Last month I cast what was one of the most difficult votes of my Congressional career. Until the last minute, I weighed the pros and cons of extending permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to China.
Supporters of PNTR want to gain access to the largest new market in the world. Those who oppose PNTR believe American jobs will be lost as a result and reward a government known for its brutal human rights violations.
As one of the few remaining undecided Representatives, I was lobbied aggressively by both sides. President Clinton contacted me late the night before the vote seeking a yes vote. Labor unions pressed me for a no vote.
When you are being courted so heavily by both sides of a heated issue, you can use your newly found access with legislative leaders to your advantage. Although this debate raged over trade with China, my focus as always was on South Carolina's Sixth Congressional District. So I took the opportunity during a budget meeting with House Speaker Dennis Hastert to express to him my concern that new empowerment zones might be overlooked in the upcoming budget debate, and full funding for current ones should be a priority.
An Empowerment Zone is a federal designation for economically distressed areas which makes them eligible for tax breaks and other benefits to attract investment and jobs. Recently, I wanted to secure that designation for a portion of Columbia and Sumter which could receive up to $100 million for economic development.
As a result of my meeting with Speaker Hastert, I received a letter just a few days later from him thanking me for the perspective I contributed to the negotiations. Because of those discussions, he agreed to increase the total number of communities affected by empowerment zones and gave them full funding. He wrote, "I really want to thank you for your outstanding contribution."
Although I appreciate Speaker Hastert's responsiveness, I could not support his and President Clinton's position on PNTR with China. In the end it was Ruthie, and those she represents, that swayed my vote. Ruthie is a former textile worker who believes jobs like her's would be lost if PNTR passed. The calls coming into my office during the days leading up to the vote overwhelmingly echoed Ruthie's sentiments. My vote boiled down to jobs.
The debate over PNTR is reminiscent of the battle that raged over NAFTA during my first term in Congress. Both trade agreements were sought by President Clinton and by our nation's industry leaders. However, on both occasions, I had to consider the average Sixth District resident. He or she is not the president of a manufacturing plant of the greatest nation in the world. These are average Joes who work hard for their money and many of them live from paycheck to paycheck. In good conscious I could not jeopardize their livelihood. So just as I voted no on NAFTA, I cast my ballot against PNTR with China. Both times I wound up on the losing end of the battle. But for my constituents in South Carolina it was the right thing to do.
Having said that, the Senate is considering amending the PNTR legislation to protect the textile industry. If they are successful, I will not hesitate to support the bill when it returns to the House for a final vote. Our country does need to seek new markets for our goods and services, and future laborers but not at a detriment to our current citizens.
# # #