Economy & Budget

We are on the brink of cures for diseases that affect hundreds of millions around the world. Opponents of stem cell research often point to adult stem cells as a suitable alternative. However, legitimate scientists disagree. Dr. Harold Varmus, the former head of our National Institutes of Health, said, 'Compared to adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells have a much greater potential, according to all existing scientific literature.'

On Wednesday, the President exercised the first veto of his presidency on this law. President Bush has signed bills to give subsidies to Big Oil, to give tax cuts to the wealthiest few, and subsidies to HMOs, but he could not find it in his heart to give hope to America's families, proudly boasting that he was protecting America from crossing a 'moral line.' I am tempted to point out the obvious - the President's veto had nothing to do with morals. It had everything to do with cold, calculated, cynical political gain - the kind of politics that snuffs out the candle of hope, and that condemns the disabled and the sick.

The President's veto is a sad sidebar in a debate that has been about ethical scientific research and hope. The veto has backfired already, putting the spotlight on his stubborn resistance to facts. This last-gasp effort to stop stem cell research will be viewed by historians as a sign more of the weakness of the opponents than a roadblock to progress.

We cannot stand back and ignore a valuable research tool that might work medical miracles. We won't turn our backs on those in need. We will pass this bill.  This fight is just beginning.

Personally, I'm still encouraged that we're going to continue pushing. My legislation isn't the goal - if we can get embryonic stem cells from another sources, I'm all for it - I just doubt we can.

I don't intend to play games. I intend to follow the science and to follow the issue, so that next year I can put it into a bill that'll be an improved model, knowing that the President still probably won't sign it.

But I'm not going to attach this to every appropriations bill.

We're trying to make it possible for kids and parents to choose the schools that they want to go to, especially when the public schools that they're in are not performing.

I hate to say it, but I think it's become very obvious that our system for devising trade agreements so very important to this country's functioning around the world, has not only broken, but is broken completely. Today, we have a trade regime, which has led to the largest trade deficits this country has ever experienced. The latest report is that the trade deficit for the month of May was almost $64 billion. We purchased $64 billion more in goods than we were able to sell to others around the world. We continue to put forward trade agreements like these that leave us naked to competition that is neither free nor fair.

It is time for a change. We need a new direction when it comes to our trade policy. Not only for our workers, but for the health of our American companies that have to compete in this world where artificially other companies and other countries are gaining advantage over us because they are not following the rules. This is another example of why we should reject trade agreements that don't protect America's interests.

By AFL-CIO President John Sweeney

The closeness of today’s vote on the Oman Free Trade Agreement shows that the trade debate in this country is becoming more intense, as politicians in both parties are beginning to realize that our trade policy needs deep reform, not acceleration.

Today's House vote was much narrower than expected, 221-205. Only 22 Democrats voted for this flawed deal, along with 199 Republicans, while 176 Democrats (almost 90 percent of the caucus) and 28 Republicans voted no.

With working people going to the polls in only three and a half months, members of Congress are increasingly reluctant to ratify this administration’s failed trade policy. This policy has resulted in an exploding and out-of-control trade deficit (now at an annual rate of $800 billion a year), millions of good jobs lost, eroding standards of living for the typical worker, and devastated communities.

The upside-down priorities of the Bush Administration are reflected in this deeply flawed agreement. The Oman deal has the same weak and inadequate protections for workers’ rights contained in CAFTA and the other FTAs negotiated by this administration. These provisions are made all the more problematic because Oman’s labor laws are the weakest of any country with which we have ever negotiated a free trade agreement.

Despite the Administration's assertions, these trade agreements don't strengthen security or our government's relationships with other countries any more than they create jobs. They actually generate resentment toward the US and are perceived negatively in many parts of the developing world including the Middle East. So the irony is that while the Administration says this agreement would improve the US image in the Middle East, it will likely do the opposite. The Oman deal also threatens our national security by potentially opening up landside port operations to Omani-based companies – precisely the kind of transaction rejected by Congress and the American public in the Dubai ports debacle.

