[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 156 (Wednesday, December 7, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H11163-H11179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     UNITED STATES-BAHRAIN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 583, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4340) to implement the United States-Bahrain Free Trade 
Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4340

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``United 
     States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT

Sec. 101. Approval and entry into force of the Agreement.
Sec. 102. Relationship of the agreement to United States and State law.
Sec. 103. Implementing actions in anticipation of entry into force and 
              initial regulations.
Sec. 104. Consultation and layover provisions for, and effective date 
              of, proclaimed actions.
Sec. 105. Administration of dispute settlement proceedings.
Sec. 106. Effective dates; effect of termination.

                      TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Tariff modifications.
Sec. 202. Rules of origin.
Sec. 203. Customs user fees.
Sec. 204. Enforcement relating to trade in textile and apparel goods.
Sec. 205. Regulations.

                     TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS

Sec. 301. Definitions.

     Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement

Sec. 311. Commencing of action for relief.
Sec. 312. Commission action on petition.
Sec. 313. Provision of relief.
Sec. 314. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 315. Compensation authority.
Sec. 316. Confidential business information.

           Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures

Sec. 321. Commencement of action for relief.
Sec. 322. Determination and provision of relief.
Sec. 323. Period of relief.
Sec. 324. Articles exempt from relief.
Sec. 325. Rate after termination of import relief.
Sec. 326. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 327. Compensation authority.
Sec. 328. Confidential business information.

                         TITLE IV--PROCUREMENT

Sec. 401. Eligible products.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to approve and implement the Free Trade Agreement 
     between the United States and Bahrain entered into under the 
     authority of section 2103(b) of the Bipartisan Trade 
     Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3803(b));
       (2) to strengthen and develop economic relations between 
     the United States and Bahrain for their mutual benefit;
       (3) to establish free trade between the 2 nations through 
     the reduction and elimination of barriers to trade in goods 
     and services; and
       (4) to lay the foundation for further cooperation to expand 
     and enhance the benefits of such Agreement.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the United 
     States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement approved by Congress 
     under section 101(a)(1).
       (2) HTS.--The term ``HTS'' means the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule of the United States.
       (3) Textile or apparel good.--The term ``textile or apparel 
     good'' means a good listed in the Annex to the Agreement on 
     Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the 
     Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)).

TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT

     SEC. 101. APPROVAL AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE AGREEMENT.

       (a) Approval of Agreement and Statement of Administrative 
     Action.--Pursuant to section 2105 of the Bipartisan Trade 
     Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3805) and section 
     151 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2191), Congress 
     approves--
       (1) the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement entered 
     into on September 14, 2004, with Bahrain and submitted to 
     Congress on November 16, 2005; and
       (2) the statement of administrative action proposed to 
     implement the Agreement that was submitted to Congress on 
     November 16, 2005.
       (b) Conditions for Entry Into Force of the Agreement.--At 
     such time as the President determines that Bahrain has taken 
     measures necessary to bring it into compliance with those 
     provisions of the Agreement that are to take effect on the 
     date on which the Agreement enters into force, the President 
     is authorized to exchange notes with the Government of 
     Bahrain providing for the entry into force, on or after 
     January 1, 2006, of the Agreement with respect to the United 
     States.

     SEC. 102. RELATIONSHIP OF THE AGREEMENT TO UNITED STATES AND 
                   STATE LAW.

       (a) Relationship of Agreement to United States Law.--
       (1) United states law to prevail in conflict.--No provision 
     of the Agreement, nor

[[Page H11164]]

     the application of any such provision to any person or 
     circumstance, which is inconsistent with any law of the 
     United States shall have effect.
       (2) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
       (A) to amend or modify any law of the United States; or
       (B) to limit any authority conferred under any law of the 
     United States,
     unless specifically provided for in this Act.
       (b) Relationship of Agreement to State Law.--
       (1) Legal challenge.--No State law, or the application 
     thereof, may be declared invalid as to any person or 
     circumstance on the ground that the provision or application 
     is inconsistent with the Agreement, except in an action 
     brought by the United States for the purpose of declaring 
     such law or application invalid.
       (2) Definition of state law.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``State law'' includes--
       (A) any law of a political subdivision of a State; and
       (B) any State law regulating or taxing the business of 
     insurance.
       (c) Effect of Agreement With Respect to Private Remedies.--
     No person other than the United States--
       (1) shall have any cause of action or defense under the 
     Agreement or by virtue of congressional approval thereof; or
       (2) may challenge, in any action brought under any 
     provision of law, any action or inaction by any department, 
     agency, or other instrumentality of the United States, any 
     State, or any political subdivision of a State, on the ground 
     that such action or inaction is inconsistent with the 
     Agreement.

     SEC. 103. IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS IN ANTICIPATION OF ENTRY INTO 
                   FORCE AND INITIAL REGULATIONS.

       (a) Implementing Actions.--
       (1) Proclamation authority.--After the date of the 
     enactment of this Act--
       (A) the President may proclaim such actions, and
       (B) other appropriate officers of the United States 
     Government may issue such regulations,
     as may be necessary to ensure that any provision of this Act, 
     or amendment made by this Act, that takes effect on the date 
     on which the Agreement enters into force is appropriately 
     implemented on such date, but no such proclamation or 
     regulation may have an effective date earlier than the date 
     on which the Agreement enters into force.
       (2) Effective date of certain proclaimed actions.--Any 
     action proclaimed by the President under the authority of 
     this Act that is not subject to the consultation and layover 
     provisions under section 104 may not take effect before the 
     15th day after the date on which the text of the proclamation 
     is published in the Federal Register.
       (3) Waiver of 15-day restriction.--The 15-day restriction 
     in paragraph (2) on the taking effect of proclaimed actions 
     is waived to the extent that the application of such 
     restriction would prevent the taking effect on the date on 
     which the Agreement enters into force of any action 
     proclaimed under this section.
       (b) Initial Regulations.--Initial regulations necessary or 
     appropriate to carry out the actions required by or 
     authorized under this Act or proposed in the statement of 
     administrative action submitted under section 101(a)(2) to 
     implement the Agreement shall, to the maximum extent 
     feasible, be issued within 1 year after the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force. In the case of any implementing 
     action that takes effect on a date after the date on which 
     the Agreement enters into force, initial regulations to carry 
     out that action shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be 
     issued within 1 year after such effective date.

     SEC. 104. CONSULTATION AND LAYOVER PROVISIONS FOR, AND 
                   EFFECTIVE DATE OF, PROCLAIMED ACTIONS.

       If a provision of this Act provides that the implementation 
     of an action by the President by proclamation is subject to 
     the consultation and layover requirements of this section, 
     such action may be proclaimed only if--
       (1) the President has obtained advice regarding the 
     proposed action from--
       (A) the appropriate advisory committees established under 
     section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155); and
       (B) the United States International Trade Commission;
       (2) the President has submitted to the Committee on Finance 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
     House of Representatives a report that sets forth--
       (A) the action proposed to be proclaimed and the reasons 
     therefor; and
       (B) the advice obtained under paragraph (1);
       (3) a period of 60 calendar days, beginning on the first 
     day on which the requirements set forth in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) have been met has expired; and
       (4) the President has consulted with the Committees 
     referred to in paragraph (2) regarding the proposed action 
     during the period referred to in paragraph (3).

     SEC. 105. ADMINISTRATION OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) Establishment or Designation of Office.--The President 
     is authorized to establish or designate within the Department 
     of Commerce an office that shall be responsible for providing 
     administrative assistance to panels established under chapter 
     19 of the Agreement. The office may not be considered to be 
     an agency for purposes of section 552 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for each fiscal year after fiscal year 
     2005 to the Department of Commerce such sums as may be 
     necessary for the establishment and operations of the office 
     established or designated under subsection (a) and for the 
     payment of the United States share of the expenses of panels 
     established under chapter 19 of the Agreement.

     SEC. 106. EFFECTIVE DATES; EFFECT OF TERMINATION.

       (a) Effective Dates.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act take effect on the date on which the Agreement enters 
     into force.
       (b) Exceptions.--Sections 1 through 3 and this title take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Termination of the Agreement.--On the date on which the 
     Agreement terminates, the provisions of this Act (other than 
     this subsection) and the amendments made by this Act shall 
     cease to be effective.

                      TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. TARIFF MODIFICATIONS.

       (a) Tariff Modifications Provided for in the Agreement.--
       (1) Proclamation authority.--The President may proclaim--
       (A) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
       (B) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
       (C) such additional duties,
     as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to 
     carry out or apply articles 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 3.2.8, and 3.2.9, 
     and Annex 2-B of the Agreement.
       (2) Effect on bahraini gsp status.--Notwithstanding section 
     502(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2462(a)(1)), 
     the President shall, on the date on which the Agreement 
     enters into force, terminate the designation of Bahrain as a 
     beneficiary developing country for purposes of title V of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.).
       (b) Other Tariff Modifications.--Subject to the 
     consultation and layover provisions of section 104, the 
     President may proclaim--
       (1) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
       (2) such modifications as the United States may agree to 
     with Bahrain regarding the staging of any duty treatment set 
     forth in Annex 2-B of the Agreement,
       (3) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
       (4) such additional duties,
     as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to 
     maintain the general level of reciprocal and mutually 
     advantageous concessions with respect to Bahrain provided for 
     by the Agreement.
       (c) Conversion to Ad Valorem Rates.--For purposes of 
     subsections (a) and (b), with respect to any good for which 
     the base rate in the Tariff Schedule of the United States to 
     Annex 2-B of the Agreement is a specific or compound rate of 
     duty, the President may substitute for the base rate an ad 
     valorem rate that the President determines to be equivalent 
     to the base rate.

     SEC. 202. RULES OF ORIGIN.

       (a) Application and Interpretation.--In this section:
       (1) Tariff classification.--The basis for any tariff 
     classification is the HTS.
       (2) Reference to hts.--Whenever in this section there is a 
     reference to a heading or subheading, such reference shall be 
     a reference to a heading or subheading of the HTS.
       (b) Originating Goods.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of this Act and for purposes 
     of implementing the preferential tariff treatment provided 
     for under the Agreement, a good is an originating good if--
       (A) the good is imported directly--
       (i) from the territory of Bahrain into the territory of the 
     United States; or
       (ii) from the territory of the United States into the 
     territory of Bahrain; and
       (B)(i) the good is a good wholly the growth, product, or 
     manufacture of Bahrain or the United States, or both;
       (ii) the good (other than a good to which clause (iii) 
     applies) is a new or different article of commerce that has 
     been grown, produced, or manufactured in Bahrain or the 
     United States, or both, and meets the requirements of 
     paragraph (2); or
       (iii)(I) the good is a good covered by Annex 3-A or 4-A of 
     the Agreement;
       (II)(aa) each of the nonoriginating materials used in the 
     production of the good undergoes an applicable change in 
     tariff classification specified in such Annex as a result of 
     production occurring entirely in the territory of Bahrain or 
     the United States, or both; or
       (bb) the good otherwise satisfies the requirements 
     specified in such Annex; and
       (III) the good satisfies all other applicable requirements 
     of this section.
       (2) Requirements.--A good described in paragraph (1)(B)(ii) 
     is an originating good only if the sum of--
       (A) the value of each material produced in the territory of 
     Bahrain or the United States, or both, and
       (B) the direct costs of processing operations performed in 
     the territory of Bahrain or the United States, or both,
     is not less than 35 percent of the appraised value of the 
     good at the time the good is entered into the territory of 
     the United States.

[[Page H11165]]

