[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 87 (Thursday, June 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6746-S6770]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       UNITED STATES-OMAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of S. 3569, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3569) to implement the United States-Oman Free 
     Trade Agreement.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in 1833, a merchant named Edmund Roberts 
piloted the U.S. warship Peacock to the port of Muscat, the capital of 
today's Oman. Roberts bore a letter from President Andrew Jackson to 
the Sultan Said. Three days later, Roberts and the Sultan signed a 
Treaty of Amity and Commerce. This was the first treaty between America 
and Oman, 1833. That treaty with Oman was part of a bigger picture, of 
course. That bigger picture included Siam, today's Thailand, and Cochin 
China, today's Vietnam. Edmund Roberts also traveled to those countries 
to initiate broader commercial ties.
  Today we are considering implementing legislation for another treaty 
with Oman, a free-trade agreement. Today I ask again, what is the 
bigger picture? From where I stand, the bigger picture is a grim one. 
It is a picture colored by resentment, frustration, and broken 
promises.
  This agreement, as others in the past, will be overshadowed by the 
unfair process by which the agreement was considered. The substance of 
the Oman agreement, like others, is largely good. The Omanis have made 
real progress in liberalizing their economy, ensuring their markets are 
open and fair, and improving their labor laws to meet internationally 
recognized norms. Yet the memories of this agreement that will linger 
will not be tariffs, labor laws, or intellectual property rights 
protection. Regrettably, what will linger will be a feeling that these 
trade agreements were pushed through Congress without appropriate 
consultation. I don't say that lightly, and I don't say that for 
partisan purpose because I, frankly, don't regard myself as a partisan; 
rather, someone who is trying to get the job done, working the Senate's 
business for the good of all Americans.
  The Senate considers trade agreements under what is called the fast-
track process. Congress agreed to this fast-track process in exchange 
for the assurance that the Finance and Ways and Means Committees would 
have an opportunity to influence these trade bills in what is called a 
mock markup. In these mock markups, the Finance Committee and the Ways 
and Means Committee can offer amendments to the bills. Under a fast-
track process, that is the last time anyone in Congress gets a chance 
to change the bills.
  During the mock markup of the Oman agreement--we call them mock 
markups because they are not traditional markups in which members of 
the committee can offer amendments which are then passed. Rather, the 
amendments that are offered and passed are really not part of 
legislation. Again, they are indications of what should be in the trade 
agreement, indications to the administration that when it sends up a 
trade agreement, it would be wise to include these amendments which 
members believe should be included.
  During the mock markup of the Oman agreement, the Finance Committee 
voted 18 to 0 to approve an amendment offered by Senator Conrad. The 
committee later approved the amended language unanimously.
  But rather than consider these unanimous actions by the committee, 
this administration simply stripped the amendment from the implementing 
legislation that is before us today. There was no consultation. There 
was no mock conference to fairly consider all views.
  This kind of process cannot continue. The sad truth is that at the 
end of the day, it won't. If the administration continues to disrespect 
the constitutional authority Congress exercises over international 
trade, there won't be any fast-track process at all. Once trade 
promotion authority expires mid-next year, it simply won't be renewed. 
That is not the result I want, but that is where we are headed. I have 
been warning for years that the process failures threaten to undermine 
support for the fast-track procedures that allow us to negotiate free-
trade agreements, and that is exactly where we are today. Good trade 
agreements will not receive the support they might because of a 
widespread failure in the Congress and the administration to listen to 
the concerns of Congress. And the chance of renewing trade promotion 
authority when it expires mid-next year is a long shot at best.

  As I said during the markup in the Finance Committee yesterday, this 
disrespect for congressional power and prerogatives--after all, it is 
the Congress under the Constitution which sets trade policy--is not 
confined just to trade agreements. It runs to other matters as well, an 
accumulation of matters. It runs to other pressing issues of national 
concern.
  The administration dismisses congressional inquiries as unnecessary 
or harmful--legitimate inquiries--and the administration issues 
Presidential signing statements indicating the administration's intent 
to ignore whatever provisions of the law it chooses. I believe the 
Senate has not been sufficiently aggressive in asserting its authority 
as a coequal branch of Government. I commend Senator Specter for 
holding a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on Presidential signing 
statements. As an institutional matter, and for the good of the 
country, the Congress must act as a check on the power of the executive 
branch. Our Founding Fathers set the Constitution up that way. We were 
set up for one to check the other, not for one to run roughshod over 
the other, which is beginning to happen.
  After much consideration and deliberation, I have decided to support 
this Oman Free Trade Agreement. It was not an easy decision, but I will 
do so because I believe that Oman and the Omani people should not be 
punished by the unfair process that tarnishes an otherwise good 
agreement.
  Let me assure you that I will not forget these shortcomings and 
process failures after this vote. Let me assure you as well that the 
effects of these shortcomings and failures will continue to be felt 
when we consider further trade agreements and when we consider trade 
promotion authority next year.
  The administration must understand that its action on this agreement 
will have effects far beyond and long after this agreement. I would 
like to work with the administration to repair the damage done. It will 
be a difficult job, but for the sake of the Senate and the Nation's 
economic well-being, we must begin that work.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume on the Oman Free Trade Agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous 
consent request?

[[Page S6747]]

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, I will.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized at such time the Senator completes his statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak to the issue of the Oman 
Free Trade Agreement, I wish to take advantage of the opportunity to 
remind the public that trade agreements are not treaties, as we usually 
think of treaties, with just the Senate approving treaties with a two-
thirds vote and the House of Representatives having nothing to do with 
a treaty. A free-trade agreement is negotiated by the President but 
must be approved by both Houses of Congress the same way that 
legislation is passed, except it is done under a time agreement under 
law with the idea that the agreement will be voted up or down and not 
amended But when the dust settles, it is the law of our land, just like 
any other law that Congress would pass.

  Taking that into consideration then, the rationale behind that is the 
fact that the Constitution gives the Congress of the United States, as 
one of its specific 17 powers, the power to regulate interstate and 
foreign commerce. A free-trade agreement is foreign commerce. Congress 
has the authority completely--no questions asked--about what our trade 
laws are going to be.
  Until the 1930s, for the most part, Congress passed those pieces of 
legislation, and that was the law after the President signed them. But 
starting in the 1930s, Congress would, to a greater extent or lesser 
extent from time to time, give the President the authority to negotiate 
certain agreements, and then Congress would approve them.
  Since World War II, we have had a regime for 45 years that we called 
the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trades. Since about 1993, it has 
been referred to as the World Trade Organization, or WTO.
  In not exactly the same way, but from time to time, Congress, in 
order to negotiate agreements since World War II, has extended 
authority to the President to negotiate those agreements, not because 
Congress wanted to give up any congressional authority as the 
Constitution prescribes over foreign trade, but, as a practical matter, 
if you are going to negotiate with another country, rather than 
unilaterally setting policy, Congress, as a body of 535 people, can't 
negotiate with another country or, for sure, with the World Trade 
Organization that has 149 members very efficiently, and never even 
tried. So from time to time we have negotiated--or we have delegated--
to the President of the United States, under strict guidelines, the 
authority to negotiate for Congress with an understanding that--well, 
under the Constitution with the practical end result that it has to be 
passed by the Congress of the United States by a majority vote in both 
Houses to become the law of the land.
  Congress doesn't just willy-nilly say to the President: You negotiate 
any sort of an agreement you want. In the basic law, there are some 
stipulations--not very many but some--but, more importantly, for the 
Congress to preserve its power and not give the President of the United 
States free reign. We have a consultation process within what we now 
call Trade Promotion Authority where, during the process of negotiating 
multilaterally under the World Trade Organization, or negotiating 
bilaterally with another country, that the President and his 
negotiators would come to Congress whenever we would invite them, or 
even on their own initiative, and sit down and talk, sometimes in 
informal sessions, sometimes in regular committee meetings, to find out 
how the negotiations are going and what the problems are.
  But the most important thing is for that negotiator and that agency 
to hear what Congress says needs to be done, what our input is, with 
the idea that if they don't negotiate something that Congress can pass, 
what good is doing the negotiation? So that consultation process is 
very important.
  Now, sometimes I feel that there has not been enough consultation, 
and because I am chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over 
that, sometimes I can legitimately claim fault for not having enough 
consultation, although we have considerable. And any members of the 
committee should likewise--the other 19 members of the committee should 
likewise feel that if there is not enough consultation, then maybe they 
have not been forward enough in preserving the constitutional power of 
the Congress and the specific authority of our committee to make that 
consultation happen.
  Now, what sometimes happens--maybe every time--in bringing a Free 
Trade Agreement before our committee before it comes to the floor, 
there is an outburst on both sides of the aisle about not having 
consulted enough and that the process might be a sham. Well, the extent 
to which people feel that is the situation, then I guess I plead with 
myself as chairman of the committee, I plead with members of the 
committee, that we need to make more specific requests of the 
administration to come and talk to us about these agreements.
  That can be going on right now in regard to the Doha round of 
negotiations that are going on between the United States as part of the 
World Trade Organization involving another 148 countries, or it can be 
going on right now anytime the committee members want it to happen in 
our process of negotiations with Thailand bilaterally, South Korea 
bilaterally, Egypt bilaterally, and there are other countries as well.
  So I hope that each one of us in Congress feels that we are 
adequately safeguarding our constitutional authority. But I hope nobody 
lives in the wonderland that somehow Congress ought to be negotiating 
directly with these other countries because we don't have that 
capability or the time. But we ought to make sure that we don't 
compromise one iota the constitutional power that we have been given 
and that w have to cherish and protect.

  I rise in strong support of the United States-Oman Free Trade 
Agreement. The agreement will help cement our ties with a strong ally 
in the Middle East. It will contribute to greater economic opportunity 
and prosperity in the region. It will serve as a strong model for other 
economies in the region, and it will create new market access openings 
for farmers, manufacturers, and service providers in the United States. 
So I urge my colleagues to support the agreement in a strong bipartisan 
fashion.
  We have enjoyed beneficial relations with Oman for nearly 200 years. 
In 1833, Oman was one of the first Arab states to sign a Treaty of 
Amity and Commerce with the United States. It was also the first Arab 
country to send an ambassador to our country. Our agreement with Oman 
is the fifth trade agreement that we concluded with a country in the 
Middle East.
  It brings us one step closer to our President's vision of having a 
Middle East free trade area by 2013. The President's goal is very 
simply the same as every other free-trade agreement: to foster economic 
growth. But it isn't just an economic issue. It has something to do 
with promoting democracy, and millions of people every day doing 
business agreements around the world is going to do more for world 
peace than what we who are elected and our diplomats can do. So you 
ought to see a free-trade agreement not only economically in our 
interests, but promoting moral principles of democracy and peace 
through enhanced commercial ties with the world generally; in this 
case, to a greater extent with the Middle East.
  The fact is, open economies that are actively engaged in 
international commerce tend to grow at much higher rates than closed 
economies, and that translates into greater economic opportunity. So a 
free trade area is in the best interests of the people of the Middle 
East, and it is in our best interests as well, but it is also in the 
interests of stabilizing that area and having peaceful relations and 
greater peace around the world.
  This agreement enjoys strong support in the business community and in 
the agricultural community. It has been endorsed by a number of groups. 
I can't name them all, but I think it is important to note that the 
American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Chemistry Council, the 
Association of Equipment Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade 
Council, and the U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Coalition are among those 
of over 110 companies and associations supporting trade expansion in 
the Middle East, including this agreement.
  These groups recognize that this is a commercially meaningful 
agreement

[[Page S6748]]

that is leveling the playing field for U.S. businesses. In the United 
States, Omani products already receive a substantial market access, 
with most duties ranging from zero to 5 percent. Without this 
agreement, U.S. exports won't have a level playing field, and haven't 
up until now had a level playing field, because they would continue to 
face those steep tariffs that Oman now has and will be giving up with 
this agreement.
  While the economic effect of the agreement may be small in total 
world trade, it will certainly be possible. Upon entering into force--
in other words, when it becomes the law of our land--this agreement 
will have Oman grant immediate, duty-free entry to virtually all U.S. 
industrial and consumer products. As examples, in agriculture, 87 
percent of Oman's tariff lines will go to zero for U.S. agricultural 
exports on day one of the agreement and the remaining tariffs will be 
phased out over 10 years. U.S. service providers will also receive 
substantial improvement in market access. I have constituents who are 
interested in seeing this agreement implemented, and I expect many of 
my colleagues do as well.
  I will give you just a few examples. A small business located in 
Cedar Rapids, IA, Midamar Corporation, will benefit from new 
opportunities and low costs for specialty food exports that are 
specifically processed for Muslim diets. The HNI Corporation in 
Muscatine, the second largest manufacturer of office furniture in North 
America, will benefit. It has a fast-growing market in the Middle East. 
HNI expects to forge new business ties in Oman once the agreement 
enters into force.
  Another company is Lennox in Marshalltown, IA, manufacturing heating 
and cooling products. This agreement will promote increased exports for 
Lennox.
  In sum, I expect this agreement will have a real and positive impact 
for my constituents in Iowa, preserving or establishing good-paying 
jobs, because exporting jobs pay 15 percent above the national average, 
and if it does that in the State of Iowa, it will be the same across 
the United States.
  In addition to pointing out the benefits of the agreement, I would 
respond to just a few criticisms. Some are alleging that this agreement 
will provide foreign port operators an absolute right to establish and 
acquire operations to run port facilities in the United States. That is 
just plain wrong.
  The truth is, nothing in our agreement with Oman diminishes our right 
to determine for ourselves whether to block or unwind any foreign 
investment in the United States when the protection of essential 
security interests are at stake That includes any potential investment 
in land or site aspects of port activity in the United States. So our 
ability to advance our national security and promote it and protect it 
as we see fit remains fully protected under this agreement.

