BASEBALL & RAWLINGS BRING NEW MEANING TO FREE TRADE

By Diane M. Grassi


America’s National Pastime has continued to rake in record high revenues in the past few years, yet it continues to remain deaf to its critics concerning the manufacture of its equipment and uniforms with regard to unfair labor practices in the third world. Specifically, for example, Major League Baseball (MLB) has an exclusive licensing agreement with Rawlings Sporting Goods Co., a subsidiary of K2, Inc. since 2003, to produce all of its major leagues’ and minor leagues’ baseballs.

In 2004, a 60-page report produced by the National Labor Committee (NLC), an international labor rights organization, entitled, Foul Ball, shed light on the poor working conditions of the Rawlings baseball factory in the remote city of Turrialba, Costa Rica. MLB had a tepid response to such claims. Following the report, life-long consumer advocate, Ralph Nader, wrote a letter to both MLB Commissioner, Bud Selig, and the Major League Baseball Players Association Executive Director, Donald Fehr, to address Rawlings’ labor practices. Selig referred Nader’s letter to his legal department and Donald Fehr said he was unaware of such claims.

In 2005, the United States government entered into the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), allowing for further tax breaks for U.S. corporations doing business in Central America and without providing for genuine policing of unfair labor practices in offshore U.S. manufacturing. And instead of MLB taking the lead and coming out a winner in addressing a worldwide problem, which continues to fester in such U.S. based multi-national corporations throughout the third world, it remains silent some two years later.

The facts are quite striking as to what goes into the manufacture of a major league baseball and the sometimes physically debilitating human labor required to produce some 2.2 million balls utilized each baseball season with MLB using 1.8 million of them, in addition to the minor leagues and the NCAA College World Series with which Rawlings also exclusively contracts.

Rawlings has been operating its baseball factory out of Costa Rica since 1988 as it gradually transitioned its factories from the country of Haiti during its period of government unrest in the late 1980’s. Since 1990, Rawlings has produced all of MLB’s baseballs in Costa Rica. It manufactures apparel and other equipment there as well. Its low-end baseballs are manufactured in China. And although Rawlings also contracts with the National Football League and the National Basketball Association in producing some of their equipment and balls, the baseball itself perhaps best symbolizes all-things-American and therefore is worthy of the attention it garners.

The approximate 600 workers at the baseball factory in Turrialba are either “sewers” who stitch the cowhide covers onto the baseball’s sphere, or they are assemblers and winders who are responsible for assembling the core’s parts, made of two kinds of rubber and cork, and the winding of the ball’s four different grades of yarn. Those who stitch are required to complete 108 stitches into the cowhide leather of each ball by hand.

Each sewer must complete one ball every 15 minutes. They are required to reach a minimum quota of 156 balls a week in a factory without air conditioning, in temperatures exceeding 90°, requiring permission to use bathrooms, and denying speaking between workers on the factory floor. The hours that workers put in average 11 per day and they must always reserve their Saturdays for the factory in the event an “emergency order” comes through. If not available on Saturday, they are terminated.

The gross wages per worker average $1.15 per hour. Workers can earn an additional $7.42 per week if they reach the threshold of completing 180 baseballs in one week. Baseball factory workers earn more than the country’s minimum wage but have not gotten an increase in the amount they are paid for each ball completed, for 15 years. Provided they reach the minimum weekly ball quota each week, they are compensated an additional 25-30 cents per baseball. Should they not reach the minimum quota they risk being fired.

The physical impact endured by the sewers has left one-third with carpal tunnel syndrome or repetitive stress injuries including permanent disability after just two or three years of stitching. And sadly, most MLB players have no knowledge that every baseball is made solely by hand under such conditions. Should a worker miss any length of time greater than a couple of days for illness or injury, they are easily replaced.

Costa Rica always relied upon its agriculture to sustain its people and provide jobs. Coffee and sugar cane were its main exports. Yet, in the past few years as prices in coffee rose, a good part of its business was lost to Nicaragua as labor was cheaper there. And due to cheaper labor costs, sugar cane soon followed. Because of the loss of jobs, the baseball factory is now what sustains the city of Turrialba with a population of 30,000. Rawlings has its workers over a barrel, as they know jobs are scarce with many more willing to endure their tough and pressurized working environment.

