[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 27981-27982]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     UNITED STATES-BAHRAIN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4340, the Bahrain Free 
Trade Agreement. I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4340) to implement the United States-Bahrain 
     Free Trade Agreement.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceed to consider the bill.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the Bahrain free-trade agreement is a very 
important agreement that reflects in this post-9/11 environment the 
recommendation that had been made in terms of facilitating trade to 
nations such as Bahrain. I am delighted we were able to both debate it 
earlier today and ultimately pass this important free-trade agreement.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I reluctantly oppose the legislation 
implementing the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. I have nothing 
against expanded trade with Bahrain, and I know that there is plenty in 
this FTA that is appealing to the U.S. business community. However, 
this agreement is another example of the misplaced priorities in the 
Bush administration's flawed trade policy, which can best be described 
as a policy of ``fiddling while Rome is burning.''
  If you were to ask Americans to list their top trade priorities, I 
think they would suggest the following: dealing with the enormous trade 
deficit, on pace to exceed $700 billion this year; addressing the rise 
of China; meeting the challenges of outsourcing and globalization; 
enforcing our existing agreements and rules for fair trade; and perhaps 
global negotiations in the World Trade Organization. A trade agreement 
with Bahrain would be nowhere near the top of the list; it probably 
would not even be on the list at all.
  Yet, here we are, with the Bahrain FTA as the big trade item to close 
out the year. The U.S. has a trade deficit with China that is on pace 
to exceed $200 billion this year--more than a quarter of the entire 
U.S. trade deficit. Last year, China passed the U.S. as the largest 
exporter of high-tech information technology and communications 
products. There is no doubt that the rise of China presents an 
extraordinary challenge to the United States. Yet, the Bush 
administration has essentially no policy dealing with China's currency 
manipulation and the accompanying U.S. indebtedness to the government 
of China, rampant piracy of U.S. intellectual property, WTO violations, 
forced technology transfer requirements, and industrial policy in areas 
critical to the U.S. like semiconductors and automobiles.
  Instead, we have the Bahrain FTA, which involves .03 percent of total 
U.S. trade.
  The Bush administration has proposed no policies in the face of 
outsourcing and the revolution of globalization to ensure that America 
keeps good-paying jobs and remains the most competitive economy in the 
world. They basically say, ``Don't Worry, Be Happy.''
  Instead, the U.S. uses the scarce resources of the U.S. Trade 
Representative to negotiate an FTA with Bahrain, which has an economy 
one-tenth-of-one percent the size of the U.S. economy.
  When it comes to enforcing our current agreements, the Bush 
administration has been asleep at the wheel. While the Clinton 
administration brought on average 11 WTO cases per year to knock down 
foreign barriers to U.S. exports, the Bush administration has filed 
fewer than three cases per year.
  Instead, they have focused their energies on negotiating an FTA which 
is so small that the independent ITC has stated, ``the effect of the 
FTA on total U.S. exports is likely to be minimal.''
  Meanwhile, the WTO negotiations have delayed and floundered. Ironic 
may not be the right word, but it is a fitting testament to this 
administration's skewed priorities that Senators are stuck in 
Washington debating the Bahrain FTA this week, and so were not able to 
travel to Hong Kong to provide oversight on the WTO negotiations--which 
could have an impact thousands of times larger than a trade agreement 
with Bahrain.
  Looking at the merits of the Bahrain FTA in isolation, let me note 
that I applaud the Government of Bahrain. It has been a good U.S. ally 
and is an important moderate Arab and Islamic country. I wish the 
people of Bahrain well and hope that the U.S. and Bahrain will continue 
to enjoy good relations, including trading relations. I also note that 
there are many good provisions in this agreement to ensure protection 
for U.S. intellectual property rights, to prevent expropriations of 
U.S. investments, to reduce barriers to U.S. exports, and to expand the 
access of U.S. service providers to Bahrain's market.
  It is regrettable, though, that the Bush administration followed its 
flawed model in this FTA. In short, the interests of the business 
community are taken care of, but the interests of the average American 
are not. I certainly understand that many of the businesses that care 
about these FTAs make important contributions to the U.S. economy and 
are a critical source of employment, exports, and innovation. I value 
those contributions and think for the most part the chapters and 
provisions of the FTA important to the U.S. business community make 
sense. What I do have a problem with, however, is the fact that our 
trade agreements provide short shrift to areas of interest to human 
beings, including workers' rights and environmental protection.
  When it comes to transparency in government regulation, 
telecommunications regulation, financial services regulation, other 
services regulation, and e-commerce, we include provisions that force 
our trading partners to change their laws. When it comes to protection 
for intellectual property rights, our trade agreements have provisions 
that force our trading partners to adopt some of the highest levels of 
IP protection in the world. In each case, if a country violates the 
rules in the FTA, it is subject to trade sanctions.
