[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18389-18392]
[From the U.S. 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, and what you end up with is workers 
who are working, in many cases, 120

[[Page 18390]]

 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

[[Page 18391]]

have a provision that protects, for example, Oman's right to be 
managing America's seaports.
  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

[[Page 18392]]

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 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.

                          ____________________