Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that the Senate is taking up the free-trade agreement with Bahrain. Of all the priorities that exist in our country dealing with the subject of trade, somewhere close to last would be a trade agreement with Bahrain. Nothing against the country of Bahrain. I am sure it is a wonderful place. I have not actually visited there. But I believe the total trade between our country and Bahrain is somewhere in the neighborhood of $700 million, less than $1 billion on both sides of the ledger. ...[Dorgan promptly segues into discussion of China and the Cayman Islands]
24 . BAHRAIN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT -- (Senate - December 13, 2005)
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 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. ...
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. ...
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.
48 . UNITED STATES-BAHRAIN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
[Congressional Record: December 14, 2005 (Senate)]One can view Feingold's "anti-U.S.-Bahrain FTA" just below Grassley's approval.
[Page S13563]PASSAGE OF U.S.-BAHRAIN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the past several years the Congress has worked hand-in-hand with the administration to foster greater peace and stability in the Middle East through trade. We have concluded and implemented free trade agreements with Israel, Jordan, and Morocco. We recently concluded negotiations with Oman and negotiations are ongoing with United Arab Emirates. Perhaps soon, we will launch negotiations with our good friend and ally, Egypt.
Yesterday, with the passage of S. 2027, the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, we took another historic step forward. Once this agreement enters into force, 98 percent of our agricultural exports to Bahrain will enter duty-free and 100 percent of our two-way trade in industrial and consumer products will be duty-free. The agreement sets a new standard on services, with broad commitments by Bahrain to open their service sector to our exports.
Passage of the U.S.-Bahrain FTA will help advance the President's goal of achieving a Middle East Free Trade Area, MEFTA, by 2013. This visionary agenda is a key element in our efforts to help foster economic growth and prosperity in an important region of the world. It also reflects keen appreciation by the Bush administration of the 9/11 Commission Report recommendation that ``a comprehensive U.S. strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies to encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and to enhance prospects for their children's future.'' ...
20 . PASSAGE OF U.S.-BAHRAIN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
The bigger picture is MEFTA. A number of Middle Eastern countries are in the process of negotiating Free Trade Agreements with the U.S., and later this year (2006), the Free Trade Agreement with UAE will be on the Senate's table for discussion.
On Jan. 19th [2006], USTR Ambassador Rob Portman and Omani Minister of Commerce and Industry Maqbool Bin Ali Sultan signed a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the two countries. Oman is the fifth Middle Eastern country to have negotiated an FTA with the United States, following Israel, Jordan, Bahrain, and Morocco. In addition to eliminating its tariffs on U.S. products, Oman will provide substantial market access across its entire services regime, provide a predictable legal framework for U.S. investors operating in Oman, provide for effective enforcement of labor and environmental laws, and protect intellectual property. The NAM has supported the agreement as part of an effort to develop a network of FTAs with the Middle East. While two-way goods trade between the United States and Oman was less than $800 million in 2004, a Middle East FTA would be the equivalent of an FTA with the 6th largest U.S. global market. The European Union has more favorable access to many Middle Eastern markets than the United States does, and the Oman agreement is another step in leveling the playing field for U.S. companies.