[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 96 (Thursday, July 20, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5506-H5530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES-OMAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 925, I call up
the bill (H.R. 5684) to implement the United States-Oman 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. 5684
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-Oman 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. Arbitration of claims.
Sec. 107. 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. Reliquidation of entries.
Sec. 206. 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 Oman 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 Oman 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 to investment; 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-Oman 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-Oman Free Trade Agreement entered
into on January 19, 2006, with Oman and submitted to Congress
on June 26, 2006; and
(2) the statement of administrative action proposed to
implement the Agreement that was submitted to Congress on
June 26, 2006.
(b) Conditions for Entry Into Force of the Agreement.--At
such time as the President determines that Oman 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 Oman
providing for the entry into force, on or after January 1,
2007, 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 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
[[Page H5507]]
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
20 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
2006 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 20 of the Agreement.
SEC. 106. ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS.
The United States is authorized to resolve any claim
against the United States covered by article 10.15.1(a)(i)(C)
or article 10.15.1(b)(i)(C) of the Agreement, pursuant to the
Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedures set forth in
section B of chapter 10 of the Agreement.
SEC. 107. 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 omani 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 Oman 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 Oman 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 Oman 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 Oman into the territory of the
United States; or
(ii) from the territory of the United States into the
territory of Oman; and
(B)(i) the good is a good wholly the growth, product, or
manufacture of Oman 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 Oman 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 Oman 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
Oman or the United States, or both, and
(B) the direct costs of processing operations performed in
the territory of Oman 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.
(c) Cumulation.--
(1) Originating good or material incorporated into goods of
other country.--An originating good, or a material produced
in the territory of Oman 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 Oman 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 Oman 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
[[Page H5508]]
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 Oman
or the United States, or both, if the taxes or customs duties
are not remitted upon exportation from the territory of Oman
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 Oman 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 Oman or the
United States, the good undergoes production, manufacturing,
or any other operation outside the territory of Oman 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 Oman 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 Oman 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 Oman 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 oman
or the united states, or both.--The term ``good wholly the
growth, product, or manufacture of Oman or the United States,
or both'' means--
(A) a mineral good extracted in the territory of Oman 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 Oman or the United States,
or both;
(C) a live animal born and raised in the territory of Oman
or the United States, or both;
(D) a good obtained from live animals raised in the
territory of Oman or the United States, or both;
(E) a good obtained from hunting, trapping, or fishing in
the territory of Oman 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 Oman 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 Oman
or the United States and flying the flag of that country;
(H) a good taken by Oman or the United States or a person
of Oman or the United States from the seabed or beneath the
seabed outside territorial waters, if Oman 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 Oman or the United States or a person of Oman or the
United States and not processed in the territory of a country
other than Oman or the United States;
(J) waste and scrap derived from--
(i) production or manufacture in the territory of Oman or
the United States, or both; or
(ii) used goods collected in the territory of Oman 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 Oman 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 Oman 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
different article of commerce that has been grown, produced,
or manufactured in Oman or the United States, or both.
(6) Material produced in the territory of oman or the
united states, or both.--The term ``material produced in the
territory of Oman or the United States, or both'' means a
good that is either wholly the growth, product, or
manufacture of Oman 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 Oman 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 Oman 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
[[Page H5509]]
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 disassembly of used goods into individual parts;
and
(B) the cleaning, inspecting, testing, or other processing
of those parts as 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 Oman or the United States and that--
(A) is entirely or partially comprised of recovered goods;
(B) has a similar life expectancy to 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 Oman 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 by
adding after paragraph (16) the following:
``(17) 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-Oman 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 Oman 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 Oman 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 Oman,
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. RELIQUIDATION OF ENTRIES.
Subsection (d) of section 520 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1520(d)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``or''; and
(B) by striking ``for which'' and inserting ``, or section
202 of the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act for which''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and information''
after ``documentation''.
SEC. 206. 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; and
(3) proclamations issued under section 202(j).
TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS
SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Omani article.--The term ``Omani 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) Omani textile or apparel article.--The term ``Omani
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 an Omani 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.
(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, an Omani 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 Omani 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
[[Page H5510]]
under this section with respect to any Omani 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 Omani 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)), 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 an Omani article
after the date on which such relief would, but for this
subsection, terminate under subsection (a), if the President
determines that Oman 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-Oman Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act''.
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
[[Page H5511]]
the reduction or elimination of a duty under the Agreement,
an Omani 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 (iv);
(2) by striking the period at the end of clause (v) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(vi) a party to the United States-Oman Free Trade
Agreement, a product or service of that country or
instrumentality which is covered under that Agreement for
procurement by the United States.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 925, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) each will control 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, this particular agreement is an important
one for a number of reasons. One, the United States and Oman have been
friends in a formal way for almost 100 years. The Sultanate of Oman
occupies an important geopolitical location in the world, which has
become even more meaningful in recent times.
Oman has shown its true friendship to the United States because of
the adage: ``A friend in need is a friend indeed.'' And Oman has been a
friend in the Middle Eastern portion of the world when we needed a
friend indeed.
In addition to that, this free trade agreement is significant in the
advancement of opening trade in a number of areas very quickly, sort of
a solid, leading-edge kind of agreement that we would like to see in a
number of other countries around the world.
One of the remarks that might be made is, Oman, Oman, let me double-
check, take a look at an atlas or the globe, and then ask, to what
extent are we dealing with significant trade with the United States?
The answer is, the United States is the world's largest importer and
the world's largest exporter, so when you measure significance of
trade, sometimes you would ask yourself not what the impact is on the
United States, but what the impact would be on the country in which we
are entering into this free trade agreement. And to Oman, I believe it
is extremely important as it continues to modernize itself under the
Sultan and continues to extend freedoms and liberties to its people.
Yes, it is oil rich. They know that is a limited resource. They are
interested in investing in their people. We are interested in helping
them do that.
But it cannot go unmentioned that we also need, as we look at the
globe or the atlas, to make note of the location of Oman, and that this
agreement can be seen in any number of ways, and one of the ways would
be to allow for a closer economic relationship with a friend that has
had a close security relationship with the United States.
{time} 1215
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me agree with the chairman of the committee. This agreement is
important not from an economic standpoint, it would have little or no
impact on our economy. For political reasons it would be important. For
security reasons it would be important.
But I think that most Members would agree that we should have a trade
policy that is not a Democratic trade policy or a Republican trade
policy. We should have one that reflects the people of the United
States of America through the people's House, which is the House of
Representatives. And over the years, it appears more and more that the
United States Trade Representatives will deal with the majority, but on
issues that we think are important we have to deal with the country
itself. This is wrong. Whatever divisions we have politically in our
country, we ought to keep it on this side of our flag and not have to
expose these differences with foreigners.
So often we have Presidents of Peru and Ambassadors from Oman
indicating that the majority party has said we can get this out but you
have to talk with the Democrats. Well, you shouldn't have to talk with
the Democrats, but the United States Trade Representative should have
to talk with us and Republicans and members of the committee.
The House, to a large extent, relies on the expertise that is
developed by those of us who are privileged to serve on the Ways and
Means Committee, and we owe it to our Members to say what is in the
trade bill and what is not in the trade bill. But also, in order to
give a fair explanation, we should
[[Page H5512]]
know what USTR intends to put in the bill.
Now, over the years, all we have said is this: The the details of a
bill should be fair, and as far as I am concerned, America should have
a fair advantage. We should make certain that we are able to see that
our products have access to their markets. But there is also something
that I think is a principle that is American, and that is that the
basic rights of the workers should be protected. On so many bills the
religious leaders, the labor leaders, the farmers, the peasants come to
us and say, Please support the bill but please make certain that you
have the same type of protections in that bill to protect our rights of
assembly, protect our rights to strike, as you have in that bill for
intellectual property rights.
We have taken the lowest possible denominator and taken the
International Labor Organization regulations. And we have had people
say they have no problem with that, but somehow that is never, but
never, discussed in our committee even though we have an amendment that
deals with the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement that at this very moment
is in the hearing room. We are not talking about it. We are debating an
amendment. What we should be talking about is what is good for both of
these countries and can we walk away from these trade agreements
knowing that it is good for America, but we are not driving the workers
to the lowest possible denominator; but we would like to be able to say
that there are basic protections for the people, especially in
developing countries that we do business with.
So, Mr. Speaker, Democrats have to be respected. We may be in the
minority, but we should not be excluded in participating in discussions
with the United States Trade Representatives. And the United States
Trade Representatives should not send us to foreign representatives in
order to see what we can get in the bill. They are supposed to be our
negotiators the same way they are the majority party's negotiators.
That does not happen. I do believe that it should.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who is the senior member of the Trade
Subcommittee, who has put in hours of work on this, and I ask unanimous
consent that he be allowed to control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 20 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and I ask unanimous consent that
he be allowed to control the 20 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, in 2003, President Bush called for the
creation of a Middle East Free Trade Area in 10 years to bring the
Middle East into an expanding circle of opportunity. To date the
administration has successfully negotiated free trade agreements with
Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco, and Oman to provide a solid foundation for
the MEFTA initiative.
As the Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial the other day: ``The
deal would make all U.S. industrial and consumer products duty free
immediately and phase out farm tariffs over 10 years.''
The promise of the Omani agreement before us is expanded market
opportunities for U.S. exporters, greater financial integrity in the
world economy, and enhanced regional stability. Overall, by developing
greater economic friendship in the Middle East with modernizing
economies like Oman, we also advance America's national security
objectives in the broader war on terrorism.
As the 9/11 Commission report recommended, ``Any comprehensive U.S.
strategy to counterterrorism should include economic policies that
encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for
people to improve their lives.'' The U.S.-Oman FTA embodies this
principle.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement
and urge its passage in the House.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
(Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5684.
Mr. Speaker, this Oman FTA is harmful and unbalanced and threatens
our National Security.
This FTA is just a small part of a larger trade policy that has not
been in the best interest of U.S. workers, small businesses, farmers or
the economy and environment.
I have voted against every harmful and unbalanced trade agreement
that has come before this House.
I would welcome the opportunity to vote for an agreement with strong
and enforceable labor and environmental protections.
Unfortunately the U.S.-Oman FTA has neither of these and I will be
voting against this bad trade deal.
The FTA falls short of the labor protections that must be included to
make an acceptable agreement.
We need a time-out on trade and stop this ``race to the bottom.''
Our trade agreements have not significantly raised the living
standards in foreign nations.
And U.S. trade policy has forced American workers to compete on an
uneven playing field.
By defeating this FTA, we will tell the Administration that no longer
will we accept harmful and unbalanced trade agreements.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the Oman Free Trade
Agreement. I do that for two basic reasons.
First, this agreement contains provisions that would allow companies
owned by foreign governments to move into port operations. This is one
of our first opportunities to deal with this since this matter became a
matter of attention of this body earlier this year when Dubai Ports
World attempted to take over port operations in many ports in the
United States, including my own port of Baltimore. We spoke pretty
decisively about our concern about allowing companies owned by foreign
countries to be involved in principal port operations.
The language in this free trade agreement opens the door for exactly
that to occur. Under the services provision, there is a provision that
allows landside aspects of U.S. port activities, including operation
and maintenance of docks; loading and unloading of vessels directly to
and from land; marine cargo handling; operation and maintenance of
piers; ship cleaning; stevedoring; transfer of cargo between vessels
and trucks, trains, pipelines, and wharves; and waterfront terminal
operations, to be given out to the Omanian companies that could very
well be owned by that government.
To make the matter even worse, if the Dubai Ports World were to
establish operations in Oman, then they could actually come in and
operate our ports under the protection of this agreement.
You will hear during the course of this debate that the United States
has the ability to prevent that from happening. And, Mr. Speaker, I
acknowledge that under any trade agreement, no other country can order
us to do anything other than what we want to do. We maintain
sovereignty.
But let me remind you that under trade agreements there are certain
penalties that are imposed if we do not live up to those provisions. We
in Congress were required to change our Foreign Sales Corporation tax
laws. We did it. We didn't have to do it, but if we did not do it,
tariffs would have been imposed and continued to be imposed against our
products.
So this is a serious issue. The United States has the opportunity
under this agreement to block such an operation under the essential
security exception. However, Oman would have the right to challenge
that under dispute settlement, and under chapter 20 we have not
excluded this determination from dispute settlement resolution. It can
happen. The pressure can build on our country. We do not have a very
good track record with dispute settlement tribunals. In fact, our
record is around less than 20 percent success when it comes to imposing
penalties against the United States. This administration has already
shown a willingness to allow companies owned by foreign countries to
operate port facilities in the United States. This is another
opportunity for them to move forward on
[[Page H5513]]
this. Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility. We have a chance to speak
on this, and we should speak with a clear voice in rejecting this
agreement.
The second area of concern that I will talk about during the course
of this debate deals with Oman's failure to meet International Labor
Organization standards. And I will give you chapter and verse of
letters that we have written because, as you know, the standard is
enforce your own laws, and Omanian laws are not up to ILO standards.
Foreign workers in Oman do not have the right to join a union for a
year. They are required to speak Arabic before leading a union. And the
Government of Oman still does not have a law that prohibits employers
from withholding passports or other documentations from the 80 percent
of foreign workers in Oman, practices that can lead to human
trafficking, as we have seen in Jordan. There are still inadequate laws
to protect against anti-union activities. And the list goes on and on
and on.
In Bahrain we not only had the commitment to change law, we saw the
change in practice. We do not have that in Oman. We have not met the
Bahrainian standard, and for that reason alone this agreement should be
rejected.
So whether it is a matter of national security in regards to our
ports or a matter of standing up for basic international workers'
rights, this agreement comes up short and should be rejected.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This trade agreement needs to pass. This trade agreement is so
clearly in America's interest.
Now, when you look at the total amount of trade between the two
countries, it may not seem like a big deal. A billion dollars, what is
that? Four one-hundredths of 1 percent of our economy, $500 million
each way. That is no big deal.
But that was my daughter calling, and that is what this is really
about. This is about the future; whether we engage with the peaceful
and progressive Arab world or whether we blow up the bridges that they
are trying to build with America and with the modern Western world.
Oman was the first Arab country to send an Ambassador to the United
States. Today, they have the first woman and the only Arab woman
Ambassador to the United States. They are showing by their actions that
they get it. They understand that when 60 percent of their population
is under the age of 18, they have got to go forward, not backward to
fundamentalism and to the kind of theocracy that has hampered so many
of their neighbors. They need to move forward. But they need the help
of the United States to move forward.
Now, as I say, the amount of trade is inconsequential. It is not
going to affect organized labor here. It is not going to affect any
particular industry, although I have to say that it is pretty much a
one-way street. What they buy from us is transport equipment,
manufactured products that generate jobs in this country. And what we
buy from them is largely natural resources, and some textiles, but
mostly oil and gas. They want to be able to buy more. They want to make
it easier for us to sell by reducing tariffs and quotas.
