[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 115 (Friday, September 15, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9654-S9657]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES-OMAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Order of Procedure
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Republican leader, I now
ask that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 565, H.R. 5684, as provided
for under the order of September 14, 2006; provided further that at the
conclusion of my remarks on H.R. 5684, the Senate proceed to a period
of morning business with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes
each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 5684) to implement the United States-Oman Free
Trade Agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
North Dakota controls up to 60 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, that probably isn't good news to some, but
that is the way it is. I want to talk about the Oman Free Trade
Agreement.
It is unbelievable to me that in a week in which there was an
announcement, on Thursday morning, that the trade deficit for 1 month
has now reached $68 billion--a $68 billion 1-month trade deficit--in
that week we bring to the floor of the U.S. Senate the Oman Free Trade
Agreement. We must have a bowling alley in our brain or something. The
Oman Free Trade Agreement. What on Earth can be rattling around in the
collective brains of public servants? Well, maybe I should modify that.
Maybe I shouldn't be quite so harsh.
Look, we are up to our necks. We are choking as a country on trade
deficits. Last year it was over $700 billion a year; $2 billion a day
every single day. We don't owe that to ourselves, as you can make the
case with respect to the budget deficits. We owe that to other
countries, and we are going to have to repay it. Over one-half is owed
to the Chinese and the Japanese. Yet, interestingly enough, when it is
announced this week that we have a $68 billion monthly trade deficit,
the highest in history, this Congress snored right through it, just
yawned right on through it, snored through it. So did the White House.
Did you hear anybody talk about it? No. I came to speak about it
briefly, but the fact is, it doesn't matter. Be happy. It is OK. It
will be better tomorrow. In fact, let's do more of the same. Let's
bring another free-trade agreement to the floor of the Senate.
We are now negotiating nine of them--nine new trade agreements. This
free-trade stuff--you know, the next time I hear people use that term--
and it is used all the time--free trade, I will want to put a robe on
them and get them on a street corner and give them one of those cymbals
and they can chant. It is nonsense--free trade. It means nothing to me.
What means something to me is fair trade. Yes, I believe in trade,
and plenty of it. Let's expand in trade. Let's demand as a country that
it be fair. I have on so many occasions given dozens of examples in
which we sell out this country's interests in trade negotiations. I am
not going to go through all of that today because I am going to talk
about this so-called Oman Free Trade Agreement. But I will, as I
reserve a portion of my 60 minutes, come back Monday and provide the
rest of the demonstration of how bankrupt our trade strategy has become
and how determined virtually all of those who support it are to ignore
the bankruptcy of that policy.
On June 29 of this year, we sent the Oman Free Trade Agreement from
this Chamber, and now it comes back in the form of a conference report.
Oh there are lots of things going on in the world we probably ought to
talk a little bit about. We could talk about Iraq, perhaps North Korea,
Iran, or terrorism. We have enormous foreign policy challenges, unlike
any we have ever seen in our lifetimes. We can talk about domestic
policies such as energy prices. We could talk about rising health care
costs. We could talk about the fact that the Federal Government is
going to borrow on fiscal policy, budget policy, very close to $600
billion in the coming year. The Federal Government is going to borrow
from foreign countries in trade debt somewhere close to $800 billion in
the coming year. That is well over $1.3 trillion in 1 year, or 10
percent of the entire GDP of this country.
Nobody seems very alarmed about that. They don't want to talk about
it even. We could talk about all of those things, and perhaps we
should. That ought to be the bull's-eye of public policy in terms of
doing what we should do in matters that are important, but are we doing
that? No. No, we are not doing that. We don't quite have time to do
that. We have to deal with the Oman Free Trade Agreement.
Let me tell my colleagues, there are about 400 organizations across
this country that oppose this free-trade agreement: organized labor,
communications workers, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth,
League of Rural Voters, National Farmers Union, the Presbyterian
Church, the Sierra Club, the United Methodist Church, United Students
Against Sweatshops, the Western Organization of Resource Councils. So
it is a pretty significant group of interests around this country that
oppose this trade agreement. Not that they have anything against the
country of Oman; most of us have never been to Oman. It is just that
this country has a responsibility to start fixing the massive problems
it has created in previous trade agreements before negotiating new
ones. As I said, there are nine being negotiated, and they are all
going to come through here, and we will have compliant Members of the
Senate deciding that.
