Commending the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on the completion of the Space Shuttle's second Return-to-Flight mission.

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.

But, most importantly, is the larger context of this agreement. Oman sits on the Strait of Hormuz. More than 20 percent of the world's oil supply goes through that strait. Guess who sits on the other side of that strait? Iran. Oman is right next to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been the instigator and the promoter of an Arab boycott against Israel, and this relatively small country has dedicated itself to breaking that boycott.

We have a letter from AIPAC here supporting this because Oman has been willing to break the tertiary, secondary and primary boycotts of Israel. Here is the letter right here.

Now, when we were attacked on 9/11/2001, we put together a bipartisan commission of very thoughtful and knowledgeable people, and one of the most important recommendations that that commission came up with was that we as a country need to reach out to the modern, progressive Arab world. We have got to do it. We can't isolate ourselves from a billion- and-a-half Muslims, because then that is going to radicalize people in their country. We have got to walk through these doors that they are willing to open up and show what happens when you trade with the United States, when you trade with progressive democracies. This is exactly what that 9/11 Commission recommended.

I am pleased that we overwhelmingly supported the Bahrain Free Trade Agreement, but this is an even better trade agreement. It is hard to believe that we are questioning the fact that this is in America's interest. It is so overwhelmingly in America's interest.

A couple of red herrings have been brought up; and as much as I respect and admire my colleagues who have brought up these red herrings, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own set of facts.

The facts are that we asked the Congressional Research Service to look into this. They came up with a report that was compelling and definitive: there is no national security interest involved here, because if we decide there is a national security threat, which we self-define, that trumps everything else, and at any time we can raise the essential security justification. No one else has the authority to second-guess what it takes for us to protect our national security, and there is no precedent for any kind of international panel second- guessing us. There is no national security issue here.

The language, the provisions in this treaty, are the same as have been in all the others. It is the same language as Bahrain, the same language as Central America. There is no change here.

In terms of labor law, and I will address this subsequently after people address it on the Democratic side to lay out their objections, but I have read the communication from the Sultan, as I trust others have. He is willing to agree to the labor rights issues. He wants to abide by the International Labor Organization's standards. He wants to do everything it takes to show that he gets it, that he wants a higher quality of life, a better standard of living and more worker protections in Oman than his people have today.

Now, the democratically elected Advisory Council is not in session right now, but within 3 months he will get them all passed. When the Sultan says he is going to do it, that is it. We may prefer the niceties of a democracy and so on, but the reality is that these laws are going to be changed if the Sultan commits to changing them.

So I really urge my colleagues to support this.

One other aspect that I haven't mentioned, and I will get into it in a greater degree later, Oman has a military access agreement with us. They have had it since 1981. They keep renewing it. We keep putting more and more forces through Oman for the war in Iraq. They were of immense help in the Gulf War.

I don't know what one country can do to be more deserving of a trade agreement with the United States.

Mr. 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.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Those provisions are law but a number require regulations.

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. 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. Speaker, in response to my good friend from New Jersey, and also in response to my good friend from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who asks about, and makes accusations with regard to, the situation in Oman, I should remind them that there were 33 strikes in 2004, more than 6,000 workers went on strike. Strikes continue to this day with no repressive tactics, no government reprisals.

And the Omani Government has representatives of the International Labor Organization on the ground in Oman working with them to develop more and stronger standards.

I will shortly. I am about out of time. If you can refute that, I will yield 15 seconds to the gentleman.

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.

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. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on each side?

Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the terrorism committee.

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. 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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Unless someone else comes to the floor, I will be the final speaker and close.

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. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I cannot stress enough the importance of the legislation that is now before this body. Yes, this agreement is a good economic agreement for those doing business in Oman. In fact, it is one of the best free trade agreements that this body has considered, granting the United States some of its broadest market access ever, and establishing a strong standard as we push to open the large, emerging Middle East market through a Middle East Free Trade Area. I am particularly pleased that my home State of Florida will receive duty-free treatment on much of its citrus products.

However, while the economics of United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement are compelling, I believe that there are more important issues for the Members to consider as they cast their votes today. Specifically, what that vote will tell the people of Oman and, perhaps most importantly, the people throughout the violent Middle East as the conflict today threatens to spark a new war.