{time} 1230
But, most importantly, is the larger context of this agreement. Oman
sits on the Strait of Hormuz. More than 20 percent of the world's oil
supply goes through that strait. Guess who sits on the other side of
that strait? Iran. Oman is right next to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has
been the instigator and the promoter of an Arab boycott against Israel,
and this relatively small country has dedicated itself to breaking that
boycott.
We have a letter from AIPAC here supporting this because Oman has
been willing to break the tertiary, secondary and primary boycotts of
Israel. Here is the letter right here.
Now, when we were attacked on 9/11/2001, we put together a bipartisan
commission of very thoughtful and knowledgeable people, and one of the
most important recommendations that that commission came up with was
that we as a country need to reach out to the modern, progressive Arab
world. We have got to do it. We can't isolate ourselves from a billion-
and-a-half Muslims, because then that is going to radicalize people in
their country. We have got to walk through these doors that they are
willing to open up and show what happens when you trade with the United
States, when you trade with progressive democracies. This is exactly
what that 9/11 Commission recommended.
I am pleased that we overwhelmingly supported the Bahrain Free Trade
Agreement, but this is an even better trade agreement. It is hard to
believe that we are questioning the fact that this is in America's
interest. It is so overwhelmingly in America's interest.
A couple of red herrings have been brought up; and as much as I
respect and admire my colleagues who have brought up these red
herrings, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own set
of facts.
The facts are that we asked the Congressional Research Service to
look into this. They came up with a report that was compelling and
definitive: there is no national security interest involved here,
because if we decide there is a national security threat, which we
self-define, that trumps everything else, and at any time we can raise
the essential security justification. No one else has the authority to
second-guess what it takes for us to protect our national security, and
there is no precedent for any kind of international panel second-
guessing us. There is no national security issue here.
The language, the provisions in this treaty, are the same as have
been in all the others. It is the same language as Bahrain, the same
language as Central America. There is no change here.
In terms of labor law, and I will address this subsequently after
people address it on the Democratic side to lay out their objections,
but I have read the communication from the Sultan, as I trust others
have. He is willing to agree to the labor rights issues. He wants to
abide by the International Labor Organization's standards. He wants to
do everything it takes to show that he gets it, that he wants a higher
quality of life, a better standard of living and more worker
protections in Oman than his people have today.
Now, the democratically elected Advisory Council is not in session
right now, but within 3 months he will get them all passed. When the
Sultan says he is going to do it, that is it. We may prefer the
niceties of a democracy and so on, but the reality is that these laws
are going to be changed if the Sultan commits to changing them.
So I really urge my colleagues to support this.
One other aspect that I haven't mentioned, and I will get into it in
a greater degree later, Oman has a military access agreement with us.
They have had it since 1981. They keep renewing it. We keep putting
more and more forces through Oman for the war in Iraq. They were of
immense help in the Gulf War.
I don't know what one country can do to be more deserving of a trade
agreement with the United States.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
do so with a degree of trepidation, because I take the time, number
one, to thank my colleague from Virginia. I hope my acknowledgment
doesn't do him too much damage, because his statement was not only
eloquent, but accurate and, we all know, prescient.
It is absolutely critical that we continue to build the kind of
relationships in that portion of the world that this agreement
reflects.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of the time and control of that
time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the
Trade Subcommittee; and prior to that, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Florida will control the balance of the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of what is a very good
trade agreement, both for the United States as well as for our friend
and ally, the nation of Oman.
It was interesting, I hear a lot of references in this body to those
who argue that every one of the bipartisan 9/11
[[Page H5514]]
Commission recommendations should be implemented. Today, we have before
us one of those recommendations, that is, the 9/11 Commission
recommended that we as the United States work to further expand trade
agreements with our friends and allies in the Mideast, and Oman is one
of our oldest allies. As my colleague from Virginia noted, we have 170
years of friendship with the small nation known as Oman, a friend and
ally, a cooperative partner.
This agreement that is before us is good for U.S. manufacturers, it
is good for Illinois manufacturers, it is good for Illinois workers, it
is good for Illinois farmers. Immediately, once it goes into force, 100
percent of manufactured goods exported from the United States to Oman
are duty free. Immediately, 87 percent of U.S. farm products, corn and
soybeans from Illinois, are duty free, and the remaining tariffs are
phased out over a short period of time. Again, this is good for
Illinois workers and manufacturers and farmers.
Also know that Oman has implemented significant labor reforms,
enacted major labor reforms in 2003 and, like Bahrain, has followed up
with specific commitments to ensure that its laws provide protections
for workers. Again, this is a good agreement for workers as well.
Some on the other side of the aisle are trying to manufacture new
issues; trying to claim that somehow by having a trade agreement with
Oman, a Middle Eastern country, that we are jeopardizing our port
security. It is a red herring. It is a phony issue.
The Congressional Research Service has stated that those statements
are misleading. Under the review process this agreement is not
affected.
This agreement deserves bipartisan support.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to correct the
record.
To my friend in Virginia who quoted AIPAC, the letter was the letter
addressed to me that complimented the manner in which we have worked in
a bipartisan manner to deal with the Arab boycott, in both the Bahrain
agreement and the Oman agreement; but it does not talk about support
for this legislation.
I would also point out that our friends from the WTO have been pretty
clear about the dispute settlement system working: ``It must not be
possible for one country to evade its operations simply by proclaiming
its national security is involved, however farfetched such a claim may
be. Yet when national security is really involved, laws that are
contrary to international trade rules must be permissible.'' But they
said that ``no country should be allowed to be the judge and jury of
its own cause.''
We don't give away our national sovereignty, but we are able to be
second-guessed by a dispute settlement panel. They can rule against us,
and have ruled against us, and they can put pressure on us through
tariffs so we in fact compromise our security.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3\1/2\ minutes to a senior member of the
Ways and Means Committee, an expert on international trade and worker
rights, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, Oman is a small nation, but there are some
large issues here. It is an important place, and I would like to
support an FTA with Oman, as I and many others did with Bahrain.
There is an important issue that relates to the path of
globalization. Globalization has become increasingly controversial.
Expanded trade, that I favor, has been hitting road bump after road
bump. One major reason is because too many people within countries are
not sharing in the benefits. Too many people are being left out. And
that is why we have to care.
Among those who are being left out are workers. And how do we make
sure that workers participate, are part of the process? By making sure
in free trade agreements that they have their basic international
rights. These are the basic ILO core labor standards, not American
standards, especially the right to associate and to bargain.
In Oman, workers do not have those rights. There are no worker
organizations today in Oman. There are only labor management
committees, representative committees. In a document that the
Department of Labor gave to us a few weeks ago, it stated that
management holds 70 to 75 percent of the leadership positions in those
committees. There is an umbrella committee of these RCs, and management
holds all of the positions on the executive committee.
So, look, we need to have a free trade agreement that meets the basic
ILO standards in practice and in law. In Bahrain, they were there in
practice and they made commitments to do so in law. In Oman, Mr. Moran
and others, there is no semblance, semblance, of workers having their
rights. There are no worker organizations.
Oman said to us they could not do anything until November because the
Sultan had to consult. Then in the last few weeks, actually the last
few days, we have a kind of statement of decrees of the Sultan. I guess
he did not have to consult with the legislature. But so many of those
have to be implemented by ministerial decree.
Mr. Moran said the Sultan is willing to agree to anything. Let us see
laws in place, with meaning as to what they imply.
I want to close with this. The Trade Representative has said this,
our new Trade Representative, Ambassador Schwab: ``Erosion of America's
traditional bipartisan support is the most pressing problem we face in
trade today.''
How true. And it affects the WTO negotiations. Proceeding like this
today is another nail in what is a near coffin of bipartisan trade
foundations in this country. It is unnecessary.
We could take the time to see what these decrees mean, whether they
are beginning to meet basic ILO standards, so that more and more people
will participate in the benefits of globalization. If that doesn't
happen, globalization will continue to be in deep trouble. It will lose
ground when it should not.
That is one of the major reasons to oppose this agreement at this
time, to oppose it. You are turning your back on any chance of
bipartisanship.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan and the
gentleman from Maryland and their colleagues for raising any number of
labor issues in their discussion of the markup of the Omani trade
agreement. In fact, in large part that resulted in the Sultan issuing a
decree that incorporated virtually all of those labor laws that he
could decree. And his decree is law.
For example, on July 8, 2006, this decree prohibited forced labor,
including coercion by withholding travel documents of foreign
employees. It endorsed collective bargaining and the use of strikes as
a legitimate tool. It prohibited termination of employment or any other
kind of retribution for union activity. It terminated effective
immediately the Omani government's representation in union activities.
It provided specific enforcement tools for violations of collective
bargaining rights, and it provided rights of workers against forced or
coerced labor and against child labor.
{time} 1245
There are further International Labor Organization standards that the
Omani Government intends to pass. It has to wait until its advisory
panels meet and puts the implementing regulations into effect. But that
will be done in the next 3 months. That is a pretty short period of
time. The end of October is when the Sultan committed to implementing
all of his labor commitments into effect.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. So does that mean that those provisions are not in Omani
law today?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Those provisions are law but a number require
regulations.
Mr. LEVIN. But they are not in law, right, until there is action?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. The Sultan's decree is law. Mr. Levin, the
purpose of a trade agreement is to advance progress and communication
and economic interdependence, it seems to me. And to the extent we can,
to promote social progress.
There is an enormous, profound agreement here on Oman's part that it
[[Page H5515]]
will adopt those standards that you and many others in this body have
been urging upon countries like that. They are not perfect. I agree
they are not perfect.
But Oman is not known in the Arab world or to anybody that knows
Oman, as a particular violator of labor rights. I do not know of any of
these kinds of forced labor places that have been referenced. I have
been to Oman. I have read everything that I could.
They want to get better, but I do not think to suggest that the fact
that they are not perfect now is reason to destroy, to vote against an
agreement that would substantially advance the cause of labor
protections.
Mr. LEVIN. First of all, there are no worker organizations today. But
let me ask you this: Is there any other provision in this agreement
that is based on a promise, just a promise, rather than having it in
the agreement in the law between the two countries? Is there any other,
like the tariff reductions, or anything else?
It is not that they promised to do something, it says ``they will
be.'' And we could, instead of saying enforce your own laws, say that
within a reasonable period of time that these laws shall be in place
and enforceable under the agreement.
But there is no enforceability, is there? If they do not do this, if
the legislature does not act, there is no ability to enforce it except
to consultation, and that is it? Is there any other place in the
agreement that says enforce your own laws instead of saying what they
will be with enforcement?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. You know as
well as I do that it would be better if we could make labor protections
a more integral part of many of these trade agreements. But I would
also suggest that anybody that looks at this trade agreement with an
open and objective mind would come to the conclusion that this is
substantial advancement, that this is not only consistent with prior
trade agreements, but this is better than prior trade agreements, and
that this will create a more prosperous, a more open society in the
Middle East, and that Oman is an ally that has always been dependable.
On July 8, the Sultan made these labor protection law.
The Sultan has never said anything with regard to use of troops, with
regard to economic agreements, with regard to trade with Israel, which
they do conduct despite all of the pressure on them from Saudi Arabia
and other countries where he has not kept his word. In every instance,
he has kept his word.
It seems to me that is a relevant consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a distinguished member of
the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the opposition to this
fairly straightforward trade agreement has generated not one, not two,
but a whole school of red herrings that I think have to be knocked down
quickly in succession.
We have heard a little of it already this afternoon on the floor.
What is fairly clear is that the U.S. FTA with Oman clearly has worked
through and worked closely with the International Labor Organization,
and also with civil society in Oman, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S.
executive branch.
The measures that have been developed have gone through a legally
mandated legislative, consultative process, and it has resulted in
clear guarantees on labor.
On the matter of port security, critics of the U.S.-Oman Free Trade
Agreement have manufactured an issue, and we have heard this reiterated
this morning, by claiming that the agreement gives foreign service
providers unprecedented access to U.S. ports and is a threat to U.S.
security. This is absurd.
May I introduce for the Record a letter to Speaker Hastert from the
Secretary of the Treasury who says, in part, ``The FTA negotiated with
Oman neither subjects national security interests to a third-party
tribunal's assessment, as some have alleged, nor does it alter, amend
or adjust the President's Exon-Florio statutory powers to protect the
Nation's security in any way.''
Department of the Treasury,
Secretary of the Treasury,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2006.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I understand that concerns have recently
arisen over the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement, FTA, and its
possible link to the security of U.S. ports--particularly
regarding the dispute settlement provisions.
First, this agreement is strongly supportive of our
national security in general and the war on terror
specifically. It marks another important step in our efforts
to deepen and strengthen commercial ties with countries in
the Middle East that are trying to modernize and give their
people long-term economic opportunities and political rights.
The United States should be a catalyst for economic growth
and stability in the region and an active supporter and
partner of countries, such as Oman, that are seeking to
integrate into the global trading community. Oman has been a
solid ally in our efforts in the Middle East and in the war
on terror, and we need to demonstrate to all countries that
our allies in this effort have a reliable friend in the
United States as they seek a better economic future.
Second, Article 21.2 of the U.S.-Oman FTA provides for a
national security exception that allows the United States to
take measures that we determine are necessary for the
protection of our essential security interests.
Foreign acquisitions of companies in the United States that
operate port terminals are subject to section 721 of the
Defense Production Act, the Exon-Florio amendment, which
authorizes the President to block and/or force divestment of
any proposed or ongoing foreign investment in the United
States that threatens to impair U.S. national security. The
Exon-Florio Amendment falls within the national security
exception, noted above, as a provision that the United States
``considers necessary for . . . the protection of its own
essential security interests.''
Port security in our country is not managed by port
terminal operators. A combination of municipal and State port
authorities, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the
U.S. Coast Guard are responsible for our Nation's port
security.
As the Secretary of the Treasury, it is my responsibility
to ensure the Exon-Florio amendment is executed. Protection
of the national security is my highest responsibility. To be
clear, the FTA negotiated with Oman neither subjects national
security interests to a third-party tribunal's assessment--as
some have alleged--nor does it alter, amend, or adjust the
President's Exon-Florio statutory powers to protect the
Nation's security in any way.
The FTA with Oman provides greater opportunities and opens
new markets for U.S. products, investors, and workers. I urge
you and your colleagues to pass the legislation to implement
this FTA as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Henry M. Paulson, Jr.,
Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. Speaker, I have studied this issue extensively, and so has the
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. And what becomes fairly
clear is that there is absolutely no merit to this charge. The Oman FTA
provides no new rights to supply port-related services. In fact, as CRS
notes, ``The agreement actually places further restrictions on Omani
port services, because it makes market access conditional upon equal
access for U.S. suppliers.''