Before they come, do you know what we would like to do? We would like
to put a straightjacket on ourselves so that we can be prevented from
offering amendments. God forbid that we have an original thought and
actually offer an amendment to improve a free-trade agreement. We will
do something called fast track and prevent ourselves from offering any
amendments. So that is what will happen.
Let me tell my colleagues about the ugly side of free trade, if I
might. It is called sweatshops, sweatshops in Jordan. This is from the
New York Times, by the way. It says that we did a free-trade agreement
with Jordan, which is the only trade agreement done under the Clinton
administration, the only trade agreement that had labor protections in
the agreement--the only one. Oman doesn't, and none of the others do,
but this one had protections for workers in the agreement, which I very
strongly support.
But let me tell my colleagues about workers in Jordan. Despite the
fact this trade agreement with Jordan actually had protections for
workers, here is what was happening in Jordan. We had people coming
over to Jordan, being sent over to Jordan from Bangladesh and from
other very poor countries, and they were working in sweatshops. They
were promised $120 a month and, in some cases, they were hardly paid at
all. One worker was paid $50 for 5 months of work. At some factories,
40-hour shifts were common.
Let me say that again. Not 40-hour workweeks--40-hour shifts. So we
had people not being paid, or being paid miserably poor wages, and
being worked 40-hour shifts. There were frequent beatings of workers
who complained. And these factories in Jordan were flying in plane
loads of workers from countries such as Bangladesh to work in slave-
like conditions. Then they fly in Chinese materials, in this case
textiles, to those same factories,
[[Page S9655]]
and what you end up with is workers who are working, in many cases,
120 hours a week, turning Chinese cloth into clothing to be sent to the
United States.
So the consumer says: Isn't that nice. Well, it is not nice. The
consumer doesn't understand where it is made and the conditions under
which it is made. If it happened here today, we would get law
enforcement, drive down the street, open those factories' doors and
arrest the folks who were employing those people. We have already had
these examples which have been highly embarrassing to people who want
to market products made in sweatshops. We all heard Kathy Lee Gifford
cry when her products were made in sweatshops, and even Puff Daddy, I
guess he actually changed his name to Puff Daddy and then just Diddy. I
don't know what that is about. But Sean Combs--Puff Daddy--who was
having his clothes made in Honduras--and we had two women from that
factory in Honduras come and testify here about the conditions.
Now, contrary to many others, let me say a word for Puff Daddy, P.
Diddy or Diddy or whatever his name might be. He actually took an
interest. When he discovered those contracting to produce his clothing
were putting people in conditions like that, he actually changed things
in Honduras where those shirts were made. So I say: Good for him. But
my point is, this is going on all over the world. When we see these
examples of sweatshops, this is being done in the country of Jordan
where we have these labor standards in our agreement. It didn't matter.
They flew in Bangladeshi workers and Chinese textiles to produce
products to send to the United States to be sold to big box retailers.
And we are supposed to compete against that? And we lose half our
textile industry in this country. Why? Because they can't compete. They
are told: You can't compete; it is over. That is why we don't make one
pair of Levi's in America. Did you know that? There is not one pair of
Levi's made in America.
I have talked before about the dancing grapes of Fruit of the Loom
underwear. There was one guy dressed up as white grapes, another guy
dressed up as red grapes, and they danced on television and sung about
how wonderful their Fruit of the Loom underwear was. Not one pair of
Fruit of the Loom underwear is now made in the United States, and not
one pair of Levi's. I actually brought a picture of the grapes. We
don't know who these guys are. All I know is they are no longer
American grapes, they are Mexican grapes because Fruit of the Loom went
to Mexico and they went to China.
So the point is this: We have a serious trade problem. It is not just
textiles, it is not just manufacturing. One-half of the Fortune 500
companies are now outsourcing software development.