       (c) Cumulation.--
       (1) Originating good or material incorporated into goods of 
     other country.--An originating good, or a material produced 
     in the territory of Bahrain or the United States, or both, 
     that is incorporated into a good in the territory of the 
     other country shall be considered to originate in the 
     territory of the other country.
       (2) Multiple producers.--A good that is grown, produced, or 
     manufactured in the territory of Bahrain or the United 
     States, or both, by 1 or more producers, is an originating 
     good if the good satisfies the requirements of subsection (b) 
     and all other applicable requirements of this section.
       (d) Value of Materials.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     value of a material produced in the territory of Bahrain or 
     the United States, or both, includes the following:
       (A) The price actually paid or payable for the material by 
     the producer of the good.
       (B) The freight, insurance, packing, and all other costs 
     incurred in transporting the material to the producer's 
     plant, if such costs are not included in the price referred 
     to in subparagraph (A).
       (C) The cost of waste or spoilage resulting from the use of 
     the material in the growth, production, or manufacture of the 
     good, less the value of recoverable scrap.
       (D) Taxes or customs duties imposed on the material by 
     Bahrain or the United States, or both, if the taxes or 
     customs duties are not remitted upon exportation from the 
     territory of Bahrain or the United States, as the case may 
     be.
       (2) Exception.--If the relationship between the producer of 
     a good and the seller of a material influenced the price 
     actually paid or payable for the material, or if there is no 
     price actually paid or payable by the producer for the 
     material, the value of the material produced in the territory 
     of Bahrain or the United States, or both, includes the 
     following:
       (A) All expenses incurred in the growth, production, or 
     manufacture of the material, including general expenses.
       (B) A reasonable amount for profit.
       (C) Freight, insurance, packing, and all other costs 
     incurred in transporting the material to the producer's 
     plant.
       (e) Packaging and Packing Materials and Containers for 
     Retail Sale and for Shipment.--Packaging and packing 
     materials and containers for retail sale and shipment shall 
     be disregarded in determining whether a good qualifies as an 
     originating good, except to the extent that the value of such 
     packaging and packing materials and containers has been 
     included in meeting the requirements set forth in subsection 
     (b)(2).
       (f) Indirect Materials.--Indirect materials shall be 
     disregarded in determining whether a good qualifies as an 
     originating good, except that the cost of such indirect 
     materials may be included in meeting the requirements set 
     forth in subsection (b)(2).
       (g) Transit and Transshipment.--A good shall not be 
     considered to meet the requirement of subsection (b)(1)(A) 
     if, after exportation from the territory of Bahrain or the 
     United States, the good undergoes production, manufacturing, 
     or any other operation outside the territory of Bahrain or 
     the United States, other than unloading, reloading, or any 
     other operation necessary to preserve the good in good 
     condition or to transport the good to the territory of 
     Bahrain or the United States.
       (h) Textile and Apparel Goods.--
       (1) De minimis amounts of nonoriginating materials.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a 
     textile or apparel good that is not an originating good 
     because certain fibers or yarns used in the production of the 
     component of the good that determines the tariff 
     classification of the good do not undergo an applicable 
     change in tariff classification set out in Annex 3-A of the 
     Agreement shall be considered to be an originating good if 
     the total weight of all such fibers or yarns in that 
     component is not more than 7 percent of the total weight of 
     that component.
       (B) Certain textile or apparel goods.--A textile or apparel 
     good containing elastomeric yarns in the component of the 
     good that determines the tariff classification of the good 
     shall be considered to be an originating good only if such 
     yarns are wholly formed in the territory of Bahrain or the 
     United States.
       (C) Yarn, fabric, or group of fibers.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, in the case of a textile or apparel good that is a 
     yarn, fabric, or group of fibers, the term ``component of the 
     good that determines the tariff classification of the good'' 
     means all of the fibers in the yarn, fabric, or group of 
     fibers.
       (2) Goods put up in sets for retail sale.--Notwithstanding 
     the rules set forth in Annex 3-A of the Agreement, textile or 
     apparel goods classifiable as goods put up in sets for retail 
     sale as provided for in General Rule of Interpretation 3 of 
     the HTS shall not be considered to be originating goods 
     unless each of the goods in the set is an originating good or 
     the total value of the nonoriginating goods in the set does 
     not exceed 10 percent of the value of the set determined for 
     purposes of assessing customs duties.
       (i) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Direct costs of processing operations.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``direct costs of processing 
     operations'', with respect to a good, includes, to the extent 
     they are includable in the appraised value of the good when 
     imported into Bahrain or the United States, as the case may 
     be, the following:
       (i) All actual labor costs involved in the growth, 
     production, or manufacture of the good, including fringe 
     benefits, on-the-job training, and the cost of engineering, 
     supervisory, quality control, and similar personnel.
       (ii) Tools, dies, molds, and other indirect materials, and 
     depreciation on machinery and equipment that are allocable to 
     the good.
       (iii) Research, development, design, engineering, and 
     blueprint costs, to the extent that they are allocable to the 
     good.
       (iv) Costs of inspecting and testing the good.
       (v) Costs of packaging the good for export to the territory 
     of the other country.
       (B) Exceptions.--The term ``direct costs of processing 
     operations'' does not include costs that are not directly 
     attributable to a good or are not costs of growth, 
     production, or manufacture of the good, such as--
       (i) profit; and
       (ii) general expenses of doing business that are either not 
     allocable to the good or are not related to the growth, 
     production, or manufacture of the good, such as 
     administrative salaries, casualty and liability insurance, 
     advertising, and sales staff salaries, commissions, or 
     expenses.
       (2) Good.--The term ``good'' means any merchandise, 
     product, article, or material.
       (3) Good wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of 
     bahrain or the united states, or both.--The term ``good 
     wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of Bahrain or the 
     United States, or both'' means--
       (A) a mineral good extracted in the territory of Bahrain or 
     the United States, or both;
       (B) a vegetable good, as such a good is provided for in the 
     HTS, harvested in the territory of Bahrain or the United 
     States, or both;
       (C) a live animal born and raised in the territory of 
     Bahrain or the United States, or both;
       (D) a good obtained from live animals raised in the 
     territory of Bahrain or the United States, or both;
       (E) a good obtained from hunting, trapping, or fishing in 
     the territory of Bahrain or the United States, or both;
       (F) a good (fish, shellfish, and other marine life) taken 
     from the sea by vessels registered or recorded with Bahrain 
     or the United States and flying the flag of that country;
       (G) a good produced from goods referred to in subparagraph 
     (F) on board factory ships registered or recorded with 
     Bahrain or the United States and flying the flag of that 
     country;
       (H) a good taken by Bahrain or the United States or a 
     person of Bahrain or the United States from the seabed or 
     beneath the seabed outside territorial waters, if Bahrain or 
     the United States, as the case may be, has rights to exploit 
     such seabed;
       (I) a good taken from outer space, if such good is obtained 
     by Bahrain or the United States or a person of Bahrain or the 
     United States and not processed in the territory of a country 
     other than Bahrain or the United States;
       (J) waste and scrap derived from--
       (i) production or manufacture in the territory of Bahrain 
     or the United States, or both; or
       (ii) used goods collected in the territory of Bahrain or 
     the United States, or both, if such goods are fit only for 
     the recovery of raw materials;
       (K) a recovered good derived in the territory of Bahrain or 
     the United States from used goods and utilized in the 
     territory of that country in the production of remanufactured 
     goods; and
       (L) a good produced in the territory of Bahrain or the 
     United States, or both, exclusively--
       (i) from goods referred to in subparagraphs (A) through 
     (J), or
       (ii) from the derivatives of goods referred to in clause 
     (i),
     at any stage of production.
       (4) Indirect material.--The term ``indirect material'' 
     means a good used in the growth, production, manufacture, 
     testing, or inspection of a good but not physically 
     incorporated into the good, or a good used in the maintenance 
     of buildings or the operation of equipment associated with 
     the growth, production, or manufacture of a good, including--
       (A) fuel and energy;
       (B) tools, dies, and molds;
       (C) spare parts and materials used in the maintenance of 
     equipment and buildings;
       (D) lubricants, greases, compounding materials, and other 
     materials used in the growth, production, or manufacture of a 
     good or used to operate equipment and buildings;
       (E) gloves, glasses, footwear, clothing, safety equipment, 
     and supplies;
       (F) equipment, devices, and supplies used for testing or 
     inspecting the good;
       (G) catalysts and solvents; and
       (H) any other goods that are not incorporated into the good 
     but the use of which in the growth, production, or 
     manufacture of the good can reasonably be demonstrated to be 
     a part of that growth, production, or manufacture.
       (5) Material.--The term ``material'' means a good, 
     including a part or ingredient, that is used in the growth, 
     production, or manufacture of another good that is a new or

[[Page H11166]]

     different article of commerce that has been grown, produced, 
     or manufactured in Bahrain or the United States, or both.
       (6) Material produced in the territory of bahrain or the 
     united states, or both.--The term ``material produced in the 
     territory of Bahrain or the United States, or both'' means a 
     good that is either wholly the growth, product, or 
     manufacture of Bahrain or the United States, or both, or a 
     new or different article of commerce that has been grown, 
     produced, or manufactured in the territory of Bahrain or the 
     United States, or both.
       (7) New or different article of commerce.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``new or different article of 
     commerce'' means, except as provided in subparagraph (B), a 
     good that--
       (i) has been substantially transformed from a good or 
     material that is not wholly the growth, product, or 
     manufacture of Bahrain or the United States, or both; and
       (ii) has a new name, character, or use distinct from the 
     good or material from which it was transformed.
       (B) Exception.--A good shall not be considered a new or 
     different article of commerce by virtue of having undergone 
     simple combining or packaging operations, or mere dilution 
     with water or another substance that does not materially 
     alter the characteristics of the good.
       (8) Recovered goods.--The term ``recovered goods'' means 
     materials in the form of individual parts that result from--
       (A) the complete disassembly of used goods into individual 
     parts; and
       (B) the cleaning, inspecting, testing, or other processing 
     of those parts that is necessary for improvement to sound 
     working condition.
       (9) Remanufactured good.--The term ``remanufactured good'' 
     means an industrial good that is assembled in the territory 
     of Bahrain or the United States and that--
       (A) is entirely or partially comprised of recovered goods;
       (B) has a similar life expectancy to, and meets similar 
     performance standards as, a like good that is new; and
       (C) enjoys a factory warranty similar to that of a like 
     good that is new.
       (10) Simple combining or packaging operations.--The term 
     ``simple combining or packaging operations'' means operations 
     such as adding batteries to devices, fitting together a small 
     number of components by bolting, gluing, or soldering, and 
     repacking or packaging components together.
       (11) Substantially transformed.--The term ``substantially 
     transformed'' means, with respect to a good or material, 
     changed as the result of a manufacturing or processing 
     operation so that--
       (A)(i) the good or material is converted from a good that 
     has multiple uses into a good or material that has limited 
     uses;
       (ii) the physical properties of the good or material are 
     changed to a significant extent; or
       (iii) the operation undergone by the good or material is 
     complex by reason of the number of different processes and 
     materials involved and the time and level of skill required 
     to perform those processes; and
       (B) the good or material loses its separate identity in the 
     manufacturing or processing operation.
       (j) Presidential Proclamation Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The President is authorized to proclaim, 
     as part of the HTS--
       (A) the provisions set forth in Annex 3-A and Annex 4-A of 
     the Agreement; and
       (B) any additional subordinate category that is necessary 
     to carry out this title, consistent with the Agreement.
       (2) Modifications.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to the consultation and layover 
     provisions of section 104, the President may proclaim 
     modifications to the provisions proclaimed under the 
     authority of paragraph (1)(A), other than provisions of 
     chapters 50 through 63 of the HTS (as included in Annex 3-A 
     of the Agreement).
       (B) Additional proclamations.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (A), and subject to the consultation and layover provisions 
     of section 104, the President may proclaim--
       (i) modifications to the provisions proclaimed under the 
     authority of paragraph (1)(A) as are necessary to implement 
     an agreement with Bahrain pursuant to article 3.2.5 of the 
     Agreement; and
       (ii) before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, modifications to correct 
     any typographical, clerical, or other nonsubstantive 
     technical error regarding the provisions of chapters 50 
     through 63 of the HTS (as included in Annex 3-A of the 
     Agreement).

     SEC. 203. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

       Section 13031(b) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(b)) is amended--
       (1) in each of paragraphs (13) and (15), by moving the text 
     2 ems to the left; and
       (2) by adding after paragraph (15) the following:
       ``(16) No fee may be charged under subsection (a) (9) or 
     (10) with respect to goods that qualify as originating goods 
     under section 202 of the United States-Bahrain Free Trade 
     Agreement Implementation Act. Any service for which an 
     exemption from such fee is provided by reason of this 
     paragraph may not be funded with money contained in the 
     Customs User Fee Account.''.

     SEC. 204. ENFORCEMENT RELATING TO TRADE IN TEXTILE AND 
                   APPAREL GOODS.

       (a) Action During Verification.--
       (1) In general.--If the Secretary of the Treasury requests 
     the Government of Bahrain to conduct a verification pursuant 
     to article 3.3 of the Agreement for purposes of making a 
     determination under paragraph (2), the President may direct 
     the Secretary to take appropriate action described in 
     subsection (b) while the verification is being conducted.
       (2) Determination.--A determination under this paragraph is 
     a determination--
       (A) that an exporter or producer in Bahrain is complying 
     with applicable customs laws, regulations, procedures, 
     requirements, or practices affecting trade in textile or 
     apparel goods; or
       (B) that a claim that a textile or apparel good exported or 
     produced by such exporter or producer--
       (i) qualifies as an originating good under section 202; or
       (ii) is a good of Bahrain, is accurate.
       (b) Appropriate Action Described.--Appropriate action under 
     subsection (a)(1) includes--
       (1) suspension of liquidation of the entry of any textile 
     or apparel good exported or produced by the person that is 
     the subject of a verification referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1) regarding compliance described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(A), in a case in which the request for verification 
     was based on a reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity 
     related to such good; and
       (2) suspension of liquidation of the entry of a textile or 
     apparel good for which a claim has been made that is the 
     subject of a verification referred to in subsection (a)(1) 
     regarding a claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B).
       (c) Action When Information Is Insufficient.--If the 
     Secretary of the Treasury determines that the information 
     obtained within 12 months after making a request for a 
     verification under subsection (a)(1) is insufficient to make 
     a determination under subsection (a)(2), the President may 
     direct the Secretary to take appropriate action described in 
     subsection (d) until such time as the Secretary receives 
     information sufficient to make a determination under 
     subsection (a)(2) or until such earlier date as the President 
     may direct.
       (d) Appropriate Action Described.--Appropriate action 
     referred to in subsection (c) includes--
       (1) publication of the name and address of the person that 
     is the subject of the verification;
       (2) denial of preferential tariff treatment under the 
     Agreement to--
       (A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the 
     person that is the subject of a verification referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) regarding compliance described in 
     subsection (a)(2)(A); or
       (B) a textile or apparel good for which a claim has been 
     made that is the subject of a verification referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) regarding a claim described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(B); and
       (3) denial of entry into the United States of--
       (A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the 
     person that is the subject of a verification referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) regarding compliance described in 
     subsection (a)(2)(A); or
       (B) a textile or apparel good for which a claim has been 
     made that is the subject of a verification referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) regarding a claim described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(B).

     SEC. 205. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out--
       (1) subsections (a) through (i) of section 202;
       (2) the amendment made by section 203(2); and
       (3) proclamations issued under section 202(j).

                     TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS

     SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Bahraini article.--The term ``Bahraini article'' means 
     an article that--
       (A) qualifies as an originating good under section 202(b); 
     or
       (B) receives preferential tariff treatment under paragraphs 
     8 through 11 of article 3.2 of the Agreement.
       (2) Bahraini textile or apparel article.--The term 
     ``Bahraini textile or apparel article'' means an article 
     that--
       (A) is listed in the Annex to the Agreement on Textiles and 
     Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)); and
       (B) is a Bahraini article.
       (3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the United 
     States International Trade Commission.

     Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement

     SEC. 311. COMMENCING OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.