Ralph Nader’s letter in 2004 to both Bud Selig and Donald Fehr was in his capacity as President of his non-profit organization, League of Fans. In it he says, “We cannot tell you that it comes as a shock to us that MLB properties do not have any workers’ rights guidelines in their licensing agreements. …..Nor are we surprised by the irony of the Players Associations’ Strike Fund being supported by royalties from products which might be made by third world workers stripped of their own rights. The irony is bitter.”

Basically it comes down to three areas which the NLC has called upon Rawlings of Costa Rica, S.A. to change. They have asked that Rawlings provide ergonomics training for workers in order to reduce repetitive stress injuries; to provide workers with a better wage and increase the amount of incentives based upon levels of production. And the NLC emphasizes the need to allow the workers the right to organize in order to regulate problem issues, without fear of being fired, such as forced overtime and layoffs after three months before workers earn any legal rights. Currently, the workers are well aware that any talk of labor unions will get them dismissed and fear that the factory will go the way of its agricultural industry and relocate to a country where labor is cheaper.

But Ralph Nader is far more direct in his demand that MLB and the MLBPA “Adopt internationally recognized worker rights standards and effective enforcement mechanisms, as a core condition governing all of its product sourcing and license agreements.”

Few working for or playing in MLB or for that matter most living in the U.S., realize that Free Trade Zones are nothing but a win for U.S. based corporations operating offshore. They are not required to pay taxes or tariffs, allowed to import their supplies duty-free, their electricity and water usage is subsidized and they are not responsible for enforcing labor and environmental policies which would be required in the U.S.

In February of 2004, Robert Manfred, Jr., the Executive VP of Labor and Human Resources for MLB, responded to Ralph Nader on behalf of the Commissioner. His response says it all. “Our agreements routinely include provisions that require our partners to comply with applicable laws including those related to employment and workplace safety. At the same time, I am sure you understand that we are not in a position to actively regulate the practices of each and every separate company with which we do business.” No, but they could start with the ball, the centerpiece of America’s pastime.

It is not too late for MLB and its superstars to take a stand on workers’ rights, regardless of lax U.S. laws in the world of free trade and its agreements’ legal loopholes. Bud Selig, when interviewed at the 2006 All Star Game, stated that, “I really believe this is the Golden Era of baseball.” Many have scratched their heads since that remark but he followed up to say, “Do you know we will have $5.2 billion in revenue this year? I feel good about where we are." It is quite clear about what he means by the Golden Era. Sadly, however, some of that gold has come at the cost of others’ basic rights and human decency.

Copyright ©2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

NEW ORLEANS REMAINS PROBLEMATIC FOR ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

By Diane M. Grassi

Nearly an entire year since Hurricane Katrina devastated the U.S. Gulf Coast, leaving behind extensive damage to several states and the city of New Orleans, most would think that recovery is well underway. While Mississippi has faired far better than Louisiana, with less residents impacted, New Orleans remains troubled. Suffering flood damage in 80% of the area from the ravages of Hurricane Katrina, compounded weeks later by Hurricane Rita, New Orleans has far greater obstacles to overcome than most had ever expected.

New Orleans is not in a rebuilding mode, but rather in a reconstruction mode. It has not only been victim of hurricanes raging out of control but a government out of control, thus the creation of a perfect storm. With a city history steeped in political corruption, a high crime rate, a high poverty rate, in educational decline, the hurricanes of 2005 allowed Americans a peek behind New Orleans’ proverbial curtain. And it exposed the open wounds of a city now with twice the task of rebuilding, as it was in a downturn well before its levees broke.

So far over $20 billion has been allocated by the federal government to assist in New Orleans and Gulf Coast restorations. Yet, such appropriations do not solve the most desperate problem New Orleans faces which is the restoration and reformation of its levee system. It remains crucial to New Orleans’ future or its chance to even have one. And to that end, it will not only take the brawn of the Army Corps of Engineers but its candor as well, in spite of its less than forthcoming past.

A nine-volume report with some 6,113 pages, costing some $20 million, was prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers at the request of the Congress on the status of the Louisiana coast’s levee system. It became preliminarily available to certain lawmakers on June 1, 2006 and was delivered on July 10, 2006 to the Congress. Surprisingly, its final draft is not due until December 2007. Its purpose was for the Army Corps of Engineers to come up with a plan in order to protect Louisiana’s coast and infrastructure from a category 5 hurricane. Now, even the stated purpose of the report is in contention and has caused conflict.