  Separately, some colleagues have been critical of the process by 
which this agreement has come before the Senate. In this respect, I am 
repetitive of how I opened my remarks. In other words, I want to make 
it clear that this has received substantial consideration by the 
Congress of the United States. We concluded our negotiations with Oman 
on October 13, 2005, with 7 months at the negotiating table and 
opportunities for Congress to be consulted during that period of time. 
The administration did that, both at the Member and staff level, 
throughout negotiations. The agreement was signed January 19, this 
year, and our own Government's agency, called the International Trade 
Commission, issued its report on likely economic effects of the 
agreement in February of this year.
  The International Trade Subcommittee of my Finance Committee held 
hearings on this agreement on March 6. The Finance Committee met May 18 
to informally consider proposed legislation implementing this 
agreement--the proposal that is pretty much as we have it before our 
body this very minute.
  During the committee's informal consideration, I introduced a 
chairman's modification to the proposed statement of administrative 
action. My modification called upon the administration to monitor and 
report on the Omani efforts to prohibit compulsory or coerced labor.
  The administration took my modification and broadened it. The 
statement of administration action that accompanies the bill to the 
floor of the Senate this very day contains a commitment from the 
administration to update Congress periodically on the progress that 
Oman achieves in realizing all commitments made to labor law reform. I 
believe that is an improvement, even on my own modification. It is an 
example of how the process of trade promotion authority worked in this 
case and is a specific case of what I was trying to describe in the 
opening of my statement.
  In sum, this is a strong trade agreement with an important ally. I 
urge my colleagues to enthusiastically support the implementation of 
legislation before the Senate.
  I yield the floor under the previous unanimous consent agreement so 
that Senator Dorgan can have it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I regret I do not agree with my colleague 
on the merits of this issue. But I do not regret coming to the Chamber 
to speak on behalf of American workers, on behalf of our country's 
interests. I come, once again, to talk about a trade agreement that I 
believe is not consistent with what our country should be doing.
  Let me talk about priorities. We have so many issues in front of us.
  The other day, I read that the price of prescription drugs has risen 
triple the rate of inflation in the first 3 months of this year with 
the advent of this new Government prescription drug program for 
Medicare recipients. Is there any action on that? No. That provokes a 
very big yawn here in the Senate.
  We have the highest budget deficits in history. We are going to add 
about $1.4 trillion in debt to this country's shoulders this year--
$700-plus billion of trade deficits this year. We are going to borrow, 
increasing the Federal debt $600-plus billion this year.
  We have significant challenges in education and health care.
  We have enormous challenges abroad. Obviously we are involved with 
respect to the war on terrorism. There is a war in Iraq. There is no 
proposition that anybody should pay for that war. Hundreds of millions 
of dollars have been brought to the floor of the Senate to pay for it, 
with the entire cost being added to the Federal debt. We send men and 
women to risk their lives in Iraq. Some make the ultimate sacrifice on 
behalf of their country and lose their lives. But there is no 
discussion here about whether anyone else should probably sacrifice 
some and be paying for the cost of this. In fact, the administration 
does not even put money in their budget, when they send their budget to 
us, for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. They do not put the 
money in because they know then they can ask for emergency funding and 
just add it to the top of the debt.
  We have a lot of challenges. We cannot get action on the floor by 
this Congress on the subject of stem cell research which will begin, I 
hope, to unlock the mysteries of dreaded diseases--Parkinson's, 
Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and more. Unlocking the 
mysteries of those diseases is saving lives. It is pro-life. We can't 
get a bill on the floor of the Senate to deal with that because we are 
blocked from considering stem cell research on the floor of the Senate.
  We need reimportation of prescription drugs so we can put pressure on 
the drug companies to lower the price of prescription drugs for the 
American people. We pay the highest prices in the world for 
prescription drugs, and it is unfair. The U.S. consumer pays double, 
triple, in some cases 10 times the price of prescription drugs that is 
charged to virtually every other consumer in the world, and we can't 
get a piece of legislation on the floor of this Senate to consider 
allowing the reimportation of the identical drug, often a drug that was 
made in this country and then shipped to Canada.
  We can't do those things. Those are not priorities for those who 
schedule the floor of the Senate. But we can bring to the floor of the 
Senate today a trade agreement, a free-trade agreement with the country 
of Oman. Here we have another chapter in a book of failures--a free-
trade agreement with Oman.

[[Page S6749]]

  Oman is a country with 3 million people run by a Sultan. I don't come 
to the floor to in any way cast aspersions or to denigrate the country 
of Oman. I have not been to Oman. But I do know a lot about trade 
agreements. I have studied them. And this is what they are ultimately 
about: the exporting of American jobs to countries where people work 
for 30 cents an hour and you can work them for 12 to 14 hours a day, 7 
days a week. This has caused at least 3 to 4 million jobs to be 
eliminated from this country.

  These free-trade agreements--and this Oman deal is yet another--these 
free-trade agreements have given the green light to say: Yes, let's 
ship American jobs overseas; and by the way, even as you ship American 
jobs overseas, you can bring in low-wage labor from our southern 
border; and by the way, you can run your income through the Cayman 
Islands so you don't have to pay taxes.
  My colleagues are tired of hearing about the Ugland House, but I am 
reluctant to mention it again. There is one little house on Church 
Street in the Cayman islands. It is, I believe, four stories. It is 
called the Ugland House. It is home to 12,748 corporations. They are 
not there, of course. That is their official address in order to avoid 
paying U.S. taxes.
  At any rate, these trade agreements, the so-called free-trade 
agreements, are agreements that in most cases are reached in secret 
negotiations, are then brought to the Congress under a procedure called 
fast track. The Congress has actually voted on it. I voted against it. 
It is absolutely preposterous that Congress decided to say, let's wake 
up in the morning and put ourselves in a straitjacket and pass 
legislation that makes sure we can't offer amendments to a trade 
agreement. That is unbelievable, that Congress has done that, but it 
has. So we now bring this to the floor under something called fast 
track.
  Fast track means this: Take it or leave it. Here is the agreement. 
You didn't have any participation in drafting this trade agreement, you 
have no ability to alter this trade agreement, but take it or leave it, 
vote up or down, yes or no. That is the process.
  With respect to this trade agreement, they actually have begun to do 
a procedure called a mock markup. In my hometown, you would know what a 
mock markup is: it is not a markup, it is just a mockery. So they had a 
mock markup here in the Senate Finance Committee.
  My colleague, Senator Conrad, and I believe Senator Bingaman, offered 
an amendment to the mock markup of a free-trade agreement that is going 
to be brought to the floor under fast track. That doesn't even sound 
like English, does it--a mock markup brought to the floor under fast 
track? So the mock markup is held, and my colleagues offer an amendment 
that would ban products coming into this country that is produced from 
sweatshops or slave labor. It passed unanimously in the Finance 
Committee, in the so-called mock markup.
  It turns out that the markup was a mock, or a mockery, because even 
though that provision passed unanimously, it is not in the trade 
agreement that emerged on the floor of the Senate. The question is, 
What has happened to that amendment which was offered in the Senate 
Finance Committee? Where in the world is Carmen San Diego? Where is 
this amendment? Maybe we ought to send teams out to look for this 
amendment. The amendment passed. It was unanimous. But it has just 
disappeared. Another famous disappearing act.
  This trade agreement with Oman is not the largest trade agreement. 
This is not CAFTA, this is not NAFTA, this is not the free-trade 
agreement of the Americas. Oman is a relatively small country, and in 
saying that I do not mean to offend Oman. This is not about whether I 
think Oman is a wonderful country or not a wonderful country. I want to 
talk about the ingredients of this trade agreement.
  Let me talk a bit about the major concerns I have with this 
particular trade agreement with Oman. First of all, let me talk about 
the organizations that oppose this trade agreement. The AFL-CIO, 
Communications Workers of America, Teamsters, League of Rural Voters, 
National Farmers Union, Presbyterian Church USA Washington Office, 
Sierra Club, United Methodist Church, United Steel Workers, Western 
Organization of Resource Councils, and many more.
  Like NAFTA and CAFTA and all the other acronyms that describe recent 
failures, this agreement fails to put any meaningful protections or any 
meaningful labor or environmental provisions in the labor agreement. So 
the lack of any effective provisions dealing with labor or the 
conditions under which goods will be produced to be sent to America 
means that it is just ``Katey, bar the door''; whatever happens, 
happens; we are not going to care much about that.
  But particularly recent revelations of massive labor abuses in Jordan 
should give everyone some pause. The agreement with Jordan was supposed 
to represent the gold standard with respect to labor standards. Now we 
have seen recent examples of what has happened in parts of Jordan; that 
is, human trafficking, 20-hour workdays, widespread failure to pay 
wages.
  Let me talk about last month's New York Times story, which described 
how a free-trade agreement with the country of Jordan was used to 
produce sweatshops all over Jordan. It turned out when the agreement 
was signed in 1999, companies began to fly in so-called guest workers 
to Jordan from countries such as Bangladesh and China to make products 
in Jordan to sell at stores in this country--Wal-Mart, Target, and so 
on. The conditions of these so-called guest workers can only be 
described as slave-like. Let me read from the New York Times piece:

       Propelled by a free trade agreement with the United States, 
     apparel manufacturing is booming in Jordan, its exports to 
     America soaring twentyfold in the last five years. But some 
     foreign workers in Jordanian factories that produce garments 
     for Target, Wal-Mart, and other retailers are complaining of 
     dismal conditions--of 20-hour days, of not being paid for 
     months, and of being hit by supervisors and jailed when they 
     complain.

  Those are the conditions of sweatshop labor that manufacture products 
in Jordan--by the way, products that used to be produced in this 
country when we had a textile industry providing jobs to Americans, but 
that has all migrated.
  The question is, Should this sort of thing exist in sweatshops--not 
only in Jordan but in other parts of the world--to allow products to be 
produced under these conditions and sold in the United States? The 
answer to that is clearly no.
  Now, consider this: this agreement with Oman provides weaker labor 
provisions than existed with respect to Jordan.
  So with the supposedly good agreement in Jordan, we ended up seeing 
workers from countries like Bangladesh being flown to Jordan, and 
forced to work not a 40-hour workweek, but a 40-hour shift, $50 for 5 
months of work for one worker, and frequent beatings of workers who 
complain.
  Let me show you some pictures--pretty ugly pictures--from Bangladesh. 
I will show them for a reason, because it relates to trade agreements 
that don't have labor protections, and it shows you the face of this 
global economy. These pictures were taken by a journalist who witnessed 
firsthand the beating of workers in Bangladesh. Here is an example of a 
picture taken by a journalist of the beating. This, tragically, is a 
man shot through the head--a worker subjected to violence and killing. 
This is another picture of the beatings. Let me show a picture of four 
young women, if I might, very young girls. You will notice that they 
are tied together--working in factories, tied together to prevent them 
from escaping.
  Should there be labor standards in trade agreements? Do we give a 
damn about this? Does this country care about this? I hope it does. But 
there is no evidence of it because we are going to pass another trade 
agreement today with no labor standards at all.
  So all of the folks in this country who lost their jobs because they 
wouldn't work for 30 cents an hour, all the folks in this country who 
saw their jobs moved to Bangladesh, Indonesia, to Sri Lanka, to China, 
and elsewhere because those who want to produce can find a way to 
produce it there for 30 cents an hour, not pay health care benefits, 
work people in unsafe factories, and work them in conditions of 
sweatshop labor, to all of those people, I ask

[[Page S6750]]

this question on their behalf: Is this what competition is about? Is 
this what this country should allow--allow the import of jobs in these 
circumstances? The answer is clearly no. Yet this Congress will not put 
labor standards in a trade agreement. It will not require an 
administration to put labor standards in a labor agreement. The only 
one which included labor standards was Jordan.
  I just described to you the sweatshops in Jordan by which 
Bangladeshis and others were flown by the planeload into Jordan to work 
in sweatshops that produce products to be sent to American shelves. I 
believe it is an outrage. It ought to be corrected. But it is not going 
to be corrected with this kind of trade agreement.
  I recall the movie ``Casablanca.'' I guess everybody understands the 
famous words in ``Casablanca'' when the French police chief said he was 
``shocked.'' He said: I am just shocked to find gambling in Rick's 
Cafe. Of course, he wasn't shocked. Everybody knew there was gambling 
in Rick's Cafe in ``Casablanca.''
  These pictures ought to shock the sensibilities of everybody. But on 
some level, we all understand this is going on. It's just a question of 
whether we are willing to do something about it. Is this country 
willing to do something about it? And if so, when? If not now, when? 
Yet this trade agreement does not do a thing about it.
  The country of Oman has 3 million people, and half a million people 
in Oman are so-called guest workers. In fact, the majority of Oman's 
workers involved in manufacturing and construction are not from Oman at 
all. The majority of the workers in Oman are brought in from 
Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and other poor countries under labor contracts 
to work in construction and factories.
  The State Department's 2004 Report on Human Rights cited Oman for 
cases of forced labor. And I quote:

       The law prohibits forced or compulsory labor, including 
     children. However, there were reports that such practices 
     occurred. The government did not investigate or enforce the 
     law effectively. Foreign workers at times were placed in 
     situations amounting to forced labor.