The FTA preserves the CFIUS process, and does not interfere with it
or in any way weaken it. In addition, the FTA preserves the right of
Congress to strengthen the CFIUS process for national security reasons
without running afoul of our obligations under the agreement.
Critics have taken shots at the essential security exception and have
manufactured a bizarre hypothetical to scare Members into voting
against the facts and against our key ally.
The essential security exemption provides complete protection,
applying to all investments whether they are subject to the CFIUS
process or not. Importantly, no party can appeal the essential security
exception. In other words, if the U.S. blocks investment for national
security reasons, reasons defined solely by the U.S. itself, then that
is the final word. This self-judging standard provides foolproof tools
to the U.S. to block investment when it is counter to our national
security.
I realize there will be an argument that an entity can somehow set up
a shell corporation in Oman and attach itself to the mutually
beneficial provisions of the FTA. But even in this situation, the fact
remains in any instance, the U.S. can invoke its essential security
exception and block investment in the U.S., be it by an Omani company
or by a company from any other country with substantial business
activity.
[[Page H5516]]
We have heard that the WTO might entertain a challenge to this
provision. But the fact remains there is no example of the WTO
challenging successfully any country's use of this exception. This is
purely a red herring. This is empty rhetoric. We need to approve this
FTA.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to just clarify
the record. Let me assure my friend from Pennsylvania that the efforts
by Dubai Port World was real to the port of Baltimore and other ports.
This is not a hypothetical.
Let me also assure my colleagues, I heard the same discussion when we
were changing corporation laws to help exporters, only to find that we
were rejected by international panels. We don't have the unilateral
right to make these determinations. We do give that to dispute panels.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Michaud), who has been one of the leaders on fair trade here in this
body.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Oman Free Trade Agreement. I
say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if we are really
serious about national security, especially given the bipartisan
outrage over the Dubai Ports World situation earlier this year, we must
reject the Oman Free Trade Agreement.
Simply put, foreign tribunals should not determine what is, in fact,
a security threat to the United States of America. This provision
should not be in this trade agreement. The international trade
agreement would require the United States to allow any Omani company to
provide landside aspects of U.S. ports activities.
A new CRS report further confirms that a company operating in Oman
could use the Oman Free Trade Agreement to obtain this new right
guaranteed by the international trade agreement, Dubai-United States
ports operations.
Who is to say that al Qaeda would not set up shop in Oman to gain
access and control of our ports? We have already seen how they have
worked this in the past. They set their men in United States soil years
before the September 11 attack to take flight lessons.
They know how the system works. They are strategic in their planning.
Do you really think terrorists could not take advantage of this
provision? It is bad enough that we are asked to support agreements
that will shift more jobs overseas, that undermine our environmental
standards, and that ask us to stick our head in the sand over serious
human rights violations.
But it is simply unacceptable to ask this Congress to support
legislation that could potentially undermine the security of our
Nation. At the very least, USTR should exclude the ports from this deal
and all future deals.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of one Member of Congress who would
support weakening our national security, and this agreement does do
that. We should stand united and demand that these free trade
agreements start with us negotiating for the best interests of the
United States.
We will continue to see more unless we do that today. I urge my
colleagues to reject this agreement.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the terrorism committee.
Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this U.S.-Oman Free Trade
Agreement. As mentioned, I chair the Subcommittee on International
Terrorism and Nonproliferation of the International Relations
Committee.
There are several reasons to support this agreement. My comments will
be focused on viewing this agreement as a means to advance our struggle
against terrorism. Our country is facing deep challenges, deeper than
most Americans probably realize.
We are in a deadly serious struggle against Islamist terrorism and
against its state sponsors. And in this struggle we need all of the
friends that we can get. And Oman has been a friend. The fact is that
Oman has been helpful in advancing our strategic interests in the
Persian Gulf region. We store military equipment there.
Oman has been helpful in combating terrorism. It has checked the flow
of money to terrorist organizations, something we need to do more on
and with in terms of other Gulf States. Other major countries use trade
to advance their strategic interests. I am going to explain for a
minute that China is doing this, and China is certainly doing it also
all over Africa. I have been in 22 countries in Africa, and I have
watched China do this from North Africa to subSaharan Africa.
Fortunately, there we are competing in trade through AGOA, competing
for influence. You know elsewhere around the globe, China is competing
for access to oil and other strategic resources. They are gaining
political friends.
The difference is that China undermines transparency and the rule of
law in many countries. But the U.S.-Oman agreement strengthens
transparency and the rule of law, which are longstanding American
values.
This agreement is good economics. In that sense it is like the
African Growth and Opportunity Act. This agreement will increase access
to the Oman market for American exporters of agricultural products,
health care and engineering services, among others, but it is good
strategy too. The 9/11 Commission recommended that we pursue this type
of policy.
{time} 1300
It is true that the agreement's economic significance is not that
large. U.S. trade with Oman will remain modest. But its rejection would
set back an important strategic relationship, one that this and
previous administrations have done a very good job advancing.
Let's not go that route. I ask my colleagues to support this
agreement.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), one of the leading voices on workers'
rights.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, we need to get one thing straight here
before I start, and that is that those of us who oppose this trade
agreement are not against trade, are not against exchange. How dare
anybody stand on this floor and refer to the 9/11 Commission's report.
Chapter 12. I have read the 9/11 Commission's report, by the way. I
think that is a good start.
The 9/11 Commission report, chapter 12, talks about global strategy.
If you read the entire chapter and you want to talk about strategy,
trade must be part of when we are communicating with other countries.
There is no question about it.
For those of us who believe that we need to support this trade deal,
this unfair trade deal, and it is going to help workers in Oman, as
well as the workers in the United States of America, I don't know what
you need to refer to. Because the State Department, our own State
Department, says that foreign workers at times were placed in a
situation amounting to forced labor in Oman. This deal isn't for
workers. This deal is for the few, like most of the trade agreements
that we have given into.
We have surrendered our ability, as a branch of the government of
this country, under Article I, section 8, that the Congress be in
charge of commerce. We have surrendered our ability to be trade
negotiators to the executive branch of government.
I have high hopes for Oman and its people. We need more moderate and
forward-thinking nations like Oman in the Middle East. We need to look
at how much foreign aid we provide to Oman, and even Lebanon, we, who
want to help the Lebanese stop Hezbollah, and then we give them $43
million.
I am not against free trade. I am against these free trade agreements
which do not benefit the American worker. I am not a protectionist, but
I think we should protect the American worker. This agreement may be to
the liking of a few wealthy CEOs here in America, it may be to the
liking of the Sultan of Oman, but it does not represent the interests
of workers in this country. It is time for a new direction in free
trades. We need free trade which is modeled around human beings and not
around big business interests, because human beings are the ones who
drive our economy. They are the ones who will build our partnership
with other nations.
We need free trade agreements that enforce the principle of workers'
rights. That is right. That is what this debate is all about: will we
defend the
[[Page H5517]]
rights of workers of Oman, or will we take a step back in the right of
all workers to organize freely. This country doesn't recognize the
right of workers to organize. We need to defeat this trade agreement.
The proponents of the Oman Free Trade Agreement would have you
believe that my colleagues and I who oppose this agreement do so
because we are against free trade or maybe because we are against the
nation of Oman. Both claims could not be further from the truth.
The fact is that I have high hopes for Oman and its people. We need
more moderate and forward-thinking nations like Oman in the Middle
East.
In fact we gave Oman only $16.5 million in foreign appropriations,
which I think would be a more effective vehicle to build a strong
partnership rather than through this flawed free trade agreement.
An example of this is the sad fact that we gave Lebanon only $43.2
million in foreign appropriations, of which only a scant $7.7 million
went to military and counterterrorism efforts. Perhaps if we had
invested more into Lebanon we could have avoided the deadly situation
we are currently witnessing.
Similarly, I am not against free trade, what I am against are these
free trade agreements which benefit a few to the detriment of workers.
This agreement may be to the liking of a few wealthy CEO's here in
America and it may be to the liking of the Sultan of Oman, but it does
not represent the interests of the workers here in the United States or
in Oman.
My colleagues and I are tired of seeing the same flawed free trade
model, time and time again. It is time for a new direction in free
trade agreements.
We need free trade agreements that are modeled around human beings
and not around big business interests. Because human beings are the
ones who drive our economy, they are the ones who will build our
partnership with other nations.
We need free trade agreements that enforce the principle of workers
rights and the right of all workers to organize freely. Instead of just
paying lip service to the problem as this agreement does.
We need free trade agreements that respect our sovereignty and our
right to have full control over our critical security infrastructure.
Instead this agreement takes us back to the problem we had with the
Dubai Ports deal and that is simply unacceptable.
We need free trade agreements that respect environmental concerns,
the rights of women and the rights of minorities. . . . I could go on
longer, but I think you get my point.
My colleagues and I would be standing here championing this agreement
if it met the standards it should, but sadly it does not.
It is time that we have real free trade agreements; it is time that
we stand up for the workers here in America and workers throughout the
world. I implore you to stand up for them today!
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in response to my good friend
from New Jersey, and also in response to my good friend from Michigan
(Mr. Levin), who asks about, and makes accusations with regard to, the
situation in Oman, I should remind them that there were 33 strikes in
2004, more than 6,000 workers went on strike. Strikes continue to this
day with no repressive tactics, no government reprisals.
And the Omani Government has representatives of the International
Labor Organization on the ground in Oman working with them to develop
more and stronger standards.
Mr. PASCRELL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I will shortly. I am about out of time. If you
can refute that, I will yield 15 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. Do you deny that the State Department has
put us on alert as to how workers are treated, foreign workers
particularly, in Oman, that they are forced to work? Are you denying
that State Department report?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Yes, I am, because the fact that a government
takes your passport, any number of governments do that. The German
Government used to do it. I don't know if they do it now. That doesn't
mean that is forced labor. They hold your passport, but that doesn't
mean that you can't get it when you want to leave the country.
But the fact is that now the decree has been issued, and that tactic
cannot be used.
Mr. PASCRELL. It is used.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. It is no longer legal to use such a tactic. It
is not used. That is the kind of progress we are wanting to achieve,
and I thank Mr. Pascrell's help in achieving that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, initially it was not my intent to come discuss this bill
on the floor, but last night we were into a serious debate, a serious
debate about Israel and its right to defend itself, and we talked about
Hezbollah and Hamas and how they were not for peace and how they were
for destruction.
I at that time took the floor, because I agreed with that
significance of Israel defending itself, and here, on the very next
day, as I was listening to the debate, we have a country that has come
a mighty long way in a short period of time. We have a country that
says they want peace, and they have exhibited the fact that they want
to live in peace. They have been a strong ally to us. I have a letter
from AIPAC indicating that they don't have any objection to this.
What kind of message are we sending to one of the most important
areas, and volatile areas, in this world? Here we have an Arab country,
a moderate Arab country, a country, as we say oftentimes, we are not
against them, we are not against people who happen to be Muslim, et
cetera, but they are doing everything we have asked of them.
The Sultan came in with a decree because he wanted to make sure we
had a bipartisan debate. He didn't want anything to be divided Democrat
or Republican. The Sultan said, I am going to live up to my word,
giving us all of the indications that they are going to do the right
thing.
I know I heard in this debate some say, well, there is no agreement
that it happened where there is a promise before the vote on the bill.
I just thought to myself, I said, that is not true. Because I know in
this bill, as in other bills, IP protections, there is a lot that has
to take place and laws that have to be changed after this bill has been
passed.
We did it in Bahrain. I have a letter right here that was signed by
Rob Portman at the time saying, basically, that we want to make sure
that Bahrain, and this was a commitment letter and a clarification
letter, saying that after the bill was passed that they would do
certain things in their law. That is no different, no different, than
what's in this bill.
So I say we have got to do what is right. If it was right, and we
sent the right message to Bahrain, it has got to be right and we send
the right message to Oman. This is a small country. It is not going to
have a heavy impact on the United States of America. It is not going to
make a difference to John Q. Public and the United States of America
with reference to jobs, but it can make a difference with reference to
the message that we are sending to the Arab world and to peace across
this globe. It sends a huge message, and I will support this free trade
agreement.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
I would like to, before I yield the floor to him, point out that my
friend from Maryland brought up the United Arab Emirates debacle that
he and I both opposed very much. We don't have a free trade agreement
with the United Arab Emirates, so a free trade agreement in no way
facilitated that action.
I now yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, what this is about is finding peace and security in the
world. The future of peace and security in the world largely rests upon
the future of peace and security in the Middle East. The question is
what we are as Americans going to do to help Middle Eastern countries,
moderate Middle Eastern countries, be more open, be more fair, be more
free, be more democratic, be more peaceful. This agreement does that.
Now, for one reason or another, Members here, I believe, have decided
to oppose this agreement and then look for reasons to justify that
opposition. They have raised two big red herrings, labor and ports. We
asked the Congressional Research Service to look at this port issue, to
look at this red herring issue.
[[Page H5518]]
I want to read from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service
that did two studies this month on this issue. Upon close inspection of
the language in this agreement, it appears that this claim is
misleading because it appears that Omani companies are already
presently able to perform these port services. Phrased another way, the
United States has reserved the right to maintain our existing legal
restrictions with respect to those aspects of maritime transportation
in which we already have limitations, as well as adopt new measures in
these categories that may be more restrictive.
In some ways, it imposes new opposition and new restrictions that
don't currently exist with respect to management of ports.
In conclusion, report number two: while it is theoretically possible
for Oman to bring a legal challenge to the actions of the United States
before a third-party tribunal, the United States would appear to be on
solid legal grounds for asserting not only that the panel does not have
the legal authority to determine the validity of such a matter, but
also that the inconsistent measure is permitted and justifiable, given
the broad self-judging language of the national security exemption.
This means we decide unilaterally, we decide if any of these
transactions are not in our national security interest, it doesn't
happen. There is nothing the WTO can do about that.
Now, what about labor? This is another agreement that we have had,
the labor standard invoked. This is the strongest labor agreement of
any trade agreement we have brought to the floor in this Congress and
in previous Congresses.
Now, in an effort to be bipartisan, in an effort to work with the
other side of the aisle, we have had an exchange of letters and
agreements between the Omanis, Democrats and our government USTR.
In November 2005, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee
asked Oman to clarify six areas of law and asked for nine concessions
in labor law. In January, Oman responded in detail to all of those
concerns. In February 2006, the Democrats forwarded another set of
demands and questions, raising new issues. In March, in response to
those concerns, Oman made eight commitments to the United States and
agreed to enact all of these reforms.
It goes on and on: new demands being requested, new demands being
met, to the point where the Omanis have, by decree, already implemented
many of these higher labor standards. Any of those that they didn't
already decree just a couple of weeks ago, they have promised to put
them into law by October 30.
What did we do with Bahrain? With Bahrain they promised to introduce
legislation to raise their labor standards.
{time} 1315
That was the Bahrain standard. With Oman, no, they did not promise to
implement legislation. They promised to implement law by a date certain
this year.