Objections as to the content of the draft report have been raised by Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco as well as U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (D) LA, setting the backdrop for heightened frustrations which will remain throughout this process of what appears to be a series of unending dilemmas. The Army Corps of Engineers did acknowledge, however, in its report that the levees it built had flaws in their design, construction and maintenance of the 350-mile levee system.

It was divulged that the levee system was never built to handle a hurricane even close to the strength of Hurricane Katrina’s which was a category 3. According to the report, “The hurricane protection system in New Orleans and southeast Louisiana was a system in name only.” The report’s investigators found that the flood protection, consisting of a network of levees, floodwalls, pumps and gates were to provide the necessary protections and should have been far more resilient. Due to design flaws, breaches were suffered in the New Orleans’ drainage canals which were never foreseen. Even though the waters did not rise above the height of the floodwalls, they still failed.

Given the voluminous size of the Army Corps of Engineers’ report, it has been criticized as to its skeletal and scant recommendations for the coast’s restoration. It does recommend that as much as 98% of the levee system impacting New Orleans will require a great deal of work in order to raise the height of the levees. The Army Corps of Engineers is presently still studying the requirements for increasing levee heights and to ensure stability for such changes. But it is also dependent upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide the necessary information for doing so. Sadly, it is not expected the increase in the height of the levees will be finished until at least 2010.

And although the report identified key pitfalls of the current levee system, it does not go into depth about the necessity of the restoration of the coast’s wetlands and marshes, badly eroded and largely ignored over the years as well. Their restoration remains critical in providing a further barrier in order to mitigate flooding into the city of New Orleans. The report revealed that the city was sinking a lot faster than anyone had expected, and as much as an inch per year in some areas. In spite of outcries from local officials and outside scientists and engineers, nothing over the decades had been done to address the wetlands or to maintain the levees.

And like most problems, one entity, and in this case the Army Corps of Engineers, cannot shoulder all of the blame given the inertia of state and local officials over the years. But the question is not how much money the federal government is going to throw at New Orleans but how to avoid even more misspending. For at stake is the reliability of the integrity of the levee system. And without such a plan there will not be a dependable levee system and New Orleans cannot be realistically rebuilt nor attract investors to help restore it.

The flood plain map has now been revised by FEMA and is now available for federal flood insurance purposes and for homeowners to decide whether they are now indeed in a flood plain. Many houses which were flooded were never even in the original flood plain maps. And many homeowners with houses damaged by wind are in litigation with insurance companies that have blamed flooding on such damage. This leaves most homeowners awaiting payment from the partial amounts insurance companies will pay with remaining mortgages on houses which are beyond repair, yet without the money to rebuild or relocate.

Astoundingly, the present water system in New Orleans is losing close to 85 million gallons of water each day due to its vast number of leaks. So far, 17,000 leaks have been repaired, however, many still remain. The city is pumping 135 million gallons of water through 80 miles of pipeline a day in order to utilize 50 million gallons. Therefore, water and energy are seriously being wasted at a cost of $200,000.00 per day. The estimated cost to complete the pipeline leaks is $1 billion. Presently, there are no state or federal appropriations for the city’s pipeline.

Also pending in the Congress, which could have huge ramifications for the levee system’s repair, is the Water Resources Development Act. It has been shelved in both the House of Representatives and the Senate since April 2005, well before Hurricane Katrina hit U.S. shores. The legislation provides for the authorization of funding for Army Corps of Engineers projects.

To date, the Army Corps of Engineers has a backlog of $58 billion in projects nationally, going back 10 years. And the legislation as originally drafted does not provide for a prioritization for its projects. Therefore, the McCain-Feingold amendment was introduced in the Senate this year precisely to provide for a priority schedule and time-frame for projects most in need. It would expedite restoring the levees of New Orleans. But the Congress must vote and approve the amendment which takes time. And it could jeopardize putting lofty pork barrel projects presently included in the bill on the back burner. Thus far, the amendment has not been widely embraced by the Senate.

