mr. speaker , i thank my friend from washington state ( mr. hastings ) xz4001711 for the time , and i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
sometimes these rules cause confusion when there are two mr. hastings xz4001711 managing the rule . 
so in advance , mr. speaker , i am sure that my good friend and i want to make sure that there is no confusion . 
mr. speaker , my good friend and colleague has already pointed out the closed rule we are working on today is mandated by the fact that we are dealing with a trade agreement . 
so i take no issue with the type of rule , on this specific occasion . 
however , as i said to chairman dreier last night , along with closed rules , trade agreements by our rules are supposed to come to the house floor with 20 hours of debate . 
i do recognize the limiting aspect with reference to the rule , and this trade agreement is permitted 2 hours . 
chairman dreier pointed out , rightly i believe , that this u.s.-bahrain trade agreement is one of the most noncontroversial agreements of this kind to come before congress in a long time , and as i said , that may be so , but it is also not the point that i wish to carry . 
we have had several more controversial trade deals come before the house in recent years where we were also given 2 hours of debate time . 
more recently , we saw that in two trade agreements . 
trade deals should come to the floor under the 20 hours of debate that the law prescribes . 
if only 5 hours or 5 minutes is what is necessary to pass the bill , so be it , but i see a bad precedent being set . 
i ask my friends in the majority to let the house work its will , not so much on this bill , but certainly any other in the future that comes before us . 
as to this specific trade agreement , as i have already said , it comes to the floor with the support from the administration and both parties in congress . 
while i seriously doubt that free trade with the tiny island nation of bahrain is going to be the rising tide that lifts our flagging economy , after all , trade with bahrain accounts for only .03 percent of our total trade activity , i also will not try to stand in the way . 
it should be noted , however , that despite its small size , bahrain runs a trade surplus with the united states , joining most other countries in the world . 
so , what this agreement does is give us one more country the opportunity to sell more of its goods and services here , even more cheaply than it already does . 
maybe one day soon , mr. speaker , we will find a country that the united states will run a surplus with , instead of the other way around . 
one can only hope . 
i do have one other very serious concern with bahrain , mr. speaker . 
until recently , bahrain continued to enforce the primary aspect of the arab league boycott against israel , which bars imports of israeli-origin goods . 
simply put , the united states should not trade , and certainly not enter into free trade agreements with , nations that discriminate against america 's closest and most trusted middle east ally . 
the kingdom of bahrain now says they will relent . 
the kingdom now says that it `` recognizes the need to dismantle the primary boycott of israel and is beginning to achieve that goal. '' let us be crystal clear , mr. speaker . 
this change of heart is purely economic , and it happened just in the last month . 
i suspect that it has nothing to do with the fact that an economic embargo based on religion is wrong and an affront to basic human rights . 
the fact that the country 's parliament has rejected , in the last 6 weeks , the lifting of the embargo , and the kingdom has made it clear that it is not normalizing relations with israel only further proves my point . 
whatever the reason , i am thrilled that bahrain will work to end the long-standing ostracism of israel by its neighbors . 
it is past time . 
mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time . 