       (a) Filing of Petition.--A petition requesting action under 
     this subtitle for the purpose of adjusting to the obligations 
     of the United States under the Agreement may be filed with 
     the Commission by an entity, including a trade association, 
     firm, certified or recognized union, or group of workers, 
     that is representative of an industry. The Commission shall 
     transmit a copy of any petition filed under this subsection 
     to the United States Trade Representative.

[[Page H11167]]

       (b) Investigation and Determination.--Upon the filing of a 
     petition under subsection (a), the Commission, unless 
     subsection (d) applies, shall promptly initiate an 
     investigation to determine whether, as a result of the 
     reduction or elimination of a duty provided for under the 
     Agreement, a Bahraini article is being imported into the 
     United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms 
     or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions 
     that imports of the Bahraini article constitute a substantial 
     cause of serious injury or threat thereof to the domestic 
     industry producing an article that is like, or directly 
     competitive with, the imported article.
       (c) Applicable Provisions.--The following provisions of 
     section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) apply 
     with respect to any investigation initiated under subsection 
     (b):
       (1) Paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) of subsection (b).
       (2) Subsection (c).
       (3) Subsection (i).
       (d) Articles Exempt From Investigation.--No investigation 
     may be initiated under this section with respect to any 
     Bahraini article if, after the date on which the Agreement 
     enters into force with respect to the United States, import 
     relief has been provided with respect to that Bahraini 
     article under this subtitle.

     SEC. 312. COMMISSION ACTION ON PETITION.

       (a) Determination.--Not later than 120 days after the date 
     on which an investigation is initiated under section 311(b) 
     with respect to a petition, the Commission shall make the 
     determination required under that section.
       (b) Applicable Provisions.--For purposes of this subtitle, 
     the provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 
     330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d) (1), (2), 
     and (3)) shall be applied with respect to determinations and 
     findings made under this section as if such determinations 
     and findings were made under section 202 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252).
       (c) Additional Finding and Recommendation if Determination 
     Affirmative.--
       (1) In general.--If the determination made by the 
     Commission under subsection (a) with respect to imports of an 
     article is affirmative, or if the President may consider a 
     determination of the Commission to be an affirmative 
     determination as provided for under paragraph (1) of section 
     330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d)(1)), the 
     Commission shall find, and recommend to the President in the 
     report required under subsection (d), the amount of import 
     relief that is necessary to remedy or prevent the injury 
     found by the Commission in the determination and to 
     facilitate the efforts of the domestic industry to make a 
     positive adjustment to import competition.
       (2) Limitation on relief.--The import relief recommended by 
     the Commission under this subsection shall be limited to that 
     described in section 313(c).
       (3) Voting; separate views.--Only those members of the 
     Commission who voted in the affirmative under subsection (a) 
     are eligible to vote on the proposed action to remedy or 
     prevent the injury found by the Commission. Members of the 
     Commission who did not vote in the affirmative may submit, in 
     the report required under subsection (d), separate views 
     regarding what action, if any, should be taken to remedy or 
     prevent the injury.
       (d) Report to President.--Not later than the date that is 
     30 days after the date on which a determination is made under 
     subsection (a) with respect to an investigation, the 
     Commission shall submit to the President a report that 
     includes--
       (1) the determination made under subsection (a) and an 
     explanation of the basis for the determination;
       (2) if the determination under subsection (a) is 
     affirmative, any findings and recommendations for import 
     relief made under subsection (c) and an explanation of the 
     basis for each recommendation; and
       (3) any dissenting or separate views by members of the 
     Commission regarding the determination and recommendation 
     referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (e) Public Notice.--Upon submitting a report to the 
     President under subsection (d), the Commission shall promptly 
     make public such report (with the exception of information 
     which the Commission determines to be confidential) and shall 
     cause a summary thereof to be published in the Federal 
     Register.

     SEC. 313. PROVISION OF RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--Not later than the date that is 30 days 
     after the date on which the President receives the report of 
     the Commission in which the Commission's determination under 
     section 312(a) is affirmative, or which contains a 
     determination under section 312(a) that the President 
     considers to be affirmative under paragraph (1) of section 
     330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d)(1)), the 
     President, subject to subsection (b), shall provide relief 
     from imports of the article that is the subject of such 
     determination to the extent that the President determines 
     necessary to remedy or prevent the injury found by the 
     Commission and to facilitate the efforts of the domestic 
     industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition.
       (b) Exception.--The President is not required to provide 
     import relief under this section if the President determines 
     that the provision of the import relief will not provide 
     greater economic and social benefits than costs.
       (c) Nature of Relief.--
       (1) In general.--The import relief that the President is 
     authorized to provide under this section with respect to 
     imports of an article is as follows:
       (A) The suspension of any further reduction provided for 
     under Annex 2-B of the Agreement in the duty imposed on such 
     article.
       (B) An increase in the rate of duty imposed on such article 
     to a level that does not exceed the lesser of--
       (i) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS 
     on like articles at the time the import relief is provided; 
     or
       (ii) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the 
     HTS on like articles on the day before the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force.
       (2) Progressive liberalization.--If the period for which 
     import relief is provided under this section is greater than 
     1 year, the President shall provide for the progressive 
     liberalization of such relief at regular intervals during the 
     period in which the relief is in effect.
       (d) Period of Relief.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), any import 
     relief that the President provides under this section may 
     not, in the aggregate, be in effect for more than 3 years.
       (2) Extension.--
       (A) In general.--If the initial period for any import 
     relief provided under this section is less than 3 years, the 
     President, after receiving a determination from the 
     Commission under subparagraph (B) that is affirmative, or 
     which the President considers to be affirmative under 
     paragraph (1) of section 330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1330(d)(1)), may extend the effective period of any 
     import relief provided under this section, subject to the 
     limitation under paragraph (1), if the President determines 
     that--
       (i) the import relief continues to be necessary to remedy 
     or prevent serious injury and to facilitate adjustment by the 
     domestic industry to import competition; and
       (ii) there is evidence that the industry is making a 
     positive adjustment to import competition.
       (B) Action by commission.--
       (i) Investigation.--Upon a petition on behalf of the 
     industry concerned that is filed with the Commission not 
     earlier than the date which is 9 months, and not later than 
     the date which is 6 months, before the date any action taken 
     under subsection (a) is to terminate, the Commission shall 
     conduct an investigation to determine whether action under 
     this section continues to be necessary to remedy or prevent 
     serious injury and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic 
     industry to import competition and whether there is evidence 
     that the industry is making a positive adjustment to import 
     competition.
       (ii) Notice and hearing.--The Commission shall publish 
     notice of the commencement of any proceeding under this 
     subparagraph in the Federal Register and shall, within a 
     reasonable time thereafter, hold a public hearing at which 
     the Commission shall afford interested parties and consumers 
     an opportunity to be present, to present evidence, and to 
     respond to the presentations of other parties and consumers, 
     and otherwise to be heard.
       (iii) Report.--The Commission shall transmit to the 
     President a report on its investigation and determination 
     under this subparagraph not later than 60 days before the 
     action under subsection (a) is to terminate, unless the 
     President specifies a different date.
       (e) Rate After Termination of Import Relief.--When import 
     relief under this section is terminated with respect to an 
     article, the rate of duty on that article shall be the rate 
     that would have been in effect, but for the provision of such 
     relief, on the date on which the relief terminates.
       (f) Articles Exempt From Relief.--No import relief may be 
     provided under this section on any article that has been 
     subject to import relief under this subtitle after the date 
     on which the Agreement enters into force.

     SEC. 314. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.

       (a) General Rule.--Subject to subsection (b), no import 
     relief may be provided under this subtitle after the date 
     that is 10 years after the date on which the Agreement enters 
     into force.
       (b) Presidential Determination.--Import relief may be 
     provided under this subtitle in the case of a Bahraini 
     article after the date on which such relief would, but for 
     this subsection, terminate under subsection (a), if the 
     President determines that Bahrain has consented to such 
     relief.

     SEC. 315. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

       For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President 
     under section 313 shall be treated as action taken under 
     chapter 1 of title II of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).

     SEC. 316. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION.

       Section 202(a)(8) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2252(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence--
       (1) by striking ``and''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end ``, and title 
     III of the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement 
     Implementation Act''.

[[Page H11168]]

           Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures

     SEC. 321. COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--A request under this subtitle for the 
     purpose of adjusting to the obligations of the United States 
     under the Agreement may be filed with the President by an 
     interested party. Upon the filing of a request, the President 
     shall review the request to determine, from information 
     presented in the request, whether to commence consideration 
     of the request.
       (b) Publication of Request.--If the President determines 
     that the request under subsection (a) provides the 
     information necessary for the request to be considered, the 
     President shall cause to be published in the Federal Register 
     a notice of commencement of consideration of the request, and 
     notice seeking public comments regarding the request. The 
     notice shall include a summary of the request and the dates 
     by which comments and rebuttals must be received.

     SEC. 322. DETERMINATION AND PROVISION OF RELIEF.

       (a) Determination.--
       (1) In general.--If a positive determination is made under 
     section 321(b), the President shall determine whether, as a 
     result of the reduction or elimination of a duty under the 
     Agreement, a Bahraini textile or apparel article is being 
     imported into the United States in such increased quantities, 
     in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that 
     article, and under such conditions as to cause serious 
     damage, or actual threat thereof, to a domestic industry 
     producing an article that is like, or directly competitive 
     with, the imported article.
       (2) Serious damage.--In making a determination under 
     paragraph (1), the President--
       (A) shall examine the effect of increased imports on the 
     domestic industry, as reflected in changes in such relevant 
     economic factors as output, productivity, utilization of 
     capacity, inventories, market share, exports, wages, 
     employment, domestic prices, profits, and investment, none of 
     which is necessarily decisive; and
       (B) shall not consider changes in technology or consumer 
     preference as factors supporting a determination of serious 
     damage or actual threat thereof.
       (b) Provision of Relief.--
       (1) In general.--If a determination under subsection (a) is 
     affirmative, the President may provide relief from imports of 
     the article that is the subject of such determination, as 
     described in paragraph (2), to the extent that the President 
     determines necessary to remedy or prevent the serious damage 
     and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic industry to 
     import competition.
       (2) Nature of relief.--The relief that the President is 
     authorized to provide under this subsection with respect to 
     imports of an article is an increase in the rate of duty 
     imposed on the article to a level that does not exceed the 
     lesser of--
       (A) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS 
     on like articles at the time the import relief is provided; 
     or
       (B) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS 
     on like articles on the day before the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force.

     SEC. 323. PERIOD OF RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), any import 
     relief that the President provides under subsection (b) of 
     section 322 may not, in the aggregate, be in effect for more 
     than 3 years.
       (b) Extension.--If the initial period for any import relief 
     provided under section 322 is less than 3 years, the 
     President may extend the effective period of any import 
     relief provided under that section, subject to the limitation 
     set forth in subsection (a), if the President determines 
     that--
       (1) the import relief continues to be necessary to remedy 
     or prevent serious damage and to facilitate adjustment by the 
     domestic industry to import competition; and
       (2) there is evidence that the industry is making a 
     positive adjustment to import competition.

     SEC. 324. ARTICLES EXEMPT FROM RELIEF.

       The President may not provide import relief under this 
     subtitle with respect to any article if--
       (1) the article has been subject to import relief under 
     this subtitle after the date on which the Agreement enters 
     into force; or
       (2) the article is subject to import relief under chapter 1 
     of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2251 et 
     seq.).

     SEC. 325. RATE AFTER TERMINATION OF IMPORT RELIEF.

       When import relief under this subtitle is terminated with 
     respect to an article, the rate of duty on that article shall 
     be the rate that would have been in effect, but for the 
     provision of such relief, on the date on which the relief 
     terminates.

     SEC. 326. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.

       No import relief may be provided under this subtitle with 
     respect to any article after the date that is 10 years after 
     the date on which duties on the article are eliminated 
     pursuant to the Agreement.

     SEC. 327. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

       For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President 
     under this subtitle shall be treated as action taken under 
     chapter 1 of title II of such Act.

     SEC. 328. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION.

       The President may not release information that is submitted 
     in a proceeding under this subtitle and that the President 
     considers to be confidential business information unless the 
     party submitting the confidential business information had 
     notice, at the time of submission, that such information 
     would be released, or such party subsequently consents to the 
     release of the information. To the extent a party submits 
     confidential business information to the President in a 
     proceeding under this subtitle, the party shall also submit a 
     nonconfidential version of the information, in which the 
     confidential business information is summarized or, if 
     necessary, deleted.

                         TITLE IV--PROCUREMENT

     SEC. 401. ELIGIBLE PRODUCTS.

       Section 308(4)(A) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 
     U.S.C. 2518(4)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(v) a party to a free trade agreement that entered into 
     force with respect to the United States after December 31, 
     2005, and before July 2, 2006, a product or service of that 
     country or instrumentality which is covered under the free 
     trade agreement for procurement by the United States.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House considers the United States-Bahrain Free 
Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I am pleased my friend and ranking 
member of the Trade Subcommittee (Mr. Cardin), as well as Mr. Rangel, 
has joined me in supporting this agreement. It is tremendously 
important that our trade agenda remain on track and that we seek 
bipartisan support in accomplishing this goal.
  The administration has publicly stated its commitment to the Middle 
East free trade area by the year 2013.

