McKeon and Waxman Split on NAFTA

In a reversal of partisan loyalties, Republican U.S. Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon unexpectedly announced Friday that he will vote for the North American Free Trade Agreement while Democratic Rep. Henry A. Waxman disclosed he will vote against the pact.

The decisions by the two lawmakers come five days before the hotly contested NAFTA vote and followed intense lobbying--including direct appeals by President Clinton to each of them. McKeon was considered leaning against the treaty by vote counters while Waxman was undecided.

McKeon, whose 25th District includes the Santa Clarita and Antelope Valleys and part of the San Fernando Valley, said he concluded after exhaustive study that the “evidence is overwhelming” that NAFTA will stimulate the U.S. economy and act as an antidote to illegal Mexican immigration.

McKeon also said he believed his decision will make it harder for him to win reelection next year but that it may result in concrete dividends for his district.

Meanwhile, Waxman said his decision was founded on his concerns about the treaty’s impact on health and the environment. “I feel that this agreement is one that leaves too many issues in trouble in terms of public health, safety and the environment,” said Waxman, a Los Angeles Democrat whose 29th District extends from the Westside into southern San Fernando Valley communities. “They’re vulnerable to attack by foreign countries that might say that our laws are unfair trade barriers.”

At a news conference at his Santa Clarita field office, McKeon said he has been leaning toward NAFTA for several weeks. The decisive factor, McKeon indicated, was simply relying on his own business instincts.

“There wasn’t one specific thing,” the freshman lawmaker said. “It’s more my business background, my experience and my understanding of how business works and economics--an overall feel.

“If you look at just California and we’re in a recession, I’d hate to think where we’d be if we cut off opportunities to deal with Mexico,” McKeon said. “From 1987 to the present our exports (to Mexico) have gone from $2.3 billion to $6.6 billion. . . . I couldn’t have lived with myself if I had voted against it.”

McKeon said he was also impressed by Vice President Al Gore’s arguments during his televised debate this week with Ross Perot, the billionaire Texas businessman who has led the fight against NAFTA.

The congressman said he particularly liked the theme struck by Gore in his summation. “Should we go with the politics of fear or the politics of hope?” McKeon said, paraphrasing Gore. “I think America should be reaching out, not closing up.”

McKeon narrowly won election last year in a race that included a Perot supporter, Rick Pamplin, who received 7% of the vote.

McKeon said he expected to be attacked both for supporting NAFTA and for flip-flopping on the issue. Although in recent months McKeon has been counted as undecided but leaning against the treaty, he told a constituent during his 1992 election campaign that he would oppose the pact, a statement he said Friday was based on too little information at the time.

He acknowledged that his vote may cause political troubles for him next year. “I have not heard anyone will run against me before but now I’m sure there will be,” he said. “But my political future compared to the future of this country is insignificant.”

Brian Ages, Santa Clarita Valley membership coordinator for the Perot organization, United We Stand, America, predicted that McKeon will be haunted by his decision. “It’s going to make his reelection tougher,” Ages said. “But we don’t know if we’ll put a candidate up against him. He’s been good up to this point. But this is an important vote for us.”

On the other hand, McKeon said he is hopeful that Clinton will remember his vote and support several of his local pet projects. Clinton has made no promises, McKeon said. “But I’m working on it,” he said, grinning.

McKeon’s staff said the congressman is looking for Clinton’s support for funding to widen the accident-ridden Antelope Valley Freeway and improve the section of California 126 that connects the Golden State and Antelope Valley freeways.

An Administration official working for passage of NAFTA indicated that McKeon’s endorsement was a pleasant surprise. The official said that the Republican had expressed particular concerns to the White House about the impact of the treaty on illegal immigration and how its approval would fit into the Administration’s efforts to control the borders.

Meanwhile, Waxman made his announcement at a hastily called late-afternoon news conference at the Capitol after personally informing Clinton of his decision earlier in the day. He distributed a copy of a detailed, four-page letter that he sent to the President urging him to withdraw the proposed pact and initiate negotiations on a new agreement with Mexico and Canada.

Waxman, chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health and environment, said that he strongly supports the liberalization of trade laws and increased international competition. But he said, in the end, he could not back an agreement that could undercut U.S. laws to strengthen environmental protection and safety.

He said the treaty would allow Mexico or Canada to challenge a U.S. law that protects the American food supply on the grounds that it “arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate(s)” against imports or creates a “disguised restriction on trade.”

Such challenges would be decided by a tribunal made up solely of officials from the three governments that would be “shrouded in secrecy,” Waxman said.

“As a result,” Waxman wrote to Clinton, “Congress is faced with a choice between efforts to promote trade and a potential threat to the integrity of our laws, some of which I have battled against industry for years to enact.

“The unfortunate reality is that a future administration opposed to environmental and safety laws could undermine these important statutes simply by mounting a weak defense when these laws are challenged.”

Jay Ziegler, a spokesman for the White House’s NAFTA office, responded. “We disagree 100%. The side agreements that this Administration negotiated will actually create a public tribunal with citizen representatives and government officials to air these concerns in public. I’m not sure how he reached this conclusion. . . . We want to have greater public accountability.”

Waxman, who is working closely with the Administration on health care reform, said he had wanted to support Clinton on NAFTA. The 19-year congressional veteran called it “one of the most difficult votes I’ve cast.”

A White House source acknowledged that the Administration had earlier hoped to win Waxman’s support to help woo other undecided Democratic environmentalists. But he downplayed Waxman’s opposition, contending that many of those members have now announced their positions.

“We’re pleased he did it now rather than two weeks ago,” the official said.

* WOOING CONGRESS: NAFTA fight moves to the home districts. A21