So we have increased labor standards. We have put into place core ILO
standards. We are rising the tide, but what it all gets down to is
this.
Because of this agreement, the Omanis are raising labor standards for
their workers. Because of this agreement, Omanis are making their
country more free and more transparent for their people. Because of
this agreement, we are saying thank you to an ally. Let us continue to
move toward peace and prosperity.
Why do I care so much about this? Because I do not want my kids to
face the war on terror that we are facing right now. And how do we do
that? We do that by making sure that these countries, from which many
terrorists come, have opportunities for their young people.
I do not want a young person, the next generation, growing up in
tyrannical dictatorships susceptible to the whims of al Qaeda,
appealing to the madrassas. I want young people in these countries
growing up, reaching their dreams, reaching their potential, having
freedom, having the ability to determine where they want to go with
their lives, being creative, being able to channel their energy in a
positive direction so our children do not have to face this war or on
terror.
We must pass this trade agreement because it is vital to our national
security interests.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to point out
to my friend that under this agreement, we now give third-party
tribunals the opportunity to second-guess us on national security, and
that was not there before this agreement. I offered an amendment to
eliminate that. It should have been made in order.
Then regards labor standards in Bahrain, they had on the ground
operating ILO standards. We do not have that in Oman.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a senior member of the Ways and Means
Committee, one of our real leaders on trade issues.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Cardin and I appreciate this
time.
I wanted to come and speak on this because I voted against this
agreement on the Ways and Means Committee when it was reported out a
couple, 3 weeks ago. I did so out of sheer frustration and exasperation
with the lack of democratic process in the committee as it relates to
these agreements.
Those of us who philosophically want to support agreement,
engagement, with the rest of the world have had a very, very difficult
time in the committee. And to call the committee, the way it has been
run recently in some of these, the democratic process is really an
abomination of that word.
But beyond that, regardless of one's personal feelings, regardless of
how one views the way these bills have come to the floor from that
committee, one has to determine for one's self what is in the best
interests of the United States of America.
I have determined because history, if history teaches anything, it
teaches one that engagement is better than nonengagement, and economic
partners eventually become political and military partners.
So the geopolitical aspects of these trade agreements, while they are
not that big in scheme of things with respect to trade itself, are very
huge, and some of these other speakers have alluded to that, in terms
of our role in the world and fostering all the things and values we
hold dear.
I cannot see how turning down this agreement today on the floor is
going to further our ability to influence things for the better in Oman
or, for that matter, in that part of the world or, for that matter, in
our own country.
And so for those reasons, even though I have made my feelings known
about the way some of these are handled procedurally, I am going to
support this agreement today. I think it is in the best interest of
this country to do so, for a whole host of reasons, many of which you
will hear.
I unfortunately talk so slow I do not have time to go through all of
the reasons why I think that it is better on balance than it is worse
on balance, and why; therefore, as one weighs what one should do for
one's country in this regard, one has to make the decision yes or no. I
have made that decision, and I intend to support it, and I would urge
other Members to take a look at it.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is
left on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has
2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has
36 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has 21
minutes remaining.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances, I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time,
and I am pleased today to rise in strong support of this agreement, the
Oman Free Trade Agreement.
With the Doha Round of multilateral talks teetering on the brink of
collapse, we need more than ever to pursue a bilateral trade agenda
that makes some real gains for American workers and American consumers
who, after all, are one and the same. That is
[[Page H5519]]
precisely what the Oman Free Trade Agreement does.
The Oman FTA is quite simply a win-win. In 2005, trade between the
United States and Oman exceeded $1 billion. The U.S. exported $594
million in goods alone to Oman last year. While some will stand here
today, beat their breasts and claim that we are going to lose jobs with
this trade agreement, nothing could be further from the truth.
I ask Members to think back to economics 101. Exporting goods creates
jobs here at home, and importing goods will create jobs. Consumer and
industrial goods will be 100 percent duty free on day one of the trade
agreement's entry into force. There will be significant gains in the
agriculture and service sectors. These are the kinds of tangible
changes we want and we need to bring home to our constituents.
Liberalization of trade in services is sometimes overlooked, but it
is absolutely essential to keeping our economy competitive. The
services sector represents 75 percent of our country's economic output
and it is 80 percent of our workforce. U.S. firms have a strong
advantage in the services sector, and it becomes even stronger as we
add each country like Oman to an FTA.
But the economic gains are relatively small compared to the impact
that a trade agreement with Oman will have in keeping Americans safe.
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommended a comprehensive strategy to
defeat terrorism, that includes economic policies, that encourages
development, more open societies and opportunities for people to
improve the lives of their families.
As a result of this recommendation, the administration authorized
negotiations with Oman as part of the plan to create a Middle East Free
Trade Area by 2013. This is a step in that direction, and I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of this free trade agreement.
Oman leads the Persian Gulf in establishing trade and other ties with
Israel. It has eliminated all aspects of its boycott with Israel and
when Oman acceded to the WTO in 2000, it did not request an exemption
for Israel that would allow it to maintain a boycott. This is a rare
exception in a tough neighborhood. I ask my colleagues today to join me
in showing our commitment to Oman, is a steadfast ally in a region of
the world where we need all the friends we can get.
Vote for the Oman Free Trade Pact.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee, who has been extremely active on fair trade and
international issues.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I hate to say it but I think it has become very obvious
that our system for devising trade agreements, so very important to
this country's functioning around the world, has not only broken, but
it has broken completely.
Today, we have a trade regime which has led to the largest trade
deficits this country has ever experienced. The latest report is that
the trade deficit for the month of May was almost $64 billion. We
purchased $64 billion more in goods than we were able to sell to others
around the world.
We are on pace this year to have a trade deficit that is larger than
$800 billion. We have never faced that before, but we continue to put
forward trade agreements like these that leave us naked to competition
that is neither free nor fair.
Today, Mr. Speaker, you find that for every six ships that China
sends laden with goods from China into this country, only one of those
six ships returns to China with American goods in it for Chinese
purchase. And we continue to bring forward trade deals like these that
say simply this when it comes to protecting the rights of workers,
whether in this country or in the country that we are reaching an
agreement with: Enforce your own laws. And even though we know in most
cases many of the countries, including Oman, do not have laws that
protect their workers, which means that our workers will suffer as
well, we continue to move forward with these agreements.
Yet, if you are not convinced that these trade agreements and the
regime itself now that we use is broken, look at the provision that was
included in the agreement that allows a company that has substantial
business in Oman to operate our ports. We dealt with this issue with
the Dubai Ports World issue. We rejected that opportunity for a Dubai
company to come in and run our ports. Yet in this agreement we have
something that would allow that to happen.
I know many of my friends on the Republican side say that will never
happen, we have got the national security, essential security interests
protection exemption. Then why is it in the agreement in the first
place? What you do is you set us up to go before a trade dispute
resolution panel that is not ours. It is not our courts that will
decide. It will be some other body.
We have now today a system that has led to these large trade
deficits, and they continue to come forward. It is time for a change.
We need a new direction when it comes to our trade policy. It is broken
in this Congress the way we deal with our trade. Not only for our
workers, but also for the health of our American companies that have to
compete in this world, where artificially other companies in other
countries are gaining advantage over us because they are not following
the rules.
This is another example of why we should reject trade agreements that
do not protect America's interests, whether security-wise or otherwise.
Vote against this trade deal.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, in the first place it is not
some other panel. It is the U.S. and Oman, and we have the right to
determine what is in our security, but having said that, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Very briefly in reply to the last speaker, the facts contradict the
information that was put out here on the floor regarding the deficit.
The United States' exports to Jordan are up 90 percent since the free
trade agreement; up 92 percent to Chile since 2003; up 25 percent to
Singapore since 2003; up 11 percent to Australia since 2004; up 7\1/2\
percent to Morocco. Under NAFTA, our exports have increased at 133
percent. That just does not make sense.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee who has been articulate and a leader on fair trade and
international rights.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by responding to Mr.
Shaw's comments. None of the modest steps he cited respond to the fact
that we have an $800 billion trade deficit and an Administration with a
trade policy that will do nothing but make it worse.
This agreement with a small but strategically important country like
Oman ought to have been approved today unanimously, and it could have
been. But there is a very big problem, and that problem is not in Oman
on the other side of the world; it is on Pennsylvania, 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue, to be more precise.
The problem is that just as this Administration has shown consistent
disdain for the rights and needs of workers in America, just as it has
shown consistent disdain for environmental protection--ready to
manipulate science whenever it needs to for political purposes to
justify degradation of our air, our water, and our other environmental
resources--today it shows continued disdain for the environment and for
workers in our international trade agreements.
What we need is a modern, bipartisan trade policy that recognizes
that you cannot measure how good your trade policy is based solely on
how many dollars in goods transverse international borders. You have to
consider the impact of that trade on the workers that produce the goods
and on the environment that surrounds them.
{time} 1330
During the consideration of this bill in the Ways and Means
Committee, we offered very modest amendments to try to address these
concerns. On upholding international labor standards and on an
amendment that I offered to prevent trade in endangered species, the
Committee and the Administration would have none of it because if they
showed basic dignity and respect for workers and the environment with
[[Page H5520]]
Oman, a small country, they might have to do it everywhere, maybe even
here in America. You can tell the level of the Administration
commitment by the level of enforcement remedies that they provide for
the environment and for workers. Then enforcement mechanism in this
agreement amounts to less than giving only a traffic ticket to the
repeat offender of the most egregious abuse. You pay a fine to
yourself--that is the great remedy that they offer.
So today they must, as has been done so often on so many issues,
raise the specter of 9/11 and the war on terrorism. How many times has
that threat been misused in this building and down the street on
Pennsylvania Avenue to debase the most basic and fundamental values
that make this a unique country?
It is pulled out again today. It is an issue here, as the Gentleman
from Maryland has indicated, because they plan to transfer the issue of
port security from this body to an unaccountable, international
tribunal that will be empowered to decide whether or not we can
restrict foreign acquisition of American ports.
This Administration stood by and encouraged a sellout of our port
security once before, and under this agreement they can transfer all
responsibility to an unaccountable international tribunal.
Because this agreement fails to adequately respect the needs of
American workers and the needs of the environment around the world, it
ought to be rejected.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California, a strong advocate of fair trade, Representative Solis.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I also want to
register my strong opposition to the Oman Free Trade Agreement.
As I see it, it is a flawed trade policy, largely to blame for the
loss of so many jobs because of the various trade deals we have had.
Three million manufacturing jobs have been lost over the last few
years. In the last 4 years, our deficit has increased by $725 billion.
Trade deficit, $725 billion.
Not only does this particular trade agreement turn its back on
American workers, but it endorses the race to the bottom by allowing
Oman to continue to ignore labor unions, discrimination against women
in the workplace, and excludes guest workers from even minimal worker
protections.
If shipping jobs overseas and encouraging discrimination isn't bad
enough, this agreement would also allow foreign firms to acquire and
operate important national security assets in the U.S. Our only
recourse would be at an international court.
Mr. Speaker, supporters of this agreement argue that they are trying
to spread democracy and stability around the world. But democracy and
stability can't be achieved by trade agreements such as this which
ignore the rights and freedoms that are inherent in the fabric of a
free society.
I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the Oman Free Trade Agreement, and
let's make a priority to help our economy and our workers here before
we start selling short our jobs and many of our manufacturing
corporations to foreign countries.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Brady), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of
Chairman Shaw as we try to open new markets around the world for
American products and services.
I strongly support this agreement with Oman. As you know, America is
so open to other countries selling their products and goods into
America, but oftentimes when we go around the world, we find that their
markets are not so open. And so we try to open those markets through
trade agreements to allow our farmers, our small businesses, our
manufacturers, our banks, everyone, to sell our products around the
world, and these trade agreements are succeeding in doing that.
In each one that we have had, our sales in those countries have
nearly doubled. So we are creating jobs here at home selling more
products. This free trade agreement does the same thing. It is not
huge, but for those who are selling to them, it is very important.
Not only does this help America, but this is an important cog in our
Middle East free trade agreement, which is key, because I think that a
lot of unrest is caused when people don't have hope, when they don't
have a chance to better themselves, when they don't have a high
standard of living. The more we are able to create job opportunities
and hope in the Middle East, I think the sooner we do that the safer we
will have that region. This won't do it by itself, but everything helps
move that peace process along.
And I support it because Oman, while it may not be where we want it
to be on labor yet, they have made tremendous progress in labor issues
and in the rule of law and in a number of areas that we ought to be
supporting as a country.
Let me conclude with this. This agreement stands on itself, but there
is more than that. I have a soft spot for countries that have come to
the aid of our American soldiers. My baby brother has served in Iraq as
an Army medic and is now a sergeant major and has just returned from
his tour in Iraq. Recently I just attended two funerals of local
soldiers who died defending us. When we have countries like Oman who
allow our personnel to stop there, our aircraft to fly there and land
there, when we have a country like this that houses our personnel,
basically makes them safer while they are away from their families
trying to defend our freedom, I think we ought to reward these
countries.
To me on national security when I see this intellectually dishonest
argument about our port security, what I am afraid of is we have people
who want to punish the countries that are helping our soldiers,
punishing countries who are coming to help our men and women who are
trying to fight for our freedom. We ought to be rewarding and thanking
those countries. I support this agreement.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) who has been one of
our leaders on fair trade.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, as a cochair of the
Congressional Labor and Working Families Caucus, I rise today in strong
opposition to the Oman Free Trade Agreement.
The Oman FTA contains no effective mechanisms to enforce labor or
human rights laws. Instead, this agreement relies on the empty promises
that Oman will enforce its own labor laws.
If we accept this deal, we are saying to foreign countries: It is
okay to force labor among three-fourths of your workers.
We are telling them it is okay to deny workers the right to organize
for safer working conditions and better wages.
If we accept this deal, we turn a blind eye to poor working
conditions and organized human trafficking to fill sweat shops.
I would remind my colleagues that the terms and conditions of trade
agreements determine what is and is not acceptable.
Let me be clear. If we agree to a deal that does not live up to basic
labor and human rights standards, then we are deliberately establishing
a lower standard for worker rights in this country and around the
world. We should be setting a fair trade standard that allows the
benefits of commerce to raise and not lower standards for everyone.
Vote ``no'' on Oman FTA.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) who has been one of the
leading spokespersons about international human rights and worker
rights.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much and for all
of his work on these issues.
Make no mistake about it, this vote is not just a vote as to whether
or not you support free trade. This is also an up-or-down vote on
whether or not you support our national security and our homeland
security.
Just 5 months ago, the Bush administration tried to ram through an
approval of the sale of U.S. port operations to Dubai Ports World, a
company owned and operated by the Government of the United Arab
Emirates.
[[Page H5521]]
The President said he would veto any attempt to strike down the deal.