                              {time}  1515

  This agreement takes a key step in moving towards this goal. 
Political and economic progress continue to take shape in the Middle 
East. And by approving this agreement, the United States shows its 
support for our ally, Bahrain, and for the ideal of promoting open 
markets with leading reforms.
  The Office of the United States Trade Representative has negotiated 
an agreement that, in my view, will serve as a model for the region. 
Upon implementation, all bilateral trade and consumer and industrial 
products will become duty free. All agricultural products are covered 
by the agreement. It will allow for immediate duty-free access for 
United States agricultural exports in 98 percent of the agricultural 
categories with a few remaining categories phased out over the next 10 
years
  In addition, the commitments to this agreement relating to services 
are the strongest in any United States free trade agreement to date. 
Finally, I want to recognize the actions taken by Bahrain to eliminate 
all aspects of the Arab League boycott of the State of Israel.
  Bahrain took the commendable step of writing to Ambassador Portman to 
reiterate its commitment on this issue. Bahrain has ended the secondary 
and tertiary aspects of the boycott, dismantled all aspects of the 
primary boycott, and is fully committed to complying with World Trade 
Organization requirements.
  In addition to these actions by Bahrain, I am also pleased with the 
commitment that the U.S. Trade Representative made to me during the 
committee's consideration of this agreement to report annually on the 
status of the Arab League boycott and efforts to dismantle it in 
Bahrain and all other countries where it has been applied.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record a letter from 
Bahrain's finance minister to Ambassador Portman relating to this 
issue.

         Kingdom of Bahrain, Ministry of Finance, Minister's 
           Office,
                                                September 5, 2005.
     Hon. Robert Portman,
     U.S. Trade Representative,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ambassador Portman: Please accept my congratulations 
     on your recent appointment to serve as the U.S. Trade 
     Representatives. I look forward to meeting with you

[[Page H11169]]

     soon to discuss our mutual interest in strengthening trade 
     relations between the Kingdom of Bahrain and the United 
     States.
       It has come to my attention that questions have arisen 
     regarding any secondary and tertiary boycotts related to 
     Israel.
       Following a decision of the Arab League in 1963 and prior 
     to Bahrain's independence, the Bahrain government issued Law 
     No. 5 of 1963 (Finance) which established the Boycott of 
     Israel Office.
       In 1994, the Kingdom of Bahrain eliminated all aspects of 
     secondary and tertiary boycotts which extended to businesses 
     which had relations with Israeli companies and businesses. 
     Attached please find a copy of the memorandum recently sent 
     to all Bahrain Ministries reminding them that the secondary 
     and tertiary boycotts are null and void.
       In the hope of advancing peace and regional cooperation, 
     the Kingdom of Bahrain recognizes the need to dismantle the 
     primary Boycott of Israel and is beginning efforts to achieve 
     that goal.
       As founding members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), 
     the Kingdom of Bahrain is fully committed to complying with 
     WTO requirements. Bahrain has no restrictions whatsoever on 
     American companies trading with Bahrain or doing business in 
     Bahrain, regardless of its ownership or relations with 
     Israeli companies.
       Finally, it is Bahrain's sincerest hope that our Free Trade 
     Agreement with the United States will enhance efforts to 
     achieve a real and lasting peace in the Middle East.
           Yours sincerely,
                                    Ahmed bin Mohammed Al Khalifa,
                                              Minister of Finance.

  Mr. Speaker, the United States needs allies in the Middle East. 
Bahrain has stepped up to the plate in so many ways. Let me state them. 
As the home of our United States Navy's 5th Fleet, as a key ally in the 
war on terror, and by promoting an open and transparent market that 
will benefit our overall bilateral relationship.
  Open and free trade with Bahrain will prove beneficial, both in the 
short run, and especially over time. We will witness a Nation leading a 
region of the world towards openness with the United States and doing 
it through trade.
  Through these ties, I firmly believe that this agreement will advance 
the development of Democratic principles throughout that region.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my Ways and Means colleagues for moving this 
agreement to the floor for today's consideration. I especially want to 
recognize the efforts of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for their commitment to seeing 
a United States-Bahrain free trade agreement come to fruition.
  As co-chairs of the U.S.-Bahrain Congressional Caucus, they educated 
and provided key information to Members and staff in anticipation of 
this floor vote. I want to thank them publicly for their efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, the agreement before us today is right for America for 
economic and strategic reasons. We must ensure that we support our 
allies in the Middle East. By opening markets, we empower people to 
reap the benefits of economic freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think working out the details in this bill is a 
classic example as to how we can be bipartisan when we really try. 
There is no question that foreign policy and trade should not be a 
Republican or Democratic issue.
  And the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) made up his mind that we 
were going to stick to it to make certain that some of our concerns 
about the basic protection of workers was going to be included in the 
bill. And while the language is not specifically in the bill, in 
talking with the representatives from the Bahrain government, 
especially the ambassador that showed us a sincere desire to make 
certain that he accommodated not Republicans or Democrats, but his 
respect for this body, we were able to persuade most of the Members on 
our side that this was something worth doing, not only because of 
economic reasons, but because of the courageous acts that were taken in 
the Middle East by this very small country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlemen from 
California (Mr. Stark) and request unanimous consent that he be allowed 
to manage the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and request 
unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, in closing, though, I would also like to 
point out that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a junior Member 
of the committee, spent considerable time working with us and working 
with us through the United States Trade Representative in order to make 
certain that we reached this conclusion, and I will be supporting this 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the first thing is, here we go again. If we 
are rewarding an ally for helping us in Iraq, where I understand there 
are no Bahranian troops, but we have got a Navy base. Well, if we are 
paying off for a Navy base, how about Cuba? Why do we not throw these 
guys in? I think we have got a big base in Cuba where we are torturing 
prisoners, so why not toss them in if that is the reason for going into 
this free trade agreement.
  The problem with the Bahrain Free Trade Agreement is the same ones 
that we have had with Australia, Morocco, CAFTA. And the administration 
keeps sending the same flawed arguments and agreements.
  I have supported trade. But it has got to be fair before it can be 
free. And unfortunately, this administration does not see it that way. 
Like our recent free trade agreements, it fails to promote basic labor 
rights, environmental standards, and is a payback or a sell out to 
PhRMA for letting the pharmaceutical industry write into these 
agreements wording that extends their patents and extends the time 
before generic medicines are available.
  Now, it may be that Bahrain is somewhat richer than other nations and 
can wait longer, but it is a bad policy. You are going to hear today 
about Bahrain's labor rights. That is great. But it does not hold them 
responsible for maintaining those improvements. It is sort of enforce 
your own laws, and Bahrain could change those laws tomorrow.
  The same hollow standards apply to environmental protections. They 
could be changed. My 10-year-old son wishes that he could have enforce 
his own bed time. But that is not the way it works, Mr. Speaker. Until 
the core international labor organizations standards and strong 
environmental protections are included in the text of the agreement, we 
should all vote against these free trade agreements.
  If you trust the administration to tell you the truth, maybe you 
could vote for it then. But I think recent experience in the war, in 
torture, and other instances have shown us that those assertions are 
subject to question by reasonable people.
  So this agreement, like many other bills, helps Big Pharma. It does 
not do much for labor. It does nothing to assure us that we will have 
environmental safety in Bahrain should they, God help us, ever run out 
of oil. And it seems to me that we are giving away a lot of our 
American rights. And I urge any of you just to remember the 
disagreement we had many years ago over China.
  And many of us said, the minute you give permanent most favored 
nation to China, you will never again be able to negotiate with them. 
Look at the footage when our delegation was in China and the hands that 
went in front of the cameras as China prohibits free and open press 
coverage of what goes on there.
  Until we are ready to get fair exchange for these free trade 
agreements, we are selling our American heritage. I urge a no vote on 
the Bahrain Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) who I referred to in my opening 
remarks, a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding, and

[[Page H11170]]

for his hard work on this. Also I want to start off, Mr. Speaker, by 
thanking the Democrats on the committee for working so hard and 
diligently with us.
  This is a bipartisan bill. This is a bipartisan trade agreement. We 
will see votes from a lot of Democrats and a lot of Republicans when 
this comes to a vote. Why is that? Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very 
important step in the right direction for our country. This is a very 
important precedent-making event. What we are accomplishing here is the 
first trade agreement in this region since the 9/11 Commission 
published their findings, since we launched the Middle East Free Trade 
Area Initiative, since 9/11.
  Now, let us just say it is controversial what our country is doing in 
Iraq. I think it is safe to say that. That is a part of our war on 
terror, has controversy. Well, what are we trying to accomplish there? 
We believe that freedom and democracy are the best ultimate tools in 
the war on terrorism. We believe that our children and grandchildren 
will be more safe and secure here in America and around the world, if 
other people are free, if other people have the ability to determine 
their own destiny and their own futures.
  What does this have to do with that? A trade agreement with the 
United States with these countries, with Bahrain, in particular, helps 
secure that future. By seeing the leadership of Bahrain, the first 
country in the Gulf to do this, gravitating and taking the leadership, 
for rule of law, transparency in its legislature, changing its 
government to a constitutional monarchy, having a directly 
representative parliament, giving women the right to vote, given women 
elected positions in government, giving woman elected positions in the 
ministry, in the cabinet level, having the rule of law, having 
transparency, all of those things are the necessary and key foundations 
and building blocks to freedom and democracy.
  That is ultimately how we win against the war on terrorism. This is 
the way we do it on a bipartisan basis. This is the opportunity for 
Republicans and Democrats to go forward with one voice, one face, one 
message as Americans going overseas, going forward confidently to win 
the war on terror and help encourage the spread of freedom and 
democracy. That is why this is an important trade agreement.
  Is Bahrain significant from an economic value? It is a small country 
relative to other economic trade partners. Is this trade agreement in 
and of itself a good deal for us? Absolutely. Zero tariffs on 
manufactured goods. Zero tariffs on our agricultural goods. Fair trade 
rules. This agreement improves labor standards.
  The Bahrainees have already shown leadership in their region in this 
area. In 2000, they passed a very sweeping labor reform law. They have 
since committed to passing even more sweeping labor reform laws. So we 
are already seeing tremendous progress being made. This is a country, 
Mr. Speaker, that has really shown leadership in this region against 
the grain, against pressure from their neighbors across the causeway in 
Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Gulf.
  This is a country that has been our friend and ally for over 100 
years, that has hosted our 5th Fleet naval base from which we do all of 
our Naval operations in the Iraqi theatre, in the Afghani theatre, come 
from Bahrain, from our 5th Fleet.
  This is a country that has stood with the United States through thick 
and then in helping us stop money laundering for terrorists, in helping 
us with our military, in standing with us for democracy in the Middle 
East. It is an important ally. It is an ally that has done a lot, that 
has shown leadership, that has risked a lot to stand with us for 
democracy and freedom, that is gravitating towards these kinds of 
reforms.
  The vision that this trade agreement represents, Mr. Speaker, is a 
vision of spreading trade, free markets, capitalism and democracy and 
freedom throughout the greater Middle East. This is the road map to the 
future of the Middle East.
  And that is why it is so important. This is a bipartisan movement. 
That is why I just want to say one more time how thankful I am to the 
ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) for working very hard to meet this agreement, and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) as well, for working hard to meet 
this agreement so that we can stand here today as Republicans and 
Democrats in favor of this very important trade agreement.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the U.S.-
Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. This agreement reflects a bipartisan 
effort to make a deal that is worthy of broad support both in terms of 
the process used and the substance of the agreement.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for his help in 
this agreement. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) 
for his persistence in keeping us focused on getting this agreement 
completed this year. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for his help with the USTR and with the administration in 
pointing out the importance of making some additional changes. I thank 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for his contributions in 
regards to this bill.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, Congress uses an expedited process when it 
considers trade agreements. As a result, Congress gives up a lot of its 
prerogatives, and it is absolutely critical that in giving up these 
prerogatives that the administration consult and work very closely with 
the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle in negotiating, 
entering into, and submitting to Congress the implementing legislation.
  Well, in regards to the U.S.-Bahrainian agreement, much of the work 
was done prior to the beginning of this year; and, quite frankly, there 
was not as close a relationship with Congress as I wanted to see. There 
were things that were not complete then when the agreement itself had 
been finished. But thanks to Ambassador Portman, thanks to the help 
from the majority side, we were able to continue consultation with 
Congress on both sides of the aisle prior to the submission of the 
implementing legislation.
  As a result, we now have an agreement that incorporates the important 
provisions that deal with worker rights as well as dealing with the 
issue of the boycott against Israel; and I want to compliment the 
process and the manner in which we have been able to complete this 
agreement.
  On substance, the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement is a good 
agreement for several reasons. First, the agreement provides 
substantial market access for U.S. service providers, immediate duty-
free treatment for all currently traded consumer and industrial 
products, and duty-free treatment of nearly all U.S. agricultural 
exports.
  This is a good model for other agreements in the region and around 
the world.
  Second, Bahrain has taken truly historic steps by disavowing all 
aspects of the Arab League boycott against Israel. Not only the 
primary, but the secondary and tertiary boycotts. This should be the 
template that we use in all negotiations and free trade agreements in 
that region. That is exactly what the United States should be 
demanding.
  The third reason why this is a good agreement is that Bahrain has 
adopted major reforms in its labor code and is committed to making 
further reforms. In 2002 Bahrain enacted legislation that for the first 
time gave workers in Bahrain the right to belong to trade unions and to 
strike.
  Last month in an exchange of letters with the United States 
Government, the government of Bahrain made several additional 
commitments that would ensure its laws are in full compliance with 
basic international standards.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just point out that the process we use is that we 
identified certain weaknesses in the operation of the Bahrainian reform 
laws as it related to workers' rights. Bahrain now is committed by 
letter and interpretation to comply fully with the ILO standards in 
four of those areas. There are two additional areas that really require 
consultation with the union because they only have a single union, and 
under ILO standards they need to have multiple unions and need 
legislation to be enacted.

