Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, November 18, 1993 TAG: 9311180062
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LON WAGNER STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
After all, wasn't this a 4,000-page document, full of legalese about such things as protection of the U.S. sugar beet industry? Didn't the support or opposition of some Great Plains states representatives hinge on the minutiae of the treaty's handling of imported durum, a type of wheat?
Yes and yes. But the Roanoke Valley SPCA's position - which followed the national Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' opposition - was symbolic of the NAFTA debate.
The trade agreement with Canada and Mexico came to represent more than reduced tariffs among the three countries. Many who objected to NAFTA did so because they disapproved of one practice or another carried on in Mexican society.
The SPCA, not surprisingly, examined how animals would be treated under the agreement and discovered that some protections taken for granted in the United States might not apply.
"They have no regulations in Mexico as to how the animals are slaughtered or how they are processed," said Tammy Javier, Roanoke Valley SPCA director, explaining her opposition. "The U.S. has strict regulations."
A group of 300 religious leaders - one from the Scott County town of Dungannon - took out an ad in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call to denounce NAFTA. Their reason: The trade agreement failed to assure that "economic endeavors will be ecologically sound, respect diverse cultural values, and encourage the social and economic well-being of all citizens." Those benevolent ambitions may be too much to expect of a trade treaty.
By the time the House of Representatives voted Wednesday, it seemed nearly every person in the country either had an opinion about NAFTA or thought he should have an opinion about it.
Union members opposed the agreement partly because they thought it would give employers an unfair bargaining chip in contract negotiations: "If you don't like our 1.5 percent pay increase offer," union workers imagined company negotiators saying, "don't take it - we'll just move your jobs to Mexico."
But one emotional reason the unions didn't like the agreement involved solidarity with their Mexican counterparts. The Mexican government's union-busting at a Volkswagen factory in 1989 was well-documented. Unions couldn't in good conscience support an agreement with a country that so aggressively beat down its workers.
Politically, NAFTA put freshman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke, in a peculiar position: supporting an unpopular Democratic president. Though the Clinton administration had granted concessions to some House members to make the vote possible - a protection for concentrated orange juice brought over some votes from the Florida delegation - Goodlatte aide Tim Phillips said the Roanoke Republican expected no future perks for his support of Clinton.
He said the whole experience had been, well, odd. "That's a very fair statement," Phillips said. "It is an odd feeling to see the president or Vice President Gore on TV and be nodding your head, saying, `You tell 'em, atta boy.' "
Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Abingdon, won't be getting a hearty slap on the back from Clinton today. The 9th District Congressman opposed the treaty, fearing the 9,000 apparel jobs in his district would be more vulnerable under NAFTA.
An aide in the White House - no one likes to take credit for passing along information about lobbying on a hot issue - confirmed that Clinton had phoned Boucher to ask for his support. Boucher responded with a flat "no," and there would be no tit for tat in the Fightin' 9th District.
For better and for worse, Rep. L.F. Payne Jr., D-Nelson County, got the most attention of central and Western Virginia House members for his vote. The Washington Post featured Payne in a lead story on its federal page about behind-the-scenes arm twisting over the trade pact. Not bad exposure for a third-term Congressman.
After Payne came out in support of the agreement, Clinton met with him, then wrote a letter saying he would recommend Martinsville as a site for a manufacturing technology center. That was good news for Payne, but the Richmond newspaper's front page story highlighting the deal as part of the NAFTA favor-swapping wasn't.
Then there's Tom Mason, president of Virginia Apparel Corp. in Rocky Mount. Mason has no doubt that the intent of NAFTA is to sacrifice the labor-intensive jobs at his factory for better-paying, higher-skill jobs.
Mason admits his company faced stiff competition from east Asia, Caribbean countries and Mexico before NAFTA. He just didn't need an assault on his business from another direction.
Mason got invited to a White House briefing on NAFTA and urged Payne to oppose it. But he said he knew there was "too much big money" behind the agreement for it to fail.
Now it's over, and Mason - no doubt speaking for many Americans - is glad.
"It has so dominated anything that's been going on for the past couple weeks, anybody that watches the news at all has probably grown a little tired of it," Mason said.
"I'm at that point: OK, let's do it and get on with it. We'll take whatever's dealt us and do the best we can."
by CNB