While the tragedies of Hurricane Katrina gave Americans a bird’s eye view into a system of failures on the local, state and federal levels, it more importantly showed that the system of communication between levels of government is broken. Promises have since been made and monies appropriated to correct such deficiencies but the same backroom deals and lack of transparency are ripe to be repeated.

Americans across the country and people across the world were stunned to see the abject poverty which existed in New Orleans. But even more dismaying a year later is the lack of progress in New Orleans with respect to basic and human services and improving its infrastructure. For New Orleans is no longer a city in decline, but now a city in decay. And ultimately America needs to decide now, before the next natural or manmade disaster, of whether it will allow such deterioration and ruin to ever persist again.

Copyright © 2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

U.S. MILITARY SUFFERS EQUIPMENT & BASE SHORTFALLS

By Diane M. Grassi

For the last quarter of 2006 United States Army bases stateside face a funding deficit of $530 million while troops active in Iraq and Afghanistan will not see the promised replacement levels of military equipment previously committed. Additionally, payroll for active-duty troops is short $1.4 billion while the Army Reserve and National Guard face a $500 million deficiency.

The Installation Management Agency is responsible for overseeing the funding for 117 Army posts in the U.S., Europe and Asia. Garrisons of the posts administer the services the post receives such as mail delivery, garbage removal and firefighting while contracting services for dining halls and grounds maintenance. In order for many services to be provided, both temporary and term personnel are sub-contracted by the garrisons. However, in early June 2006, Installation Commander, Col. Kenneth O. McCreedy, mandated major cuts in services on all Army bases at least until September 30, 2006, when the 2006 fiscal year ends.

The reduction in services includes a 100% civilian hiring freeze; the release of temporary and term employees as quickly as possible unless vital for the support of life, health, safety and the Global War On Terrorism; development of spending plans by commanders for Fiscal Year 2007 based upon such reduced services; cancelling or reducing contracts until October 1, 2006. Garrisons have also reduced vehicle usage by as much as 20%, and cut cell phone and paging services.

However, other costs simply cannot be deferred or eliminated such as electric bills. Fort Sam Houston of San Antonio,TX has not paid its monthly $1.4 million electric bill since March 2006, with many of its administrative buildings receiving disconnect notices. Fort Bragg in North Carolina has a moratorium on buying pens, paper and other office supplies and equipment. Fort Knox, Kentucky closed one of its eight dining halls. Other bases shut down swimming pool facilities, due to chlorine costs, used for training and exercise by troops and their families. Even pest control has been considered a non-essential expenditure at some posts.

President Bush signed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terrorism and Hurricane Recovery 2006 on June 15, 2006, in the amount of $94.5 billion for such emergency spending. Although it provides the Department of Defense with $66 billion, most of it is allocated for military expenditures for the ongoing costs of the War in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Out of the defense funding in the supplemental act, $43.5 billion is for military operations, with $17.6 billion designated for replacing worn out equipment on the battlefield including night-vision equipment, vehicle armor, mortar and rocket jamming devices and other counter insurgency measures. Heavy trucks and Humvee replacements are to be factored in as well. $4.9 billion is for the training and equipping of Iraq and Afghanistan security forces, $1.6 billion is for strengthening the Iraq and Afghanistan economies, $66 million is for promoting democracy in Iran and $393 million is for peacekeeping efforts and humanitarian aid in South Sudan and Darfur.

Also included in the authorized supplemental spending is $19.8 billion in aid for the U.S. Gulf Coast rebuilding effort, $2.3 billion goes to anti-avian flu programs and $1.9 billion is for border security including sending 2,500 National Guard troops to the southern border by August 1, 2006. But what was not clear when $1.9 billion was allocated for border security was that $1.6 billion of it was taken from funds specifically reserved for military equipment replacement.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requested the change upon such directive from the White House but without consulting the Army or the Marine Corps. In a last minute amendment sponsored by Senator Bill Frist (R) TN and Senator Judd Gregg (R) NH, $1.9 billion was transferred from the emergency war supplement to the Department of Homeland Security. However, not realized by most in Congress is that the $1.9 billion is to be reimbursed by the Pentagon’s very own budget for the war. That very funding was earmarked for the replacing of trucks, jammers and radios on the battlefield as dictated not by the Pentagon but rather the OMB.