[[Page H11171]]

  Bahrain had filed earlier this week two of those laws to make it 
clear that it is not only going to be the manner in which the 
government enforces the laws, but the underlying laws themselves will 
be in compliance with ILO standards. We also are permitted under this 
agreement to use the agreement in the event that we believe that they 
have not carried out their commitment. So this does reflect what we 
should be doing on workers' rights.
  We can consider a matter arising under the FTA labor chapter if in 
fact Bahrain does not carry out its commitments as spelled out in the 
exchange of letters. This will allow the United States to initiate 
formal consultation with Bahrain on these commitments on the procedures 
outlined in article 15.6 of the agreement.
  Finally, the USTR is committed to report periodically to Congress on 
Bahrain's fulfillment of its labor commitments. The USTR is further 
prepared to invoke article 15.6 procedures if Bahrain fails to carry 
out any of these commitments.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note that the Bahrainian actions stand in 
contrast to some of the CAFTA countries that actually weakened or 
proposed weakening their laws after the CAFTA agreement was signed. 
Unlike the CAFTA countries, Bahrain is a country that is heading in the 
right direction with regards to labor reforms.
  For all of these reasons and for the reasons that have been outlined 
by my colleagues, I would urge my colleagues to support this agreement. 
It opens up a market in a very important part of the world. It offers 
us a template for moving forward in the Middle East by using economics 
to bring peace and prosperity to that region, which is clearly in the 
interest of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown), a colleague nominated for the Nobel Prize in literature 
for his best selling book ``The Myth of Free Trade,'' also an author 
who understands that the King of Bahrain was not elected. I do not care 
what kind of a democracy it is, kings do not get elected. And if my 
good friend from Wisconsin had suggested that we could take our troops 
out of Iraq immediately and substitute this cockamamie free trade 
agreement, I would join with him in that, but I am not sure that that 
is what he thought.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California 
(Mr. Stark) for his leadership on the Ways and Means Committee on trade 
issues and especially on health care issues.
  I today rise to announce that I will reluctantly vote against the 
Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. Unfortunately, despite the tough battle 
in this institution over the Central American Free Trade agreement, 
very little has changed. It is too bad because this agreement could 
have been a step forward, but it is the same rubber-stamp trade 
template this administration refuses to alter. People praise U.S. Trade 
Representative Portman for being a nice guy, which he is. They praise 
him for his good manners and intelligence and straightforwardness, all 
of which he deserves. He comes to the Hill and talks to Democrats 
occasionally and says he wants to work with us.
  But then when you look at the text of the Bahrain Trade Agreement, 
labor and environmental provisions are again given short shrift. 
Meanwhile, intellectual property protections, financial protections are 
as strong as ever. We continue to protect corporate interests without 
protecting workers. We continue to protect drug company interests 
without protecting the environment. We continue to protect financial 
institutions without protecting food safety laws.
  When I first ran for Congress in 1992, our country had a trade 
deficit of $38 billion. A dozen years later, last year in 2004, our 
trade deficit was $618 billion. In this year, by the end of the year, 
it will probably exceed $700 billion. From $38 billion to $618 billion 
to $700-plus billion in less than a decade and a half. The deficit with 
China alone will approach $200 billion this year.
  Many of our trading partners succeed because they use forced labor, 
child labor, sweatshop labor. They do not have the environmental 
protections and health regulations we enjoy in the United States. Other 
countries like China and Japan manipulate currency to their advantage. 
They do not play fair. The United States again loses.
  I would like to caution my colleagues, just because USTR is giving us 
major face time on Capitol Hill does not mean they are actually 
listening to what we are saying. The overwhelming majority of Members 
of this Congress support strong labor and environmental standards for 
trade agreement. We know that because they were in the core text of the 
Jordan Trade Agreement which passed by a voice vote. I was sitting on 
the House floor at the time. No one, no one voiced opposition to the 
Jordan Free Trade Agreement which included those core labor and 
environmental standards.
  But today the template is always the same. The Bush administration 
changes nothing. Every trade agreement, every trade agreement we voted 
on since Jordan has been a step back and there is no indication that 
the administration even cares about that. So do not be fooled by 
smiling faces and hollow pledges. Until the text of these agreements 
contain the same protections for labor and the environment, the same 
protections for labor and the environment as these agreements always 
include for multi-national corporations and the drug industry, the 
pharmaceutical industry, we should stand against them.
  We all remember in July, in the middle of the night, we remember 
passing the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Same old story. The 
debate took place late. The votes were cast in the middle of the night. 
The roll call was kept open for over an hour. Republican Members had 
their arms twisted. Some, perhaps, were bribed. Perhaps, we do not 
really know that. Some may have been bribed. Some were certainly 
offered little goodies or at least given threats if they did not change 
their vote. We know all that. To pass CAFTA they had to do that in the 
middle of the night.
  It passed by two votes. If one Member had not switched a vote, it 
would have been tied. It would have been defeated.
  We heard the same promises on CAFTA as we hear today. More jobs, 
better everything for the developing world.
  After hearing all of that for CAFTA, let me just quote from the 
Boston Globe. The headline was: ``CAFTA Blamed For Layoffs At Edenton 
Textile Plant.'' Edenton, North Carolina. More than 200 employees will 
lose their jobs at an Edenton manufacturing plant when the company 
moves most of its operations to Central America in the coming year. 
Edenton Town Manager Anne-Marie Knighton said the decision by the Moore 
Company is the result of the recently adopted Central American Free 
Trade Agreement.
  It did not take long for CAFTA to begin to cost us jobs. We hear the 
same promises in Bahrain as we heard on CAFTA, the same promises on 
CAFTA that we heard about China, the same promises on China as we heard 
about NAFTA.
  If the administration continues on its current course, we can count 
on a few things for certain. Our trade deficit will skyrocket and more 
U.S. jobs will be outsourced.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) mentioned that 
we were trying to reward our friends in some way. And we hear from the 
gentleman who just left the well about CAFTA and going back and 
rehashing CAFTA, talking about votes in the middle of the night.
  I would like to pose this question: What is wrong with trying to 
reward our friends? That is who we want to promote business with is our 
friends. There is nothing in the world wrong with that and we should do 
that.
  I would also like to point out when he was talking about votes in the 
middle of the night, it is now 3:40 Eastern Standard Time, the sun is 
shining brightly, and it is a beautiful day.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen) who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle 
East and Asia.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership on all the free trade agreements and his leadership on so 
many difficult issues.

[[Page H11172]]

  I rise in strong support of the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. 
This FTA represents an important step toward a more prosperous and 
economically vibrant Middle East. The broad scope of this agreement and 
its consideration for environment and labor standards, as well as 
provisions that address other foreign policy concerns, makes the U.S.-
Bahrain agreement an important model for future FTAs.
  This agreement encompasses more than just economics. It also reflects 
a broader commitment to an ally that hosts the fifth fleet of the U.S. 
Navy and has assisted us here in the United States in our pursuit of al 
Qaeda and other Islamic extremist organizations.
  Additionally, it highlights and rewards Bahrain's reform efforts thus 
far, as illustrated by the elections held in 2002 in which women fully 
participated and by Bahrain's consistent rating by the Heritage 
Foundation as the freest economy in the Middle East.
  Bahrain's recent decision to pull out of the Arab League boycott of 
Israel also represents the government's rejection of intolerance and 
anti-Semitism and its commitment to fully integrate into the world 
economy.
  To affirm this commitment and establish a positive precedent for the 
future of FTAs with countries in the region, rejection of the Arab 
League boycott of Israel is incorporated as a provision of the U.S.-
Bahrain FTA. While significant strides have been made by Bahrain, I 
hope this agreement serves as a catalyst for further reforms, because 
they are needed to address the remaining concerns over its human rights 
records, starting with the reopening of the Bahrain Center For Human 
Rights.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Speaker, according to the 9/11 Commission report, economic 
reforms will be vital in transforming the Middle East into a region 
which rejects despotism and terrorism and, instead, embraces freedom 
and democracy. This FTA strikes at the heart of that.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to my 
colleague from Michigan (Mr. Levin) who has been one of the leading 
members of the Ways and Means Committee and the Trade Subcommittee on 
insisting that trade agreements include protection for workers' rights.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin) for the time.
  Workers rights matter to the rules of competition negotiated in trade 
agreements.
  In order to make globalization work, and I emphasize this, its 
benefits must flow broadly among the majority of the population, not 
flow to the top and merely trickle down to the rest.
  To spread the benefits of globalization, workers must have 
internationally recognized core labor rights: prohibitions on child 
labor, forced labor and discrimination, and importantly, the right of 
workers to associate and bargain collectively so they can advance their 
economic interests.
  This is not a pro-versus-anti-trade view. It is a view of how to 
expand trade in a way to spread its benefits among the population, 
stimulate, where it does not exist, a strong middle class necessary for 
a Nation's stability and, yes, the development of its democracy, 
provide U.S. workers with a more level playing field, and create 
markets of consumers with the income of other countries to buy our 
products.
  Each trade agreement presents its own challenges and opportunities. 
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has insisted on using a 
misguided, cookie-cutter approach as to the basic standard on worker 
rights, saying to our trading partners simply ``enforce your own 
laws.''
  Where internationally recognized standards of workers rights were 
well-established in law, in practice, in a Nation's history so that 
there was unlikely a retreat, many of us voted yes: Chile, Singapore, 
Morocco. But we always warned that ``enforce your own laws'' as a 
standard was fundamentally an inappropriate approach and would be 
subject to misuse and abuse if adopted in the future under very 
different circumstances. That was vividly true in CAFTA, regarding the 
rights and position of workers. There were major gaps in the laws, in 
actual practices and in the socioeconomic dynamic of those Nations. So 
we, in the Democratic party, overwhelmingly voted no.
  We insisted that an unbalanced framework for expanded globalization 
would in Central America lead to further poverty, further insecurity 
and hinder democratic development.
  When the administration began to negotiate an FTA with Bahrain, it 
was clear that there existed issues unrelated to economic globalization 
which, if negotiated effectively, would militate in favor of approval 
of an FTA.
  Those included the end of the boycott of Israel and its impact on the 
movement towards security and potential peace in the Middle East and 
American diplomatic relations with a Nation moving faster than many 
others in the Middle East towards democratic processes.
  Also, Bahrain had taken the first steps a few years before to reform 
their labor code toward providing workers with their basic 
international rights. While the code was more advanced, it is true, 
than in many Middle East Nations, it still fell short in several 
important respects.
  So, in view of all these circumstances, as the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has mentioned, a number of us chose to work with 
and press the Bahrainian government to bring their laws up to basic 
international standards.
  That started an intensive process where the negotiating parties did 
work in good faith and where the Ways and Means Committee at a hearing 
agreed, across party lines, that promises were not enough but that 
there must be concrete action on major gaps in labor laws.
  The Bahrainian government has now introduced concrete legislation, as 
Mr. Cardin has announced, to fill these gaps in their labor code. They 
will apply to both citizens and to the foreign workers who are there in 
large numbers.
  Bahrain is a small Nation, 667,000-plus people with over 235,000 non-
nationals, with a per capita income far higher than is true in other 
Nations, where the majority of citizens in those Nations live in 
poverty, and with a constitutional monarchy whose written support of 
these labor reforms provide confidence that the formally introduced 
reforms will become law.
  When all of these particular circumstances are taken into account, 
those of us on the Democratic side of the Ways and Means Committee who 
have actively worked on this matter decided to support the Bahrain FTA.
  Our experience here, and I emphasize that, does not diminish but only 
reinforces our insistence that as we face far different circumstances, 
when achieving a positive result from expanded globalization confronts 
very different dynamics, and that is true in negotiations with Latin 
American countries and others, our Nation must do for the rights of 
workers what it does for all other provisions of trade agreements. It 
must negotiate to place these international standards squarely in the 
body of the trade agreement with enforcement.
  Only then can we be confident that globalization will help workers in 
other Nations uplift themselves, create a vital middle class in those 
Nations so important to those Nations, move towards international 
competition so that trade, as now increasingly being verbalized by 
President Bush, is both free and fair.
  Only then can we be confident that competition with our workers from 
other countries will not be based on who can most suppress the rights 
of other workers and that for our own businesses, in this day and age, 
as mentioned, of our massive trade imbalances, there will be increasing 
numbers of middle income residents in other Nations to buy our goods 
and services.
  Under those circumstances, I support this agreement, conditions very 
plainly spelled out here. I hope this administration will take notice.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would remind all 
Members that it is a violation of the rules to use cell phones on the 
floor.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my friend 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
along

[[Page H11173]]

with millions of American workers in the AFL-CIO, I rise in very strong 
opposition to this flawed agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Once more, the proponents of 
unfettered free trade are telling us about all of the good jobs that 
will be created if we pass this agreement and how great this agreement 
will be for the economy, and once again, they will be wrong.
  Let me be as clear as I can be. Our unfettered free trade policies, 
NAFTA, PNTR with China, and the other trade deals have been a 
demonstrable and absolute disaster for the average American worker. It 
is incomprehensible to me that failure after failure after failure 
takes place, and then people come to the floor of the House and they 
say let us do it again.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2004, we had a trade deficit of $617 billion, and by 
the end of this year, that trade deficit is expected to top $700 
billion. Industry after industry has been decimated in this country by 
unfettered free trade, and we have lost millions of good paying 
manufacturing jobs to China, to Mexico and to other low-wage countries. 
In fact, after losing millions of good paying, blue collar jobs, we are 
now on the cusp of hemorrhaging millions more of white collar 
information technology jobs.
  When will you stop bringing these agreements forward? When there are 
virtually no decent jobs left in America? Well, you are doing a good 
job in that effort.
  In the last 5 years alone, we have lost almost 3 million 
manufacturing jobs, more than 17 percent of all jobs in that sector. Is 
trade the only reason that we are losing those jobs? No. Is it a major 
reason? Of course it is.
  Why do we have these trade agreements? The answer is obvious. 
Corporate America comes in here and they say we do not want to pay 
working people a living wage, we do not want to respect environmental 
standards, we do not want to provide health care to our workers; so 
give us the opportunity to move to China, to other low-wage countries; 
please pass these trade agreements. Congress says, yes, boss, that is 
what we are going to do, and this is, in fact, what has happened.
  Today, at 14.3 million, we now have the fewest manufacturing jobs in 
this country since the 1950s, and these manufacturing jobs are the jobs 
that pay workers a living wage with good benefits. What is going on in 
our economy today and what is destroying the middle class is that we 
are losing good paying jobs in manufacturing and information 
technology, and we are replacing those jobs with low paying service 
industry jobs that provide low wages and minimal benefits.
  We have gone from a General Motors economy, good wages, good 
benefits, producing real products, to a Wal-Mart economy of low wages, 
minimal benefits and vehement anti-unionism.
  Let me say very clearly, that if we do not turn this trend around, 
including totally rethinking our trade policies, our kids, for the 
first time in the modern history of the United States of America, will 
have a lower standard of living than we do.
  Mr. Speaker, in America today, the middle class is shrinking, poverty 
is increasing, and the gap between the rich and the poor is growing 
wide. Over the past 5 years, more than 5 million Americans entered the 
poverty ranks. Over 6 million Americans have lost their health 
insurance. Income for the average American fell by over $1,600, and 
childhood poverty increased by over 12 percent. In 2003, the last study 
done by the IRS showed that 99 percent of Americans had an income which 
did not keep pace with inflation.
  Mr. Speaker, we have got to stop the race to the bottom. We have got 
to reform and rethink our trade policies. Let us vote this proposal 
down.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In quick response to the gentleman from Vermont, our economy is 
growing jobs at the rate of about 200,000 a month. Productivity is 
higher than it has ever been. Our economy is the fastest growing 
economy at 4.3 percent per year. The economy is strong in the United 
States. Unemployment figures are down below 5 percent.