  They have changed the report just a little bit in anticipation of 
having an Oman free-trade agreement brought to the floor, but the fact 
is that this happens in Oman, and we know it happens in Oman.
  There are no labor unions in Oman. In 2003, the Sultan of Oman issued 
a Sultanic decree which categorically denies workers the right to 
organize and join unions of their choosing. Under some circumstances, I 
am told that workers in Oman can join ``representative committees,'' 
but they are not independent of employers. The Sultan of Oman has 
written to the USTR, our trade ambassador, and promised that he will 
improve Oman's labor laws by October of this year; that is, after the 
Senate has voted to approve a free-trade deal with Oman.
  The labor provisions in the Oman Free Trade Agreement are much weaker 
than the labor provisions in the Jordan trade agreement, as I 
indicated. They simply ask Oman to follow its own laws and its own 
self-policing. If the supposedly model agreement on labor with Jordan 
was such a disaster, think of what it will be with respect to the 
country of Oman. But under fast-track rules, no one has an opportunity 
to offer any amendment under any of these provisions.

  Now, let me describe another point with respect to Oman. After going 
through a heated debate some months ago over whether Dubai Ports World 
should be able to manage a half dozen of America's major seaports, we 
now find that there is a provision buried in annex II of this trade 
agreement with Oman, which says that Oman has the right to acquire 
companies that operate U.S. ports, and there is not a thing we can do 
about it. This provision in the agreement was added to a list of U.S. 
infrastructure functions that Oman can't be precluded from acquiring: 
It is as follows:

       [L]andside aspects of port activities, including operation 
     and maintenance of docks, loading and unloading of vessels 
     directly to or from land, marine cargo handling, operations 
     and maintenance of piers, ship cleaning . . .

  There was a great deal of controversy about whether the United Arab 
Emirates and a company owned by that government called Dubai Ports 
World should be able to take over the management of a half dozen of 
America's seaports. The answer from this Congress was absolutely not; 
this country ought to have the capability to manage, for national 
security purposes and other purposes, its own seaports.
  Well, guess what. We have a trade agreement that comes to the floor 
of the Senate which says, it is going to be all right if Oman takes 
over our ports. Or for that matter, if a company from the United Arab 
Emirates that has a subsidiary in Oman takes over our ports.
  The folks at USTR say: Don't worry, be happy. There is an exception 
in the Oman trade agreement that allows us to block acquisitions for 
national security reasons.
  Well, sure, that national security provision is in the agreement. But 
it means nothing if the President is determined to let the deal go 
through.
  Here is what the President said about the managing of U.S. ports by 
the United Arab Emirates. He said this on February 2, 2006:

       Brushing aside objections from Republicans and Democrats 
     alike, President Bush endorsed the takeover of shipping 
     operations at six major U.S. seaports by a state-owned 
     business in the United Arab Emirates. He pledged to veto any 
     bill Congress might approve to block the agreement.

  The President quite clearly has told the American people that he 
thinks it is fine to have the United Arab Emirates run America's 
seaports. Do you think he would think it was not fine for a company 
owned by the Government of Oman to run America's seaports? It doesn't 
seem to me he would have great objection to that. What do the 
supporters of this agreement have to say to this point?
  So this is where we are. They have a mock markup and then create a 
mock trade agreement and have a mock disappearance of a provision 
dealing with sweat labor, sweatshop labor, and then you bring it to the 
floor, and we have a mock debate. Everybody is very quiet about it. 
Then we have a vote on the floor of the Senate, and then it passes. It 
always passes because there are not enough Senators here who care about 
this question.
  We import $2 billion a day from around the world above that which we 
export. Each and every day, we are going $2 billion more into debt to 
the rest of the world. Said another way, each and every day, we sell $2 
billion worth of America to foreigners. Each and every day. And $700-
plus billion a year in trade deficits. We shuffle around here like 
there is no hurry, no rush, no worry, be happy. It is unbelievable to 
me. This is a very serious, unsustainable problem. We cannot sustain 
this. It will cause a collapse of the dollar, and it will cause 
economic difficulties you can't imagine unless this Congress gets 
serious and this administration and this President get serious and 
decide this is a serious issue which must be solved.
  I have spoken often on the issue of trade, and I know there are 
disagreements about these things. Let me describe the other side of it 
because I can describe it easily.
  They say that all who raise these questions are a bunch of 
xenophobic, isolationist stooges; you do not have the foggiest idea 
what is going on. You can't see over the horizon. This is a globalized 
economy. The world is flat. Are you crazy? You want to build walls 
around our country? What are you thinking about? That is the other 
side. Therefore, they say, let's have free trade agreement after free 
trade agreement because it is a global economy and it will all turn out 
just fine. Of course, after each and every agreement we have reached, 
we have had bigger and bigger problems.
  We had a small trade surplus with the country of Mexico. We have a 
trade agreement with Mexico, and it turns into a huge deficit. So we 
are able to turn a small surplus into a huge deficit.
  By the way, those hotshot economists who gave us all that advice--I 
didn't take that advice, but the majority of my colleagues did--all 
that advice saying this is going to be just fine; you should understand 
this is a division of labor. What is going to happen in Mexico under 
NAFTA is the low-skilled jobs are going to migrate to Mexico and then 
we will get high-skilled, high-wage jobs back here as a

[[Page S6751]]

result. Guess what our three largest imports are from Mexico: 
automobiles, automobile parts, and electronics--all products of high-
skilled, high-wage labor. That is what migrated out of this country. We 
turned a small surplus with Mexico into a huge deficit.
  We turned a modest deficit with Canada into a large deficit. We 
turned almost a balanced trade deficit with China a couple of decades 
ago into the largest deficit in humankind. It is unbelievable what we 
have done. Europe, very large deficit; Japan, an $80 billion-a-year 
deficit; every single year with Japan, we have a large, recurring 
deficit. This country had better understand the consequences of this.
  This chart represents the trade deficit, and one would have to be 
colorblind to not understand the consequence of this. You would have to 
be in a situation where you can't see red. This is red, red, red, 
growing in a dangerous way, giant trade deficits It is not getting 
better, it is getting worse. This is simply one more chapter of a book 
of failures.

  What we have been doing is sinking this country into a sea of debt. 
All of this debt reflects, by the way, the shipment of American jobs 
elsewhere. We have nearly decimated our textile industry. We are taking 
apart our manufacturing industry. And it doesn't end there.
  I have told the story of Natasha Humphreys who was a software 
engineer, Stanford graduate. Her last job for her company was to train 
her replacement in India because an Indian engineer worked for about 
one-fifth of the price of a U.S. engineer. So she lost her job.
  This is not just textiles and manufacturing. Half of the Fortune 500 
companies have been outsourcing software development.
  That is what the lines on the chart mean. It started with textiles. 
Everyone knows Fruit of the Loom underwear: T-shirts, shorts, 
underwear. They would advertise with green grapes, red grapes, dancing 
down the street. Everyone was happy. Underwear was made here. People 
had jobs here. The grapes got jobs dancing on television.
  Now, however, we do not see dancing grapes talking about American 
jobs because there is no Fruit of the Loom underwear made in America. 
That is all gone. There is not one pair of Levis made in America. Huffy 
bicycles. That is all gone.
  I could go on forever, and I have gone on forever, as a matter of 
fact, in previous discussions about all of the brands. You may be 
wearing Tony Lama boots, but if so you may be wearing boots made in 
China. The list is endless.
  We built in 100 years in this country something very unusual, and we 
did it through pain and suffering and through agonizing and debate in 
the Congress. Part of it was to decide: What kind of country are we? 
How do we improve the standard of living? How do we build something 
here that is unique? It was encouraging entrepreneurs, helping people 
who had a vision to start a business, to take risks, to say go for it, 
absolutely, to create a hospitable environment where people started 
businesses and created jobs, and to say on behalf of workers: You have 
a right, too, a right to organize unions, a right to have a safe 
workplace, child labor laws. You cannot dump chemicals into the air or 
water as you produce those things.
  James Fyler was shot 56 times--56 times this man was shot. Do you 
know why? Because in 1917 he believed the people ought to be free to 
form a labor union to protest the conditions of coal miners deep in the 
coal mines of Colorado. For that he was shot and killed; 56 times that 
man was shot.
  This history of our country is replete with the people who have 
decided to exercise the bravery to help build this country and create 
the standards, the work rules, and the opportunities that we enjoy. Men 
and women who start businesses, men and women of the labor movement, 
and Members of Congress decided what the rules are.
  Now, in one swoop we can decide a company can move those jobs to 
China, just like that, shut their American plant, move the job to 
China--and, by the way, this Congress gives them a tax break for doing 
so--ship the product back to be sold in this country, run the income 
through the Ugland House on Church Street, and not pay taxes to the 
United States.
  None of that adds up. So today we have a trade agreement from Oman 
which persuades me to show, once again, a chart with dancing grapes. 
Does it relate? Yes, it does, because this is one more chapter in a 
book of failures.
  The question is, Will this country stand up for its economic 
interests?
  I say to Japan--we have had robust trade with the country of Japan 
for decades. Yet every single year we have these large deficits with 
Japan and the growing deficits with China which even dwarf the Japanese 
deficits, yet our country does not seem to care.
  All these deficits translate to lost jobs, they threaten this 
country's economic future and whether we progress and improve the 
standard of living and expand the middle class. Our government says, 
you know something, this is a global economy. Whatever happens, 
happens, and we do not want to offend anyone. We do not want to tell 
China: Look, the way we will trade with you is this: our trade must be 
fair trade; you open your markets to us, we open our markets to you; 
but the methods of production must be fair.
  We do not do that. We do not do any of that because we do not have 
the nerve and the backbone or will to stand up for this country's 
economic interests. Frankly, it baffles me that this will be passed 
this afternoon. There is no question about it. This Congress will, once 
again, snore through this discussion, and we will pass a trade 
agreement with the country of Oman.
  At the end of this year, we will see another record, the highest 
trade deficit in history.
  Alan Blinder is the former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve 
Board. He is not some nut way off on the edge of the political debate. 
This is a guy who is a mainstream economist. He has written in the 
Foreign Affairs Journal that there are 42 to 56 million American jobs 
that are subject to outsourcing.
  Let me say that again: 42 to 56 million American jobs in 
manufacturing, and especially the service sector, that are tradeable 
jobs, subject to outsourcing. Not all of them will be outsourced, for 
sure, but even those that remain here will be subject to competing with 
those in other parts of the world who can do the job for less.
  Does that matter to anyone? Doesn't that say to all of us what this 
is really about? This is about reducing the standard of living in this 
country. It is not about raising other countries up, it is about 
pushing us down. That is why this trade strategy is wrong. I don't 
believe in building walls. I don't believe we ought to decide we should 
withdraw from the global economy. I just believe there ought to be 
rules with respect to the global economy that stand up for this 
country's interests.
  For the first 25 years after the Second World War, we were the 
biggest, the strongest, the toughest. We could beat anybody at almost 
anything, and we knew it. With one hand tied behind our backs we could 
trade with anybody and give concessional circumstances and win. It was 
not a problem.
  Then we saw the emergence of shrewd international competitors--yes, 
Europe, Japan, and others--things changed. But our notions did not 
change. Our trade policy is still a heavy dose of foreign policy that 
is, in my judgment, soft headed. We still are concessional. We still do 
not have the willingness to stand up for this country's economic 
interests. And we now are seeing the results of that with the highest 
trade deficit in history.
  If I might show that chart one more time, the trade deficits on this 
chart are the result of these trade agreements. Republicans and 
Democrats, together--administrations run by both political parties--
have failed to do what they should do.
  We have a trade deficit with almost every country. And those with 
whom we do not have a deficit, if we can just get an agreement with 
them, we will have a deficit. Every single agreement we have made 
produces a deficit.
  We have a huge trade deficit with Korea, which is another country 
with which we are negotiating a free trade deal.
  Here are the cars in Korea: 99 percent of the cars on the road in 
Korea are Korean-made cars. Why? The Korean government doesn't want 
other cars in Korea; 99 percent of the cars on the streets in Korea are 
Korean made.

