast-track consideration of the agreement, Hunter recalls, “the first thing I reminded my fellow Republicans about was my 13% rating from the AFL-CIO. Siding with Democrats doesn’t bother me. I’m glad they finally came around. Now I have to work on my Republican colleagues.”

Most San Diego business groups back NAFTA, envisioning increased tourism and huge Mexican markets opening up for American exports.

“We feel that no area in California will benefit more than San Diego,” says Barbara Stemple, senior vice president for governmental affairs for the San Diego Chamber of Commerce. “The agreement will be increasingly important to our economic future.”

*

Even farm associations are behind the idea, although in the complicated agricultural sector what may be good for one group may be bad for another.

Dave Owen, head of the San Diego County Farm Bureau, says his group, and the umbrella American Farm Bureau, “wanted the negotiations to go forward, providing certain of our concerns were met. We wanted to be a player” in the talks.

David Moore, president of Western Growers Assn. in Irvine, had an observer “right outside the room at the Watergate” where the talks were carried out. While generally supportive of free trade, Moore said he would have preferred a broader approach involving trading nations around the world.

“I hope the government uses the phase-in period to open up other markets,” Moore said.

Under the proposed agreement, products Moore said should do fairly well include citrus fruits, apples, tomatoes, plums, nectarines, peaches and pears.

Crops that will face tough competition from Mexican producers include broccoli, cauliflower, iceberg lettuce and melons, he said.

The agreement will produce winners and losers, and that leaves many elected officials nervous. They may subscribe to the idea of free trade, but none wants to be blamed for losing American jobs or endangering the environment.

Other members of the San Diego congressional delegation back the negotiations, but some are making no promises until they read it carefully.

For example, Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham (R-San Diego) released a statement Wednesday: “I support free and fair trade. (But) before passing judgment on the text of the free trade agreement itself, I intend to analyze it closely for its impact on jobs, environmental protection and U.S.-Mexico border security.”

Rep. Ron Packard (R-Oceanside) has supported the free trade talks all along but will not make a detailed statement until next month.

Rep. Bill Lowery (R-San Diego), who is not running for reelection, came out four-square in favor of “the best job creation act in years.”

“To the European Community, I can only say one thing--eat your heart out,” Lowery said in a breezy statement.

*

San Diego County supervisors came out in favor of negotiations, but called for a program to make sure increased trade does not cause environmental harm.

San Diego Mayor Maureen O’Connor, a Democrat, supports the agreement, but City Council members held off taking a stand until they get a better look at it.

Hunter, however, needs no more time for evaluation.

“Supporters of NAFTA say it will help America by increasing the number of cheap consumer goods. Well, in my book, American consumers are defined as American workers with jobs and paychecks. While there may be a moment of euphoria as we charge the K-mart shelves for lower-priced goods, there may be no paychecks to pay for them.”

Hunter’s answer to the border trade issue is “more political freedom in Mexico.”

“If we take down trade walls, while the PRI (ruling party) maintains a stranglehold on labor, nothing’s going to change. I’m talking about the freedom of a small (Mexican) businessman to buy or not buy, to sell or not sell, hire or not hire, to be able to count the votes on his election day without having to know somebody in power.

“Political prosperity cannot precede political freedom. That is what we want to export to Mexico with no tariffs and no charge.”

As an alternative to lowering trade barriers, Hunter favors giving Mexican business more access to the American textile market by shifting to Mexico some quotas now given to China. Access to the U.S. textile market “is like gold, it’s practically like foreign aid.”

Hunter, considered a hard man to bargain with once he’s made up his mind, hopes to push the Republican Party back to its “pro blue-collar roots.”

“I know most governmental groups tend to support free trade--but the working people don’t. Somehow it came to be the right intellectual position to have, but I’m trying to change that.”

On May 23, Hunter was the one California Republican to dissent on a fast-track approval vote. “It is tough to be over here facing my 166 Republican colleagues who were the heroes of the world’s legislatures during the Gulf War when they had the guts to take on Saddam Hussein in a politically risky vote . . . .

“But I think that right now we are moving down a track that is not going to accrue to the economic benefit of this country, and it is important to speak out against it.”