Politicos Vary on Assessing Fallout From NAFTA Vote

Now that the House of Representatives has passed the North American Free Trade Agreement, South Bay politicians, interest groups and consultants disagree on whether the political fallout will last long.

The three Democratic South Bay Congress members, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Marina del Rey), Rep. Walter R. Tucker III (D-Compton) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), all voted against it, despite intense lobbying from the White House. Only Rep. Steve Horn (R-Long Beach), who represents the Port of Los Angeles and downtown San Pedro, voted for the agreement.

Some experts say the trade debate will soon be eclipsed by other issues on Clinton’s agenda: anti-crime legislation and health care reform. But backers of Ross Perot say they will keep the issue in the forefront and vow to punish Horn for his vote.

“Within six months, health care and other issues will be on people’s minds,” said GOP political consultant Allan Hoffenblum. “NAFTA will be on the back burner.”

“We still have many issues coming up,” said Glenda McCarthy, president of the Beach Cities Democratic Club. “It’s not a make-or-break issue because no one knows exactly what the impact will be.”

*

But United We Stand members pledge to send pink slips to Horn and other House members who voted for NAFTA.

“We will never forget this,” said Elslee Pardaffy, chairwoman of the Torrance Chapter of United We Stand, the political watchdog group inspired by Perot’s presidential campaign last year.

And the harbor area longshoremen’s union, which contributed to Horn’s campaign, will not do so next year, said Luisa Gratz, president of the Southern District of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union.

“We will make sure a lot of people remember” how Horn voted on NAFTA, Gratz added.

The pact would gradually lift trade barriers between the United States, Mexico and Canada, creating the world’s largest free-trade zone and eliminating tariffs among the three. If approved by the Senate, which is expected, it would go into effect Jan. 1.

Horn does not believe voters will make up their minds about him based on only the NAFTA issue. Said Horn: “I would hope that they would look at the total record.”

Waters agreed, saying, “It may be NAFTA today, health care tomorrow.”

An early supporter of Clinton in his presidential campaign last year, Waters bucked intense personal lobbying by him to oppose NAFTA. Calls to her office averaged 3-to-1 against the accord, she said.

*

Waters said she agreed with those who expressed fears that manufacturing jobs in her district, which includes Inglewood, would be lost to Mexico.

Harman, whose Marina del Rey-to-San Pedro district is about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, could gain new support from United We Stand, which previously had criticized her support of Clinton’s economic plan.

“I believe the NAFTA vote was even more important than (her) vote on the economic plan,” Pardaffy said, predicting that the trade accord would have a discernible negative impact on the economy. “The NAFTA vote is going to count more highly.”

Harman said she expects that next year voters will judge her on her job creation efforts, not the trade agreement. “They will be very focused on retaining and building jobs,” she said. “Many other factors come into that.”

On Thursday, Harman said she got a message from a representative from the United Auto Workers, thanking her for opposing NAFTA. But he questioned why she was supporting an amendment to the President’s budget plan that includes $103 billion in additional spending cuts.

Said Harman: “It’s another day, another issue.”

Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Susan Brooks, a NAFTA supporter seeking the GOP nod to run against Harman, agreed that other issues may overshadow the trade pact.

“The effects of NAFTA will be long term,” Brooks said. “If the economy is better, the only reason will be because of NAFTA. If it is worse, NAFTA doesn’t have anything to do with it. Those jobs would be lost anyway.”