Mr. Moran spoke quite eloquently of the dangerous neighborhood that Oman is in, right across the straits from Iran. I was just handed a CNN report that just came out within the last hour in which Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill said that the Iranians were believed to be present at North Korea's July 4 missile test. I wonder why.

As Chairman Thomas indicated, Oman has long been a strong ally of the United States. Yet beyond that, Oman has also been a leader in its relationships with Israel. Oman has no law that establishes or enforces primary, secondary, or tertiary boycotts of Israel. In the context of congressional consideration of this free trade agreement, Oman has reiterated its commitment to not enforce any aspect of a boycott on Israel in letters of September 28, 2005 and June 15, 2006. Last month, Oman issued an official government document to its relevant agencies, again reiterating the policy and commitment. If any Member still has any doubt, they should know that in the recognition of the importance of this issue by both the United States Trade Representative and the Government of Oman, language was included within the Statement of Administrative Action that the United States Trade Representative will monitor and report to us on this issue. On June 28, 2006, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as AIPAC to the Members of Congress, wrote to me in support of the language, and I am pleased with its inclusion and Oman's position on the boycott.

After these repeated assurances and Oman's longstanding record, Member representations that Oman is not fully committed on this issue ignore the facts and are fundamentally disrespectful of one of the greatest allies for peace and against terror in the world. That some Members have maintained these claims and even sent Dear Colleague letters on this issue, after receiving the letter from AIPAC, receiving direct assurances from Oman officials, and seeing the text of the official Omani documents stopping any boycott, is disgraceful, and I believe that Oman deserves an apology.

While Oman's action in this area alone sends a powerful message to this part of the world, Oman actually has a history of going beyond, to actual engagement. After the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty in 1979, Oman was one of the few Arab countries that did not break off relations with Israel. It was also one of the first countries in the region to host an Israeli Prime Minister, when Prime Minister Rabin visited Oman in 1994.

In its letter to me and to the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee, AIPAC stated, ``The breakdown of these kinds of economic barriers can, hopefully, help lead to the development of important political relationships between Israel and the Arab world.''

I could not agree more. As we watch hostilities in the Middle East and they continue to worsen, it is through economic relationships such as these that we can have the best chance to win the hearts and minds of the future leaders in the Middle East. As young workers in the region begin to see the benefits of participating in the worldwide economy, they are more likely to pick up tools to better their lives, rather than tools of destruction.

Will passage of this agreement cause an immediate end to hostilities in Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, or Afghanistan? No. But none other than the 9/11 Commission has specifically highlighted the importance of Middle East free trade agreements in fighting terror. The free trade agreement will continue to undermine the arguments that terrorists use in recruiting. With increased economic opportunities will come an increased incentive to remain a peaceful, active participant in society.

Oman has been a leader in this region in its friendship with the United States, its friendship with Israel, its commitment to political and labor reforms, and its desire to work economically with the United States. It is now up to the Members of the House of Representatives whether to reward the leadership or reject it based on politics and arguments that have no basis in fact.

Let me run through a few of the arguments that have been made here today. We have talked about American workers.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

(Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. 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. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to correct the record.

To my friend in Virginia who quoted AIPAC, the letter was the letter addressed to me that complimented the manner in which we have worked in a bipartisan manner to deal with the Arab boycott, in both the Bahrain agreement and the Oman agreement; but it does not talk about support for this legislation.

I would also point out that our friends from the WTO have been pretty clear about the dispute settlement system working: ``It must not be possible for one country to evade its operations simply by proclaiming its national security is involved, however farfetched such a claim may be. Yet when national security is really involved, laws that are contrary to international trade rules must be permissible.'' But they said that ``no country should be allowed to be the judge and jury of its own cause.''

We don't give away our national sovereignty, but we are able to be second-guessed by a dispute settlement panel. They can rule against us, and have ruled against us, and they can put pressure on us through tariffs so we in fact compromise our security.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3\1/2\ minutes to a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, an expert on international trade and worker rights, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. 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. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), one of the leading voices on workers' rights.

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. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a strong advocate of fair trade, Representative Solis.

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.

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. Speaker, can I inquire of my friend from Florida, his continuing to reserve, does that mean he has one speaker remaining?

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.

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.

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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 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

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.

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.''