[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15195-15221]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 15196]]

     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 
     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

[[Page 15197]]

     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 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

[[Page 15198]]

     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 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

[[Page 15199]]

     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 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--

[[Page 15200]]

       (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 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.

[[Page 15201]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  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 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

[[Page 15202]]

consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  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 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.

[[Page 15203]]

  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 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. 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

[[Page 15204]]

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 
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,

[[Page 15205]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 15206]]


  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 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

[[Page 15207]]

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.
  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

[[Page 15208]]

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. 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 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.

[[Page 15209]]


  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 
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

[[Page 15210]]

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. 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.

[[Page 15211]]

  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 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.

[[Page 15212]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 15213]]

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 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

[[Page 15214]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 15215]]

  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 
tariffs on U.S. agricultural commodities and

[[Page 15216]]

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

[[Page 15217]]

     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 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.

[[Page 15218]]

  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 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

[[Page 15219]]

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 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. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, honest and fair trade will help the U.S. 
and other countries grow more prosperous and stable. Trade barriers, 
quotas, and restrictions hurt all but a select few by raising prices 
for consumers, limiting economic growth, and restricting the ability of 
developing countries to improve their economies. However, I do not 
support free trade at any cost. There must be strong protections to 
ensure that workers benefit from trade, that the environment is 
protected, and that we provide the necessary help to those who lose out 
from increased trade.
  Before the 2002 vote on ``fast-track'' trade promotion authority, I 
told President Bush in a meeting that he could gain broad bi-partisan 
support for a trade policy that expanded markets for U.S. products and 
helped developing countries grow themselves out of poverty if he made 
simple, small changes to the trade agreement model to take into account 
concerns over labor, the environment, and farmers in developing 
countries. However, the Oman Free Trade Agreement continues President 
Bush's tradition of pushing forward harsh and divisive agreements, 
designed to pass by the smallest of margins.
  For example, the Senate Finance Committee voted unanimously to 
recommend that the trade agreement exclude items made with forced 
labor, slave labor, or trafficked persons. Despite this, the President 
refused to make these simple changes that Congress demanded.
  Questions of how the United States engages in an increasingly global 
economy are too critical to our future to use as partisan and political 
wedges. We must develop a forward-thinking and honest trade policy that 
can be broadly supported by Americans of all political stripes and that 
reflects the concerns that I hear from Oregonians. Because the Oman 
Free Trade Agreement doesn't meet that test, I must oppose it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Oman Free Trade Agreement (OFTA).
  The Bush administration has again presented the Congress with a 
flawed trade agreement. I support vigorous international trade, but it 
should also be fair trade.
  The inadequate labor provisions in this agreement are almost 
identical to those contained in the flawed Dominican Republic-Central 
American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), which I opposed. After the 
contentious vote on DR-CAFTA, the United States Trade Representative 
said he would address

[[Page 15220]]

the concerns we raised in future agreements. Unfortunately nothing has 
changed.
  OFTA does little to improve the poor protection for workers in Oman. 
The labor provisions in this trade agreement are lackluster, and will 
be very hard to enforce. This trade agreement asks Oman only to meet 
the lowest possible dominator of labor law. We can and we must do 
better.
  Currently, Oman labor laws do not provide for the freedom to 
associate or the rights to organize and bargain collectively, the most 
fundamental of workers rights. There are no protections for workers who 
want to strike in Oman, and there are no independent unions. Oman has 
said it will change, but it does not have to. These promises should be 
included as requirements in this agreement, not in unenforceable side 
letters.
  As I have said before, international trade is not just inevitable, it 
is a good thing. It has enormous potential to raise standards across 
the globe, disseminate technology and encourage economic growth. But 
lowering the cost of goods and increasing their availability is not the 
single goal of trade. Trade should also lift the global standard of 
living. Trade agreements are not just about goods and commodities; they 
are also about what constitutes acceptable behavior in workers' rights, 
environmental matters, intellectual property, and so forth. We should 
make sure we export the goods we produce and not the workers who 
produce them. Like the DR-CAFTA and Bahrain Free Trade Agreements, the 
Oman Free Trade Agreement does not pass these tests. The agreement 
before us fails both parties: it will not help either America's or 
Oman's workers.
  Each new trade agreement entered into by the United States ought to 
be closely scrutinized, and ought to include the strongest enforceable 
worker rights and environmental safeguards attainable. We know how to 
craft such agreements, for example the U.S.-Jordan Agreement of 2000 
was a fair and good agreement. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration 
has abandoned that successful format and pushed ahead with a trade 
policy that only looks at the bottom line, rather than the workers who 
produced the goods or the environment they live in and rely upon for 
sustainable growth.
  We need to go back to the successful format that incorporates 
American values into our trade agreements. This would ensure that U.S. 
companies and employees are not forced to compete with countries that 
have no or weak labor laws, poor working conditions, and a willingness 
to debase the environment for the short term. The people of all 
countries lose in such a ``race to the bottom''.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot support OFTA or other flawed trade agreements.
  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)

                               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.

[[Page 15221]]



                          ____________________