I told the story on the floor of the Senate about Natasha Humphreys,
a young woman I spoke to on the phone not too long ago. She did
everything right. She is a young African-American woman who went to
Stanford. She got her college degree and then went to work for Palm
Pilot. By the way, her last job at Palm Pilot before she lost her job
was to train her successor from India who would work for one-fifth of
the price. So my point is, it is not just manufacturing and textiles,
it is high tech, it is many other jobs as well.
In fact, there are some leading economists who say there are 40
million to 50 million additional American jobs that are subject to
outsourcing. So what do we do? We negotiate new free-trade agreements,
this one with Oman.
Let me talk about Oman for a moment. Oman is a country of 3 million
people. One-half of the people--excuse me--one-half of 1 million of
those people are actually foreign guest workers. And the majority of
Oman's workers involved in manufacturing or construction are not from
Oman. The majority of workers are foreigners brought in from Bangladesh
and Sri Lanka, Indonesia, under labor contracts to work construction
and factories.
So here is what the 2004 U.S. State Department said about human
rights in Oman. Our U.S. State Department cited the country of Oman for
cases of forced labor, and in 2004 put out this 2004 report on human
rights in Oman:
The law prohibits forced or compulsory labor, including of
children. However, there were reports that such practices
occurred. The government did not investigate or enforce the
law effectively. Foreign workers at times were placed in
situations amounting to forced labor.
So we now do a free-trade agreement with Oman. It doesn't matter to
us. Whatever happens, happens, I guess. By the way, the Sultan of Oman,
2\1/2\ years ago, issued a Sultanic decree which categorically denies
workers the right to organize. So we are going to sign up to a free-
trade agreement with them. The Sultan of Oman, however, has written to
the USTR and promised he will improve labor laws by October of this
year--coincidentally, 1 month after we vote on the Oman Free Trade
Agreement.
The Finance Committee of the Senate held a mock markup, I guess it
was. They called it a mock markup; they marked up the Oman Free Trade
Agreement. When they did that, Senators Conrad and Bingaman offered an
amendment that said sweatshop products made in Oman under slave-like
conditions would not be allowed under this free-trade agreement. That
passed unanimously in the mock markup.
It is pretty unbelievable that we have a mock markup. In fact, with
some markups, we may not even have to name them ``mock markups,'' but
nonetheless they named this a ``mock markup.''
In the mock markup, two of my colleagues offered an amendment that
said sweatshop products made in Oman under slave-like conditions will
not be allowed under the Oman trade deal. That passed unanimously. But
this trade deal which is before the Senate now, just a couple of months
later, doesn't have that. It just got dropped. Is there somebody out
there who is supporting having products coming in made under slave-like
conditions in Oman? Is that how it got dropped? If that is so, who is
that? Might we have their names? Is there anybody in this Chamber,
anybody in the Senate who would volunteer that they support products
being produced in sweatshops under slave-like conditions, and because
they support that they objected to this amendment and demanded the
amendment be dropped, an amendment which was passed unanimously in a
mock markup? It is unbelievable to me, what is going on around here.
Let me mention something else. As you know, earlier this year we had
a situation where a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, called
Dubai Ports World, got the contract to manage American ports at six
American cities. The contract to manage America's seaports became very
controversial. I was involved in it because I don't think we ought to
have a company owned by the United Arab Emirates managing our seaports.
No aspersions against the United Arab Emirates. It seems to me, at a
time when we are talking about the issue of security at America's
seaports, which can be among the most vulnerable of American targets,
it doesn't seem to be very smart to say: Let's turn the management of
our seaports over to the United Arab Emirates or to a company owned by
them. It just doesn't seem smart to me.
There were objections. There was a firestorm of objection from the
Congress, Republicans and Democrats. The President said: I endorse the
takeover of the shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports, and he
pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve that would block the
agreement. He said: If you pass a bill that says the UAE company, Dubai
Ports World, can't manage seaports, I am going to veto the bill. But
then they got, I think, Dubai Ports World to agree to back away
somehow. They have not yet divested, but they are trying to find
someone else to manage these ports.