                              {time}  1600

  It is lower than it was in any of the previous decades. Our economy 
is strong and it is growing, and it is growing because of the type of 
legislation that we are passing. We cannot be protectionists and retain 
the strong economy that we have in a world that is going free trade.
  You may not like free trade, but the world is going free trade. And 
if we are going to compete in the global economy, we need to move 
towards free trade, and we need to be careful in negotiating these 
agreements one after the other.
  Mr. Speaker, I now happily yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules 
Committee.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this agreement, 
and I want to begin by extending my congratulations to the 
distinguished chairman of the Trade Subcommittee for his fine work on 
this effort and to thank him along with my friend from Wisconsin and my 
friend from Texas, both of whom are here on the floor and who worked 
closely with us, with our working group, to promote the issue of trade.
  My friend from Florida is absolutely right, if we do not shape the 
global economy, we will be shaped by it. The world is moving 
dramatically towards breaking down barriers, understanding that the 
free flow of goods and services and products and ideas is absolutely 
essential, and I believe that we must do everything that we possibly 
can to expand that.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we have put into place over the past several years, 
under Democrats and Republicans as Presidents, a wide range of trade 
agreements. We have, since we put Trade Promotion Authority back into 
place, been able to see the expansion of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement.
  And by the way, if you look at the trade relationship between Mexico 
and the United States today, there is a third of $1 trillion in cross-
border trade between Mexico and the United States. The middle-class 
population in Mexico is larger than the entire Canadian population. And 
so focusing on these issues is very important if we are going to deal 
with questions like the one we are going to address next week, illegal 
immigration, to try to enhance the economies of these developing 
nations. We want people who are struggling to get on to the first rung 
of the economic ladder, and that is what these trade agreements are 
about when it comes to their relationship.
  Now, let us look at what these trade agreements mean to U.S. workers. 
As my friend from Florida just said, last month 215,000 new jobs were 
created. If we look at the last few years, at the last 4 years, we have 
seen 4.5 million new jobs created. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will say 
that there are more people working in the United States of America 
today than we have ever seen working.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. Although we have limited time here, I will happily yield 
to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank my friend for yielding. You talked about job 
creation. What kind of wages are these jobs paying people?
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I will respond to that question.
  Mr. SANDERS. I wish to amplify.
  Mr. DREIER. The gentleman posed the question, and I am happy to 
respond to that question, and then I will continue with my statement.
  On average, jobs that are focused on exports into new markets, which 
is exactly what these agreements are all about, exactly what these 
agreements are all about, on average, these jobs focused on exports pay 
about 17 percent higher wage rates than those that are focused on jobs 
that are merely designed for domestic consumption here.
  Mr. SANDERS. You did not answer the question. You talked about new 
jobs being created. You said exported jobs pay better. That is true, 
but most of the jobs being created are service industry low-wage jobs.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, let me just say that it is 
fascinating to listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle who, 
when we were in the midst of our debate just a few minutes ago on the 
alternative

[[Page H11174]]

minimum tax, they were very strong proponents of making sure we bring 
about reform so that people who are in that wage rate that goes all the 
way up to $342,000 a year get relief under the AMT.
  So I believe that if you look at the jobs that have been created, if 
you look at the wage rates that we have right now in the United States, 
if you look at the standard of living in the United States of America 
juxtaposed to other countries in the world, it is very clear that the 
United States of America is the single greatest Nation on the face of 
the Earth, and it is in large part due to the fact that we have over 
the last several years put together a wide range of trade agreements. 
And I would argue that building on the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement, this Bahrain trade agreement, which is what we are talking 
about at this moment, I believe is very, very critical to continuing 
that kind of growth.
  Now, let us look at the issue of the global war on terror. My friend 
from Wisconsin raised that. Now, one of the things that is essential as 
we seek our opportunity to try and turn the corner on the threat of 
terrorism, we need to focus on economic growth throughout the Middle 
East. A former Defense Department official said to me when we were 
talking about the aftermath of September 11, 2001, that if we had seen 
a percentage point or two more growth in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we 
might have been able to diminish the threat of September 11. Why? 
Because there is a sense that somehow those involved in international 
terrorism are simply doing this in the name of Allah.
  All one needs to do is look at what Mohammed Atta and his cronies 
were doing before perpetuating the most heinous act on our soil on 
September 11 of 2001. It is not as if they were worshipping Allah. I 
recall their being in south Florida and Las Vegas, Nevada, leading up 
to that; meaning the focus on economic opportunity is something that we 
need to realize can help diminish that kind of terrorist threat there. 
And that is a very important part of what this agreement is about. Now, 
I have to say that realizing that the rule of law, the expansion of 
parliamentary elections, all of those kinds of things which can help 
diminish that kind of threat are critical, and that is a very important 
part of this agreement.
  So as I listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle, and I am 
happy to say this agreement is enjoying strong bipartisan support, but 
as I listen to those on the other side of the aisle who are opposed to 
this agreement, it is very unfortunate that so many of them do not 
recognize the tremendous growth that my friend from Florida, the 
chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, just went through: the 4.3 percent 
GDP growth, a 5 percent unemployment rate, 215,000 jobs created last 
month alone in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and all of the other 
challenges that we faced, that these have come about in large part due 
to the trade agreements that we have put into place. And why? Because 
we are opening up new markets around the world. And I thank my friend 
very much.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I want to add another provision there, that 
over the last 3 years, hourly wages have increased in the United States 
by 8 percent. So a lot of this stuff we have heard is absolutely false.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that contribution, 
showing, as I said, that the standard of living in the United States of 
America is strong.
  And the President has put it very well: we are never going to be 
satisfied until every American who wants a job has a job. We must 
continue to do everything possible to ensure that that happens, and 
that again is what this agreement is about.
  Ninety-four percent of the world's consumers are outside of our 
borders, Mr. Speaker. So I believe we must do everything we can to pry 
open those markets, because the world has access to the U.S. consumer 
market, and that is a good thing; but what we need to do is gain more 
and more access to their markets.
  So this is a win-win all the way down the line. This is a 
continuation of what we have seen of the DRCAFTA agreement, the NAFTA 
agreement, and others that are creating great opportunity for U.S. 
workers and consumers alike.
  And I want to say in conclusion that I am very, very grateful that 
through this agreement we are getting us back to this notion of 
bipartisanship, because it is not a Republican or Democratic issue. 
Trade is an issue that should see the support of Republicans and 
Democrats. We are happy to provide the lead, but every Democrat who 
wants to jump on board in support of the cause of free trade is more 
than welcome, and I am happy the Democrats are understanding the 
critical importance of this effort.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues that we are 
talking about a free trade agreement with Bahrain, a country whose size 
is about the same as the city of Austin, Texas, and of course a very 
important country within the Middle East.
  Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
the Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. This agreement is good for the United 
States, and it is good for Bahrain. It has real trade benefits. But 
beyond that, it will strengthen relations with one of our most 
steadfast friends in the Middle East. Progress made on labor and 
economic reforms can stand as a model for future trade agreements with 
the Middle East.
  The Ways and Means Committee's bipartisan approval of the U.S.-
Bahrain Free Trade Agreement is symbolic of the cooperative and 
supportive relationship that exists between the two countries. This 
agreement will bring benefits to both countries, strengthen economic 
ties, and promote social, political, and economic opportunities. The 
Bahrainis have taken difficult, but important, progressive steps that 
will elevate standards in Bahrain and help promote stability in the 
Middle East.
  Bahrain has been a steadfast American ally through World War II, the 
gulf war, and the war on terrorism. Bahrain has implemented multiple 
substantive reforms over the past few years, including the adoption of 
a new constitution to transform the country from a hereditary emirate 
to a constitutional monarchy, the creation of a bicameral legislature, 
and granting suffrage to all citizens over 18 years of age. In 
addition, Bahrain has made significant improvements to its labor laws 
and has dismantled its Arab League boycott of Israel.
  My friends, globalization is here. And as Tom Friedman indicated, 
yes, indeed, the world is flat. We have made sure that we are more 
interdependent upon one another; and it is good to be interdependent, 
because with that interdependence, we as a Nation begin to depend on 
others in this world. The world is much smaller than it was just 40 
years ago. As we become dependent upon one another, raising the 
standards of living all over this world, we then indeed ensure a safer 
United States of America and a more harmonized world.
  I say let us vote for this. It is good for America, it is good for 
Bahrain, and it is good for the Middle East.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, again we have an opportunity to stand up for American 
families. Again, we have an opportunity to stand up for free trade and 
pass the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement.
  This is a simple matter. Free trade delivers a greater choice of 
goods and services to American consumers at lower prices. That means 
families can buy more using less of their paychecks. More trade means 
more competition, and competition has always helped the consumer. We 
have over 200 years of history to prove that.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, over the past few years, prices have dropped 
for a wide array of goods and services which are produced around the 
world, such as video equipment and toys. Yet we pay a lot more for 
products that do not effectively compete with foreign companies, for 
example, prescription drugs and cable television. Again, competition 
works. Trade works.

[[Page H11175]]

  But beyond all of the obvious economic benefits of free trade, we 
must recognize that fundamentally this is an issue of personal freedom. 
Nations do not trade with nations; people trade with people. With the 
exception of national security considerations, every American should 
have the right to determine the origin of the goods and services they 
want to purchase. Is this not the land of the free? Have countless 
generations not fought and sacrificed to secure the blessings of 
liberty for all Americans?
  Maybe we in Congress have the power, but do we have the right to tell 
Americans that we will not allow them to buy cheaper products because 
those products may come from other nations? I think not, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, this particular trade agreement not only stands for 
freedom; it stands for friendship. The nation of Bahrain is a friend of 
the United States and an important ally in the global war on terror. 
For over 200 years, America has benefited from trade and competition. I 
urge my colleagues to once again reject protectionism and, instead, 
stand for prosperity, stand for freedom, and stand with me in voting 
for this trade agreement.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me share with you the real 
facts of this trade bill; and let me thank Mr. Cardin, Mr. Levin, and 
Mr. Rangel for really doing the heavy lifting which has created an 
opportunity for real debate on a good trade bill.
  There are concerns that my colleagues have raised about this trade 
bill, but I think there are provisions and there are reasons for us to 
give an open and free flowing discussion to a vital partner that we 
have had for many, many years.

