Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 156 (Wednesday, December 7, 2005)

[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.

____________________