But I want to make sure everybody understands. In this free-trade
agreement--here is what is in the free-trade agreement with Oman, and
it has been in previous free-trade agreements as well. There is a
provision in this agreement that says we cannot block Oman from
acquiring some things. Under the free-trade agreement, we cannot block
Oman from acquiring landside aspects of port activities, including
operation and maintenance of docks, loading and unloading of vessels,
marine cargo handling, operation of piers--in effect, we have a
provision that protects, for example, Oman's right to be managing
America's seaports.
[[Page S9656]]
I don't understand how this works. Maybe somebody looking at me and
listening to me will say: Hey, you don't. But I really don't understand
the logic of putting in a free-trade agreement preferred activities
that say we are going to protect the right of Oman to run America's
port system; they have a right to do that.
Someone else will say to me: That is true, that is what is in the
free-trade agreement, but there is also a circumstance where the
President can override that as a result of national security.
Yes, but this President has already said he fully supports having a
foreign government-controlled company running America's seaports. He is
wrong about that; he is just dead wrong. He needs to rethink that
position. But if we have a President who already said: I believe we
ought to have a foreign company run America's seaports, and it is fine
with me whether it is the UAE or Oman, there is no provision here that
is a failsafe provision so that the President will decide: OK, I
understand it is in the free-trade agreement they can do that, but I am
going to invoke some sort of national security objection.
My sense is that most people do not know this is here, or if they
know it is here, either they do not care or they think it is fine, to
turn over the ports in New York and New Jersey and Florida and
Louisiana to foreign control, foreign management.
We have spent a lot of time here this week talking about port
security. I think we have 7 million containers coming into this country
on container ships. We are going to spend $10 billion this year,
roughly, to protect us against an incoming missile with a nuclear
warhead on it. We are worried about a rogue nation or terrorist group
acquiring an intercontinental ballistic missile and putting a nuclear
weapon on the tip, so we are trying to create a catcher's mitt, in
effect trying to hit a bullet with a bullet. We are going to spend $10
billion this year.
The most likely threat, of course, is that 1 of the 7 million
containers that comes into this country has in it a weapon of mass
destruction, perhaps a stolen nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal,
and it pulls up to an American dock--not at 17,000 miles an hour, but
it pulls up at 2 or 3 miles an hour and it pulls up to a pier at a
major American city and we have a detonation of a nuclear weapon. That
is far more likely than having a rogue nation or terrorist group
acquire an ICBM. But we spend pennies on that and spend billions of
dollars trying to create a catcher's mitt, trying to hit a bullet with
a bullet in the sky. It is beyond me how this fits any thoughtful
logic, and it is beyond me how this provision in a trade agreement
provides individuals any security for this country at all. It does not.
It injures this country's opportunity for good security, in my opinion.
This trade agreement really needs to be defeated. It will probably
not be because we don't have thoughtful debates. We by and large have
pretty thoughtless minidebates about trade these days. But I think one
of these days, when the trade deficit is announced--this week at $68
billion just for 1 month, $800 billion a year--one of these days, the
American people are going to say: Wait a second, doesn't that mean we
are selling our country?
And the answer is yes. Today is Friday. We will import from other
countries about $2 billion more in value of property than we will
export to other countries. That means we will pay for that by putting
currency in the hands of others. Over half of it will be in the hands
of the Chinese and Japanese. With that currency, they then buy part of
our country--stocks, bonds, companies, real estate. We are literally
selling part of our country every single day to the tune of $2 billion
a day.
Don't take it from me; take it from Warren Buffett and many others
who understand that this is unsustainable. Two years ago, Alan
Greenspan said that when you reach 5 percent of your GDP as a trade
deficit, you are reaching waters--levels that are unsustainable and are
going to cause serious economic harm. Now we are well over that 2 years
later. He was right then, and he is right now.
We have to take action. This country has to care and begin to take
action. You can't continue to sell part of your country. You can't
consume 6 percent more than you produce year after year and then pay
foreigners to produce it for us and put it in their hands, currency
with which they buy this country.
