[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 95 (Wednesday, July 19, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5480-H5481]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           OMAN TRADE DEAL COMPROMISES SECURITY OF U.S. PORTS

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to go out 
of place and replace Congressman Miller.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Only a couple of weeks ago, during the same week 
when the Senate rejected an increase in the minimum wage, meaning that 
for 10 years there has not been a minimum wage increase in this 
country, but there have been six congressional pay raises, that same 
week the United States Senate voted to approve a free trade agreement 
with Oman.
  This agreement compromises port security, just what the Bush 
administration had been prepared to do earlier this year, with the 
Dubai Ports World case. You see, the Oman FTA, Free Trade Agreement, 
includes provisions allowing companies from Oman to take over land, so-
called land-side port operations, operating the piers, loading and 
unloading cargo, exactly the sorts of things Dubai Ports World had 
sought to do.
  In the case of Dubai Ports World, concerned legislators on both sides 
of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, demanded that the Bush 
administration back down, demanded that the administration block the 
deal, and ultimately the foreign company gave up. But the Oman Free 
Trade Agreement would weaken our ability to protect port security and 
actually allow it to back-door its way into this country.
  If we tried to block an Omani company's control over critical port 
infrastructure, the Omani Government could sue us, could sue the United 
States for violating this trade agreement, and that case would not be 
heard by a U.S. court with judges confirmed by U.S.-elected officials 
and charged with balancing the needs of trade and the imperative 
security under U.S. law. It would instead be heard by an unelected, 
unaccountable, international tribunal whose mission is trade promotion, 
not security enhancement.
  If we lost, the foreign ports takeover would go ahead, despite our 
security

[[Page H5481]]

concerns, or we would face retaliatory sanctions. Even if we won, we 
would have spent, as a country, as taxpayers, millions and millions of 
taxpayer dollars, fighting in a foreign court for the right to protect 
our most basic security.
  Worse yet, the agreement opens U.S. security decisions to suits not 
only from the Omani Government, but also from companies located in 
Oman. That means not only actually companies actually headquartered in 
Oman, but any companies with a branch in Oman.
  For example, an Iranian company, we heard a lot about Iran tonight, 
an Iranian company with a branch in Oman might be able to sue us if we 
continue to block its efforts in a U.S. port. There is reason to be 
concerned about the Irani-Oman connection. Iran recently spent $45 
million to expand a port with the objective of increasing trade with 
Iran.
  We need to reject not only the Oman FTA, but the whole fundamentally 
flawed trade model, a model that puts the economic interests of 
multinational corporations ahead of the security interests of the 
American people. Imagine again what can happen. Dubai Ports World 
locates an office in Oman. We pass this trade agreement.
  Oman then allows, and under the free trade agreement, Dubai Ports 
World could actually run a port in Baltimore, a port in New York. That 
company then, running the Baltimore port, allows cargo into the 
Baltimore port.
  That cargo comes across I-70 to Bellaire and Zanesville and Columbus 
and Springfield and Dayton, or it comes down the Saint Lawrence Seaway 
through Ashtabula and Cleveland and Toledo, or it comes down the Ohio 
River to Steubenville and Marietta and Gallipolis and Cincinnati.

                              {time}  2250

  I have introduced legislation, H.R. 4812, to ensure that trade 
agreements do not undermine homeland security. My bill requires 
security reviews of trade agreements as soon as negotiations begin, 
then another round of reviews when the agreement's concluded.
  Unlike the Dubai Ports World and the Oman Free Trade Agreement, this 
bill keeps Congress in the loop all the way. It creates a special 
security watchdog commission to make sure Congress has an independent 
voice on security issues. It is absurd that the Federal Government 
makes American citizens take off our shoes at the airport but refuses 
to conduct security reviews of multibillion-dollar trade deals.
  We need to take our heads out of the sand. We need to reject the Oman 
Free Trade Agreement and its dangerous ports language. We need to 
insist on a responsible policy to ensure that trade agreements 
strengthen, not weaken, our national security.

                          ____________________