                              {time}  1615

  It is important to note that Bahrain is predominantly a manufacturing 
country. Its products include oil products and aluminum products, and 
we know for sure it has lessened its involvement in textiles. But what 
most Members do not know is that 80 percent of the investment of this 
country has been invested in the United States. That raises my 
interest. It is invested in real estate, in banking and other 
opportunities.
  I like trade bills that create jobs and I want to thank my friends in 
the labor movement who have raised concerns about child employment, 
about provisions that should be protecting unions and protecting 
workers. I am concerned about the fact that most of these provisions 
are in the side letters. It is unfortunate when the Republican 
administration sat down to negotiate with Bahrain, they did not sit 
down and create the intelligent and forward-thinking provisions that 
are in the letters created by the Democratic Ways and Means members.
  But these letters, I am told, will have the same sort of authority as 
provisions in the trade bill, and if they are violated, there will be 
opportunities for consultation in order to ensure that these provisions 
are made.
  I will be looking forward to receiving additional information that 
will prohibit child labor, but I think the crux of this trade bill, 
with the observation that it is certainly timely, to ensure that we do 
think about labor issues and we fight for the labor issues. I do not 
stand here to create this divide that my good friend on the other side 
of the aisle who said you, who are against trade bills. No, we are not 
against trade bills. But we are against trade bills that singly ignore 
the rights of workers.
  If the Democrats were in control, as we had the opportunity in the 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, although that is not the 
best example, but I remember the hard work and the heavy lifting of 
Democrats to create a better trade bill. That is the problem we have. 
That these bills are negotiated and they are, if you will, negotiated 
without a concern for workers.
  In this instance I think the Democrats have worked very hard to make 
this a fair bill for a partner of the United States, who has been a 
strong partner and a democratic partner. I ask as Members consider this 
legislation to look at the improvements that have been made and the 
side bar letters that have created the right kind of negotiated 
document to help the people who would be benefited in Bahrain, and also 
help investment here in the United States. We would like to create 
jobs.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, we have heard throughout this 
debate a lot of reference to the trade deficit. I think it is important 
to look at that. When you look at our Nation's trade deficit, we enjoy 
a very large surplus in services, and our trade deficit comes from a 
trade deficit in manufactured goods.
  Mr. Speaker, according to the latest statistics, 94 percent of our 
trade deficit comes from countries we do not have a free trade 
agreement with. A free trade agreement like this agreement helps us get 
fair trade rule so we can trade honestly with each other; and, yes, get 
an advantage so we can create more jobs, send more exports, and have 
better paying jobs here at home. I will just repeat that statistic one 
more time: 94 percent of our manufactured good trade deficit comes from 
countries we do not have a trade agreement with.
  But it is more than that. Trade combines people. What is important 
about this agreement is beyond the economic value which is very 
substantial. It is about the human value.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, we have good relations between our governments. 
Our 5th Fleet is located in Bahrain. We have great relations between 
our diplomats and the Bahrainees, between our President and the emir.
  What this agreement proposes to do is put American people in contact 
with Bahrainee people, put Americans in contact with Muslims, put 
Americans in contact with Arabs in the Gulf so we can better understand 
each other. Trade is about individuals combining to join in mutually 
beneficial behavior and activity and business arrangements, to help 
their families and help create jobs and grow their economies.
  But more than that, trade will help our people better understand the 
people we do not understand as well. We need a better understanding of 
people in the Arab world. We need a better understanding of Muslims. 
This is important because of the climate we face in the world. That is 
why it is important that we pass this agreement so that the American 
people can join and bond in friendship with the Bahrainee people in the 
Gulf Coast in the Middle East so we can have a better understanding of 
each other. As we understand each other better, we can better secure 
peace and security for our children.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me thank all of my colleagues who participated in 
this debate. Let me, once again, remind those who are following this 
debate that we are talking about a free trade agreement with Bahrain, a 
country which is about the same size as the city of Austin, whose total 
trade with the United States is measured in terms of a couple hundred 
million dollars. It is a country with a high standard of living for 
that region whose economy produces $19,000 plus per capita of GDP, 
which is about 4 times higher than we had in dealing with the CAFTA 
countries. It is also a country that imports labor and helps actually 
the economy of the region because of its economic opportunities.
  I mention that so we can put this agreement in context. Many of my 
colleagues who have spoken of concern have talked about concern on 
economic policies related to trade here in the United States, and I 
join them on many occasions, particularly as they are referring to 
problems that we are having with trading partners. But that is not the 
issue that we have before us today.
  The issue we have before us today is an agreement with a single 
country, Bahrain. One issue that we need to be concerned about is 
whether this agreement will not only advance the traditional barriers 
to trade by eliminating them, such as tariffs and some of the nontariff 
barriers, but how does it deal with issues that are becoming more 
important, such as workers' rights.
  On the traditional barriers of tariff and nontariff issues, I have 
not heard

[[Page H11176]]

any debate against this agreement. This agreement, in fact, removes 
barriers so that U.S. companies and U.S. manufacturers and U.S. farmers 
will have greater access to the market of Bahrain.
  In regards to workers' rights, I agree with my colleagues that have 
spoken of concern about trade agreements. I think it is time that we 
graduate international labor standards to core provisions within the 
trade agreements, and that we have enforcement within the trade 
agreements.
  But I think in judging Bahrain, we need to use the standard that we 
have used, and that is, does this Nation measure up to international 
labor standards. The answer to that question is yes. They have passed 
major reform in 2002. They have acknowledged the difficulties with 
those laws that need to be changed. They have issued interpretations to 
comply with ILO standards and have introduced laws that will correct 
the additional standards, and they have agreed to allow us to use the 
trade agreement to make sure that in fact these new laws are not only 
passed, but in fact, Bahrain is living up to ILO standards.
  That to me is good faith with an ally, and one in which we can move 
forward and should move forward. So I think Bahrain has passed the test 
on an agreement that we should support, but at times there is more than 
just the economic issues that affect our country that we should be 
looking at whether we move forward with bilateral regional trade 
agreements.
  In Bahrain's case, I think the evidence is overwhelming. We need to 
expand opportunities in the Middle East. The best chance for peace in 
the Middle East is if we can open up the economic opportunities of that 
region, and Bahrain offers us a country that has stepped forward and 
offered leadership. In repealing the boycott against Israel and saying 
that it wants to have open trade in the region, they will now be the 
fourth nation in that region that we will have a free trade agreement 
with. We have Jordan, Israel and Morocco. So this represents an 
opportunity to advance U.S. interest in stabilizing a region of the 
world that has been of major interest to the United States.
  So for all these reasons, this agreement with a very small country 
that will have minimum impact on the economic activities of this 
country, I think it will be positive, but it will be minimum because of 
the size of the country, but represents progress as to how we should 
evaluate trading relations with other partners. Are they willing to 
remove barriers? Are they willing to respect international labor 
rights? Are they willing to be a good neighbor in the region to advance 
peace and stability? In each of these instances, Bahrain passes this 
test, and I urge my colleagues to support this agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with some of the 
remarks of my distinguished friend from Maryland. He is right, Bahrain 
is a flea on the elephant when it comes to the difference that it will 
make in economic impact to the United States.
  But if we really wanted to help in the Middle East, maybe we would 
have sold parts for C-130s to Iran and saved 100 people from dying 
because of our embargo on selling aircraft parts to a country that 
could not maintain safe aircraft because the United States refused to 
deal with them.
  Maybe we ought to question whether this vote is really whether you 
trust the administration, an administration that many people think lied 
to us about getting us into war in Iraq in the first place. Many people 
think the administration is lying to us about torturing, and here we 
are talking about what is supposedly a democracy. Is this any more of a 
democracy than Saudi Arabia? It has a king. It votes, maybe.
  I think that the real issue is if we do not get it in writing, if we 
do not have enforceable rules, can we trust the administration or will 
the administration continue to sell out to the pharmaceutical industry, 
which will harm the people of Bahrain, in repayment for campaign 
contributions?
  These are the kinds of things that are at issue here. Do you trust 
this administration? Do you trust them to help anybody but the very 
rich? Do you trust them to keep their word about what they are doing? 
And if you do not, as many of us do not, you will voice that protest 
and vote against this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to associate myself with the remarks 
of the gentleman from Maryland. I think he spoke quite eloquently about 
the importance of this agreement to the region.
  When the history of the Middle East is written, I think the 
historians will view this trade bill as an important stepping stone 
towards the development and imposition of democracies and stability in 
that part of the world, which is very much in our best interest.
  Bahrain has been a great ally through many, many years of troubling 
times, and times when it was not necessarily easy to be friends with 
the United States if you are in the Middle East and if you are an Arab 
country. But they have stood with us. Our Naval base there is quite 
important. I think it is important that we try to do everything we can 
to do business with our friends. They have proven to be a great friend 
of the United States.
  We have visited with the ambassador from Bahrain who is a delightful 
man who is a great salesman for his country. I believe that this is a 
significant vote. This is not just a flea on an elephant, as Mr. Stark 
stated. This is an important ally in which we are going to have a free 
trade agreement. I would urge all Members to vote yes on this most 
important issue, because I think a message must be sent out loud and 
strong that we are supporting free trade when we have a good agreement 
drawn. This has been drawn and approved in a bipartisan way. This is 
good for the United States. It is not only good for Bahrain, but it is 
good for the United States.
  I would also like to thank Mr. Cardin, Mr. Rangel and other Members 
from the other side of the aisle, as well as Mr. Ryan and Chairman 
Thomas, and all of those who have worked hard to bring this along, and 
of course staff on both sides of the aisle. Congress cannot operate 
without staff, and I would like to thank them for what they have done 
in putting this agreement together.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4340, the 
Bahrain Trade Agreement. Although our trade with Bahrain is limited, 
this agreement is a symptom of what is wrong with our Nation's trade 
policies.
  I firmly believe that we should have a thorough review of the impact 
of these free trade agreements so that we can create a national trade 
policy that protects the American manufacturing industries. We need an 
American trade policy that encourages the export of American 
manufactured goods, not our American manufacturing jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I have introduced H.R. 4407, a bill to 
impose a 2-year moratorium on negotiating or conclusion of any 
additional free trade agreements. As our trade deficit continues to set 
new records, we should call a `timeout' on this headlong rush into 
these free trade agreements. Our current domestic trade policy 
encourages the closing down of American factories and moving them 
overseas, usually to a country where wages are low and environmental 
standards are lower. This race to the bottom has real consequences, and 
it's time to stop negotiating bad trade deals that make American jobs 
our leading export.
  For years, the American people have been promised that bilateral and 
regional trade agreements would throw open the doors of international 
markets eager for American goods. However, in the 10 years following 
passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which I 
opposed, millions of American jobs have been lost, threatening entire 
industries that were once bedrocks of this country. And China and Japan 
continue to manipulate their currencies without any significant 
pressure from our government, tilting an already uneven playing field 
further away from America.
  Nearly three million manufacturing jobs have been lost since the Bush 
Administration took office in 2001. In 2004, the United States had a 
record $162 billion deficit on goods trade with China and a $617 
billion trade deficit on goods and services worldwide. Eliminating 
tariffs and allowing companies to exploit foreign labor has destroyed 
entire American industries and has resulted in the highest American

[[Page H11177]]

trade deficit ever, placing America at a huge economic disadvantage.
  Mr Speaker, our current trade policies have failed the American 
worker and the average American family. We cannot continue to the 
hemorrhaging of our manufacturing jobs and expect our economy to be 
strong.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this free trade 
agreement with Bahrain, and any free trade agreements in the future, 
until we can create an American trade policy that is in the best 
interests of the American people.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is today 
considering a proposed free trade agreement between the United States 
and Bahrain. I support this agreement, and will vote in favor of the 
required implementing legislation. I also anticipate this agreement 
will enjoy strong bipartisan support in Congress.
  In general, I have advocated free trade and open markets because I 
believe that American businesses and workers can compete and win in the 
global economy. Furthermore, I believe that increasing global 
interdependence presents our Nation with an opportunity to promote 
democratic reform, the rule of law and respect for basic human rights.
  The agreement provides that all bilateral trade in consumer and 
industrial products will become duty-free immediately, as will 98 
percent of U.S. agricultural exports, with the remaining tariffs phased 
out over 10 years. Textiles and apparel trade will also become duty 
free immediately for products that contain American or Bahraini yarn.
  Key U.S. service sectors that will benefit under the agreement 
include audiovisual, express delivery, telecommunications, computer and 
related services, distribution, healthcare, services incidental to 
mining, construction, architecture and engineering. Furthermore, on the 
issue of intellectual property rights, the Agreement requires each 
government to criminalize end-user piracy, providing strong deterrence 
against piracy and counterfeiting.
  Beyond the economic benefits that will accrue to the United States, 
this agreement is an important opportunity to bring increased 
development, prosperity and stability to a key ally and strategic 
partner in the region. Not only has Bahrain supported and participated 
in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, as well as the first 
Persian Gulf War in 1991, the country has also served as the host to 
U.S. Naval forces in the Middle East for more than 50 years. This free 
trade agreement will further strengthen the already close US.-Bahrain 
relationship.
  I have and will continue to support free trade agreements that strike 
the balance of expanding markets for American companies, while also 
providing a level playing field for American workers and improved 
living and working conditions for foreign workers by guaranteeing fair 
wages and basic workplace protections abroad. I am confident that these 
goals will be met with respect to Bahrain, in part thanks to a number 
of labor reforms that have been recently implemented by the government.
  I will consider future trade agreements one at a time, taking into 
consideration the specific labor and environmental conditions that 
exist in the countries we seek to trade with, as well as the provisions 
included in the agreements to protect workers--both here and in the 
other countries--and environmental concerns. I will determine my 
position as those agreements are finalized.
  Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
United States Bahrain Free Trade Agreement.
  As the Co Chair of the Caucus on Bahrain with my good friend from 
Wisconsin Mr. Ryan, we have worked closely to make today reality.
  Bahrain has been a close friend of the United States for over 100 
years and this agreement is taking us to a new level in our friendship.
  This friendship is built on trust and respect for each other, so much 
so that the US Navy's Fifth Fleet operates in Bahrain, a friendly and 
secure environment for the fleet that watches over a dangerous region.
  Bahrain continues to lead all gulf nations in political and economic 
reforms.
  They have taken the bold step by rescinding its economic boycott of 
Israel. This lays the foundation for an economic relationship with 
Israel that will help develop both Bahrain and the entire gulf region.
  Bahrain conducted its first national legislative elections in over 25 
years, electing 40 members to the Representatives Council.
  Women were not only allowed to vote, they also became the first women 
in the Gulf to run as candidates in national elections.
  Bahrain is making the necessary changes by amending all provisions of 
its labor laws that so they are fully compliant with the International 
Labor Organization (ILO).
  I would like to commend Ambassador Naser Al Belooshi for the fine 
work he has done to iron out some of the labor issues that had held 
this agreement up.
  The Ambassador working with the Finance Minister showed great poise 
and determination to meet the labor requirements that Democrats pushed 
for before we would support this agreement.
  The strong labor provisions that Bahrain has agreed to will help U.S. 
business thrive in Bahrain
  This agreement provides market access for U.S. industrial, 
agricultural, and consumer products.
  The agreement will greatly benefit the services sector and provide 
U.S. companies with the highest degree of access to service markets of 
any U.S. FTA to date.
  Financial service companies will have the right to establish 
subsidiaries, branches, and joint ventures in Bahrain. Health and life 
insurance companies will have market access once this agreement is 
enacted.
  This agreement is the first step in the political and economic 
reforms for the Middle East and I strongly believe the U.S. should 
continue to work with moderate Arab nations such as Bahrain to help 
balance out some of the more extreme elements in today's Middle East.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this agreement and urge all of my colleagues 
to vote for this bill.
  Mr. OXLEY, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the free trade agreement 
between the United States and Bahrain, a country which is and seeks to 
increase its stature as the 3leading financial center for the Middle 
East. As chairman of the Financial Services Committee, I want to focus 
on the benefits to American financial services and economic interests 
from this agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, the United States runs a large and growing 
trade surplus in the services sector. It was $55.9 billion in 2002 and 
$96.1 billion in 2003. As the most innovative and competitive country 
in the world, the United States has a strategic interest in fostering 
greater opportunities for our financial firms, consultants, 
accountants, and other high-end service professionals to export their 
services and products worldwide.
  This is not a zero-sum game. The knowledge transfer from increased 
American exports of financial and other related services will help 
people in other countries develop more efficient and economically 
valuable capabilities, fostering economic growth abroad as well as an 
increased customer base for American goods and services. The multiplier 
effect associated with increased access to capital for foreign firms is 
also significant. To the extent that capital formation abroad also 
encourages growth of stock and bond markets, free trade in financial 
services can provide good working experience for how decisions can be 
taken through transparent decision-making processes which are the 
hallmarks of democracy.
  This free trade agreement with the leading financial center in the 
Middle East will substantially open financial services markets in the 
region for American firms. At a time when high oil prices are 
generating large pools of capital in the Middle East, we have a 
strategic interest in making it easier for American financial firms to 
provide their intermediation services in the region. We also have a 
strategic Interest in making it easier for Middle East investors to 
become more integrated into the global economy.
  Bahrain is also a valued ally in our fight against terrorist 
financing. It has demonstrated a strong commitment to cooperate with 
the U.S. on these issues. Bahrain's anti-money laundering law, passed 
in 2001, makes money laundering an extraditable offense. It has a 
``know-your-customer'' standard and requires all financial institution 
employees to take a course annually on how to implement this law. In 
addition, Bahrain hosts the newly created Middle East and North Africa 
Financial Action Task Force, which is the key multilateral group that 
creates standards throughout the region to fight terrorist financing 
and money laundering.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the United States-
Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Passage of this FTA 
will help strengthen our relationship with Bahrain, building a more 
secure and productive future for our countries and citizens.
  As a cochair of the New Democrat Coalition, I have long believed that 
when instituted correctly and fairly, trade agreements open up foreign 
markets to U.S. goods, create new opportunities for companies and their 
employees, and lift the standard of living for people in the country 
with whom we are trading. As our nation leads the world into the 21st 
century, we should not shy away from opportunities to guide and expand 
global trade.
  U.S. goods exported to Bahrain totaled $302 million in 2004, 
constituting .03 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade in 2004. Of 
that total, Wisconsin exported over $4 million in goods last year to 
Bahrain, with the majority of the exports in machinery and 
manufacturing. I am pleased that The U.S.-Bahrain FTA will provide 
substantial market access for U.S. services providers, including 
financial services. One hundred percent of bilateral