[[Page S6752]]

  In Korea, they exported 730,000 Korean cars to the United States last 
year; 730,000 Korean vehicles were put on ships and sent to America. We 
were able to export 4,251 into Korea. We almost had a success with the 
Dodge Durango pickup, but they shut that down. And 95 percent of the 
cars on the road in Japan are Japanese-made cars in that country. Why? 
That is the way they want it.
  Our country says: That is fine. It does not matter to us. I suppose 
it is fine because nobody wearing a blue suit and suspenders is losing 
their jobs. I don't see any CEOs losing their jobs. I don't see any 
Members of the Senate losing their jobs. The folks making cars are 
losing their jobs. The textile workers are losing their jobs. Family 
farmers are having the rug pulled out from under them with bad trade 
agreements, but folks here are safe. And this administration is, I 
guess, probably the worst we have had for some while on trade.
  But having said that, the Democratic administration that preceded it 
was not particularly good on trade issues, and no one is very 
interested in doing anything to address a serious and growing trade 
problem, which if not addressed will cause havoc with this country's 
economy and will affect every American worker in a very serious way.
  It is probably clear to at least those hearing me that I will vote 
against the Oman Free Trade Agreement. I think it is a serious mistake. 
While I think it will pass today, we will await the next bad trade 
agreement and continue this fight. At some point there will be a 
tipping point on this issue. The American people will demand the 
Congress to finally start doing the right thing. No, not building 
walls, but demanding trade be fair, fair trade on behalf of this 
country.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the 
Oman Free Trade Agreement.
  International trade, if reached through the right paths, can confer 
tremendous benefits on all of its participants. Through this practice 
and agreements like this one, we have the opportunity not only to open 
up market access for American business but also to improve economic 
conditions for all participants.
  Unfortunately, the Oman Free Trade Agreement fails to live up to that 
potential. This agreement does not provide for American business, while 
at the same time it fails workers both here, I believe, and potentially 
in Oman.
  In 2001, the United States entered into a similar trade agreement 
with the country of Jordan. At that time, the agreement was heralded 
for its progressive labor standards. However, we have recently seen in 
Jordan instances of foreign workers forced into slave labor, stripped 
of their passports, denied their wages, and compelled to work for days 
without rest.
  These incidents have been occurring in Jordan because Jordanian labor 
laws are only applicable to its own citizens and preclude protections 
for foreign workers.
  What I sense is happening is that we have allowed, unwittingly, I 
believe, individuals and corporations in Jordan to exploit this 
agreement, to actually move people from countries outside of Jordan 
into Jordan, and to set up conditions that are not only horrible for 
the individuals but continue to put pressure on American working men 
and women in terms of reduced wages, and also do not act to raise the 
standard of living in Jordan.
  One of the points of our agreement with Jordan was to provide the 
kind of conditions that would raise the standard of living for 
Jordanian workers. So I am terribly concerned about what could happen 
in Oman.
  My fear in Oman is that they have far weaker labor standards, and 
that would lend itself to even worse conditions than in Jordan. In 
fact, the potential for seeing these types of abuses is much higher in 
Oman, where up to 70 percent of its workforce is comprised of foreign 
workers already.
  During the ``mock markup'' of this agreement last month--the practice 
of the Finance Committee where they would go through and, in theory and 
concept, make the changes they would like to see take place--the 
Finance Committee unanimously approved an amendment to explicitly 
prohibit products made with slave labor or through human trafficking 
from benefitting from this deal, conditions similar to those in the 
Jordanian Free Trade Agreement. However, the administration chose not 
to include this simple, commonsense provision in the final implementing 
legislation before us today.
  When our trade partners are held to different, less stringent 
standards, no one is better off. When Omani firms can employ workers in 
substandard conditions, the Omani workers and American workers both 
lose. The playing field is not level. The enforceable provisions of 
this free-trade agreement require only that Oman and the United States 
enforce their existing labor laws.
  In Oman, this means that workers can be denied the right to 
collectively bargain and to strike. More egregious, Omani law is vague 
in its forbiddance of forced labor. I appreciate the commitments of 
Oman to clarify these provisions and to improve enforcement. However, 
the timeline for doing this is far too long. If we implement this 
agreement, and Oman fails to live up to its promises, then this 
agreement will benefit a few while hurting many.
  I would note that part of the problem with all of these agreements is 
that they are considered under the President's fast-track authority, 
under which Congress is forced to take or leave even the most imperfect 
deals. And when the President ignores valuable input from Congress, 
particularly on issues such as labor standards, we are put in a 
position where our only choice is to vote against it.
  I am a supporter of free trade, but that does not require me to 
support bad deals from an administration that is more concerned about 
getting a deal than getting the deal right.
  We cannot allow other countries to break the rules. Our foreign trade 
partners must play by the same rules as we do because American 
companies and workers cannot compete with countries that engage in 
substandard labor practices. We have seen it again and again: trade 
policies that don't establish a real threshold for labor standards do 
not work.
  So, Mr. President, I will vote against the Oman Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. May I inquire of the Chair, what is the pending matter 
before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Oman Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. I gather at some point the Senate will 
be asked to vote on the trade agreement; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this legislation effecting the U.S.-Oman Free Trade 
Agreement is an important one. Implementing legislation for this 
agreement is currently pending before the Senate and will likely come 
up for a vote later this afternoon. Regrettably, I will be opposing 
this proposal.
  In the past, I have voted for many free-trade agreements. I think 
they are very important. If well constructed, free-trade agreements are 
essential if we are going to have a growing economy, and if the role of 
the United States is going to be a positive one in the 21st century. 
But too often these trade agreements neglect critical points when it 
comes to how they affect American workers, as well as workers in the 
country with whom we are entering into the agreement. As I said, I have 
been supportive of a number of free-trade agreements over the

[[Page S6753]]

years. I have also opposed a number of them. I will explain why and why 
I think this particular agreement needs further work and consideration 
before it is to be adopted.
  Properly constructed, I believe that free trade agreements are in the 
long-term interests of the United States and our trading partners. 
Today's world is interconnected in ways we couldn't even imagine a 
generation ago--even 5 or 10 years ago. Faster and more efficient means 
of transport and communications have made it relatively easy to conduct 
transactions of all types and in all corners of the globe.
  Today, with Internet access, people in the most remote places are 
better informed about what is happening than ever before.
  Globalization has affected countries all around the world. From Latin 
America to India, Africa to China, no nation has escaped the impact of 
this process. The difference is that while globalization has helped 
lift some nations up, it has left others way behind. While it has 
helped certain entities in various countries, it has left many people 
in those same nations staggeringly behind in their chances to enjoy 
greater economic opportunity.
  The march toward a more globalized world has significantly affected 
our own Nation as well. On balance, I believe free trade has benefitted 
our country in many respects. But quite simply, we haven't done enough 
in many areas, especially during the past few years, to help ease the 
transition for many Americans who are struggling. I know the Presiding 
Officer comes from a part of the country where trade agreements can 
have a huge impact on major sectors of the economy, as in our Southern 
States where textiles have been a huge part of economic growth. If not 
handled properly, for people in these States, many of whom are working 
for businesses that not many years ago came from New England, trade 
agreements can have a very negative impact.
  Nor have we done enough to ensure a level playing field to ensure 
that American businesses and workers are protected from would-be 
violators of the rules.
  Ultimately, trade agreements should be designed to lift up people in 
both countries. I believe in free trade because in order to compete in 
the global marketplace, America has to keep up and adjust to the 
changes around us.
  We can't just sell goods and services to ourselves and expect to have 
a growing economy. It is critically important that we have access to 
these foreign markets. Barriers and tariffs that prevent goods and 
services from ending up on the shelves in those countries ultimately do 
great damage to our Nation.
  So free and fair trade is critically important to our own economic 
success. Job loss would be staggering, if we were not able to open up 
markets around the globe for U.S. products and services.
  But for free trade to be beneficial and worthwhile, our trade 
agreements must also adjust to changes that are occurring around the 
world.
  Much as I regret to say it, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement does 
not reflect this reality. Although negotiators had a real opportunity 
to learn from the past, to raise the standards and to produce a better 
agreement, we can see in the agreement before us many of the same 
problems that plagued previous free-trade agreements such as CAFTA-DR.
  The issue of labor rights is one key example of how this agreement 
falls short. I have long been an advocate of vigorous enforcement of 
U.S. trade laws, especially with respect to those provisions that 
require our trading partners to respect internationally recognized 
rights of workers in their countries. Workers rights violations not 
only give other nations an unfair trade advantage, they also hurt U.S. 
workers by depressing wages here at home and causing American jobs to 
be shipped overseas.
  Certainly, Oman is not the egregious violator of workers rights that 
some of our other trading partners are. Indeed, Oman has ratified the 
International Labor Organization's Convention 29 on forced labor, 
Convention 182 on the worst forms of child labor, Convention 105 on the 
abolition of forced labor, and Convention 183 on minimum age of 
employment. Oman has also ratified the United Nations protocol to 
prevent, suppress, and punish trafficking in persons, especially women 
an children.

  On the surface, therefore, one might think that there is little to 
worry about with respect to this agreement, which requires Oman to 
enforce its labor laws. But this notion overlooks a simple fact--that 
Oman's labor laws and its enforcement thereof is lacking. Collective 
bargaining is still not legally enshrined in Oman, nor is the right to 
strike. Existing law dealing with forced labor is vague. So asking Oman 
to uphold its own laws is not holding that country to the high 
standards necessary to protect U.S. workers.
  While I understand that Oman is committed to improving its labor laws 
and enforcement, we should first see some significant action on their 
end to make sure that both United States and foreign workers are going 
to be protected. Or better yet, use the ILO standards, not domestic 
laws, as the benchmark for workers rights provisions in this and other 
free-trade agreements.
  Right now there is an October deadline that Oman has agreed to as a 
target for achieving some reforms. Besides the late date, I have 
serious doubts as to what incentives Oman will have to carry out these 
reforms once this agreement is in place. If this agreement passes 
before those reforms take place, as may be the case today, many of the 
incentives for Oman to reform will be gone.
  My colleagues should also be aware that we are not just talking about 
how Omani laws will protect Omani workers.
  The fact is that guest workers from impoverished Asian countries 
perform much of the labor in Oman. These guest workers need to enjoy 
the same worker protections as Omani citizens. To that end, we have 
learned in the last 2 months of rampant labor abuses of foreign workers 
in Jordanian sweatshops.
  I don't mean to malign our friends in Jordan. They have been 
wonderful allies, and very helpful on a number of issues that affect 
the United States in that part of the world. I am hopeful that abuses 
by unscrupulous employers in Jordan will be punished and prevented in 
the future because even the best intentioned countries can never 
prevent all occurrences of abuses. But given that the Oman Free Trade 
Agreement has much weaker labor provisions than the Jordanian 
agreement, the Oman deal certainly seems like it will be a recipe for 
similar abuses in the future.
  I also have concerns about a small provision included in the second 
annex to the Oman Free Trade Agreement, in the section governing U.S. 
rights and obligations. In that annex, it is stated that the ``United 
States reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure . . . '' 
except ``landside aspects of port activities, including operation and 
maintenance of docks.''
  Simply put, this raises questions as to whether the United States 
would be able to prevent Oman from acquiring companies that run U.S. 
port operations without essentially being sued in the World Trade 
Organization.
  Why are we including provisions such as that in a trade agreement and 
leaving ourselves vulnerable to legal action if we decide that it is in 
our own self-interest, because of our concerns about terrorism and 
national security, to prevent Oman from acquiring port operations in 
the United States?
  The only caveat to this section of the Oman Free Trade Agreement is 
that Oman must provide similar market access to the United States. Now, 
according to the U.S. Trade Representative, all of our trade agreements 
include an article on essential security which basically provides that 
nothing in the agreement can prevent us from applying measures that we 
consider necessary for the protection of our essential security 
interests.
  That is all fine and well and would seem to indicate that the 
President or the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States 
could still review proposed acquisitions. But why should our trade 
agreements contain language such as this that is legally confusing at 
the least and potentially opens us up to being sued, if we decide that 
something is in our national security interest?
  There are other issues I could raise about the content of the U.S.-
Oman Free Trade Agreement, but I believe that the two issues I have 
mentioned are critically important and reason enough to oppose this 
agreement.

[[Page S6754]]

  Once again, the Bush administration had an opportunity to use fast-
track authority to promote a trade agreement that would be in the best 
interest of our Nation, of our workers and businesses. I wish that this 
was the case when it comes to the Oman Free Trade Agreement. 
Unfortunately, we are instead seeing more of the same disregard for 
American workers in the pending proposal.
  As a result, I intend to oppose this agreement and urge my colleagues 
to review it very carefully, review the provisions dealing with labor 
standards and review the standards when it comes to port operation 
activities included in this free-trade agreement.
  I should mention as well, another reason why I support strong labor 
provisions in these agreements. It is critically important that our 
trading partners have enough people who can afford to buy the goods and 
services that we produce here in the United States. Even if countries 
open up their borders to our goods, what percentage of their population 
could ever afford our goods and services if they mainly receive low 
wages and little or no benefits? The only alternative to strong labor 
protections is that we drop the prices of our goods tremendously, which 
would obviously be disadvantageous to our future economic prosperity.
  The rationale for insisting that there be labor standards and decent 
wages provided to these people is a wealth creation idea. Labor 
protections, therefore, are not only about human rights, which is 
legitimate enough, but are also about enlightened self-interest.
  For those reasons, this agreement should not be approved. When the 
vote occurs, I will be urging my colleagues to vote against it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to oppose the 
Oman Free Trade Agreement. There are two primary reasons that I oppose 
this agreement.
  First, this trade agreement is part of the administration's failed 
trade policy. I believe strongly that we need to change direction, and 
we need to change direction now, before our trade and budget deficits 
cripple our economy.
  This chart shows how badly off target our trade policy is. Our trade 
deficits have exploded. In 1992, our trade deficit was just $40 
billion. Thirteen years and 10 trade deals later, our trade deficit 
last year was $718 billion--$718 billion.
  NAFTA provides one example of how these trade deals have affected our 
trade deficits. In 1993, the year before NAFTA took effect, we had a 
trade surplus with Mexico of about a little less than $2 billion. Last 
year, after 12 years of NAFTA, our trade deficit with Mexico had 
mushroomed to $50 billion. So we went from a trade surplus with Mexico 
to a massive trade deficit with Mexico.
  Agriculture provides another example. When this administration took 
office, we had a healthy trade surplus of $15 billion in agriculture. 
But that surplus has been shrinking every year since then. This year 
the surplus is expected to fall to just $2 billion, the smallest 
agricultural trade surplus in 35 years. Yet we keep going down the same 
path, trumpeting each agreement as a resounding success.
  If this set of policies is a success, I would hate to see a failure. 
How can anybody suggest that this is a success? We have gone from being 
the biggest creditor nation in the world to being the biggest debtor 
nation in the world, and a key reason are these failed trade policies 
that over and over have promised the American people that they were 
going to turn the tide, that they were going to make a difference, that 
they were going to change the circumstance. And over and over they have 
failed, not in the world of theory, not in the world of make-believe, 
but in the real world, in the real world where we can measure the 
results, and the results have been clear: We mushroomed the trade 
deficit with this set of trade policies.
  There is an old saying that the definition of insanity is doing the 
same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Under that 
definition, our trade policy is certifiably nuts. We need to stop 
giving more than we are getting in trade agreements. We need to stop 
sending American jobs overseas. We need to reduce our trade deficits. 
And we need a trade strategy that will boost incomes for American 
workers and farmers.
  The agreement before us is a continuation of this failed trade 
policy. We are not getting more than we are giving. When we read the 
fine print and the study done by the United States International Trade 
Commission, the nonpartisan U.S. agency in charge of analyzing trade 
agreements, we discover that this agreement will increase our trade 
deficit with Oman--will increase our trade deficit with Oman.
  Why are we entering into more trade agreements that make our trade 
deficit that is at record levels even worse? What kind of a plan is 
this?
  Imports of apparel from Oman will increase by $42 million annually, 
according to the International Trade Commission. But the ITC says our 
exports of all products to Oman will only increase by $14 million to 
$41 million, depending on how responsive our exports are to tariff 
reductions.
  So this agreement, as I have said, actually makes our trade deficit 
with Oman worse, not better. Perhaps it should not be surprising that 
this agreement would increase our trade deficit. It is produced by an 
administration that says that outsourcing jobs to other countries is a 
good thing. It is produced by an administration that does not believe 
in having other countries improve their labor standards so that 
American workers don't have to compete with workers who are paid 
pennies an hour to work in abusive conditions. In fact, this 
administration has repeatedly rebuffed the efforts of my colleagues to 
strengthen labor laws in Oman so that they meet international labor 
standards.
  I don't think this is a good agreement on its merits, but the process 
by which it has come to the floor is even worse. The way this bill has 
been brought to the Senate floor makes a complete mockery of the fast-
track process.
  The fast-track process is now revealed, for anyone who cares to look, 
as a complete sham. How so? As all Members of this body already know, 
the Constitution gives the Congress, not the President, the 
responsibility for regulating foreign trade. Yet in recognition that we 
cannot have 535 trade negotiators, the Congress has agreed to the fast-
track process for considering trade agreements.
  By the way, I have supported that approach in the Senate Finance 
Committee. I thought it was the right approach to take, given the 
commitments that were made to us on how these trade agreements would be 
negotiated, how these talks would be conducted. But what we have seen 
in this agreement is a flagrant failure to keep the agreement.
  In agreeing to fast track, each Senator gives up their most 
fundamental rights as a Senator. We give up our right to amend. We give 
up the right to extended debate. In essence, we are giving up our right 
to protect the interests of our individual States. In return, there is 
supposed to be detailed consultation with the Congress throughout the 
process of negotiating trade agreements and developing implementing 
legislation.
  In practice, the Finance Committee, of which I am a member, is the 
focus of this consultation because the Finance Committee has 
jurisdiction over trade policy. In theory, the committee has extensive 
input during the process of negotiating trade agreements and developing 
the legislation to implement it. Theoretically, it does not then need 
to amend the implementing bill once it is formally introduced.
  When it comes to developing the implementing bill, this consultation 
occurs through what is known as a mock markup process. The mock markup 
is the Finance Committee's opportunity to amend the implementing bill 
before it is formally introduced, and then cannot be amended under 
fast-track rules.
  This informal process has a long history. During consideration of 
previous trade agreements, the process has lasted months and produced a 
host of changes.