While we in the American labor movement were deeply disappointed in today’s outcome, we also believe the closeness of the vote reflects the tremendous progress we have made over the last decade in bringing the issues of fairness and workers’ rights to the center of the trade debate. We plan to work harder than ever to ensure that America’s trade policies reflect the values and protect the interests of America’s working families, and create a foundation for a truly just global economy.

During his first address before our nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization, President Bush said the right words, but time and time again, he has failed to back up such words with action.

To truly make an impact, today's photo-up must include a follow-up. The visuals and script he presented must be the beginning of a strong production.

I am pleased that President Bush acknowledged that racism and discrimination still exist in America - a fact some in the Republican party continue to deny.

He discussed giving priority to eliminating racial disparities by providing quality education for all children, encouraging the growth of minority-owned businesses, increasing home ownership in the African American community, expanding access to healthcare, addressing the epidemic of HIV/AIDS and helping the survivors of Hurricane Katrina.

However, mere words do not help children who attend low-performing schools. Catchy sound-bites don't help Hurricane Katrina survivors rebuild their lives. And his appearance at an NAACP convention doesn't make poverty disappear for millions of Americans.

It was the NAM that was chosen, on behalf of its members, to lead the private-sector push for the U.S.-Oman FTA, a sign of the confidence congressional leaders place in the NAM when it comes to support for passing important pro-growth legislation.

Final passage of this agreement will help strengthen the already strong ties that exist between the United States and Oman, a vital ally in the Middle East, and demonstrate our nation’s continued commitment to opening markets around the world. It would also mark an important step toward implementing the Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA), which, when taken as a whole, would form one of our top 10 export markets.

The NAM supported this FTA because of the obvious benefits for all of our members:

- All American-made consumer and industrial products would enter Oman duty-free, gaining even greater market share for U.S. manufacturers, who exported nearly $600 million worth of goods to Oman in 2005.

- Oman would further its commitment to liberalized trade, regulatory transparency and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

- And, significantly, 94 percent of the U.S. manufactured goods trade deficit arises from countries with which we have no bilateral free trade agreements. Oman will be a U.S. trading partner, which is good news for the economy as a whole.

The NAM salutes lawmakers who supported the FTA. The hard work now focuses in the Senate and convincing lawmakers there to back similar legislation.

The Oman Free Trade Agreement is a relatively small, yet vitally important trade pact. Oman is a strategic U.S. ally in the Middle East. Located at the Hormuz Strait and the entrance to the Persian Gulf, it sits directly across from Iran. More than 20 percent of the world's oil supply passes through this strait. Oman has retained friendly ties with the U.S. since our first trade mission back in 1833. It was the first Arab country to send an Ambassador to the United States and also the first Arab country to appoint a female ambassador to the U.S. In 1981, Oman signed a 10-year military access agreement with the United States, which it has renewed twice. Oman has and continues to provide important support to U.S. forces in the region including logistical and operational support for the Persian Gulf War and the present war in Iraq.
Sixty percent of Oman’s population is less than 18. Implementation of this agreement will help Omani leaders in their effort to create the jobs and educational opportunities for this younger generation, and will raise their standard of living to help them sustain a prosperous future. The Oman Free Trade Agreement will have a minimum economic effect on the U.S. according to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) since trade levels are low, representing about four-one hundredths of one percent of total U.S. trade. Since the U.S. trades U.S. goods in exchange for Oman’s oil, the agreement will create more American jobs, particularly in the transport equipment and machinery manufacturing sectors.

I opposed the Oman Trade Agreement. Oman does not meet ILO standards, unlike Bahrain. There is also a port security problem with it.

I didn't think it had sufficient protections for workers.  I am worried about additional losses of jobs in my Congressional district, which has suffered enormously from previous trade agreements.