For the Marine Corps alone, yearly costs in Iraq are about $5 billion. But the Marines will get little help in the $11.7 billion in “reset” costs to restore all of the equipment which has become worn out or lost over the past four years. According to its records, in order to replenish its equipment to pre-9/11 levels even if all of the costs were provided in 2006, would take over two years to do so. The Marine Corps over the past three years, has seen its war reserves depleted, however, necessary in order to keep deployed troops fully equipped.

The Marine Corps has lost 3,500 pieces of ground equipment as well as 27 aircraft in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Iraq, trucks and Humvees age four to nine times faster than during peacetime. Roadside bombs, heat, and weight of the Humvee armor kits all contribute to vehicle aging. And lack of equipment has left little in reserve in order to properly train deploying troops on weapons, on types of radio devices to the very vehicles they will actually drive upon reaching the battlefield. That puts U.S. troops at far greater risk.

At present, the Marine Corps is in need of more than 3,000 trucks, 5,000 high-powered jammers, 3,500 radio sets and 1,000 armor kits. And that does not include the needs of the Army which has the largest number of troops deployed. But due to the large amount the Army spends on personnel, making up 24% of the entire Pentagon budget, it leaves less and less funding for weapons.

There are plenty of reasons for costs restraints, starting with the growing cost of fuel, lower exchange rates on the U.S. dollar, bonuses and incentives to attract new recruits and discourage officers from retiring. In addition, more healthcare costs have arisen for more and more disabled troops returning home and Veterans’ escalating healthcare costs. Costs incurred due to the mandated and ongoing reorganization of the Army into a smaller, more flexible force with more frequent deployments adds to the shortfalls. And the proposed closing and reorganization of National Guard and Reserve bases is expected to cost billions of dollars with some of those costs realized starting in 2007.

The Congress in both houses has postured that fighting a war while simultaneously maintaining combat readiness throughout the armed forces through a series of supplemental emergency funding bills cannot go on much longer. For in fact such bills usually include other areas of government spending which have nothing to do with funding supposed emergencies. And side deals or amendments to legislation arising at the 11th hour when most of the Congress is not aware, is no way to treat troops when lives are on the line.

Mere belt tightening is not the answer in the middle of a crisis, such as a war, with other hot spots and threats to the U.S. across the globe. And the U.S. Congress is far from a good example of abiding by budget constraints. The time for addressing shortfalls is not after men are dying on the battlefield and suffering from equipment shortages, nor when it just happens to be politically expedient, but on a timeline which mitigates the loss of life by proper preparation for the long term. Perhaps if we had a more modular Congress these shortfalls would be far more uncommon. And perhaps emergency supplemental bills would be reserved for what they were intended: true emergencies only.

Copyright ©2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH OMAN DISREGARDS BEST INTERESTS OF U.S.

By Diane M. Grassi

Since the United States became a party to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, U.S. construct of the Foreign Trade Agreement (FTA) has changed considerably. Such agreements now have a much more profound impact on state and local economies across the country.

Generally, treaties with foreign governments were a vehicle for regulating tariffs and quotas relative to the export and import of products, but within the parameters of U.S. law. However, since 1994, FTAs have expanded to include non-tariff barrier issues and regulated under the purview of international law.

Unbeknownst to most of the public regarding the Dubai Ports World agreement with the U.S., approved by the Committee for Foreign Investments in the U.S. (CFIUS) in February 2006, enabling the country of Dubai to take over port operations of six major U.S. east coast ports, was that the U.S. had been in negotiations for a FTA with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) since March 2005. While members of both houses of the U.S. Congress feigned shock that there was such a deal in the works, that FTA in particular provided the backdrop to allow such takeover of U.S. strategic assets, regardless of national security risks.

Since Dubai verbally agreed in March 2006 to sell its rights in the U.S. port operations to a U.S. entity, which to date does not exist in writing, the FTA with the UAE, of which Dubai is one of its seven emirates, has been put on hold. However, a similar deal with the country of Oman, also negotiated since March 2005, was approved by the U.S. Senate on June 28, 2006. The passage of the Oman FTA, still to be ratified by the entirety of the House of Representatives in July 2006, is considered to enable easier passage of several other U.S. FTAs pending, which include Peru, Thailand, Vietnam, as well as the UAE, among several others.