But in the face of tremendous opposition on the grounds of homeland
security by the Democrats and even some Republicans, the deal was
scuttled.
The whole episode shined a bright light on the little-known committee
at the Treasury Department and the secretiveness of a process it uses
to make decisions that can have important consequences for the security
of our Nation, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States. It is called CFIUS.
In this post 9/11 world, we simply cannot trust, as this free trade
agreement requires us to do, that the businesses and Government of Oman
are pure and will not sabotage, abuse, or misuse critical
infrastructure they decide to buy in a business deal fast-tracked by
this agreement. We must trust, but verify, when it comes to any foreign
government-owned entity buying critical infrastructure in the United
States.
Now the President and his administration did not give the Dubai Ports
deal the scrutiny it deserved, even though the 9/11 Commission
identified the Government of the UAE as a ``persistent counterterrorism
problem.'' And so that should shine a light on this deal as well.
We know our seaports, airports and other critical infrastructure are
at the very top of the al Qaeda terrorist target list. Let us not give
them this additional hand that the treaty will require in penetrating
the operations of those critical targets as fast-tracking business
deals in the name of free trade will have on the security of our
country. Let us not let commerce trump common sense.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Oman Free Trade
Agreement.
Make no mistake, this vote is not a vote on whether or not you
support free trade. This is an up and down vote on whether or not you
support our national and homeland security.
Just 5 short months ago, the Bush Administration tried to ram through
an approval of the sale of U.S. port operations to Dubai Ports World, a
company owned and operated by the government of the United Arab
Emirates, UAE.
The whole episode shined a bright light on a little-known committee
at the Treasury Department and the secretive process it uses to make
decisions that can have important consequences for the security of our
Nation.
But in this post 9-11 world, we cannot simply trust, as this free
trade agreement requires us to do, that the businesses and government
of Oman are pure and will not sabatoge, abuse, or misuse critical
infrastructure they decide to buy in a business deal fast-tracked by
this agreement. We must trust, but verify, when it comes to ANY foreign
government-owned entity buying critical infrastructure in the United
States.
The President and his administration did not give the Dubai Ports
deal the scrutiny it deserved, even though the 9-11 Commission
identified the government of the UAE as a ``persistent counterterrorism
problem.'' The UAE was a key transfer point for illegal shipments of
nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya. The UAE was one of
only three nations to recognize the legitimacy of the Taliban
government and still does not recognize the State of Israel.
We know that our seaports, airports, and other critical
infrastructure are at the very top of Al Qaeda's terrorist target list.
Let's not give them a hand in penetrating the operations of those
critical targets by fast-tracking business deals in the name of a free
trade deal that has no protections for our national and homeland
security. Commerce must not be permitted to trump common-sense.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of my friend from Florida, his
continuing to reserve, does that mean he has one speaker remaining?
Mr. SHAW. Unless someone else comes to the floor, I will be the final
speaker and close.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. And I am reserving because I have so little
time left, as the gentleman knows, so I am trying to be strategic with
my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to our
distinguished whip, my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who has
been a spokesperson not only on trade but on security internationally.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank Mr. Shaw and Mr. Cardin for proceeding on this debate, as well as
Mr. Moran. I think I have voted with all three of them on various
different occasions.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong advocate for free trade and open
markets. I believe strongly that American businesses and workers can
compete and win in the global economy.
Increasing global interdependence is a reality in the 21st century,
and it presents our Nation with an opportunity to promote democratic
reform, the rule of law, and respect for basic human rights.
It is incumbent, however, upon us to foster global trade, to engage
our partners in a system based on rules and law, and to work to raise
the living standards of working men and women; and not to recoil from
the rest of the world.
Philosophically, I count myself a proponent, a strong proponent of
free trade, and have voted for many of the trade agreements that have
come before this House.
This agreement, I think, is relatively insignificant as it relates to
trade and the volume of trade and the impact on our domestic economy.
It may have a much more substantial impact, obviously, on the Oman
economy. But in terms of our own economy, it will have, I think,
relatively little impact.
However, the Oman Free Trade Agreement I believe is flawed, and it
undermines fundamental worker rights. Thus, I intend to oppose it.
What this debate, from my perspective, is about is the criteria that
we will tell the world is necessary for us to enter into agreements
with them. In many respects, as I understand it, those trading partners
with whom we might enter into agreements are not in opposition to that
which we are seeking. In fact, it is my understanding that there are
Members of this Congress and members of the administration far more
opposed to the issues that I will discuss than are the partners who
enter into agreements with us.
Oman today does not meet the five basic International Labor
Organization standards, including the rights of association and
collective bargaining, bans on child labor, slave labor, and
discrimination in employment. They say they are going to meet those,
but they have not yet met them.
Americans, I believe, feel very strongly about all of those
provisions in our own domestic law and in international law.
{time} 1345
And it seems to me appropriate that we pursue agreements in that
context. There are no labor unions in Oman today. The only labor
organizations are, essentially, management labor committees. And while
70 percent of workers in Oman are expatriates, there is little, if any,
participation by foreign workers in administering such committees. In
other words, most of the workers are from outside of Oman. But almost
all of those who participate in any kind of discussions with reference
to labor issues are within Oman, Omani citizens.
For 8 months Oman has failed to take a number of steps to ensure that
its practices immediately comply with ILO standards and to bind those
commitments under the agreement, as was done by Bahrain last year.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Research Service
confirmed just yesterday that the trade agreement would make it more
difficult to protect U.S. ports and block a takeover by foreign
government-owned companies such as Dubai Ports World. That raised a
tremendous amount of concern just recently when the CFIUS process did
not work as we thought it ought to.
It is regrettable that Republicans on the Rules Committee rejected
amendments offered by my good friend, Congressman Cardin, that would
have closed this loophole, and it would have at least subjected it to
full and fair debate. These are serious issues, and they should be
debated fully and fairly. The Rules Committee, however, failed to give
us that opportunity. It would have, indeed, insured compliance with ILO
standards as well before this agreement goes into effect. But that
amendment was not made in order.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, there is no reason that we cannot
negotiate agreements that advance the cause of free trade, promote the
rule of law, generate economic development of countries in great need,
and extend to workers, farmers, and businesses the advantages of
expanded trade to new
[[Page H5522]]
markets. None. This flawed agreement, however, fails to accomplish
those objectives.
For that reason, so that we can set a benchmark for future, much more
consequential trade agreements for our country, I believe today the
Congress of the United States ought to set that benchmark and say to
the administration, say to the USTR, and say to those with whom we will
negotiate in the future for trade agreements that this is the essential
element of our agreement because we believe, this country believes that
as we want to lift our own workers, as we want to lift our own trade
viability, and as we want to lift the viability of trade of other
countries, we also want to ensure that we lift workers in that process.
That is the right thing to do. It is the best thing to do. It is the
best policy thing to do, and therefore, I will oppose this agreement,
but hope that as agreements come before us in the future, that I will
be able to support them in the best interest of our country.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, we have another speaker who just came to the
floor, Mr. Hensarling of Texas, to whom I yield 2 minutes. Following
that, I would yield to the minority so they can close, and then we will
go to closing.
Mr. CARDIN. If the gentleman would just yield briefly. I would let
Mr. Moran use up the remainder of his time, and then we will use up the
remainder of our time, and then you will close.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, trade with Oman represents four one-
hundredths of 1 percent of our Nation's trade. Thus, we are clearly not
debating the American economy today. Instead, we are debating whether
or not we are a Nation of trade or a Nation of protectionism, and we
are debating whether or not we will support or repudiate an ally in the
war on terror.
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.
Mr. Speaker, we have 230 years of experience now to show it. But
beyond all the obvious economic benefits of free trade, we must
recognize that trade is fundamentally an issue of personal freedom.
Nations do not trade with nations. People trade with people. And with
the exception of national security considerations, every American
citizen should have the right to determine the origin of the goods and
services they want to purchase.
Now, maybe we, in Congress, have the power, but do we have the right
to tell Americans they cannot buy less expensive goods for their
families from other nations? The answer should be a resounding no.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement will also improve the national security
of the U.S. In the recent 9/11 Commission, they recommended that the
U.S. pursue policies to promote more open and freer societies to defeat
the root causes of terrorism. That means trade. A free trade agreement
with Oman will do just that, which is critical to our current situation
in the Middle East.
The nation of Oman has been a friend of the U.S. for over 170 years.
They have been a valuable ally during the Cold War, as well as aiding
us in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. They continue
to be an important ally in the global war on terror, having taken a
very strong stand against Islamic extremism that begets terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the agreement.
Mr. Speaker, for over 200 years America has benefited from free trade
and competition. I urge my colleagues to once again reject raw
protectionism and partisanship and instead stand for freedom and
security and support the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, with what little time I have
left, to recapitulate what has been said in this debate. In the first
place, there is no dis agreement that Oman is located in a highly
strategic area, right at the Strait of Hormuz. More than 20 percent of
all the world's oil supply goes through there. It is right across the
strait from Iran. Very critical position.
It has also been completely agreed that Oman has been a principal
ally to the United States. Everything we have asked them to do since
1833, 173 years, Oman has stood up there in a very difficult part of
the world and said to the world ``We are America's ally.''
When we asked Oman for a military agreement so we could stage troops
and provide logistical support in the Persian Gulf War, and now in the
Iraq war, they said, ``Yes, you can do that and we will protect them.''
And they have all been protected. Our troops have never had a problem
in using Oman. Oman has come under pressure, but they have protected
American troops in every possible way. No disagreement.
We all agree that almost two-thirds of Oman's population is under the
age of 18, so we know that Oman is entering a period of unstability
unless there is economic opportunity.
We also know that while there isn't a whole lot of trade, what Oman
is buying from us generates jobs in the United States. We get oil from
Oman in return.
So what is at dispute is whether this is a national security threat
and whether this is an issue with regard to labor rights. Well, in the
first place, with regard to national security, there is no question,
according to the Congressional Research Service, that if there is a
national security issue that the United States raises, that that trumps
everything else. And these panels that my friends and colleagues have
been referring to, these are panels of American and Omani negotiators,
and if an American negotiator says, we think this is a security
interest, it is dead. The language that is in contention is reciprocal
language we wanted because we have U.S. companies who would like
possibly to buy port facilities there. That was our doing. But it can
be preempted by national security concerns.
So, on national security, the Congressional Research Service tells us
that there is not a security threat. CFIUS will determine if foreign
investment in U.S. parts is a security threat and can block the
purchase if it comes to that. But there is not going to be any
international panel second-guessing this determination, let alone
overruling it.
Now, in terms of labor, we passed a Bahrain trade agreement a short
while ago, almost by voice vote. No discussion. The labor guarantees in
that agreement were not nearly as strong as the ones in this agreement.
This is the strongest labor agreement we have seen.
Now, it may not be completely to my liking, but, you know, every one
of the issues that the Ways and Means Democrats raised have been
addressed by the Sultan of Oman, and not like Bahrain, where they said,
well, we will put these to Parliament for consideration and pass them.
Oman accepted every one of these recommendations, and you can check
again with the Omani Ambassador, who happens to be a woman, the only
female ambassador from an Arab country. And of course they were the
first Arab nation to send an ambassador to the United States,
incidentally.
But every Ways and Means Democrat's recommendation the Sultan put in
the decree. This is law now. They can continue to collective bargain.
They're are going to protect workers' rights. There will be no
repercussions. They are going to eliminate any forced labor, if you can
find it. And, in fact, they have invited the International Labor
Organization personnel, ILO professionals to Oman, and they are working
with them on the ground as we speak. And by October 31, they are going
to put all these protections into law, anything that hasn't been fully
implemented by the decree by the Sultan.
I don't know what more they can do. They have done everything we have
asked.
This is a good trade agreement and, it is in the interest of the
United States to pass it. I hope this body will.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield the balance of our time to
our distinguished leader, let me just make it clear that the Sultan has
not, by decree, answered the issues that were raised in letters that
were sent by our staff. In fact, they dealt with primarily one issue,
and six or seven are yet to be dealt with; and that is why they are
setting an October date for changing their law.
[[Page H5523]]
And let me also make it clear that unlike Bahrain, the Omanis have
not, on the ground, changed their labor practices to meet ILO
standards. So they fall far short of Bahrain.
And lastly, on the security issue, I have heard our colleagues put a
lot of confidence in our ability to unilaterally use the essential
security provision to prevent action on our ports. And I just wonder
what attitude we would have if one of our insurance companies, for
example, wanted to do business in Oman, and Oman said, oh, no, not
because of essential security we will let you in our country. And then
we say we don't have the right to challenge that? We clearly have the
right to challenge that, as Oman would have the right to challenge our
decision to invoke this exception if a company wanted to take over a
port operation in the United States.
And we are going to be subject to the second-guessing of independent
tribunals. And our record has been terrible in the decisions of the
tribunal as to how many we have lost against statements made in this
body that said that what we would do would stand international muster,
and it did not.
So why are we putting this threat out there? Why are we making
ourselves vulnerable? Why didn't we take it out of the agreement? Why
do we want to subject America to that risk?
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield the balance of our time to our
distinguished leader who has put forward an agenda for America that
truly will make this Nation a safer Nation, Ms. Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for
yielding and for his just relentless championing of the rights of
American workers. Who are we here for, after all?
Mr. Cardin has been a supporter of free trade agreements for a long
time, and that doesn't mean that you can't do that and also be here to
be the voice of American workers. If any of them tune in and listen to
this debate on the floor, they know clearly who speaks for them. Thank
you, Mr. Cardin, for championing this issue.
Thank you, Mr. Rangel, for your incredible leadership, time and time
again to say, yes, we are open, we understand the benefits of free and
fair trade. We want them, though, to emphasize the fairness of it to
American workers.
{time} 1400
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Oman Free Trade Agreement,
and it is with the greatest respect for the gentleman from Virginia
that I respectfully disagree with his comments. And as Mr. Cardin has
said, the Sultan, with all due respect to the Sultan, his decree has
not done what we need to have done in this trade agreement.
Democrats realize that our economic future rests upon our ability to
open new markets for U.S. goods and services so that we can continue to
capitalize upon the innovative spirit that has long distinguished
America. New markets translate into new, high-paying jobs and
opportunities for American workers, businesses, and farmers.
In the past, trade policy has been a bipartisan endeavor, a common
effort to expand opportunity for America's businesses, again workers
and farmers. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has veered in the
opposite direction, and so has the Republican leadership in this
Congress, and a bipartisan agenda has now become a lofty goal rather
than an indisputable reality, which it should be. The Bush
administration has failed to enforce fundamental worker rights and
failed to open large markets for U.S. goods. Once again America's
middle class is paying the price for misplaced Republican priorities.