[[Page S6755]]

  On the Oman agreement, I offered an amendment in the Finance 
Committee to prevent products made with slave labor or under sweatshop 
conditions so egregious to be tantamount to slave labor from benefiting 
from the agreement. I did so because current law has failed to prevent 
horrific sweat shops in Jordan under the Jordan FTA. I did so because 
it is not free trade when foreign workers are locked in factories and 
forced to work 100 hours a week for pennies an hour. That is not free 
trade. That is not what Members of this body support when they vote in 
favor of free trade.
  This story from the New York Times entitled ``An Ugly Side of Free 
Trade: Sweat Shops in Jordan'' tells the story. The recent study in 
Jordan found that the use of what amounts to slave labor is precisely 
what has happened. Workers from Bangladesh, China, and other parts of 
Southeast Asia were promised much greater pay than they could earn in 
their home countries. They paid hundreds of dollars to recruiters to 
get a job in a Jordanian apparel factory. When they got to Jordan, 
their passports were taken away so they could not leave or change jobs. 
They were then forced to work 90 to 120 hours a week. They were paid 
far less than Jordan's minimum wage, and if they complained, they were 
beaten or jailed.

  Here is what workers reported, according to the news stories:

       We used to start at 8 in the morning, and we'd work until 
     midnight, 1, or 2 a.m, 7 days a week. When we were in 
     Bangladesh, they promised us we would receive $120 a month, 
     but in the 5 months I was there in Jordan, I only got 1 
     month's salary, and that was $50.

  Mohammed Saiful Islam, a Bangladeshi, said that several times the 
workers had to work until 4 a.m. and then sleep on the factory floor 
for a few hours before resuming work at 8 a.m.

       The workers got so exhausted they became sick. They could 
     hardly stay awake at their machines.

  Several workers said when they were sick, they did not receive 
medical care but were instead punished and had their pay docked.
  Hazrat Ali said he sometimes worked 48 hours in a row--48 hours in a 
row--and received no pay for 6 months. ``If we asked for money, they 
hit us,'' he said.
  Nasima Akhter said the western factory gave its workers a half glass 
of tea for breakfast and often rice and some rotten chicken for lunch. 
``In the 4 months I was in Jordan,'' he said, ``they didn't pay us a 
single penny. When we asked management for our money and for better 
food, they were very angry at us. We were put in some sort of jail for 
4 days without anything to eat, and then they forced us to go back to 
Bangladesh.''
  Mr. President, these conditions are appalling. We should not be 
asking American workers to compete with these practices, and we should 
not be giving special trade benefits to products made under these 
conditions.
  In the case of Oman, its labor laws fall far short of the core 
International Labor Organization standards. Oman, like Jordan, relies 
heavily on guest workers who are often at a serious disadvantage in 
trying to assert their rights. Oman has been cited by our own State 
Department for human trafficking. According to the International Trade 
Commission, the Oman Free Trade Agreement is expected to greatly 
increase apparel production and exports to the United States.
  This means there are significant reasons to be concerned about the 
same thing that happened in Jordan. There is good reason to be 
concerned that they might happen in Oman as well.
  That is why I offered the amendment in the Finance Committee. It 
simply clarified that goods produced with slave labor or de facto slave 
labor will not get the benefits of the agreement. The administration 
raised objections in the committee, but the committee rejected the 
organization's advice and unanimously adopted my amendment--
unanimously. It did so because the members of the committee believed 
that products manufactured in these sorts of abusive conditions should 
not get special benefits under this trade agreement.
  The Finance Committee spoke loudly and clearly. By an 18-to-nothing 
recorded vote, the committee disagreed with the administration and said 
that we needed to add protections in this agreement because, clearly, 
local labor laws and U.S. laws did not work in the case of Jordan. Yet 
the bill before us today does not include these protections. It does 
not include my amendment.
  This process says that a unanimous vote in the Senate Finance 
Committee means nothing. It says that adopting an amendment by a 
unanimous vote is tantamount to rejecting the amendment because the 
outcome is exactly the same. This makes a complete mockery of the 
markup system for trade legislation in the Finance Committee. It 
demonstrates how completely broken this process is. No matter what the 
Finance Committee says, no matter how strongly it says it, the 
administration is free to ignore it.
  Two years ago we debated the Australia Free Trade Agreement and the 
Finance Committee adopted an amendment I offered at that time. It then 
went through procedural contortions to drop the amendment. I said at 
the time:

       This precedent strikes me as dangerous. It opens the 
     process for abuse, and it reduces the committee's role in 
     crafting trade policy and trade legislation. It may have been 
     expedient, but I believe we will come to regret this 
     precedent. It invites a future President to ignore any 
     recommendations made by the committee on future trade 
     implementing legislation.

  Mr. President, that is what has happened here today on the Oman Free 
Trade Agreement. The administration has concluded that it is free to 
ignore the unanimous recommendation of the Finance Committee.
  I believe this action has serious consequences for the fast-track 
process itself. If consultation is without meaning, there is no reason 
Senators should give up their rights under Senate rules to amend and 
debate trade agreements.
  Fast track is up for renewal next year. This egregious abuse of the 
process is just another nail in the coffin of fast track. It is 
becoming crystal clear to me that consultation promised in the fast-
track process is completely a sham.
  Let me conclude. The Oman Free Trade Agreement promises few, if any, 
benefits to the U.S. economy and will make our trade deficit with Oman 
worse. Moreover, the safeguards that were supposed to protect against 
imports made under abusive sweatshop conditions and slave labor have 
been dropped from the bill.
  Finally, the process that the Finance Committee followed sets a 
terrible precedent. No Senator should welcome the precedent that the 
administration can simply ignore the will of the Finance Committee on a 
particular trade issue very important to the people we represent, 
secure in the knowledge that a trade implementing bill can be pushed 
through as part of a larger take-it-or-leave-it package.
  So I hope my colleagues, even those who generally support free-trade 
agreements, will think long and hard about this vote. If you believe 
the Senate and the Finance Committee should not have a voice in trade 
agreements and trade implementing bills, if you support the use of 
slave labor and human trafficking and egregious, abusive sweatshops, 
you should vote for this bill. But if you believe that consultation 
under fast track should be meaningful, if you believe that the markup 
process should not be a mockery, and if you oppose slave labor, you 
should oppose this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to stand for a new direction in trade policy, to 
stand for agreements that benefit America and to vote against the Oman 
Free Trade Agreement.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senator makes some good points, but I 
don't think we should saddle Oman with what happened in Jordan. 
Saddling this agreement with that accusation, it seems to me, is not 
quite fair.
  Mr. President, whenever I begin my examination and analysis of a 
proposed free-trade agreement, my first question is always: How will 
this agreement affect my folks, my people in Utah?
  Any objective analysis would indicate that the passage of the United 
States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will have only a de minimis effect on 
the State of Utah, since Oman only has a gross domestic product of 
$24.8 billion.
  The second question I ask is whether an agreement will have a 
positive effect on the American economy. According to the U.S. 
International Trade

[[Page S6756]]

Commission, the FTA will have a small, but it will be a positive, 
impact.
  Specifically, trade between our two nations totaled over $1 billion 
in 2005, with the U.S. exporting $593 million worth of goods and 
services to Oman and importing $555 million from that country. This is 
a trade surplus for us of $38 million, which is a positive development, 
since our Nation bore a $48 million trade deficit with Oman as recently 
as 2004. Yet despite this positive trade balance, trade with Oman only 
accounts for 0.04 percent of all U.S. trade.
  So what is the advantage for the American people and the people of 
Utah?
  The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement, as does the Bahrain FTA 
that preceded it, sends a very important message that the United States 
strongly supports the economic development of moderate Middle Eastern 
nations. This is a vital message in the global war on terrorism.
  As you well know, since the end of the Second World War, the United 
States has, on a number of occasions, accepted nonreciprocal trade 
concessions in order to further important Cold War and post-Cold War 
foreign policy objectives. Examples include offering Japan and Europe 
nonreciprocal access to American markets during the 1950s and 1960s in 
order to strengthen the economies of our allies and prevent the spread 
of communism. At the time, this policy was affordable due to the 
tremendous size of the trade surpluses the United States enjoyed. 
However, those times have passed.
  Our Nation has not enjoyed a trade surplus since 1975, and last 
year's deficit widened to a record $726 billion, increasing to 5.8 
percent of the gross domestic product, from 5.3 percent in 2004 and 4.5 
percent in 2003.
  My colleagues may look at these hard truths and question the need for 
any further trade agreements, including the United States-Oman Free 
Trade Agreement. But I must remind my colleagues that we have a trade 
surplus with Oman and this agreement will permit more American 
companies to have full access to the Omani market.
  Further, Oman is quickly running out of oil and, as a result, has 
launched a series of measures to reform its economy. Those measures 
will require American products, and this free-trade agreement 
immediately removes Oman's uniform tariff of 5 percent ad valorem on 
U.S. goods and phases out other tariffs on U.S. goods. Now, this means 
that the Omanis will have more money to buy what they are buying from 
us now: machinery, transportation equipment, and measuring 
instruments--products that provide good jobs for our fellow Americans.
  I have also become aware of media reports that state the agreement 
provides Omani port operators an absolute right to establish or acquire 
operations to run port facilities within the United States. This, of 
course, is not accurate. The Oman FTA preserves the right of the United 
States to determine for itself whether to block a foreign investment in 
the United States in order to protect our essential security interests, 
including any potential investment in port authorities and activities. 
I also should point out this agreement does not affect current U.S. law 
that authorizes the President to block proposed foreign investment in 
the United States that threatens U.S. national security.
  Mr. President, these Middle Eastern nations such as Oman are 
countries who work with us in the global war on terrorism. They are 
people who have taken care of our troops. They are people who help us 
with our military. They are people who are moderate in nature, and, for 
the most part, do a lot of good things and have a constructive view of 
the world. Therefore, I think a free-trade agreement with Oman is very 
important.
  I also want to thank the vast majority of the people of the United 
Arab Emirates for the friendship they have shown to our country and, 
really, to the world at large.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I will continue to support such agreements 
as the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement, and I urge all of our 
colleagues to join us in supporting this agreement. Let's not give too 
much credibility to some of these arguments that are being made against 
this agreement.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask to be permitted to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Israel and the Palestinians

