Gallegly Will Oppose NAFTA; Cites Fears of U.S. Job Losses : Trade: Congressman says California will be most affected by treaty’s negative byproducts, such as increased illegal immigration.

As expected, Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) announced his opposition Monday to the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying that he fears the measure would cause a loss of jobs and increase illegal immigration.

“We in California are going to be more directly affected by NAFTA than anyone else in the country,” Gallegly said. “With Ventura County and Southern California in the grip of persistent economic hard times, the last thing we need is a treaty that could cost more jobs and drive down wages even further.”

The House vote on the controversial pact, scheduled for Nov. 17, is expected to be close. Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills), who represents most of Thousand Oaks, had previously announced his backing for the measure, which would gradually phase out trade barriers between the United States, Mexico and Canada.

To bolster his case, Gallegly said a recent report by the Congressional Joint Economic Committee found that enactment of NAFTA could lead to the loss of 500,000 jobs over a five-year period. The study found that credible projections of job losses ranged from 100,000 to 1 million.

Proponents of NAFTA, including President Clinton and Beilenson, contend that it would eventually lead to the creation of jobs as the U.S. exports more of its goods and services to a growing Mexican market. Beilenson said that even if the gloomiest predictions on the effects of NAFTA prove correct, the United States would lose 150,000 lower-paying jobs over a 10-year period and, during the same period, pick up that many or more better-paying jobs.

Gallegly maintained that NAFTA could cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion during the next five years in lower tariff revenues, worker retraining and environmental programs and other expenses associated with the pact’s side agreements.

An aide said that this figure was based on an analysis by the Republican Research Committee. “By the time you add up all the costs, that’s the number we believe it will eventually wind up being,” said John Frith, Gallegly’s spokesman.

A strong supporter of the so-called fast-track negotiating authority under Republican President George Bush, Gallegly said his opposition to NAFTA has not been colored by partisan politics. He said his position would not have differed if Bush rather than Democrat Clinton was asking for his high-stakes vote.

“I’m more concerned about the success of the American public than I am about the success of one individual’s presidency,” Gallegly said.

*

Gallegly was lobbied on NAFTA recently by Clinton, who invited him to the White House for a meeting with U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor and other members of Congress. He had previously indicated he was leaning toward voting against the pact.

Gallegly, an avowed free trader, said he believed that he sees no inconsistency between his philosophical approach to trade and his opposition to NAFTA. “Most of the benefits of NAFTA are going to take place without enacting this treaty,” he said.

He noted that U.S. exports to Mexico have skyrocketed in recent years, and he predicted further liberalization of the Mexican economy with or without NAFTA.

“I would say that there’s been some balance with my position,” Gallegly said. “It has not been a 100% thing.”

Gallegly also said he was concerned that ratifying NAFTA would increase illegal immigration into the U.S. In a news release, he cited recent testimony by Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner Doris Meissner at a Judiciary subcommittee hearing last week. He said her remarks indicated agreement with his position and contradicted Clinton’s assertions that NAFTA will reduce illegal immigration.

“I asked Commissioner Meissner if she still held her longstanding belief that NAFTA would lead to higher illegal immigration,” Gallegly said. “She not only didn’t disavow her position, she confirmed that NAFTA would cause illegal immigration to increase for the next 25 years--saying only that she considered 20 years to be short term.”

Ralph Thomas, acting INS director for congressional public affairs, said Monday that Gallegly mischaracterized Meissner’s testimony. Thomas said that Meissner had acknowledged that NAFTA would cause some initial dislocation and increased pressure to migrate from Mexico, but that it would eventually decrease illegal immigration by creating new jobs in Mexico.

“What you have over the 20-year period is a narrowing of the mismatch between the growth in population and the number of jobs available to absorb them,” said Thomas, who accompanied Meissner to the hearing. “There are new pressures to migrate that will be unleashed but they are localized pressures. . . . The net is positive.”

Beilenson also maintained that NAFTA could help decrease illegal immigration from Mexico by creating additional jobs and wealth south of the border.