I noticed the other day that we sold Wham-O to the Chinese. It is
probably not a big deal--Hula Hoops, Frisbees, and Slip `N Slide. Every
kid knows Wham-O. But if you take a look at what is being transferred
from this country--our assets, company after company--to the Chinese
and then you evaluate whether this is sustainable and whether this is
the course on which America wants to remain, the answer should be no.
I haven't talked much about jobs. I will do that, I believe, on
Monday prior to the time we will have a vote on the Oman Free Trade
Agreement. But this is about the economic health and strength of our
country. No country will long remain a world economic power without a
strong manufacturing base, and no country will remain a world economic
power without being able to expand its middle-class people. We have
done that in a century. We have expanded the middle class and created
economic growth unlike we have ever seen on this Earth. And now we are
beginning to see that taken apart, people having more trouble finding a
good-paying job.
Incidentally, of all the things we work on in this Chamber, there is
no social program as important as a good job that pays well. We are now
seeing American workers being told: You are going to compete against
others who will work for 30 cents an hour. That means lower wages for
you. We require higher productivity; we are going to give you lower
wages and less retirement.
It takes apart the social compact we built in this country, that
expansion of the middle class which created the economic expansion
which created the greatest economy on the face of this Earth.
For all those reasons, this is a horrible trade agreement. I just
touched on a part of it. I will finish on Monday. This is another
chapter in a sad book of failures that no one wants to read very
carefully. But my hope is that one of these days this Senate will wake
up, this Congress will wake up, this President will wake up and decide:
No more free-trade agreements. Let's fix the problems we have created
before we negotiate new ones. Yes, let's have a goal of expanding
trade. Trade can be good, but trade between trading partners must be
mutually beneficial, and trade agreements that are free but not fair
undermine this country's interests. We should aspire to have fair trade
agreements that expand our opportunities, not retard our capabilities;
help lift others up, not push us down. That ought to be our goal.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to dispel claims being put
forward by some that the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement will threaten
U.S. national security. These critics of the agreement claim that it
will give foreign port operators an absolute right to establish or
acquire operations to run port facilities in the United States. They
contend that, in this way, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement could
harm our national security. These claims are just plain wrong.
First of all, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement provides no new
rights for Omanis or others to supply port related services in the
United States. Omani companies are presently able to supply such
services. The Oman agreement simply mirrors current U.S. law. So it is
incorrect for anyone to claim that this trade agreement creates new
rights for Omanis or others to contract with U.S. port owners to
perform port services.
In addition, U.S.--law specifically the Exon-Florio amendment to the
Defense Production Act of 1950--authorizes the President to block
foreign investment that would threaten our national security, including
investments in port operations. The President delegates the authority
to monitor and review foreign investments to the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States, or CFIUS. This free-trade agreement
will not change the process of CFIUS in reviewing proposed investment
in the United States. Thus, if the President determines that the
investments of Oman or other countries in port services in the United
States
[[Page S9657]]
will threaten our national security, U.S. law provides that he can
block such investments. The U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement in no way
changes this existing law.
Moreover, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement at article 21.2 contains
a ``national security'' exception. This article provides that nothing
in the agreement can prevent the United States from taking any action
that we consider necessary to protect our essential security interests.
This exception is self-judging, which means that solely the United
States can decide what constitutes our essential security interests.
Contrary to the claims of some critics, neither an investor-state
arbitration tribunal nor a dispute settlement panel has the authority
to second-guess what the United States determines to be in its
essential security interest. After all, once the United States invokes
the national security exemption, there's nothing for a tribunal or
panel to review.
So it is clear that the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement doesn't
diminish the right of the United States to determine whether to block
any foreign investment in our country, including in port services. It
is also clear that the Oman trade agreement doesn't create any new
rights for Oman to supply port related services in the United States.
Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring the facts.
The U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement will benefit the United States. It
will not pose security threats for the United States. If it did, I
wouldn't be supporting it. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 5684,
the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
I yield the floor.
____________________