United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

UNITED STATES-OMAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT -- (House of Representatives - July 20, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank Mr. Shaw and Mr. Cardin for proceeding on this debate, as well as Mr. Moran. I think I have voted with all three of them on various different occasions.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong advocate for free trade and open markets. I believe strongly that American businesses and workers can compete and win in the global economy.

Increasing global interdependence is a reality in the 21st century, and it presents our Nation with an opportunity to promote democratic reform, the rule of law, and respect for basic human rights.

It is incumbent, however, upon us to foster global trade, to engage our partners in a system based on rules and law, and to work to raise the living standards of working men and women; and not to recoil from the rest of the world.

Philosophically, I count myself a proponent, a strong proponent of free trade, and have voted for many of the trade agreements that have come before this House.

This agreement, I think, is relatively insignificant as it relates to trade and the volume of trade and the impact on our domestic economy. It may have a much more substantial impact, obviously, on the Oman economy. But in terms of our own economy, it will have, I think, relatively little impact.

However, the Oman Free Trade Agreement I believe is flawed, and it undermines fundamental worker rights. Thus, I intend to oppose it.

What this debate, from my perspective, is about is the criteria that we will tell the world is necessary for us to enter into agreements with them. In many respects, as I understand it, those trading partners with whom we might enter into agreements are not in opposition to that which we are seeking. In fact, it is my understanding that there are Members of this Congress and members of the administration far more opposed to the issues that I will discuss than are the partners who enter into agreements with us.

Oman today does not meet the five basic International Labor Organization standards, including the rights of association and collective bargaining, bans on child labor, slave labor, and discrimination in employment. They say they are going to meet those, but they have not yet met them.

Americans, I believe, feel very strongly about all of those provisions in our own domestic law and in international law.

And it seems to me appropriate that we pursue agreements in that context. There are no labor unions in Oman today. The only labor organizations are, essentially, management labor committees. And while 70 percent of workers in Oman are expatriates, there is little, if any, participation by foreign workers in administering such committees. In other words, most of the workers are from outside of Oman. But almost all of those who participate in any kind of discussions with reference to labor issues are within Oman, Omani citizens.

For 8 months Oman has failed to take a number of steps to ensure that its practices immediately comply with ILO standards and to bind those commitments under the agreement, as was done by Bahrain last year.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Research Service confirmed just yesterday that the trade agreement would make it more difficult to protect U.S. ports and block a takeover by foreign government-owned companies such as Dubai Ports World. That raised a tremendous amount of concern just recently when the CFIUS process did not work as we thought it ought to.

It is regrettable that Republicans on the Rules Committee rejected amendments offered by my good friend, Congressman Cardin, that would have closed this loophole, and it would have at least subjected it to full and fair debate. These are serious issues, and they should be debated fully and fairly. The Rules Committee, however, failed to give us that opportunity. It would have, indeed, insured compliance with ILO standards as well before this agreement goes into effect. But that amendment was not made in order.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, there is no reason that we cannot negotiate agreements that advance the cause of free trade, promote the rule of law, generate economic development of countries in great need, and extend to workers, farmers, and businesses the advantages of expanded trade to new

markets. None. This flawed agreement, however, fails to accomplish those objectives.

For that reason, so that we can set a benchmark for future, much more consequential trade agreements for our country, I believe today the Congress of the United States ought to set that benchmark and say to the administration, say to the USTR, and say to those with whom we will negotiate in the future for trade agreements that this is the essential element of our agreement because we believe, this country believes that as we want to lift our own workers, as we want to lift our own trade viability, and as we want to lift the viability of trade of other countries, we also want to ensure that we lift workers in that process.

That is the right thing to do. It is the best thing to do. It is the best policy thing to do, and therefore, I will oppose this agreement, but hope that as agreements come before us in the future, that I will be able to support them in the best interest of our country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/