for keeping us informed about this important issue. The corporatocracy hits again. It's a new world order, all right. It's not *just* the Bushes - but they so typify this greedy and destructive way of living on earth.

Oman trade pact bad for US security -lawmakers

By Doug Palmer
Reuters
Tuesday, July 18, 2006; 6:28 PM



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional opponents of a free-trade pact with Oman raised concerns on Tuesday about provisions they said could jeopardize U.S. port security, but other lawmakers said they were misstating the facts.

The exchange came as the House of Representatives was set to vote on Thursday on the agreement. The Senate approved the trade pact with the Gulf Arab state last month 60-34.

Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who serves on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said the pact would allow companies such as Dubai Ports World to acquire U.S. port operations by establishing a shell company in Oman.

"If Dubai Ports World set up in Oman and then attempts to acquire a U.S. port operation and Congress intervenes ... (the Oman-U.S. Free Trade Agreement) would empower Dubai Ports World to drag the United States before UN or World Bank tribunals to demand we compensate the firm" for lost profits, Murtha said.

Dubai Ports World, based in Oman's neighbor the United Arab Emirates, had to abandon its planned purchase of terminal operation rights at major U.S. ports earlier this year after it ignited a political firestorm in the United States.

Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, and three Democratic House members joined Murtha at a news conference to express concern about the Omani agreement. The five lawmakers have a history of voting against free trade agreements on the grounds that they cost American jobs.

"It's bad enough that we're asked to support agreements that would shift more jobs overseas ... but it is simply unacceptable to ask Congress to support legislation that would essentially undermine the security of our nation," said Rep. Michael Michaud, a Maine Democrat.

In the days leading up to vote, many members are being persuaded by the ports issue to oppose the pact, Michaud said.

Supporters of the Oman trade agreement called the issue raised by Murtha and the other lawmakers a "red herring."

The pact still allows the United States to block proposed transactions it believes are a threat to national security, Rep. Phil English, a Pennsylvania Republican, and two other lawmakers said in a letter to House colleagues.

The U.S. Trade Representative's office acknowledged the Oman pact could allow an Omani company to perform such "landside" port functions as operation and maintenance of docks, loading and unloading of vessels and ship cleaning.

But all U.S. trade agreements include an "essential security" article that allows the president to block any business deal the United States believes raises security concerns, according to a USTR fact sheet.

The Congressional Research Service also said on Tuesday it was unlikely Dubai Ports World or any company would be able to establish a shell company in Oman under the pact in order to acquire U.S. port operations.

Try this link

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/03/why-trade-is-next-big-issue.html

Rick Maynard

July 20 - Narrow Vote on Oman Free Trade Agreement Exposes Shift in U.S. Trade Politics, Shows Opposition That Larger NAFTA-Modeled Pacts Face
Statement of Lori M. Wallach, Director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch Division




With Only 22 Democrats Supporting Trade Model That Majority of Public Considers a Failure, Bright Line Issue Drawn for November Congressional Elections

To download the press release as a pdf document, click here.

When a trade pact with a nation whose economy is the size of Worcester, Mass., can obtain only 221 votes of support in the 435-member House of Representatives, it’s clear that the U.S. public and Congress have had it with our trade status quo. Already many in Congress opposed this deal because it was a NAFTA-CAFTA clone, but by sneaking in security-threatening, politically tone-deaf provisions that give foreign firms the right to drag us to foreign tribunals if we prevent these firms from controlling U.S. port operations, the administration almost lost this vote. Four of the Democrats who supported CAFTA opposed the Oman Free Trade Agreement (OFTA).

We have witnessed a dramatic shift in U.S. trade politics. Last July’s one-vote passage of CAFTA and today’s narrow vote on a pact with tiny Oman reflects American rejection of status quo NAFTA-style trade policy and makes nearly impossible the passage of an extension of Fast Track or larger NAFTA-clone trade deals. The political shift, shaped by increasingly negative public opinion over trade, is even more apparent considering that only 22 Democrats voted for this deal, with its forced labor and port security problems, while last December a trade agreement slipped through Congress with little public attention. That agreement, the Bahrain FTA, passed 327-95, with 115 Democrats voting yes after Bahrain agreed to bring its labor laws to International Labour Organization standards.

Trade will be a hot issue in the 2006 elections. House Republicans who were pushed to vote for this deal after walking the plank on CAFTA last year could end up with the next trade-related pink slips. Only 22 Democrats supported OFTA, so the administration and Republican Party now have full ownership of a policy most Americans think has failed terribly. The GOP now owns the dangerous trade deficit, stagnant wages and increased undocumented migration caused by this model. It would be ironic if Republican pressure to pass this latest NAFTA expansion were to result in the GOP losing its majority. It could happen given how trade is playing in races in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, North Carolina and Indiana, among other states. It is worth nothing that more Republicans opposed this agreement than CAFTA, signaling the increased political pressure on trade issues at home. Thirteen Republicans who were pushed to vote for CAFTA opposed the Oman FTA.

The Bush administration declared its intentions to pass the Oman agreement by a wide margin by February, but opposition to the pact – which is nearly identical to CAFTA – was too significant. Recent State Department reports about human trafficking and forced labor in Oman have intensified opposition, as have recent press reports detailing abysmal sweatshop conditions resulting from a 2001 Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Until the Bush administration reverses course on a trade agenda that has helped create a record trade deficit, job loss, declining tax base, jump in undocumented immigrants and other harsh realities, it will find Capitol Hill no friendly place for more of the same.