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise now to discuss the tense 
situation we are witnessing in the Middle East between Israel and the 
Palestinians. It has been said that governing is about choices. Right 
now, Hamas has to make a choice that can determine the future of the 
Palestinian people and the Palestinian state.
  Hamas is, at its roots, a terrorist organization. That has been 
established in the view of the United States and in the view of the 
European Union. So we can't kid ourselves about what it is that we see 
in front of us. They used a strategy to usurp power in the Palestinian 
territories. First, Hamas offered some social services among the 
Palestinian people by running social service programs even as it 
pursued its terrorist objective, to destroy Israel.
  But now Hamas has a choice. Does it really care about the Palestinian 
people or is it simply too dedicated to its terrorist ways? If Hamas is 
really concerned about the Palestinian people, they would release, 
promptly and safely, the Israeli soldier they now hold hostage. We have 
seen them brag--crow about the fact that they killed a young settler 
they abducted, 18 years of age.
  We see a new tactic being used by terrorists over the last few 
weeks--by terrorists in general. We saw what happened in Iraq when they 
kidnapped two of our soldiers, Private Kristian Menchaca and Private 
Thomas Tucker. They were mutilated and tortured before they were 
killed. So brutally handled by these terrorists in Iraq. I know our 
troops are working very hard to find these terrorist killers, and I 
hope we will.
  But now Hamas, replicating that kind of terror behavior, has 
kidnapped an Israeli soldier, a young corporal--Gilad Shallit his name 
is--and Israel has been on the search to try to rescue him while trying 
to get the Palestinian people to understand they cannot win this fight 
for peace with a government composed of terrorism advocates.
  Hamas shows their hand choosing this confrontation. To make matters 
worse, they then abducted this young man, 18-year-old Eliyahu Asheri--
they showed pictures of him--and shot him in the head.
  The events of these past few days are vividly illustrating to the 
world that Hamas is not a valid governing body. They can't be taken 
seriously as a civilized leader of its people. That has to be 
understood by the people in those communities. There is so much to be 
gained by a peaceful resolution of the differences. No, it is probably 
true that neither side can fully gain all of its own interests. But 
Hamas, a terrorist organization, cannot be taken seriously as a 
civilized leader of its people. It is a terrorist organization 
masquerading as a government.
  But now they are faced with a critical choice. If they have decided 
that the path of violence is the one that they would like to follow, it 
dooms the Palestinian people to isolation and economic hardship. Or now 
they can make a humanitarian gesture on behalf of the people they 
purport to represent.
  I have had a deep interest in the area. Israel is a very important 
ally. They provide us with a degree of presence that we otherwise would 
have to gain ourselves with more ships, more troops, more airplanes. 
But this democratic society survives in a sea of totalitarianism.
  It has to be understood that we want to work with the Palestinian 
people. Believe me, when I see pictures of Iraqi children or 
Palestinian children, families torn apart, a father or mother lost with 
a child weeping, sobbing alongside the dead parent, brother or sister, 
we don't want any violence to come to any side in these attempts to 
govern. But Hamas is a terrorist organization. Suggesting that they 
represent the view of the people there presents a very sad picture.
  Violence is not helping any cause in the Middle East. But Hamas seems 
intent on continuing the downward spiral of violence and death. One 
cannot blame the Israelis for fighting to save

[[Page S6757]]

their people. That is their responsibility as a government.
  We have reached out to Iraq, ostensibly, as is said by the 
administration, to protect our freedoms in this country. We have come 
face to face with terror, and it has changed life in America. The 
downing of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon, the 
violation of our territorial borders, the violation of life and the 
pursuit of regularity by our people--it is all different now.
  I happened to visit a community of Native Americans in New Jersey. 
One man was complaining that he can't fish in the reservoir anymore. He 
can't put a boat in there because they are afraid that he might be a 
terrorist. But they still depend on that for sustenance, hunting 
animals, fishing. When you see that kind of reach--that is not the most 
terrible thing that has happened in our world, but it just tells you 
about the extent that terror can inflict punishment on the free world.
  So this situation then between Israel and the Palestine territories 
really exemplifies what can be. They have this young man captive, 
threatening to kill him. My advice is, return him promptly and safely, 
and show the real face of the Palestinian people. They are essentially 
a hard-working, industrious people who ultimately want to have peace 
for their families and a chance for them to exist with a standard of 
living that is reasonable.

  The United States and the European Union already know Hamas is a 
terrorist organization. The rest of the world now knows it, too.
  The reach of terror is beyond anything that might have been 
anticipated, whether it is an attack in a Japanese subway or a train in 
Great Britain or Spain or wherever; everybody is on guard. We are all 
looking at how horrible examples of terror are. We are going to see 
tense days in Israel and Gaza. My hope, and I think the hope of 
everybody who knows anything about the situation, is that Hamas comes 
to its senses and quickly releases Corporal Shallit.
  Some time ago I was with other Senators on a trip to Iraq. On the way 
we stopped in Israel to meet with Prime Minister Sharon when he was in 
power. While we were sitting around the table, I and the four other 
Senators suddenly saw activity, hustle-bustle in the conference room. 
The Prime Minister, Sharon then, looked like he was suddenly deflated. 
He slumped in his chair. He said he had bad news. There was a suicide 
bombing attack in a port just south of Tel Aviv and 10 people were 
killed and many others wounded.
  I volunteered for the five of us that we could adjourn the meeting 
and permit the Prime Minister to go on and conduct his necessary 
function.
  He said to me: Senator, when you are the Prime Minister of Israel, 
you must continue to function no matter what the circumstances are. And 
we will continue our discussions here.
  Israel as we know it is going to fight back against terror with every 
ounce of energy and blood that it can muster. It is not going to let 
the Palestinians or any other terror come into their country and kill 
or injure its citizens without paying a terrible price. The price not 
only is to the people where the perpetrators come from but the tensions 
that spread throughout the world.
  Let's hope that Hamas comes to its senses and quickly returns the 
young soldier they are holding.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.


                          The Hamdan Decision

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are a nation at war. There is no doubt 
that America must devote all of its energy and resources to defeating 
terrorism and stopping those who attacked us on 9/11 and would attack 
us again.
  But we are also a nation of law. No one from the highest ranks in 
America to the lowest is above the law--even during a war. That is what 
makes America special and in many ways different from other nations.
  Today, across the street from where we meet in the Senate, the United 
States Supreme Court handed down a decision reminding the Bush 
administration that no President is above the law. The Court rejected 
the Bush administration's decision to turn its back on treaties and 
laws that have served America so well for generations. The Supreme 
Court held that the Bush administration must comply with the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of 
suspected terrorists.
  Why did this matter come before the Supreme Court? Because, with no 
input from Congress, the Bush administration set aside our treaty 
obligations and agreements and created new rules for detaining, 
interrogating, and trying detainees. They claimed that the Congress had 
no voice in the matter and the courts had no right to review what this 
President decided.
  The administration claimed that it could act as legislator, 
executive, and judge when it came to the treatment of these prisoners. 
But today the Constitution prevailed. The Supreme Court made it clear 
that it is Congress's responsibility to make the laws and the 
President's responsibility to follow the laws, just as the Constitution 
provided.
  Our Founding Fathers understood that it is a human and a natural 
political reaction for Kings and Presidents and those in power to try 
to be more powerful. They warned us.
  In writing our Constitution over 200 years ago, they warned us that 
we needed to separate power in America so no one branch of Government 
would become too powerful. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison, our 
fourth President and the primary author of our Constitution, wrote:
  The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and 
judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very 
definition of tyranny.
  You do not hear the word ``tyranny'' much anymore. It meant a lot to 
the men and women who waged the wars and risked their lives in the 
great revolution creating this Government.
  But the decision of the Supreme Court today is entirely consistent 
with that goal in our Constitution, to make certain that no President, 
no branch of our Government, becomes so powerful that it isn't held to 
check by our Constitution and our laws.
  Today, the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration and 
for James Madison and for the rule of law. Here is what Justice Anthony 
Kennedy said:

       Concentration of power (in the executive branch) puts 
     personal liberty in peril of arbitrary action by officials, 
     an incursion the Constitution's three-part system is designed 
     to avoid.

  This is a historic decision--a decision that reminds this President 
and every President to come that they must answer first to the 
Constitution of the United States. It says to President Bush and all of 
those who promulgated these policies that they must answer to our 
Constitution.
  The Supreme Court has taken the same position that former Secretary 
of State Colin Powell took almost 5 years ago when the President and 
his administration first decided to set aside the standards and values 
of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions, of course, were 
agreements entered into by civilized nations which said we should guide 
our conduct by common principles. The Geneva Conventions applied until 
this administration after 
9/11 felt we could no longer hold to those standards. They were 
reminded today by the U.S. Supreme Court that they were wrong.
  Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested we could live up to the 
Geneva Conventions and still fight terrorism and still make America 
safe. He pointed out that the Geneva Conventions do not limit the 
ability to hold detainees and do not give POW status to terrorists. 
That was a straw man created by this administration to avoid 
generations of legal precedents.
  Secretary Powell also said that setting aside the Geneva Conventions 
``will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice . . . and 
undermine the protections of the law of war for our own troops . . . It 
will undermine public support among critical allies, making military 
cooperation more difficult to sustain.''
  These are the words of Colin Powell, a man who dedicated his life to 
our military, to our country, and to public service.
  When you look at the negative publicity about Guantanamo and Abu 
Ghraib today, you understand that Collin Powell's remarks were 
prophetic. He was right. Ignoring the law of war hurts our efforts to 
fight terrorism, and sadly it puts our troops at risk. And it is not 
the American way.
  Unfortunately, the President did not follow Secretary Collin Powell's 
counsel when it came to this decision. He

[[Page S6758]]

listened to others within his administration. That led to this 
confrontation before the Supreme Court. That led to this decision 
today.
  I hope this decision will set a standard for us when it comes to 
dealing with this war on terrorism--that we can win this war without 
losing our souls. The Supreme Court reminded us today that America--
this great and strong Nation--can be a safe nation without compromising 
the values that make us different.
  I urge the President to use today's decision to move on a bipartisan 
basis to establish a standard consistent with our values, consistent 
with our laws, and consistent with the treaties that we have signed for 
the treatment of prisoners.
  Anyone who is dangerous to America should be held and should not be 
released. Anyone who has real value to America, in terms of 
intelligence, should be interrogated properly to find out what they 
know and how it could help protect us. But the Supreme Court makes it 
clear today that we have to move beyond where we are holding hundreds 
of prisoners at Guantanamo and other places without charges and without 
any clear disposition under the law.
  Several of my friends have volunteered to be attorneys for those who 
are detained at Guantanamo. I have met with my friends in Chicago. They 
are men who have spent a lifetime in the practice of law, one a former 
U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, another a defense 
counsel for many decades in the city of Chicago.
  They went down to Guantanamo to meet with the detainees that they 
volunteered to represent and came back to Chicago begging me for a 
meeting. We got together and they told me the stories. First, they 
couldn't understand how this could happen, how the United States of 
America would not be following basic standards of conduct, which 
everyone assumed we would follow when it came to legal procedure. They 
asked me how this could happen. I couldn't answer it, but I knew the 
Supreme Court would have to answer it.
  When Chief Justice Roberts, who recused himself from today's 
decision, and Justice Alito came before the Judiciary Committee, we 
reminded them that Sandra Day O'Connor, in an earlier decision 
concerning the treatment of prisoners, made it clear that even during 
time of war no President is above the law. In the Hamdi decision, she 
said, ``A state of war is not a blank check for the President.'' We 
asked each of these nominees if they agreed, and they said they did, 
without any equivocation.
  The decision today by the Supreme Court, this majority decision, is a 
reminder of the greatness of this Nation. It is a reminder that 
following the rule of law we can keep America safe. We can treat these 
prisoners properly and legally. If they are a danger, we can hold them. 
But there comes a time when this President and every President must be 
held accountable to our Constitution.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly support the United States-Oman 
Free Trade Agreement and urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Two-way trade between the U.S. and Oman stands at nearly $1 billion, 
and it is projected to grow under the terms of this new agreement. Upon 
enactment, 100 percent of industrial and commercial products and 87 
percent of agricultural products will be duty free. The agreement, 
which covers textiles, telecommunications, intellectual property 
rights, investment, and other sectors, will promote economic growth and 
prosperity in both countries. American producers, consumers, and 
investors will benefit from the FTA.
  Not only is this free-trade agreement good for the economic 
prosperity of Americans, it will promote growth and employment in Oman. 
Given Oman's long strategic ties to the United States and the efforts 
of Sultan Qaboos to reform the economy and the political process, this 
agreement is an important sign of our support.
  Since 1833, when the United States signed a treaty of friendship with 
Oman, our ties to that country have been close. The U.S. used Oman's 
Masirah Island air base during the attempt to rescue U.S. Embassy 
hostages in Iran during the Carter administration. Oman hosted 
thousands of U.S. personnel during Operation Enduring Freedom in 
Afghanistan and during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Our governments have 
cooperated in the nonsecurity aspects of the war on terror, and Oman 
has made important strides toward greater democratization. The Sultan 
has made women's rights an important part of his reform plans. While 
work remains, the liberalization project in Oman remains on a positive 
trajectory.
  In recognition of this deep cooperation, and to further enhance our 
economic and security ties, this free-trade agreement should win quick 
approval by the U.S. Senate. I urge my colleagues to support it
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have a failed trade policy and the 
United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement, OFTA, implementation 
legislation the Senate is being asked to consider today is a 
continuation of that failed trade policy. This failure is reflected in 
a trade deficit that reached a record $717 billion last year and in the 
loss of 2.8 million manufacturing jobs over the past 5 years.
  The OFTA implementing legislation fails to insist on basic 
internationally recognized labor standards, yet this agreement is being 
rushed through the Senate under fast-track procedures that only allow 
Members of Congress an up-or-down vote and no chance to amend or 
improve it one day after it was voted out of the Finance Committee and 
with no report. Although I support free and fair trade, as well as 
increasing our economic ties with Oman, I believe any trade agreement 
entered into by the United States should include commitments to 
international labor standards.
  Writing labor and environmental standards into trade agreements is an 
important way to ensure that free trade is fair trade. But unlike the 
2001 Jordan Free Trade Agreement, the OFTA fails to include 
internationally recognized, core labor standards supported by most 
countries in the world. Those standards include the right to organize/
associate; the right to bargain collectively; a prohibition on child 
labor; a prohibition on discrimination in employment; and a prohibition 
on forced labor.
  In the case of Oman, its laws do not meet core International Labor 
Organization, ILO, standards, and therefore the agreement's requirement 
that Oman simply ``enforce its own laws'' is inadequate.
  Rejecting the OFTA implementing legislation as currently drafted 
would be a sound rejection of the failed and flawed trade policies of 
the past and a signal of support for a better approach to trade that is 
a two-way street and trade that supports the rights of workers.
  I am disappointed that the administration ignored the Senate Finance 
Committee amendment forbidding any goods produced with slave labor or 
benefiting from human trafficking from benefiting from the agreement. 
This amendment passed the committee unanimously, yet the administration 
did not include it in the legislation it sent to Congress. This is 
especially unfortunate in light of recent revelations that such labor 
abuses are occurring in Jordan despite a United States-Jordan FTA that 
included labor and environmental protections unlike the agreement under 
consideration today. It also shows a blatant disregard on the part of 
the administration of the advice and input of Congress in developing 
trade agreements.
  I do not support the agreement before us as crafted, and without the 
chance to improve it, I must oppose it. Trade should not be a race to 
the bottom in which U.S. workers must compete with countries that do 
not recognize core international labor standards and basic worker 
rights.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement. At a time when commerce routinely 
crosses national borders, the United States should be positioned to 
compete in all arenas. Bilateral free trade agreements facilitate this 
goal. The FTA with Oman is significant for many reasons. Foremost, it 
encourages trade and economic cooperation with a friend and partner in 
the Middle East. FTAs are vital tools in providing new opportunities 
for our domestic companies as well as shaping our international 
business and foreign policy. Cooperation on the commercial front 
enhances our ability