In addition to that failure, in terms of the global economy, this
administration and the Republicans in Congress support incentives to
businesses to take jobs offshore. How is that a good idea for America's
workers? We are going to engage in these trade agreements that do not
have core labor principles in them that lift the standards of the
workers in the country; for example, Oman; or, of course, lift the
living standard of American workers here, which is our primary
responsibility.
And at the same time, these same people who brought you these free
trade agreements which do not enforce core labor principles and are
unfair to American workers, these same people advocate incentives for
companies to take jobs offshore. That is why on the first day of
Congress, Mr. Rangel will come to the floor, God willing, if the
Democrats take power, he will come to the floor on the first day and
repeal those incentives to companies to take jobs offshore. One small
step for American workers.
Democrats have a long history of supporting free and fair trade.
Enforceable labor rights that follow basic core principles are a
crucial part of ensuring that American companies and workers will not
be disadvantaged by unfair competition from countries that do not
adhere to the core standards.
Core ILO, International Labor Organization, standards ensure that our
trading partners abide by the most fundamental standards of common
decency and fairness. Not only are core labor rights a matter of
decency and fairness, but they are also in our national economic
interest. Basic enforceable, with the emphasis on enforceable, labor
protections are critical to building a strong middle class in Oman,
raising the disposable incomes so that they can buy American products.
Our trade deficit is likely to exceed last year's recordbreaking
deficit of $717 billion. Every day we have $2 billion more in goods
coming into the country than going out. This is unbelievable. Over $2
billion more a day in goods and services coming in than going out. I do
not know what is free and fair about that. I do know America's middle
class is paying the price.
The Republican trade agenda has failed to break new ground by opening
large markets for U.S. goods. Instead, they have these little tiny
agreements that establish a precedent and erode core labor principles,
and they have not opened the large markets that are crucial to creating
new jobs for American workers.
Despite a record trade deficit, the Bush administration has focused
on negotiating trade agreements with countries where the opportunities
for U.S. companies are limited.
The Oman Free Trade Agreement will have negligible impact on our
balance of trade, and that is why it can wait. It is just not a big
deal. It can wait until these core principles are in the treaty and not
just by decree, which they are not, but if they were, could be changed
tomorrow. This year U.S. trade with Oman will be about $1 billion, just
.04 percent of the total U.S. trade.
Democrats recognize the importance of engaging Oman, but we must do
much more in terms of fairness. Democrats are committed to addressing
the challenges of increasingly competitive global markets. Our success
depends on our ability to innovate new products and to create new
markets, new markets, overseas for those goods and services. That is
why Democrats have put forth our innovation agenda, our commitment to
competitiveness to keep America number one. We will secure America's
continued leadership and innovation and unleash the next generation of
discovery, invention, and growth. And in that way, we will be
preeminent in the world's markets; but not, but not, if our hands are
tied by the precedent established by these little agreements.
Again, in addition to our innovation agenda and fairness to American
workers, businesses and farmers, on that very first day, in addition to
raising the minimum wage, Mr. Rangel will call for the repeal of
incentives of jobs to go overseas.
Just think of it. If you are a middle-income person in middle
America, our technological base, our manufacturing base, our industrial
base in those parts of the country are eroding. Jobs and services are
going overseas with the help of tax incentives of this Republican
administration and this Republican Congress, and then we engage in free
trade agreements that do not even pay the respect due to American
workers to have core labor principles, a minimal standard, the ILO
standard. A minimal standard. This is not anything big.
And by the way, we are not asking for anything different for labor,
for America's workers. This is not special treatment. What Democrats
are asking for is the same thing that the Bush administration is giving
to other industries: the right to enforce the provisions. Businesses
have that right in the
[[Page H5524]]
deal, but workers do not. It is just not fair. It is just not fair.
So we want to take our country in a new direction, passing free trade
agreements that do expand our markets, spur economic growth, raise the
living standard of the United States and abroad, and have enforceable
provisions that are fair to American workers.
Unfortunately, this trade agreement fails on all of these counts, and
that is why I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I cannot stress enough the importance of the legislation that is now
before this body. Yes, this agreement is a good economic agreement for
those doing business in Oman. In fact, it is one of the best free trade
agreements that this body has considered, granting the United States
some of its broadest market access ever, and establishing a strong
standard as we push to open the large, emerging Middle East market
through a Middle East Free Trade Area. I am particularly pleased that
my home State of Florida will receive duty-free treatment on much of
its citrus products.
However, while the economics of United States-Oman Free Trade
Agreement are compelling, I believe that there are more important
issues for the Members to consider as they cast their votes today.
Specifically, what that vote will tell the people of Oman and, perhaps
most importantly, the people throughout the violent Middle East as the
conflict today threatens to spark a new war.
Mr. Moran spoke quite eloquently of the dangerous neighborhood that
Oman is in, right across the straits from Iran. I was just handed a CNN
report that just came out within the last hour in which Assistant
Secretary of State Chris Hill said that the Iranians were believed to
be present at North Korea's July 4 missile test. I wonder why.
As Chairman Thomas indicated, Oman has long been a strong ally of the
United States. Yet beyond that, Oman has also been a leader in its
relationships with Israel. Oman has no law that establishes or enforces
primary, secondary, or tertiary boycotts of Israel. In the context of
congressional consideration of this free trade agreement, Oman has
reiterated its commitment to not enforce any aspect of a boycott on
Israel in letters of September 28, 2005 and June 15, 2006. Last month,
Oman issued an official government document to its relevant agencies,
again reiterating the policy and commitment. If any Member still has
any doubt, they should know that in the recognition of the importance
of this issue by both the United States Trade Representative and the
Government of Oman, language was included within the Statement of
Administrative Action that the United States Trade Representative will
monitor and report to us on this issue. On June 28, 2006, the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as AIPAC to the Members of
Congress, wrote to me in support of the language, and I am pleased with
its inclusion and Oman's position on the boycott.
After these repeated assurances and Oman's longstanding record,
Member representations that Oman is not fully committed on this issue
ignore the facts and are fundamentally disrespectful of one of the
greatest allies for peace and against terror in the world. That some
Members have maintained these claims and even sent Dear Colleague
letters on this issue, after receiving the letter from AIPAC, receiving
direct assurances from Oman officials, and seeing the text of the
official Omani documents stopping any boycott, is disgraceful, and I
believe that Oman deserves an apology.
While Oman's action in this area alone sends a powerful message to
this part of the world, Oman actually has a history of going beyond, to
actual engagement. After the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace
treaty in 1979, Oman was one of the few Arab countries that did not
break off relations with Israel. It was also one of the first countries
in the region to host an Israeli Prime Minister, when Prime Minister
Rabin visited Oman in 1994.
In its letter to me and to the ranking member of the Trade
Subcommittee, AIPAC stated, ``The breakdown of these kinds of economic
barriers can, hopefully, help lead to the development of important
political relationships between Israel and the Arab world.''
I could not agree more. As we watch hostilities in the Middle East
and they continue to worsen, it is through economic relationships such
as these that we can have the best chance to win the hearts and minds
of the future leaders in the Middle East. As young workers in the
region begin to see the benefits of participating in the worldwide
economy, they are more likely to pick up tools to better their lives,
rather than tools of destruction.
Will passage of this agreement cause an immediate end to hostilities
in Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, or Afghanistan? No. But none other than
the 9/11 Commission has specifically highlighted the importance of
Middle East free trade agreements in fighting terror. The free trade
agreement will continue to undermine the arguments that terrorists use
in recruiting. With increased economic opportunities will come an
increased incentive to remain a peaceful, active participant in
society.
Oman has been a leader in this region in its friendship with the
United States, its friendship with Israel, its commitment to political
and labor reforms, and its desire to work economically with the United
States. It is now up to the Members of the House of Representatives
whether to reward the leadership or reject it based on politics and
arguments that have no basis in fact.
Let me run through a few of the arguments that have been made here
today. We have talked about American workers.
{time} 1415
The United States International Trade Commission estimates that the
U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement would have almost no effect on U.S.
imports from Oman, while resulting in a 5 to 14 percent increase in
U.S. exports to Oman. Are you for the American worker? Then you are for
increased American exports.
We have heard people trashing the labor standards. I heard one of the
speakers complain that the management was one of the union
representatives. Well, we keep talking about labor relations in this
body. One of those provisions provides that management shall be part of
the unions, and the managers that were participating in those
negotiations were elected by the workers. Are you as Members of
Congress going to tell them they can't have their own elected
representatives? I don't think so. And whether it be management or the
guy on the assembly line, that is what they want and that is what they
should have.
We have also heard a lot about port security. The United Arab
Emirates does not have a free trade agreement with us, so the problems
that we opposed with regard to that did not come out of any particular
agreement. As a matter of fact, with Oman, as it is now, without a free
trade agreement, it is exactly the same as United Arab Emirates.
But let me read something from the agreement. You don't have to take
my word for it. This is what the agreement says. 21.2 says: ``Nothing
in this agreement shall be construed to preclude a party from applying
measures that it considers necessary for the fulfillment of its
obligations with respect to the maintenance or restoration of
international peace or security or the protection of its own essential
security interests.''
The Congressional Research Service said: ``Should the United States,
whether through CFIUS or congressional action prevent Oman companies
from establishing `landside aspects of port activities,' it would
appear that such a measure could be justified pursuant to the essential
security exception. While it is theoretically possible for Oman to
bring a legal challenge to the actions of the United States before a
third-party tribunal, the United States would appear to be on solid
legal grounds for asserting not only that the panel does not have the
legal authority to determine the validity of such a matter, but also
that the inconsistent measure is permitted and justifiable given the
broad self-judging,'' self judging, ``language of the national security
exception.''
So that national security interest has absolutely no legal standing
at all. I know of no legal authority, and I am sure if there was one,
that would have been brought out in this debate.
[[Page H5525]]
Yesterday, we had a very fine debate, and this debate was about our
friendship with Israel. It was about the dangers that Israel is facing.
It was about our support of Israel. Now we have another vote today, and
that vote is about one of the best friends that Israel has in the
region. And for us to vote them down would not only be an insult to
them, but I believe would be an insult to Israel.
I would urge all Members of this body to think for yourself, is this
a good agreement? Don't follow your party line. Vote for yourself, what
you think. You are sent here to represent your constituency. Represent
them and cast a vote today that is going to mean something. We aren't
puppets around here. Each one of us represents a particular
congressional district and we should vote that district. Vote for the
people that sent us here.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to the
Oman FTA. This is deja vu: last summer we were working against CAFTA .
. . now we have the Oman FTA.
What we have here is identical language to the problematic and
inadequate language that was contained in CAFTA and NAFTA before that.
Most shocking, the administration has slipped language into the Oman
FTA that will threaten U.S. port security. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I
represent the Port of Boston. To me, this FTA really hits home and is
particularly disturbing.
The simple fact is that under this agreement, if an Omani company
sought to acquire landside services at U.S. ports and the U.S.
government took action to stop or limit that acquisition, the Omani
company could sue the U.S. government for violating its FTA rights. The
challenge would then be decided by a U.N. or World Bank tribunal.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service released a report a
couple days ago that confirms that the Oman FTA would make it harder to
protect U.S. ports. The CRS report makes clear that the Oman FTA would
create a new right under an international trade agreement, which would
require the United States to allow any Omani company to provide
``landside aspects of port activities.''
The CRS report further confirms that Dubai Ports World, DPW, could
use the U.S.-Oman FTA to obtain this new right guaranteed by an
international trade agreement to buy U.S. port operations. All DPW
would have to do is create a subsidiary in Oman. DPW already has
commercial operations in at least 10 countries. It would not be hard
for DPW to meet the Oman FTA's standard--any business established in
Oman is eligible to take advantage of the benefits of the agreement.
Only businesses with ``no substantial business activities''--a very low
threshold--are excluded.
Mr. Speaker, not only does this FTA pose homeland security concerns,
but instead of enforceable labor provisions with teeth, this free trade
agreement suggests only that Oman adopt and enforce its own labor laws.
It offers no assurance that existing labor problems will be resolved,
and allows labor laws to be weakened or eliminated in the future, with
no possibility of recourse.
In Oman, their 2003 labor laws remain in serious violation of the
International Labor Organization's most important and fundamental
rights: freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain
collectively. There are no independent unions in that country. In fact,
Oman not only fails on labor rights, but on all human rights!
The Bush Administration State Department's 2006 ``Trafficking in
Human Persons'' report downgraded Oman to a ``Tier 2 Watch List''
country, just one step above the countries with the worst human
trafficking records. In 2005, Oman was only on ``Tier 2'' of the State
Department's human trafficking list, meaning that Oman's trafficking
practices and regulations worsened from 2005 to 2006.
We talk a lot about the war in Iraq, and the President of the United
States has described it in many cases as an effort to export democracy.
Well, I have got news for you; you do not export democracy through the
Defense Department.
This is where you export democracy, in our trade agreements, through
our Commerce Department. Democracy is all about opportunity, and we
should, in our trade agreements, give these foreign workers an
opportunity to stay in their own country, to buy goods from us that
would create a good dynamic by creating jobs in this country. Democracy
is about opportunity, and if we are really serious about exporting
democracy, it starts right here. It starts with our free trade
agreements.
Join me in voting ``no'' on the Oman Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. This agreement
contains the same flawed ``enforce your own labor laws'' provision that
we have seen in recent trade agreements. These labor standards simply
do not work when we are dealing with countries that lack strong labor
laws and practices.
Mr. Speaker, before we move forward on this issue, I feel a moral
obligation to pose the following questions to my colleagues and to the
American people:
When negotiating trade agreements, why does this Administration
always seem to lose its tenacity and its resolve when it comes to
protecting the labor rights of some of the world's most vulnerable
workers?
What message does America send to the international community, when
we will fight to protect pharmaceuticals patents and other intellectual
property within our trade agreements, but we will not do the same for
human beings?
Mr. Speaker, before the Members of the People's House cast their
votes on this agreement today, I ask that they take a long, hard look
at our priorities and our values when it comes to trade policy. I am
convinced that this Administration can do a much better job of
negotiating trade agreements that will advance the interests of U.S.
business and agriculture, while protecting the rights of workers.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this flawed trade agreement.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 5684,
the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Once again, the
Administration has not met its promise to work with both sides of the
aisle to craft a fair trade agreement. While I favor expanding trade
and eliminating restrictive tariffs and barriers, the U.S.-Oman
agreement does not create a fair playing field for United States
companies and workers to compete.
Oman is an important ally in the Middle East, and I respect their
friendship. However, their labor laws are insufficient to create a
level playing field for American companies. At this point, Oman
apparently only meets three of the International Labor Organization's
five core labor standards. There are no labor unions in Oman, and
Oman's workers do not have the right to collectively bargain. Oman's
lack of core labor standards alone should be reason enough to oppose
the agreement.
Unfortunately, this agreement could also cede our ability to select
companies to operate our own ports. As the President learned during the
Dubai Ports World controversy just a few months ago, the American
people want control over our critical transportation infrastructure,
but language in this free trade agreement specifically permits foreign
companies to operate our ports as long as the company operates a port
in Oman.