Try this link

http://www.citizen.org/trade/

Rick Maynard

Magic City Morning Star

Michaud Leads Fight Against Oman Free Trade Agreement

By IPR

Jul 19, 2006

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congressman Mike Michaud led a bipartisan group of Members of Congress in speaking out again the Oman Free Trade Agreement (OFTA) that the House is expected to consider on Thursday. Joining Michaud were Defense Appropriations Ranking Member Rep. John Murtha (D-PA); Senior Armed Services Committee Member Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC); Armed Services Subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS); and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats & International Relations Member Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA).

"It is bad enough that we are asked to support agreements that will ship more jobs overseas, that undermine our environmental standards, and that ask us to stick our head in the sand over serious human rights violations - but it is simply unacceptable to ask this Congress to support legislation that could potentially undermine the security of our nation," said Michaud.

Buried in OFTA is a provision that undermines Congress’ ability to protect the security of U.S. ports. OFTA would grant firms incorporated in Oman a "right of establishment" to acquire and operate landside port activities within the United States. OFTA’s privileges apply to Omani firms as well as any firm incorporated and operating in Oman. If Dubai Ports World sets up in Oman and Congress intervened in an attempted acquisition as occurred this past spring, OFTA would empower Dubai Ports World to drag the U.S. before a U.N. or World Bank tribunal to demand that we compensate them with taxpayer dollars for "future expected profits" lost because Congress undermined a new OFTA right to operate.

"Simply put, foreign tribunals should not determine what is in fact a security threat to the United States. This provision should not be in this trade agreement and this Congress should not be asked to support it," said Michaud.

Proponents of OFTA are trying to control growing opposition by arguing that the agreement contains an "Essential Security" standard that somehow protects against challenges. Unfortunately, it does not - that provision would not halt challenges to US decisions.

"Now you might say - what does Oman have against us? I am not worried about the Sultan of Oman," said Murtha. "I doubt he would consider it in his interest to drag the U.S. to a foreign tribunal. He has been very helpful in facilitating U.S. troop movements in the area. The problem is that under this agreement any private investor or company operating in Oman can drag the U.S. government to one of these foreign tribunals."

"Because the U.S. allows other foreign port operating firms within the U.S., we can’t claim simply that any foreign firms in our ports is a security threat," said Murtha. We must show a specific threat to convince the foreign tribunal. So, the best case scenario is that we spend significant money and reveal national security secrets trying to convince a foreign tribunal that were justified in violating OFTA. This is not a gamble I am willing to take with our nation’s national security."

At the end of June, Michaud and his colleagues announced that over 400 state and local organizations have signed a letter against the Oman FTA. The signers of the letter represent religious, labor, human rights, consumer, environmental, and family farm organizations, including several from Maine.

"At the end of the day we need to think about the economic reality that America is facing when considering agreements like the Oman Free Trade Agreement. Our trade deficit hit a record-shattering $726 billion last year," said Michaud. "Like CAFTA, the Oman agreement will accelerate job loss and lower living standards in the United States, while increasing poverty in the nations we trade with. Oman’s laws remain in serious violation of the International Labor Organization’s most important and fundamental rights - the freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively."



Rick Maynard

7/20/2006, Statement of Congressman Sanders regarding:
OMAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT


Watch video of the floor proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this agreement. Unfettered free trade is one of the major reasons that the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing, and the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider.

The American middle class should no longer be forced to compete against workers in China, Mexico, Vietnam, and other desperate parts of the world where they are paid as little as thirty cents an hour and can be thrown in jail for forming an independent union or standing up for their democratic rights. But, that is exactly what unfettered free trade is all about.

Mr. Speaker, before you vote for unfettered free trade with Oman consider this: the minimum wage in Oman ranges from absolutely nothing to about $1.30 an hour. The average wage in Oman is about $13,200, below the poverty line for a single mother with one child living in this country. Why should American workers be forced to compete with these workers?

In addition, we hear a lot from the Administration and my Republican colleagues about the need to support freedom. Well, are the people in Oman free to elect their leader? No. Oman is a hereditary monarchy. Is there freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press in Oman? No, no, and no.

I ask my Republican colleagues, why should we reward a hereditary monarchy that doesn’t support freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of speech, with an unfettered free trade agreement? This is absurd.

I have been in this Congress for over 15 years. I have witnessed the passage of NAFTA, PNTR with China, Normal Trade Relations for Vietnam, and trade agreements with Singapore, Morocco, Chile, Jordan, Australia, and Central America.

Each time, we were told by corporate America how good unfettered free trade would be. What they forgot to tell us is that while these free trade agreements are in fact good for the big corporations and their well-paid CEOs, they have been a disaster for the middle class and working families of our country.

In the last 5 years alone, we have lost nearly 3 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs, 17 percent of the total, and now after the collapse of manufacturing we are seeing the hemorrhaging of good-paying information technology jobs. NAFTA has led to the destruction of about one million U.S. jobs. Unfettered free trade with China has destroyed at least 1.5 million jobs.

In 1993, before NAFTA, our trade deficit was over $70 billion. Last year, it was over $715 billion. This year it is expected to top $800 billion. So, what’s the response from Congress? Let’s pass another unfettered free trade agreement.

Mr. Speaker, if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, we would have to be insane to pass yet another unfettered free trade agreement.

Let’s stand up for the American middle class. Let’s defeat this legislation and re-write our trade agreements to benefit American workers, not just the CEOs of Fortune 500 corporations.

Video link

http://bernie.house.gov/multimedia/video.asp?video='4968'

Rick Maynard