[[Page S6759]]

to work with nations in other matters, including security and 
intelligence.
  FTAs promote trade and growth which in turn support overall 
government stability and cooperation in this region. Continued cross-
border trade ties will ensure the emergence of new capital markets and 
provide U.S. firms with new business partners. This agreement with Oman 
is also a further step in the direction of the goal to have a Middle 
East Free Trade Area by 2013.
  Oman acceded to the World Trade Organization in 2000, and entered 
into a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement, TIFA, with the U.S. in 
July 2004. The TIFA provided a foundation upon which the U.S. and Oman 
were able to begin discussing areas of increased cooperation in trade 
that could be achieved. Subsequently, this FTA was signed in October 
2005 and sent to Congress on June 26 under Trade Promotion Authority 
timelines.
  This agreement will provide for greater market access in services, 
consistent legal protections for investors, effective enforcement of 
labor and environmental laws, and protection of intellectual property. 
There has been some debate over strengthening of labor laws in Oman. 
The government there passed significant labor reforms in 2003 and has 
made a commitment to implement further reforms by October of this year. 
Additionally, the Omani government has committed to increased 
protections for intellectual property. It has indicated that existing 
intellectual property protection laws will be enforced and enhanced 
civil and criminal penalties will be instituted for violators of these 
protections. Further, in addition to commitments not to relax 
environmental standards in order to attract investment, there was a 
separate agreement signed establishing a Joint Forum on Environmental 
Cooperation, through which ongoing assessments of environmental issues 
will be addressed.
  In 2004, U.S. goods exports to Oman totaled $330 million, and two-way 
trade was $748 million. Of these amounts, U.S. agriculture comprised 
$20 million. The stock of U.S. foreign direct investment in Oman in 
2003 was $358 million. Enactment of this agreement will further expand 
the market for U.S. exports which currently include machinery, 
automobiles, medical instruments, and agricultural products such as 
vegetable oils, sugars, sweeteners, and beverage bases. In addition to 
greater market access for agriculture and consumer goods, this 
agreement will also specifically create greater opportunities for 
service industries such as banking, insurance and securities.
  FTAs provide benefits that enable American companies and workers to 
compete effectively around the world. I encourage my colleagues to 
support the U.S.-Oman FTA.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I oppose the proposed U.S.-Oman Free Trade 
Agreement. This agreement is not fair to American workers, plain and 
simple.
  The theory behind free trade agreements is that two nations will 
agree to the free flow of goods as long as there is a relatively even 
playing field in terms of labor and environmental standards.
  Without that even playing field, we face a worldwide ``race to the 
bottom,'' where the nations that pay their workers the least and offer 
them the fewest rights and protections, wins.
  Sadly, the Bush administration has entered this particular race with 
gusto.
  The Sultanate of Oman does not have much of a track record on 
worker's rights. There is no right to form independent unions or 
bargain collectively. The Omani constitution and labor laws do not 
prohibit the use of forced labor for public services and child labor is 
still permitted in law and practice.
  The country of Oman has only 3 million people--and half a million of 
them are foreign ``guest workers,'' mainly from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka 
and other Asian countries. And there have been numerous reports about 
how guest workers in that region have been exploited and underpaid, 
enabling their employers to turn out extremely low-cost products.
  Unfortunately the trade agreement we are considering today offers no 
guarantees that Oman will not treat its ``guestworkers'' in the same 
way, and then be able to sell the products of their labor, duty free, 
to U.S. companies.
  And we are asking American workers to compete against that? That's 
not free trade, defined as a mutually beneficial arrangement between 
two nations that raises living standards and general prosperity for the 
citizens of both countries. That's merely pitting American workers 
against the poorest, most desperate workers in the world, who work as 
foreign contract workers and have few legal or institutional 
protections.
  I cannot support that approach to free trade. I proudly join with 
400-plus labor, environmental, religious, human rights, consumer, 
business and family farm organizations, to oppose the U.S.-Oman Free 
Trade Agreement.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, the Oman Free Trade Agreement is not a 
threat to American workers, and it could help us build better relations 
in the Middle East. I believe that the administration has handled its 
relationship with Congress on this agreement poorly, but our foreign 
policy interests in the region require greater engagement with it. For 
this reason, I am voting for this agreement.
  The economics of the agreement are negligible. U.S. exports entering 
Oman today face tariffs that this agreement will remove. As a result, 
American sales to that country will increase by about 14 percent, or 
$41 million. This increase is a very small share of U.S. exports to the 
world--less than .05 percent--making the effect on U.S. output and 
employment minimal. On the import side, according to the International 
Trade Commission, ``the expected changes in U.S. trade with Oman . . . 
would likely be very small and, therefore, have almost no effect on 
U.S. imports, employment, or welfare.'' In other words, imports would 
be so small that they don't even register.
  Because the economic impact on the United States is not a compelling 
factor, I believe that we must base our vote on the kind of message it 
sends about our approach to trade generally and the potential effects 
of trade agreements on our foreign policy. In general, I believe that 
more trade between the U.S. and other countries is good. It helps build 
constructive political relationships and can create wealth both here 
and abroad. And I would like to see us build better relationships with 
countries like Oman and its neighbors.
  I have been informed by the State Department that Oman has been a 
valuable partner for the United States in a volatile part of the world. 
I will not take the time to list all of the areas of cooperation 
between our two governments, but this relationship is important and is 
the main reason I am voting for this agreement today. I believe we have 
a strategic interest in working to enhance our relationships with 
friendly governments in the region.
  I should also point out that Oman, with respect to the Arab world, is 
forward leaning on a range of economic and political issues, including 
women's suffrage. This is not to gloss over some of the problems in 
Oman, including restrictions on the press and a lack of a free and 
independent judiciary; one only needs to look at the State Department's 
Human Rights Report to know that there is room for improvement. With 
this vote, I want to send a signal to the government of Oman that we 
respect the progress it is making, but expect that there is much more 
to come.
  I would caution the administration, however, not to take for granted 
Congress' support for trade agreements. We give the President 
streamlined authority to negotiate trade agreements and send them to 
Congress to make it easier for Presidents to conclude negotiations. We 
do that to encourage trade. But that does not mean that he can or 
should ignore this co-equal branch of government.
  The Senate Finance Committee specifically directed the administration 
to exclude from the Oman agreement goods that were produced with slave 
labor or benefited from human trafficking. The administration refused 
to do so. That sends a loud message to Congress that the administration 
believes fast track authority is the authority to ignore Congress. It 
is not, and I caution the President that such an approach to trade 
policy will lead to the death of Trade Promotion Authority and a wave 
of protectionist policies.
  I support this agreement because I believe in the potential of the 
Middle East and our responsibility to engage and build partnerships in 
the region.

[[Page S6760]]

But I will continue to work to make trade agreements better for workers 
and the environment as we move forward with the Nation's trade agenda.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the 
Oman Free Trade Agreement implementing legislation before us. I am 
concerned about shortcomings in Oman's labor laws, in particular the 
lack of any provisions allowing workers to form independent unions or 
to bargain collectively. Also, Oman has no legal prohibitions of 
sweatshop labor.
  Some have argued during today's debate that Oman has made 
improvements in their labor laws and are willing to make more. And it 
is true that recent labor law reforms in that country have moved the 
situation for workers from criminal to just terrible. But we should 
have learned from our experience with Jordan--a country with which we 
have a free-trade agreement, one that was justified by promised 
improvements in their labor laws. Just recently, the New York Times 
published an expose of the dreadful conditions in Jordan's sweatshops. 
What makes us think that Oman, with weaker labor standards than Jordan, 
will behave any better after they get their free-trade agreement? 
Congress needs to stand up for the workers in countries with which we 
trade before we reward them with unfettered access to our markets--and 
that means Congress must reject against trade agreements that do not 
demand strong labor laws and respect for fundamental workers' rights.
  My ``no'' vote on the Oman Free Trade Agreement is also a vote 
against the way in which the Bush administration has handled trade 
negotiations. A year ago, Congress debated and ratified CAFTA. I voted 
against CAFTA because I could not see offering trade concessions to 
countries with labor standards so far below our own. I challenged this 
administration to negotiate trade agreements with countries that have 
strong labor laws. So far, they have not responded.
  I also voted against CAFTA--and will vote against the Oman agreement 
today--in protest of a trade policy that is ignoring our rising trade 
deficit and the job drain that accompanies it. Instead of finding ways 
to pander to countries with deplorable human rights and worker 
protection records, the President and his trade negotiators ought to 
get tough with China and make them play by the rules. In the past 8 
months, the President has met with President Hu of China twice. Each 
meeting was seen as an opportunity to begin to develop policies to 
respond to China's unfair trade practices, and each time this 
administration has been eerily silent.
  In the meantime, our trade deficit has ballooned to $805 billion, and 
our trade deficit with China alone has risen to $201 billion. What is 
the President's plan? The U.S. Trade Representative wants to push 
through as many trade agreements as it can before fast-track 
Presidential trade negotiating authority expires in 2007. Peru, 
Columbia, United Arab Emirates, Thailand, and Korea are all in the 
queue. When is enough, enough? When will this administration focus on 
keeping jobs at home rather than handing out trade concessions abroad?
  Workers in this country are looking to the President for leadership 
and answers on how we can keep jobs in the United States. 
Unfortunately, the Oman Free Trade Agreement offers neither. I urge my 
colleagues to reject the Oman Free Trade Agreement--and reject the 
misguided, disastrous trade policy it represents.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering a free-
trade agreement with Oman. And here we are, once again, facing a free-
trade agreement with an important ally that is the product of a failed 
process, an inattentive administration, and a basic neglect of the will 
of Congress.
  I think this is a decent agreement with Oman, and I am not interested 
in harming relations with an important Middle East ally because of my 
frustration with the administration. Economic integration of the Middle 
East is too critically important a goal and vital to our efforts in the 
war on terror. I understand that deficiencies remain in this agreement. 
I will monitor Oman's remaining commitments on worker rights very 
closely. We must continue to engage this volatile region of the world 
economically if we expect to make progress on a number of fronts.
  I have said repeatedly to the administration that our trade 
agreements must include the basic International Labor Organization, 
ILO, standards within the four corners of the trade agreement and that 
those standards must be enforceable. I have said that we must address 
other abuses such as the recent reports of abhorrent working conditions 
in Jordan. So what have we done? On CAFTA, I offered an amendment 
calling on the administration to require equivalent dispute resolution 
procedures for workers' rights as we provide for patent violations. And 
even though that vote failed on a 10 to 10 tie, the administration did 
not even consider strengthening the standards.
  On Oman, Senators Conrad, Bingaman and I offered an amendment to 
strengthen slave labor laws. The committee adopted the amendment 
unanimously. Inexplicably, the administration has returned the 
implementing bill without the language--without an explanation--without 
justification. It is absolutely inconceivable that the administration 
would not support a ban on the importation of goods produced with slave 
labor. At a time when America is attempting to restore its image around 
the world, this certainly sends the signal that as long as this 
administration is in place, we should not anticipate common sense in 
Government.
  But I will say that the intransigence demonstrated by the 
administration this week does not bode well for renewal of fast-track 
authority. Under the Constitution, Congress is empowered to manage our 
economic relationships. We grant that power to the administration so 
that we may present the world with one voice in our economic diplomacy. 
But we must evaluate under what conditions we grant this authority in 
the future--if we grant it at all. There is no doubt that the system is 
broken. And I will be actively engaged as we reevaluate this strategy.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, consistent with my longstanding record 
of supporting trade as good for America's economy and economic 
development in Arab and Muslim countries as important for peace in the 
world, I am supporting the Oman Free Trade Agreement. However, I do so 
with some reluctance because of my concerns about its labor provisions.
  For me, trade must be fair. This agreement is flawed in its failure 
to provide the tools necessary to ensure rigorous labor protections. I 
have been pressing for some time for the inclusion of stronger labor 
protections in our trade agreements. While the agreement would bind 
Oman to enforce its own laws regarding slave labor, I am disturbed by 
the administration's decision to ignore the bipartisan views of the 
Finance Committee by not including a unanimously approved stronger 
provision against slave labor.
  Serious labor violations now occurring in Jordan, despite the 
stronger labor provisions contained in the Jordan FTA, demand that this 
administration insist on stronger labor protections in our trade 
agreements and stronger enforcement of the labor protections that do 
exist.
  I will vote for this FTA because Oman is a strategically important 
nation in the Middle East, with which we enjoy excellent relations. The 
failure of Congress to pass this agreement would threaten our future 
relations with Oman and our allies in the Middle East generally. I will 
also support this FTA because trade helps to open the economies of 
countries in the Arab world and provides a better path up for its 
people than the fanaticism and violence al-Qaida offers. In that sense, 
these trade agreements represent progress in the war for the hearts and 
minds of the people in the Arab world which is a critical part of our 
larger war against Islamist terrorism.
  But today I want to lay down a marker. I will not continue to support 
future free-trade agreements unless the administration becomes serious 
about negotiating labor and other improvement that build on our 
experience rather than continue to produce a series of FTAs that in the 
end penalize too many of our workers here at home and do not adequately 
protect workers overseas.

