United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

Floor Speech

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by responding to Mr. SHAW's comments. None of the modest steps he cited respond to the fact that we have an $800 billion trade deficit and an Administration with a trade policy that will do nothing but make it worse.

This agreement with a small but strategically important country like Oman ought to have been approved today unanimously, and it could have been. But there is a very big problem, and that problem is not in Oman on the other side of the world; it is on Pennsylvania, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, to be more precise.

The problem is that just as this Administration has shown consistent disdain for the rights and needs of workers in America, just as it has shown consistent disdain for environmental protection--ready to manipulate science whenever it needs to for political purposes to justify degradation of our air, our water, and our other environmental resources--today it shows continued disdain for the environment and for workers in our international trade agreements.

What we need is a modern, bipartisan trade policy that recognizes that you cannot measure how good your trade policy is based solely on how many dollars in goods transverse international borders. You have to consider the impact of that trade on the workers that produce the goods and on the environment that surrounds them.

During the consideration of this bill in the Ways and Means Committee, we offered very modest amendments to try to address these concerns. On upholding international labor standards and on an amendment that I offered to prevent trade in endangered species, the Committee and the Administration would have none of it because if they showed basic dignity and respect for workers and the environment with Oman, a small country, they might have to do it everywhere, maybe even here in America. You can tell the level of the Administration commitment by the level of enforcement remedies that they provide for the environment and for workers. Then enforcement mechanism in this agreement amounts to less than giving only a traffic ticket to the repeat offender of the most egregious abuse. You pay a fine to yourself--that is the great remedy that they offer.

So today they must, as has been done so often on so many issues, raise the specter of 9/11 and the war on terrorism. How many times has that threat been misused in this building and down the street on Pennsylvania Avenue to debase the most basic and fundamental values that make this a unique country?

It is pulled out again today. It is an issue here, as the Gentleman from Maryland has indicated, because they plan to transfer the issue of port security from this body to an unaccountable, international tribunal that will be empowered to decide whether or not we can restrict foreign acquisition of American ports.

This Administration stood by and encouraged a sellout of our port security once before, and under this agreement they can transfer all responsibility to an unaccountable international tribunal.

Because this agreement fails to adequately respect the needs of American workers and the needs of the environment around the world, it ought to be rejected.

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Source