In 2005, Rhode Island companies exported approximately $158,000 to
Oman, or about .01 percent of the State's worldwide exports. We must go
back to the drawing board to ensure American companies, American jobs,
and American security are not left behind for such a small price. I
urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 5684 and encouraging the
Administration to renegotiate a more equitable agreement.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, after the tragedies of September 2001, the
United States Congress created the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States, commonly called the 9-11 Commission.
This independent, bipartisan body was charged with preparing a complete
account of the circumstances surrounding the attacks and with
recommending policy changes designed to prevent future attacks. I have
a great deal of respect for the individuals who served on this
commission and for their final work product.
America is in the midst of fighting a long, complex war against
terrorism that must be fought with unconventional tools. The 9-11
Commission recognizes the unique nature of our conflict and has
recommended that the United States engage Middle Eastern nations
economically in order to foster development and reforms in that
troubled part of the world. Economic openness requires bilateral
compromise and gives America an opportunity to positively influence the
region. And, importantly, economic reforms and political liberties tend
to be linked.
In the Middle East, the Congress has approved trade pacts with
Israel, Jordan, Morocco, and Bahrain. I have supported them because I
feel they are critical to enhancing our economic ties to the region.
Today, we are considering an agreement with Oman, and after careful
consideration, I have decided to support this legislation as well.
Oman is a small, oil-exporting nation located on the Arabian
peninsula at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. It is strategically
important to the United States and has played a meaningful role in our
efforts to defeat terrorism. As Oman's oil reserves diminish, its
government has been working to liberalize and diversify its trade
beyond oil and gas.
America's economic partnership with Oman carries with it great
promise. Boosting our economic partnership with that country will
enhance our national security standing in a strategically critical area
and will open doors to agricultural trade. The agreement will lower
[[Page H5526]]
tariffs on U.S. agricultural commodities and products, thereby putting
our Nation in a better position to increase exports and compete with
other nations for market share. After full implementation, U.S.
agricultural exports could reach $225 million or more.
No trade deal is ever perfect. Clearly, some improvements could be
made in the bill, especially with regard to labor protection and human
rights. But, as I studied the Oman Free Trade Agreement and heard from
national security, agriculture, labor, and business leaders, I became
convinced that this trade agreement is critical to U.S. national
security and to Missouri's rural economy.
In the days leading up to today's debate on the Oman Free Trade
Agreement, there has been much talk about port security. Despite the
rhetoric surrounding this issue, a nonpartisan legal analysis from the
Congressional Research Service has shown that Congress retains its
ability to determine the national security interests of our country and
to prevent port operations if need be. The CRS analysis is set forth
below, as is a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury on this issue:
Congressional Research Service,
Washington, DC, July 18, 2006.
memorandum
Subject: Legal Issues Related to the Proposed Oman Free Trade
Agreement and Port Security.
From: Todd B. Tatelman, Legislative Attorney, American Law
Division.
This memorandum is in response to requests for a legal
analysis of three arguments that have been advanced in
opposition to the proposed Oman Free Trade Agreement (FTA).
Each of the arguments relate to issues surrounding port
security and, specifically, the ability of Omani companies or
companies incorporated in Oman to perform ``landside aspects
of port activities'' in the United States. This memorandum
provides a legal analysis of three questions: First, whether
the proposed Oman FTA allows Omani companies or companies
incorporated in Oman to perform ``landside aspects of port
activities'' at U.S. ports, especially in light of the
dispute over Dubai Ports World's attempt at establishing
similar business operations at various ports in the United
States. Second, whether the proposed Oman FTA provides some
type of advance clearance to Omani companies that wish to
begin landside port operations in the United States. Finally,
this memorandum provides a legal analysis with respect to the
possibility of a third-country company (e.g., Dubai Ports
World or similarly-situated foreign entity), establishing a
minimal presence within Oman for the sole purpose of taking
advantage of the benefits provided by the provisions of the
proposed FTA.
One argument that has been raised against the proposed Oman
FTA appears to stem specifically from language contained in
Annex II of the Agreement. The argument generally asserts
that the proposed Oman FTA provides a new right to both
Omani-owned companies and companies based in Oman that will
allow them to perform ``landside aspects of port operations''
at U.S. ports. Upon close inspection of the language in
Annex II, however, it appears that this claim is
misleading because it appears that Omani companies are
already presently able to perform these services.
Currently, there are no U.S. laws that prevent either an
Omani-owned company (state controlled) or any other
foreign-owned company (regardless of whether the company
is state-owned or privately owned) from contracting with
port owners to perform ``landside aspects of port
activities'' in the United States. In other words, if an
Omani company (either state or privately owned) wants to
engage in contract negotiations with port owners to
provide for the types of services envisioned in Annex II,
there is no U.S. law that would expressly prevent them
from receiving said contracts.
Annex II of the proposed Oman FTA allows the parties to
list ``the specific sectors, subsectors, or activities for
which that Party may maintain existing, or adopt new or more
restrictive, measures'' that are not in conformity with the
various obligations imposed by the Agreement, such as
National Treatment (Articles 10.3 or 11.2), Most-Favored
Nation (Articles 10.4 or 11.3), and Market Access (Article
11.4). With respect to the Transportation Sector, the U.S.
Schedule to Annex II lists 12 types of measures that the
United States has specifically reserved the right to either
maintain or adopt new more restrictive measures. These 12
types of measures generally reflect the current restrictions
placed on foreign investment and/or ownership of maritime
assets by U.S. domestic law. Phrased another way, the United
States has reserved the right to maintain our existing legal
restrictions with respect to those aspects of maritime
transportation in which we already have limitations, as well
as adopt new measures in these categories that may be more
restrictive.
Additionally, the U.S. Schedule indicates that we do not
include in our reservations either ``vessel construction and
repair'' or the ``landside aspects of port activities.'' The
noninclusion of these measures in our schedule merely
indicates that the U.S. government is not reserving the right
to impose a future restrictive measure with respect to
``landside aspects of port activities.'' It does not appear
possible to interpret this language as granting any type of
new business opportunity to Oman or Omani based companies.
Moreover, with respect to ``landside aspects of port
activities'' the language in Annex II specifically states
that the promised treatment ``is conditional upon obtaining
comparable market access in these sectors from Oman.'' As a
result of this language, it appears that the proposed Oman
FTA does not grant any new opportunities for business
investment to Oman that do not already exist, nor does it
allow Oman to establish ``landside aspects of port
activities'' unless it is determined that comparable market
access is provided to U.S. companies in Oman. Indeed, it may
be possible to argue that the language in Annex II in fact
potentially limits the opening of U.S. markets with respect
to ``landside aspects of port activities'' because it imposes
a comparable access requirement that does not currently exist
under domestic law.
Another argument raised in opposition to the proposed Oman
FTA is that it provides a type of ``pre-clearance'' to
businesses in Oman with respect to ``landside aspects of port
activities.'' It is unclear at this time precisely what the
term ``pre-clearance'' means in this context. For the
purposes of the memorandum, however, we will assume that
this language refers to the national security review
conducted by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States (CFIUS). CFIUS, as you may know, was the executive
branch entity responsible for reviewing national security
and other implications of the Dubai Ports World
transaction. U.S. law permits the President, at his
discretion, to investigate the national security
implications of ``mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers . .
. by or with foreign persons which could result in foreign
control of persons engaged in interstate commerce in the
United States.'' In addition, domestic law requires the
President to conduct an investigation ``in any instance in
which an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a
foreign government seeks to engage in any merger,
acquisition, or takeover which could result in control of
a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United
States that could affect the national security of the
United States.'' The President, by Executive Order, has
delegated the responsibility for these investigations to
CFIUS.
Based on our review of the proposed Oman FTA, there appears
to be no provision that would amend, alter, or adjust this
statutory process or its requirements in any way. As a result
of the proposed Oman FTA, should a privately owned company in
Oman seek to engage in the ``landside aspects of port
activities,'' a CFIUS review could still be performed at the
discretion of CFIUS, pursuant to the statute. Similarly,
should a company owned or controlled by the Omani government
wish to engage in any ``landside aspects of port activities''
at a U.S. port, they would still, pursuant to U.S. law, be
required to proceed through the CFIUS process and receive
approval from the committee prior to beginning operations.
The proposed Oman FTA appears to contain no language that
would exempt Oman or Omani government controlled companies
from these domestic legal requirements.
Finally, it has been argued that the proposed Oman FTA
would allow so-called ``shell corporations'' to be
established in Oman for the purpose of benefitting from the
FTA's provisions. For example, assume that Dubai Ports World
(DPW), a company controlled by the government of Dubai, were
to establish a store front in Oman for the sole purpose of
taking advantage of the FTA's investment, market access, and
national treatment provisions. Presumably, part of the
incentive for doing this would be so that DPW could avail
themselves of the investor-state dispute mechanism should
their attempts to do business in the United States be denied.
The argument against the proposed Oman FTA assumes that the
United States would either have to grant DPW access to the
U.S. market or face considerable costs in defending our
denial of market access. Should the government deny market
access, the ensuing litigation could result in an adverse
decision costing taxpayers a substantial amount of money in
compensatory payments to Dubai.
A careful review of the text of the proposed Oman FTA,
however, indicates that this scenario is unlikely to develop.
Specifically, Article 10.11(2) addresses this concern by
stating that a ``Party may deny the benefits of [the
Investment Chapter] to an investor of the other Party that is
an enterprise of such other Party and to investments of that
investor if the enterprise has no substantial business
activities in the territory of the other Party and persons of
a non-Party, or of the denying Party, own or control the
enterprise.'' Thus, the proposed FTA, by its own provisions,
clearly permits the United States to deny benefits under the
Investment Chapter to any company or individual unless there
are ``substantial business activities'' established in Oman.
Therefore, it appears that the establishment of a mere
``shell corporation'' would likely not be considered the
establishment of ``substantial business activity'' and, as a
result, the United States would be entitled to deny benefits.
This legal position is consistent with administration
positions regarding substantially similar language contained
in other FTAs. For example, in the Statement of
Administrative Action that accompanied the North American
Free Trade Agreement, the executive branch stated that
``shell companies could be denied benefits but not, for
example, firms that maintain their central administration or
principle place of business in the territory of, or have a
real and continuous link with, the country where they are
[[Page H5527]]
established.'' This language appears to establish a very high
threshold for ``substantial business activities'' by
requiring both central administration and principal place of
business in the country before benefit can be claimed. Given
this interpretive language, it does not appear that DPW, or
any other foreign corporation, would be able to satisfy such
requirements through a ``shell corporation.'' In addition,
for Oman to obtain any of the benefits listed in Annex II
with respect to ``landside aspects of port activities'' they
will, as previously discussed, have to provide ``reciprocal
market access'' or else the United States has an additional
legal basis to deny market access to Omani companies.
____
Department of the Treasury,
Secretary of the Treasury,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2006.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I understand that concerns have recently
arisen over the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement, FTA, and its
possible link to the security of U.S. ports--particularly
regarding the dispute settlement provisions.
First, this agreement is strongly supportive of our
national security in general and the war on terror
specifically. It marks another important step in our efforts
to deepen and strengthen commercial ties with countries in
the Middle East that are trying to modernize and give their
people long-term economic opportunities and political rights.
The United States should be a catalyst for economic growth
and stability in the region and an active supporter and
partner of countries, such as Oman, that are seeking to
integrate into the global trading community. Oman has been a
solid ally in our efforts in the Middle East and in the war
on terror, and we need to demonstrate to all countries that
our allies in this effort have a reliable friend in the
United States as they seek a better economic future.
Second, Article 21.2 of the U.S.-Oman FTA provides for a
national security exception that allows the United States to
take measures that we determine are necessary for the
protection of our essential security interests.
Foreign acquisitions of companies in the United States that
operate port terminals are subject to section 721 of the
Defense Production Act, the Exon-Florio amendment, which
authorizes the President to block and/or force divestment of
any proposed or ongoing foreign investment in the United
States that threatens to impair U.S. national security. The
Exon-Florio Amendment falls within the national security
exception, noted above, as a provision that the United States
``considers necessary for . . . the protection of its own
essential security interests.''
Port security in our country is not managed by port
terminal operators. A combination of municipal and State port
authorities, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the
U.S. Coast Guard are responsible for our Nation's port
security.
As the Secretary of the Treasury, it is my responsibility
to ensure the Exon-Florio amendment is executed. Protection
of the national security is my highest responsibility. To be
clear, the FTA negotiated with Oman neither subjects national
security interests to a third-party tribunal's assessment--as
some have alleged--nor does it alter, amend, or adjust the
President's Exon-Florio statutory powers to protect the
nation's security in any way.
The FTA with Oman provides greater opportunities and opens
new markets for U.S. products, investors, and workers. I urge
you and your colleagues to pass the legislation to implement
this FTA as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Henry M. Paulson, Jr.,
Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
5684, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
While the agreement would provide some benefits both for the people of
the U.S. and Oman, I think the agreement contains more flaws than
benefits, and I believe it must be rejected.
The agreement, which is similar to free trade agreements (FTA)s with
Middle Eastern countries Morocco and Bahrain, would provide the U.S.
and Oman duty-free access for almost all consumer and industrial goods,
with special provisions for agriculture, textiles and apparel. Both
countries would phase out all tariffs on the remaining eligible goods
within 10 years.
I have supported a number of trade agreements to expand access to
foreign markets for exports as part of a long-term strategy to
strengthen the American economy. While expanding market access for
American industry, financial markets and farmers is critical, I believe
it needs to be done responsibly, accounting for the treatment and
protection of workers and the environment. This agreement makes efforts
to do so but in my opinion needs to go further.
Regarding the agreement's labor provisions, I am concerned that Oman
is not in compliance with International Labor Organization (ILO) core
labor standards. There are no labor unions in Oman today. The royal
decree issued by Sultan Qaboos--which prohibits forced labor and
endorses the use of collective bargaining and strikes--is a step in the
right direction, but more needs to be done. It's important that the
provisions in the recent decree be implemented before Congress
considers this agreement. Regardless of the outcome of today's vote, I
urge the Administration and the United States Trade Representative
(USTR) to monitor and take necessary steps to ensure the implementation
of this decree.
I think the Administration and the USTR would be well served by
including labor provisions, such as those contained in the U.S.-Jordan
Free Trade Agreement, in the body of future trade agreements and making
them subject to sanctions via dispute resolution procedures. The
dispute resolution procedures continue to fall short in FTAs negotiated
by the Bush Administration, and the Oman FTA is no exception. It is
important that the United States takes step to ensure our trading
partners provide workers with basic labor rights.