Unlike other federal legislation, however, the FTA is signed by the President prior to ratification, as President Bush did so on January 19, 2006 with the Oman FTA. Unlike most pending legislation, the Oman FTA is under the auspices of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). The 2002 Trade Promotion Act allowed for “fast track” status before the Congress which hands over its authority to the President to negotiate the terms of the agreement. The President then hands over to the Congress the finalized legislative package. However, the Congress is not given the right to amend any of the agreement’s provisions but only to take a vote. Also, the Congress must vote upon its passage within 90 days subsequent to its formal submission from President Bush, which was on June 26, 2006.

Yet, due to the complex nature of such an agreement, the rush-to-ratification style lawmaking does little to clarify the voluminous rules and regulations for lawmakers. And passage of such legislation includes irrevocable provisions once the pact is signed. There are arguably three or more major areas of concern with the Oman FTA with the U.S.

At issue are the present labor laws in Oman, its continued boycott of products from Israel and the dispute resolution process which stands to override U.S. national, state and local laws. According to numerous national and international labor rights organizations as well as the AFL-CIO, Oman labor abuse practices are rampant. All workers are denied basic labor rights. They include the inability of workers to organize in order to impact fair wages and safe working conditions as well as humane treatment.

Oman has failed to measure up to the International Trade Organization requirements for fair labor practices. Additionally, 80% of Oman’s laborers are from the South Asian countries of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, and have no legal rights to demand any changes in labor abuses, as they are foreign nationals. The only stipulation in the agreement is that Oman enforce its own labor laws. Yet, U.S. FTAs with Communist countries or those previously under Communist regimes have far more stringent language concerning labor rights abuses, upon which the U.S. insists. According to U.S. Trade Representative spokesman, Stephen Norton, “We have no reason to suspect that goods made with slave labor would be imported from Oman into the U.S.”

Although Oman assured the U.S. during negotiations that it no longer abides by the Arab League Ban of refusing Israeli imported goods and would disengage from the boycott, such is not the case. Oman’s Directorate of General Customs Mohammed Nasser recently told the Jerusalem Post that “even catalogs of commercial products that mention Israel would likely be seized by Omani authorities.”

And the hot button issue which has not been publicly addressed by the Congress is the potential for U.S. law conflicts under the terms of the U.S.-Oman FTA. Deeply buried in Chapter 11 of the agreement along with Annex 2, establishes that commercial disputes be settled under the realm of International Tribunals. Therefore, commercial activity agreed upon which includes operations of seaports, stevedoring and loading and unloading of goods either by Oman or any foreign entity or country which buys any of Oman’s service contracts or proprietary company interests, would override local, state or national U.S. laws. No distinction is made between commercial interests and those considered strategic national assets of the U.S., with no reference to national security considerations.

The objective of these trade deals, specifically in the Middle East is for the U.S. to garner support with allied nations in the interest of ending terrorism, as is the case with Oman, which is geographically closest to Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. But it could as easily be argued that the U.S is throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water in approving such lax controls and oversight in such a vast agreement.

And it also can be argued that such agreements with the third world will put the final nail in the coffin for U.S. workers in the textile industry. They cannot compete with slave wages, nor should they. The U.S. has led the way for workers’ rights and wages and in eliminating child labor. Yet, federal trade agreements without enforcement will only continue to erode away any progress realized for workers not only outside of the U.S. but on its very shores.

While much lower energy costs also remain attractive for U.S. multi-national corporations setting up shop in the third world, it does not excuse the U.S. from making demands in the interest of human decency over strategies to accumulate immediate profits. The waiving of 100% of the tariffs, in this case between goods and services flowing between the U.S. and Oman, does not alleviate such U.S. obligations as fairness and decency, which the U.S. has always represented.

While once the world’s watchdog on human rights, the U.S. has given new meaning to “free” trade in 2006. And it comes at the cost of not only the American worker’s quality of life but predominantly on the backs of those third world workers who remain without the right to take a stand. Worst of all, it is but another example of the flagrant failure of both houses of the Congress to realize the ramifications of its members’ inactions and laziness. For if lawmakers were given a questionnaire on the provisions of this latest U.S.-Oman FTA, rest assured that as many as 90% of them probably would take the Fifth.

Copyright 2006 Diane M. Grassi
contact: dgrassi@cox.net