[[Page H11178]]

trade in consumer and industrial products will become duty-free 
immediately, and 98 percent of U.S. agricultural product exports to 
Bahrain would be immediately duty free, with 10-year phaseouts for the 
remaining items such as alcohol and tobacco.
  Moreover, securing a FTA with Bahrain is a positive foreign policy 
and national security step for the United States. Bahrain has been a 
strong and stable state in the Persian Gulf region and a friend to the 
United States. The U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, and the 
United States has recognized the importance of our relationship with 
this country by establishing a joint U.S.-Bahrain Defense Cooperation 
Agreement and designing Bahrain as a ``Major Non-NATO ally.'' This FTA 
strengthens relations with one of our proven strategic allies in an 
unstable region.
  Further, it is critically important that trade agreements are 
balanced and fair for workers and companies. I am pleased, therefore, 
that Bahrain has agreed to take the additional steps necessary to 
comply with basic international labor standards that are integral to 
ensuring that the benefits of globalization are broadly shared among 
the people. Bahrain has committed in writing and with a clear and 
immediate timetable to amend all provisions of its labor laws that are 
not consistent with basic International Labor Organization (ILO) 
standards. In addition, the United States Trade Representative has 
committed to report periodically to Congress on Bahrain's fulfillment 
of its agreement and is prepared to invoke Article 15.6 procedures if 
Bahrain fails to carry out these commitments.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support this FTA with Bahrain 
today. It is in our best interest to engage Bahrain and complete this 
bilateral free trade agreement. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
4340.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the 
underlying bill, the U.S.-Bahrain free trade agreement implementation 
act.
  Through cooperation--Democrats working alongside Republicans on the 
Ways and Means Committee, who then coordinated with the 
administration--we have before us a strong trade package that will open 
markets, advance free trade and cement America's ties to a 
strategically important ally in the Middle East.
  And with the changes that are coming to Bahrain's labor laws, this 
agreement will ensure that the fundamental rights of workers are 
protected. It is my hope that in the future, these worker protections 
will be incorporated into the core of trade agreements, rather than 
through side agreements. This is a standard to which the United States 
should hold all its trading partners.
  Though the magnitude of this particular trade pact is relatively 
small, the global trading system is at a critical juncture. The United 
States' leadership on trade is being tested--here in Congress and in 
Geneva.
  For that reason, I am pleased that today we have both parties working 
together to advance free and fair trade.
  I hope that this agreement receives broad support and that July's 
contentious and mean-spirited CAFTA debate is the low point, only to be 
seen in the rearview mirror. Because in the long term, the only way for 
America to continue to lead the world forward on trade is for us to 
work across the aisle here in the House.
  I urge my colleagues to allow today's debate to serve as a first step 
toward reviving the bipartisan consensus on trade policy that has 
served this Congress so well in the past.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with some hesitation that I rise in 
support of the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement or FTA.
  As the home to the 5th Fleet of the U.S. Navy, Bahrain is a key Gulf 
ally. I believe this agreement will reinforce that bond with stronger 
economic ties. The Bahrain FTA also presents an opportunity to build 
upon trade agreements with Morocco, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian 
Authority and provides an incentive for economic integration throughout 
the region.
  Another reason I support the agreement is that the Bahrain government 
has formally abolished all laws related to the Arab League's boycott of 
Israel. This is an important precedent for the upcoming FTA 
negotiations with the UAE, Oman, Egypt, and other Middle East nations. 
While I am disappointed that the Saudi Arabian government refused to 
take the same action in the process of its accession to the WorId Trade 
Organization, I am hopeful that future trade agreements will be an 
effective mechanism to make this unfair and illegal discrimination a 
relic of the past.
  In addition, Bahrain has taken significant steps to adopt laws that 
reflect the five core standards of the International Labor Organization 
and the USTR has agreed to periodically review Bahraini compliance with 
these laws. There was an exchange of letters to clarify that the U.S. 
can seek enforcement of Bahrain's labor laws under the Labor Chapter of 
the FTA. Labor laws should be enforceable in every FTA. While the issue 
should have been dealt with inside of the agreement, rather than in a 
side letter, the Bahrain FTA highlights the missed opportunities on 
labor protections in our trade agreements with Chile, Singapore and 
Central America.
  The reason I hesitate is that the Bahrain FTA also has a series of 
pharmaceutical protections to delay the approval and availability of 
generic medicines. Provisions such as these, which have been included 
in the intellectual property chapter of a number of recent agreements, 
are a serious mistake. They fail to take into account the needs of poor 
countries where the absence of generic competition can mean the 
difference between life and death. They undermine the Doha Declaration, 
which was adopted to make it easier for countries to respond in the 
event of a public health crisis. They do not reflect the careful 
balance in U.S. law between the protection of innovation and access to 
affordable medicine.
  I voted against the Central America and Morocco FTAs precisely 
because I felt strongly that the adoption of these measures by such 
poor countries would significantly reduce access to medicine. The 
difference here is that Bahrain is a relatively wealthy nation with a 
strong public health structure. Health care in Bahrain is delivered 
through a system of public hospitals and clinics that are available for 
free to Bahraini citizens and accessible to foreign residents for a 
nominal fee. While the FTA's pharmaceutical rules are ill-conceived and 
will create additional burden and expense for the Bahrain government, 
the changes should not diminish access to care.
  It is hard to fathom, therefore, that the same provisions are being 
negotiated right now for an FTA with four Andean nations. Bahrain has a 
population under 1 million people and a low incidence of infectious 
diseases. In contrast, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia have a 
combined population of nearly 100 million and more than 200,000 
patients suffering from HIV/AIDS. Health care coverage in these 
countries is available to few and many live in extreme poverty. The 
contrast is stark. Yet, the USTR is adamantly pursuing a ``one size 
fits all'' approach that would require the Andean nations to adopt the 
same pharmaceutical protections adopted in Bahrain.
  The pharmaceutical industry has spoken openly about its efforts to 
raise drug prices and profit margins around the world. Drug companies 
are aggressively trying to use trade agreements to force policy changes 
they could not otherwise achieve. It is time for the USTR to stop 
callously helping them put profits ahead of public health. The damage 
in Bahrain may be limited, but the consequences elsewhere may be 
severe.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, continuing my support for 
an overwhelming majority of free trade agreements, I cast my vote in 
favor the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement (FTA). In the past I have 
expressed serious concerns over copyright provisions contained in some 
free trade agreements negotiated by the Bush Administration that 
arguably constrain the ability of the United States to modernize our 
laws to reflect the realities of technology. I have been repeatedly 
reassured that notwithstanding these copyright provisions, the United 
States would still be able to modernize our copyright laws. I am also 
pleased that in other areas of the U.S.-Bahrain FTA, the President 
finally followed Democratic recommendations to ensure the adoption and 
enforcement of internationally-recognized basic standards for the 
people of Bahrain.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 4340, the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act. This agreement is an example of the success that 
bi-partisan engagement on trade issues can generate, and this agreement 
should be a model, a starting point, for how we can achieve success in 
the future.
  During consideration of this agreement in the Ways and Means 
Committee, Democrats expressed their concern about the treatment and 
application of international labor standards in the agreement. Since 
that time, both the Administration and Bahrain have worked at our 
urging to include Bahrain's commitments to begin applying international 
labor standards immediately in their county as well as their timetable 
to bring all of their laws into ILO compliance as conditional and 
enforceable elements of the agreement. In other words, as we argued 
during the CAFTA debate, workers rights should enjoy the same level of 
protection we place on goods and intellectual property rights, a 
balance that was sorrowfully left out of the CAFTA agreement. In 
addition to this, the Bahraini government has demonstrated its world 
leadership by recently becoming one of the first Arab League nations to 
remove its boycott on Israeli goods and services.
  These steps are encouraging, and indicate that countries are willing 
to accept minimum standards if the United States insists they be part 
of free trade agreements: The agreement shows that working together 
bipartisanly on trade issues will produce agreements that address the 
standards we feel every trade

[[Page H11179]]

agreement America signs onto should meet: the broad fulfillment of 
America's economic interests, the opening of fair markets for America's 
goods and services and the reversal of America's ever-growing trade 
deficit.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, today I support H.R. 4340, The U.S.-Bahrain 
Free Trade Agreement. Bahrain is an important political, economic and 
military ally, and in the years since 9/11, has been a valued partner 
in the War on Terror. The U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement will 
strengthen this key relationship and bolster the important reforms 
currently taking place in Bahrain.
  Bahrain deserves special recognition for its military cooperation 
with the United States military. Since 1995, Bahrain has been home to 
the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet. From this location, the 5th Fleet's area of 
responsibility encompasses 7.5 million square miles and includes the 
Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman and parts of the Indian Ocean. As a 
Commander in the Navy Reserve, I fully appreciate the value of 
Bahrain's willingness to host our fleet in this strategic region.
  The U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement is also significant because it 
rewards Bahrain for its rapprochement towards Israel. Last month, 
Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheikh Muhammad bin Mubarak confirmed that 
his country decided to lift its boycott of Israeli products. In the 
face of the Arab League's efforts to intensify the boycott, Bahrain has 
taken a bold and symbolic step towards peace in the Middle East.
  Bahrain has shown that it is committed to reform, and we are equally 
committed to joining with them with open markets. I proudly support 
this bill that expands trade bilaterally and moves closer to the vision 
of a peaceful, democratic, and freely trading Middle East.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
4340, the ``United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation 
Act.'' In spite of my support, I do have some concerns. For example, as 
in all other U.S. Free Trade Agreements (FTA's) the text of the U.S.-
Bahrain Free Trade Agreement requires only that the two countries 
enforce their own labor laws. It is my understanding that in 2002, 
Bahrain completed a major revision to its own labor laws to comply with 
internationally-recognized standards and to ensure that working people 
in its country share fully in the benefits of globalization. However, 
six provisions of Bahrain's law, as currently written, raise concerns 
with regard to basic international labor standards. These six 
provisions have been identified by the U.S. Department of State and the 
International Labor Organization (ILO).
  These concerns force me to believe that the workers' rights 
provisions in the Bahrain FTA are somewhat weak. In contrast to the 
U.S.-Jordan FTA, the Bahrain agreement contains only one enforceable 
provision on workers' rights which is an obligation to enforce domestic 
labor laws.
  While the labor chapter also contains a commitment to uphold the ILO 
core workers' rights and not to weaken labor laws, these provisions are 
explicitly excluded from coverage under the dispute settlement chapter, 
rendering them essentially useless from a practical standpoint. To put 
it bluntly, under this agreement, a country could ban unions, set the 
minimum age for employment at ten years old, and reinstate slave labor. 
While I believe this will not happen, the fact that it could raises 
concerns.
  Before closing, let me note that I appreciate the efforts made to 
negotiate a commitment from the Bahraini government to bring its labor 
laws up to ILO standards in the near future, and I hope that this 
agreement is honored. I must also note that a commitment to improve 
labor laws in the future is not an adequate substitute for having 
decent labor laws in place, especially when the labor provisions in the 
agreement raises concerns. To this end, I am pleased to note that I 
have been promised a letter from the Bahrain government expressing the 
fact that child labor will not be an issue and that such labor will not 
be used as a result of this agreement. Unfortunately, if the promise is 
not honored, there is no recourse that can take in the context of the 
FTA itself, other than to engage in consultations. While I overall 
support free trade agreements, I strongly believe that we need to make 
sure that we are not setting ourselves up for a pit fall.

                              {time}  1630

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the bill is considered read and the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________