NAFTA Still a Tough Sell Despite High-Level Lobbying : Commerce: White House officials stress merits of treaty to members of California delegation, who remain unconvinced. House vote is Wednesday.

A Democrat who opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement, Rep. Jane Harman of Marina del Rey knew she could expect some arm-twisting to support President Clinton in one of his most crucial votes.

But Harman still marvels at the high-level lobbying effort last week to get her to change her mind. First, there was Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Then came the calls from Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and former President Jimmy Carter.

And at 11 p.m. on Thursday, Clinton called, and they talked for 40 minutes about the merits of the agreement, which faces a crucial House vote Wednesday.

“It’s tough to say no to your very good friends,” said Harman, who represents the 36th Congressional District, which stretches from San Pedro to Venice. “And I can’t imagine any greater pressure than a call from the President. But on this issue, my position is based on the interests of the 36th District.”

That Clinton has not been able to sway Harman, who has distinguished herself among freshmen for her ties to the White House, underscores the Administration’s difficulties in lining up votes from the South Bay’s four-member congressional delegation.

*

Rep. Walter Tucker III (D-Compton) also opposes the pact. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) could not be reached for comment, but a spokesman for Waters said she is leaning against the agreement.

In fact, only Rep. Steve Horn, a Republican whose district includes San Pedro and the Port of Los Angeles, said he will vote for the trade pact.

“Clearly, the opponents in California are playing on the economic anxieties,” said Jay Ziegler, press secretary for the White House’s NAFTA effort. “What we have to do is get through that. We’re not giving up on anybody.”

The trade agreement could have a dramatic impact on the South Bay’s economy, which is tied to aerospace and other highly skilled manufacturing jobs. 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 between the three countries.

South Bay opponents, already alarmed at the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs during the recession, fear the trade pact would make things worse.

Since 1989, the number of manufacturing jobs in the South Bay fell from 119,362 to 86,656, according to Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, a Los Angeles consulting firm. The disparity in average hourly wages between the United States and Mexico could cause job losses as businesses seek cheaper labor.

“We have an obligation to make sure that the little guy doesn’t get the shaft,” said Tucker, whose district includes Carson and Wilmington. “There are certain people who will benefit if NAFTA passes or not. But it is the people on the sidelines who get hurt.”

The workers who are dislocated, Tucker fears, will include many black and Latino laborers from his district. While the pact includes $93 million to retrain workers, that amount would be “grossly insufficient,” he said.

Harman, who campaigned against NAFTA in last year’s election, argues that the “risk is too great” to take a chance on the agreement. U.S. manufacturers will move to Mexico, only to send goods back to the United States, she said.

“In macro-economic terms, I’m for a trade agreement,” she said. “But there has got to be some consensus. In a global marketplace, it is critically important that people buy into the economic relationships.”

Last August, Harman appeared at an anti-NAFTA rally in San Pedro, where she was joined by representatives of labor unions and United We Stand, the political watchdog organization that grew out of Texas billionaire Ross Perot’s presidential bid.

But Harman says her opposition to NAFTA is not an attempt to curry favor with those groups.

“You can’t hang this on labor or United We Stand,” she said. “I have been in the no column from the beginning.”

Horn said relaxed trade barriers will spur job growth at home. As evidence, he points to a large jump in exports from California to Mexico since 1986, when Mexico joined the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and lowered its charges on imports. Exports grew from $2.2 billion in 1987 to $6.5 billion in 1992.

And the Port of Los Angeles, he said, will gain revenue because more ships will dock there. However, if the pact is not passed, Mexico could seek another partner such as Japan, Horn said.

“If we are dumb enough to reject this, what you might have is a major port with Japanese money in Ensenada or somewhere else,” he said.

What is driving the opposition, Horn said, is the fear that labor groups and Perot supporters will retaliate against representatives who vote for NAFTA.

“What I am trying to say is to forget the demagoguery on the right or left, and think in the long term,” he said. “The national interest should prevail over the parochial or party interest.”

Where They Stand on Trade Pact Rep. Jane Harman: Against

Rep. Walter Tucker III: Against

Rep. Maxine Waters: Leaning against

Rep. Steve Horn: In favor