I am also concerned about reports that the U.S.-Oman FTA would create
a new right requiring the U.S. to allow any Omani company to buy U.S.
port operations. Given the uproar earlier this year over the news that
Dubai Ports World had been permitted to take over the operations of
several U.S. ports, it seemed only reasonable today to pass the Cardin
amendment, which would close the loophole in the current trade
agreement that allows a foreign company with operations in Oman to
operate U.S. Port facilities. But the Republican leadership would not
allow the amendment to be considered.
Expanding the liberalization of trade in goods and services between
the U.S. and Oman can help us build a stronger relationship with a
strategic country in the Middle East. I firmly believe the Bush
Administration squandered this opportunity by not paying sufficient
attention to national security concerns and by not ensuring basic labor
standards in the agreement, which is why I must oppose H.R. 5684 today.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the U.S.-Oman Free
Trade Agreement (FTA). We need a new trade policy that recognizes
today's realities of the global economy by promoting worker rights,
environmental protection and access to health care. This Oman deal
fails to meet that test.
Expanding trade opportunities can lead to job growth and economic
vitality in Maine and around the country. Trade policy should reflect
all our important societal values, not just commercial concerns, in
order to create a stronger and more competitive America, encourage
broader prosperity at home and abroad, and create a better, healthier
future for ourselves and our children.
Inevitably, trade agreements create winners and losers within the
U.S. economy. No trade deal can be considered independently of other
policies designed to help those who will be shortchanged.
Unfortunately, recent U.S. economic policies will make matters worse.
The President's budget, adopted by the majority in Congress, cuts
programs vital to helping Americans displaced by new trade agreements:
job training, vocational education, adult education, community
development, and small business aid. It is irresponsible and immoral to
inflict a double blow on our most economically vulnerable citizens.
If we do not reverse the disturbing disappearance of manufacturing
and information technology jobs, the American economy will suffer even
greater job losses and long-term damage.
The U.S.-Oman FTA falls short in the area of worker rights. Its only
enforceable labor obligation is a requirement that Oman enforce its own
labor laws, even though Oman's laws fail to comply with basic
international standards in 10 specific areas. We should mandate Oman
abide by core labor rules, to be fair to their own workers and keep
trade on a level playing field.
The Oman pact continues a dangerous trend of using trade policy to
extend anticompetitive protections for the highly profitable brand name
drug industry. Although generic drugs lower prices and therefore
improve public health, the intellectual property provisions inserted by
the Bush Administration would delay entry of generic prescription drugs
by imposing restrictive rules on the developing countries covered by
the agreements.
I fear these provisions could come back to hurt Americans, as
Congress' ability to legislate on health care could be restricted by
international trade obligations. In essence, the Administration is
giving powerful drug makers legal standing to challenge domestic U.S.
health care laws through trade dispute mechanisms.
We see the double standard. The Administration champions
international trade standards when they protect pharmaceutical industry
profits, but reject them when they protect workers' rights.
I voted against the fast track/Trade Promotion Authority bill, in
part because I believed that it ceded too much authority to the
Executive Branch. The experience with this
[[Page H5528]]
Oman deal validates my concern. In June, the Senate Finance Committee
approved an amendment to the pact stipulating that goods made in Oman
with forced labor may not benefit from the trade agreement. When the
White House later submitted the agreement to Congress, it left the
forced labor provision out. The Administration has ignored the will of
Congress. The blank check permitted by this fast track authority is a
clear case where bad process leads to bad policy.
I urge my colleagues to reject the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement,
and insist on a new, balanced trade policy guided by consensus, not
ideology.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
Oman FTA, though not without reservation. Increased economic, social,
and political ties with Oman are noble goals and ones for which we
should strive. However, the facts behind the crafting of the Oman FTA
suggest that this is a hurried trade agreement.
I can support an agreement that serves to support the interests of
all parties at stake. I have based my previous votes on free trade
agreements by this standard, and by this standard, I have decided to
vote against the Oman FTA. While I do not doubt that some sectors of
the U.S. economy will benefit from passage of this bill, I am fearful
of the repercussions that will face many of our manufacturing
industries.
I recognize that Oman is a key alley in the War on Terrorism and a
leader in improving the relationship between the Arab world and Israel,
but trade agreements should not be judged by beneficial strategic
alliances alone. The United States has other allies in the Middle East
on the War on Terrorism and should make agreements with those allies in
which jobs held by the American people are not sacrificed.
In addition, the Oman FTA may include a dangerous loophole that
jeopardizes our Nation's port security. In its present form, this
agreement allows a foreign company with operations in Oman to operate
U.S. port facilities. The Cardin amendment would provide that the U.S.-
Oman Free Trade Agreement cannot take effect until the U.S. withdraws
its commitment to allow companies with operations in Oman to operate
``landside aspects of U.S. port activities.''
Furthermore, the OFTA would expand the failed model of the Central
American Free Trade Agreement. This model has been devastating to the
U.S. industrial base, accelerating job loss and lowering living
standards in the United States while exacerbating poverty and social
disparities in the developing nations with which we trade.
Current Omani law does not come close to meeting core International
Labor Organization standards. Despite some improvements made to Oman's
legal framework, Oman's labor laws today do not provide for the
exercise of the most important and fundamental workers' rights: freedom
of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively.
In order to ensure progress, we must establish a system of improved
standards in education, labor, and environment, among others. In this
regard, the OFTA falls short of established standards. The OFTA has
neither sufficient nor enforceable labor provisions. This omission of
labor standards will result in the continuation of severe labor
conditions for both adults and children. This agreement could permit
businesses to profit by exploiting the impoverished. I cannot accept an
agreement that allows businesses to increase their profit margins at
the expense of the underprivileged.
It seems clear to me that under the current refrain of ``free trade
to fight poverty,'' sufficient resources are not being used to help the
poor. Businesses are often more interested in the bottom line than the
bottom of society. Foreign governments are often far too eager to
invite these companies into their nations. This is not the best manner
to help fight poverty in the Third World. In order to fight poverty, we
must insist on the utilization of resources to protect the poor, not to
exploit them. We must insist on better labor and environmental
standards in order to ensure that the poor also benefit from free trade
agreements.
Over 400 American organizations have announced strong opposition to
the Oman FTA. These organizations represent a large number of Americans
who oppose the OFTA. Of the 400 groups that oppose the OFTA, there are
at least six prominent organizations from the city that I have the
privilege of representing, Houston. These organizations include the:
Harris County Central Labor Council;
Houston Globalization Forum;
Houston Globalization Working Group;
Houston Peace and Justice Center;
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 716; and
The Sheet Metal Workers Local 54.
More than three million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the US
since 1998. Increasingly, offshore outsourcing is impacting even highly
educated and highly skilled workers. Protecting American jobs generally
and especially those jobs belonging to my constituents in the 18th
district of Texas is of the utmost priority to me. Thus, I can not
stand by and let Americans continue to lose their jobs.
Therefore, we must insist that our trade agreements contain more than
an expansion of business interests; they must also contain provisions
that expand social and political interests. We must ensure that trade
agreements benefit the wealthy and the poor, men and women, young and
old. This agreement fails to meet these standards, and I urge my
colleagues to oppose it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering yet another
fundamentally flawed free trade agreement--the U.S.-Oman FTA.
How many times will it take to learn that the current model just
isn't cutting it? Given the failures of NAFTA and CAFTA, you would
think that the U.S.-Oman FTA would be an improvement. Sadly, the same
misguided formula is being applied again.
Just look at the facts; you simply cannot camouflage a race to the
bottom. So please don't be fooled by the word games that proponents of
this deal will play.
FTAs should promote democracy and offer new opportunities for all
parties involved. They should not benefit a select few by making the
rich wealthier and bankrupting the poor.
We should be protecting labor standards, human rights, the
environment, access to medicines, and national sovereignty--not
sacrificing them under the guise of promoting business and economic
growth. When will we learn that these are not contradictory goals?
But again, these critical issues are shoved to the margins in empty
promises and side-letters. There is no excuse for why this trade deal
is not fair and balanced.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote against another ludicrous trade
deal.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives
has an opportunity to support the U.S. intellectual property industries
by approving the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.
The agreement is supported by both the International Intellectual
Property Association, which is comprised of seven copyright-based trade
associations representing over 1,900 different companies, and the
Information Technology Industry Council, representing 35 leading high-
tech industries, because it will raise the level of intellectual
property protection in Oman in a number of ways.
The agreement implements the WIPO Internet Treaties, which provide
standards for digital copyrighted material; it protects copyrighted
works for extended terms, including 95 years for sound recordings and
performances; and it ensures that copyright owners will have the
exclusive right to make their works available online.
The agreement will also strengthen the enforcement of intellectual
property rights in Oman by including agreed upon criminal standards for
copyright infringement with stronger remedies and penalties and by
criminalizing end user piracy. These provisions will provide a strong
deterrence against piracy and counterfeiting.
Finally, Oman has committed to zero tariffs on all software, movies,
music, consumer products, books and magazines exported into the country
and to zero tariffs on technology products used to access the Internet.
I urge my colleagues to support this important sector of the U.S.
economy and vote in favor of the Oman Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, the issue of trade has remained contentious
over the years.
I believe in the ideals of free trade but it must also be fair trade.
We have to take a close look at each agreement and weigh them on
their individual merits.
If the President wants to receive overwhelming support on these
agreements he has the power to do it. President Bush has the power to
make trade an issue that is strongly supported by all of my colleagues,
but he refuses to add what Democrats have been demanding on labor and
the environment.
When I look at an agreement various factors go into making my
decision process, are we opening new markets for our goods and
services, will labor standards be protected, what is our relationship
with our potential free trade partner.
As a member of the Middle East subcommittee on the International
Relations Committee, I view Oman not as just a trade bill but also as a
foreign policy tool.
Oman has been a strong friend and ally of the United States and is
providing critical assistance in the global war against terrorism and
this agreement will continue to strengthen our relationship.
The 9/11 Commission has recommended that the United States build
stronger relationship with moderate Muslim nations such as Oman to
build an economic and political partnership.
Besides the economic benefits the United States will enjoy from the
implementation of
[[Page H5529]]
this free trade agreement it also has spurred our friends in Oman to
move beyond their current labor laws. While I would like to see a more
progressive stance on labor, I believe these new reforms are genuine.
Oman has shown they are a stable nation in a sea of conflicts in the
Middle East and my hope is that this agreement will help move them
further down the path of moderation.
I think it is worth noting that during Israel's recent conflict with
Hezbollah and Hamas, Oman has been noticeably restrained in criticizing
the Jewish State for protecting her citizens.
Oman is a valued member of the Middle East community and this
agreement will make them even more so.
At the core of this trade initiative is the belief that through
economic opportunity and partnership, with the United States and
Israel, that the goal of peace in the region can be furthered.
I understand that perfection can be an unattainable goal but
sometimes you must weigh all the pros and cons and on Oman the pros
tipped the scale. I also want to address the point of the Dubai port
sale raised by the opponents and the ability of an Omani company or
another company to base themselves in Oman to try to purchase American
port facilities or other infrastructure.
While there are many theoreticals as to what could or could not
happen, any purchase of an American asset by an Omani company would be
subject to review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States, CFIUS. As the lead sponsor along with Representatives Roy
Blunt, Carolyn Maloney, and Deborah Pryce of a bipartisan CFIUS reform,
I understand the purchase of American assets by foreign companies or
governments well.
This agreement with Oman does not change one bit the CFIUS process
and doesn't make it any less secure.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my views
regarding the Oman Free Trade Agreement.
I have supported certain trade agreements in the past because I
believe they can be an important step toward opening markets for U.S.
businesses. I also believe that the economic interdependence that flows
from trade agreements can help create a more cooperative and peaceful
world by solidifying ties between nations. That is why I supported
agreements with Australia, Chile, Morocco, Bahrain and Singapore.
This outlook informs my approach to trade agreements and as I
carefully considered the provisions of the Oman Free Trade agreement, I
recognized its potential for opening Oman's market to U.S. agriculture,
manufacturing and the services industry. But a trade agreement is about
more than trade; it is also about the fair treatment of workers and
other considerations.
With respect to worker's rights, the Oman FTA is seriously flawed.
Like CAFTA, the Oman FTA only requires the Omani Government to enforce
its own labor laws. And when violations occur, the Omani Government is
only required to pay a financial penalty to itself. This provision is a
source of concern to me in light of reports by the international labor
community that Oman's labor laws fall far short of meeting the
International Labor Organization's core labor standards and do not
provide Omani workers with the fundamental protections needed to
prevent workplace exploitation.
Oman has a massive guest worker population, comprising over 75
percent of Oman's total work force. According to reports, in Oman,
guest workers are prevented from exercising their international labor
rights and have reportedly been jailed for complaining about the
working conditions and violation of labor rights.
My concerns about the Oman FTA were reinforced by news reports coming
out of Jordan about violations of Jordanian workers rights. Before
these incidents, the Jordan Free Trade Agreement was considered the
gold standard for labor provisions in trade agreements. Jordan's labor
laws are strong and it has long experience administrating them. That is
why, when I read the May 3, 2006, New York Times article describing the
abusive conditions in Jordan's apparel industry, I also grew concerned
about the lack of protections for workers in Oman.
Reports are emerging from Jordan of an environment where workers put
in 20-hour days with little or no pay and where physical abuse is
rampant. If workers rights are not enforced in Jordan, there is little
hope that workers in Oman--where independent unions are outlawed--will
have their rights protected.
Trade agreements must at least hold open the reasonable prospect that
workers will be treated fairly. This agreement fails that test.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5684, the Oman
Free Trade Agreement, because I think it is the right thing to do. I am
going to vote for this agreement because I believe that free trade can
be a way to promote our national security through international
cooperation and economic growth.
The country of Oman is an important ally of the United States in a
part of the world where we need more friends. It is also a country that
is growing, one that will provide economic opportunities and jobs to
our Nation through increased exports. Upon passage of this agreement,
Oman will provide immediate duty-free access to 87 percent of U.S.
agricultural exports and 100 percent duty-free trade in industrial and
consumer products.
Mr. Speaker, Oman is a friend to the United States and a leader in
the Middle East region. Oman has demonstrated this by passing tough new
labor laws, normalizing relations with Israel, and supporting the U.S.
efforts in Iraq. Passage of this agreement will demonstrate that we can
do more to enhance our Nation's national security through cooperation
and economic development.
Although this legislation is not perfect, approving the Oman Free
Trade Agreement is in America's national interest, and I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). All time for debate on the bill
has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 925, 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. CARDIN. 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, this 15-
minute vote on passage of H.R. 5684 will be followed by a 5-minute vote
on suspending the rules on H. Con. Res. 448.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 205, not voting 7, as follows
[Roll No. 392]
YEAS--221
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Osborne
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
[[Page H5530]]
NAYS--205
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--7
Bishop (UT)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Evans
McKinney
Northup
Nussle
{time} 1452
Mr. NORWOOD and Mr. POMEROY changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________