  Yet, when it comes to respect for the most basic, internationally-
recognized worker rights and respect for the environment, our trade 
agreements say, ``You don't need to change your laws, just enforce 
whatever you have.'' If our trading partners violate even this weak 
rule, then they pay a fine; and the fine gets turned around and given 
right back to them. Somehow, trade sanctions imposed to vindicate the 
interests of business are just ``tough enforcement,'' but trade 
sanctions for worker rights or the environment are ``protectionism.''
  Worse, our FTAs would allow a country to weaken its laws related to 
workers' rights and the environment, and the United States would have 
absolutely no effective recourse. If Bahrain turns around and allows 
child labor, or turns around and prohibits its guest workers in export 
industries from joining unions, then the best the U.S. can

[[Page 27982]]

do is seek consultations with Bahrain. This is a step back from what 
the Clinton administration negotiated, which would have allowed the 
U.S. to pursue full dispute settlement on all of the labor provisions 
in the FTA. It is also a step back from existing U.S. trade preferences 
programs, which allow the U.S. to impose sanctions on countries that 
are not adequately protecting basic workers rights.
  What is it about worker rights and environmental protection that 
warrants this disparate treatment? The same people who argue that these 
provisions do not belong in trade agreements bemoan U.S. labor 
standards and environmental rules, arguing that they hurt U.S. 
competitiveness and add to our trade deficit. It is absurd and 
dishonest to say on the one hand that these rules affect competition, 
and then on the other that they do not belong in an agreement that is 
designed to set the terms of competition.
  I want to take a moment to acknowledge the good work done by 
Democrats in the other chamber, who pushed and pushed and got Bahrain 
to agree to make important reforms to its labor laws to bring them into 
conformity with internationally-recognized standards. And, to its 
credit, USTR agreed to monitor Bahrain's implementation and enforcement 
of these changes as part of the FTA. I applaud the efforts of these 
congressmen. Their hard work on this and other FTAs should shame anyone 
who has tried to discredit their cause by calling it protectionist or 
xenophobic. I regret that I will not be joining them in support of this 
agreement, however. The bottom line is that this agreement does not 
contain binding, enforceable rules that treat respect for workers' 
rights and the environment on the same footing as respect for corporate 
interests, so I will oppose it.
  Separately, I want to address Bahrain's boycott against Israel. For 
decades now, the United States has had a policy to oppose the Arab 
League boycott against Israel. There is an entire office in the 
Department of Commerce tasked with implementing this anti-boycott 
policy. Congress has also directed USTR to ``vigorously oppose'' WTO 
admission for countries that engage in the boycott. In my view, it is 
an implicit corollary of this latter rule that the U.S. should not 
enter into bilateral trade agreements with countries that participate 
in the boycott.
  Bahrain continues to participate in the boycott, however. To its 
credit, Bahrain has terminated participation in the secondary and 
tertiary aspects of the boycott. And, Bahrain has stated in a letter to 
USTR that ``the Kingdom of Bahrain recognizes the need to dismantle the 
primary boycott of Israel and is beginning efforts to achieve that 
goal.'' That said, it is worth noting that even the primary boycott can 
hurt U.S. producers. The primary boycott prohibits imports with Israeli 
content. So, U.S. companies that use Israeli inputs could be barred 
from exporting a mostly U.S.-made product to Bahrain.
  USTR and supporters of this agreement argue that the quoted statement 
constitutes a binding commitment by Bahrain to eliminate the primary 
boycott. I hope they are correct, but I am not so sure. First, the 
lower house of Bahrain's parliament--the only democratically elected 
body in Bahrain's national government--recently voted resoundingly to 
keep the boycott in place. Second, it is not as clear as I would like 
that the statement at issue has the character of a legal obligation 
rather than a statement of unilateral intent. While I hope that Bahrain 
has officially committed itself to eliminating the primary boycott 
against Israel once and for all, there is certainly no way for the U.S. 
to bring an enforcement action against Bahrain if it fails to do so.
  I think the antiboycott policy we have had in place for decades now 
is the correct one. We should not be entering into trade agreements--
whether bilaterally or through the WTO--with countries that enforce the 
boycott against Israel--primary, secondary or tertiary. It is 
disturbing to me that the Bush administration has been quietly moving 
away from this policy--here in the FTA today, as well as in its support 
for Saudi Arabia's WTO accession this week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the third reading and 
passage of the bill.
  The bill (H.R. 4340) was ordered to a third reading, was read the 
third time, and passed.
  Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________