[[Page S6761]]

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the points 
made by my colleagues today.
  First, I have heard concerns that the United States-Oman Free Trade 
Agreement will give foreign port operators an absolute right to 
establish or acquire operations to run port facilities in the United 
States. As I explained earlier, that is just wrong. The United States 
clearly has the right to prohibit foreign investments in the United 
States that would harm our national security. Nothing in the United 
States-Oman Free Trade Agreement changes that.
  Some of my colleagues have also expressed concerns about the process 
by which the bill we are considering was brought to the Senate floor. 
They focus on a proposed amendment adopted by the Finance Committee 
during its informal consideration of proposed legislation to implement 
our trade agreement with Oman. This amendment was offered by Senator 
Conrad. It was meant to withhold benefits under the agreement to 
products made with the benefit of forced or indentured labor. I voted 
for the amendment because I shared some of Senator Conrad's concerns, 
and I subsequently transmitted the text of the adopted amendment to the 
U.S. Trade Representative.
  In addition to voting for the Conrad amendment, I introduced a 
chairman's modification to the proposed statement of administrative 
action which was approved by the committee. My modification called upon 
the administration to monitor or report on the efforts of the 
Government of Oman to prohibit compulsory or coerced labor.
  Separately, the House Ways and Means Committee had approved the same 
draft implementing legislation but without approving any amendments. So 
we had a situation where the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means 
Committee sent different versions of informal nonbinding 
recommendations to the President. In this case the differences were 
limited and discrete. They were not of the type and degree that would 
warrant a mock conference.
  The administration made the determination that existing law already 
precluded the legal importation of products made with forced or 
indentured labor. The administration therefore concluded that the 
Conrad amendment was not necessary or appropriate to implementation of 
the agreement. I received a letter from the general counsel of the 
Office of U.S. Trade Representative articulating the legal basis for 
the administration's position. I distributed this letter to all members 
of the Finance Committee prior to the committee's formal markup of this 
implementing legislation. I will ask unanimous consent that this letter 
be included in the record with my remarks.
  I understand that some of my colleagues are upset that the proposed 
Conrad amendment isn't included in S. 3569. I believe that the process 
concerns raised by my colleagues could have been avoided if we had had 
more consultations by the U.S. Trade Representative with members of the 
Finance Committee. I am going to make it a point to see that there is 
better dialogue between the Finance Committee and the U.S. Trade 
Representative in the future. I want to see improved dialogue both 
during the negotiation of a trade agreements and prior to the point 
that the administration sends implementing legislation for a trade 
agreement to the Congress. I am confident that improved consultation 
and communication will help avoid such process concerns in the future.
  With that, Mr. President, I say again that this is a very good trade 
agreement for both Oman and the United States. I urge my colleagues to 
lend their enthusiastic support to the bill before the Senate to 
implement this agreement.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, the United States 
           Trade Representative,
                                    Washington, DC, June 22, 2006.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Chairman, Senate Finance Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Grassley: During the Finance Committee 
     hearing on May 18, Senator Conrad introduced an addition to 
     the draft implementing legislation for the United States-Oman 
     Free Trade Agreement (FTA) to ``add a provision to prevent 
     goods made with slave labor (including conditions of de facto 
     indentured servitude), or with the benefit of human 
     trafficking, from benefiting from the agreement.'' At the 
     hearing, I promised to provide you with a letter detailing 
     our views on this proposal.
       The proposed addition is neither necessary nor appropriate 
     because the FTA already deals effectively with products of 
     forced or indentured labor. In addition, U.S. law prohibits 
     the importation of products produced with convict, forced, or 
     indentured labor under penal sanctions. Moreover, we are 
     aware of no evidence suggesting that goods are produced in 
     Oman using slave labor or with the benefit of human 
     trafficking.
       First, Oman already prohibits forced labor and Oman has 
     promised to take steps to clarify and strengthen its laws 
     further. Article 12 of Oman's Basic Law provides that ``Every 
     citizen has the right to engage the work of his choice within 
     the limits of the law. It is not permitted to impose any 
     compulsory work on anyone except in accordance with the Law 
     and for the performance of public service, for a fair wage.'' 
     Oman has further committed in writing to ``issue a Royal 
     Decree, no later than October 31, 2006, specifying the forms 
     of public service that could be required in the event the 
     Government were ever to exercise its power under Article 12, 
     consistent with Convention 29.'' Oman is, in fact, already a 
     signatory to ILO Conventions 29 and 105, which prohibit 
     forced labor. At your request; the Administration has 
     committed to update the Congress periodically on the progress 
     that Oman achieves in realizing all its commitments made to 
     labor law reform.
       Second, Article 16.2.1(a) of the FTA requires Oman to 
     enforce its labor laws. If it fails to do so, then the United 
     States is entitled to resort to the FTA's dispute settlement 
     procedures, and if the United States prevails, Oman may be 
     required to pay up to $15 million per year in fines that can 
     be used for appropriate labor initiatives in Oman, including 
     enforcement.
       Third, U.S. law already prohibits the importation of 
     products produced with convict labor, forced labor, and 
     indentured labor under penal sanctions. Specifically, 19 
     U.S.C. 1307 states as follows:
       All goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, 
     produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign 
     country by convict labor or/and forced labor or/and 
     indentured labor under penal sanctions shall not be entitled 
     to entry at any of the ports of the United States, and the 
     importation thereof is hereby prohibited, and the Secretary 
     of the Treasury is authorized and directed to prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary for the enforcement of this 
     provision. The provisions of this section relating to goods, 
     wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or 
     manufactured by forced labor or/and indentured labor, shall 
     take effect on January 1, 1932; but in no case shall such 
     provisions be applicable to goods, wares, articles, or 
     merchandise so mined, produced, or manufactured which are not 
     mined, produced, or manufactured in such quantities in the 
     United States as to meet the consumptive demands of the 
     United States.
       ``Forced labor'', as herein used, shall mean work or 
     service which is exacted from any person under the menace of 
     any penalty for its nonperformance and for which the worker 
     does not offer himself voluntarily. For purposes of this 
     section, the team ``forced labor or/and indentured labor'' 
     includes forced or indentured child labor.
       Notably, the statute is not limited to prison labor, but 
     extends to products manufactured with forced or indentured 
     labor. In fact, the statute was specifically amended in 1930 
     to add forced and indentured labor.
       The statute is also not limited to involuntary labor. The 
     term ``indentured labor'' is understood to mean labor 
     undertaken pursuant to a `` `contract entered into by an 
     employee the enforcement of which can be accompanied by 
     process or penalties.' '' China Diesel Imports, Inc. v. 
     United States, 855 F. Supp. 380, 384 (CIT 1994) (citing 71 
     Cong. Rec. 4489 (1929) (statement of Senator Blaine)).
       While the statute provides for an exception in the case of 
     goods that are not produced in the United States, we cannot 
     envision a situation where this exception would be applied in 
     practice. Given the broad economic base of the United States, 
     we do not anticipate a situation where the United States 
     would be obliged to import an otherwise banned product from 
     Oman to satisfy domestic demand because it cannot be obtained 
     in the United States.
       In determining whether importation of a product should be 
     prohibited, Customs will look closely at the circumstances of 
     the case. For example, the Forced Child Labor Advisory issued 
     by the Department of Treasury and U.S. Customs Service in 
     December 2000 lists several ``red flag'' factors indicating 
     the existence of forced or indentured child labor. These red 
     flags may alone provide evidence of forced/indentured labor, 
     and include, e.g., slave labor conditions, employment to 
     discharge a debt, financial penalties that eliminate wages, 
     etc. The Advisory also lists several ``yellow flag'' factors 
     that may indicate the need for further investigation. These 
     yellow flag factors include, for example, employment in 
     violation of local laws and regulations, or employment in 
     hazardous industries or under extreme conditions.
       Other agencies have interpreted the statute in a similar 
     way. Pursuant to Executive

[[Page S6762]]

     Order 13126, the Department of Labor applies the Section 1307 
     standard in developing a list of products produced by child 
     labor that are not eligible for federal government 
     procurement. According to the Department of Labor, ``The 
     essential elements of the definition [of forced or indentured 
     child labor] are either the presence of coercion or the 
     existence of a contract enforceable by penalties.'' The 
     Department has listed illustrative factors it will look at in 
     making this determination, including, e.g., confinement, 
     little or no pay, deprivation of basic needs, etc. Bureau of 
     International Labor Affairs; Notice of Preliminary List of 
     Products Requiring Federal Contractor Certification as to 
     Forced or Indentured Labor Under Executive Order No. 13126; 
     Request for Comments, 65 Fed. Reg. 54108 (Sept. 6, 2000).
       Fourth, Congress recently affirmed that goods made with 
     forced or child labor in violation of international standards 
     cannot be imported into the United States. On February 17, 
     2005, the President signed into law the Trafficking Victims 
     Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-164). 
     Specifically, section 105(b) of that Act requires United 
     States Government departments and agencies to ``consult with 
     other departments and agencies of the United States 
     Government to reduce forced and child labor internationally 
     and ensure that products made by forced labor and child labor 
     in violation of international standards are not imported into 
     the United States.''
       For these reasons, the Administration does not consider the 
     proposed addition to be ``necessary or appropriate to 
     implement'' the Oman-trade agreement under the terms of 19 
     USC Sec. 3803(b)(3)(B)(ii) and the Administration will not 
     include the proposed addition in the text of the legislation 
     implementing the United States--Oman Free Trade Agreement.
           Sincerely,
                                              James E. Mendenhall,
                                                  General Counsel.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep disappointment 
over the legislation to implement the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement. 
When sending this legislation to Congress, President Bush inexplicably 
deleted an amendment that would have barred goods made with slave labor 
or forced labor from benefiting under the FTA.
  This amendment was originally proposed by Senator Conrad and other 
Democrats on the Finance Committee, but ultimately received unanimous 
bipartisan support from the Finance Committee in a recorded vote.
  The amendment was very simple it would have ensured that goods 
produced with slave labor, goods produced from forced labor, and goods 
produced based on human trafficking could not come into the U.S. under 
the preferential rules established by the agreement. I do not know how 
anyone could oppose this amendment. I think the American public would 
be united in support for the concept that they do not want to help 
support slave labor, forced labor, and human trafficking. President 
Bush really has some explaining to do.
  The genesis for this amendment was a report revealing that companies 
in Jordan were importing workers from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and other 
poor countries, confiscating their passports, forcing them to work 80 
to 100 hours per week, paying them inadequately, if at all, and 
subjecting them to physical intimidation and in some cases violence. 
Many of these workers actually paid recruiters thousands of dollars to 
get these ``good jobs'' and could not leave until they had earned 
enough money to pay off their debts.
  Admittedly, these problems were in Jordan, not Oman. There are 
important reasons, however, why we need to be even more vigilant about 
this type of problem in Oman.
  First, Oman's basic economic structure is currently based on the use 
of foreign workers--about 70 percent of Oman's workforce is foreign. 
Pretty much anywhere in the world, foreign workers are a particularly 
vulnerable lot.
  Second, Oman already has a record on related issues that is cause for 
concern the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions has stated 
that migrant workers ``suffered extreme exploitation'' in Oman. And, 
the U.S. State Department has criticized Oman for inadequate efforts to 
stop human trafficking:

       Oman is a destination country for men and women primarily 
     from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India who migrate willingly, 
     but may subsequently become victims of trafficking when 
     subjected to conditions of involuntary servitude . . . as . . 
     . laborers. Oman is placed on Tier 2 Watch List because of a 
     lack of evidence of increasing efforts to combat severe forms 
     of trafficking in persons over the last year.

  Third, Oman's labor laws, enforcement, and history are much weaker 
than Jordan's. Oman's labor laws do not currently meet basic 
international standards. Oman is to be applauded for making numerous 
changes to its laws in the run up to the FTA to try to improve them. 
And, it has committed to making additional changes. Still, as I 
understand it, a few important areas remain where Oman's laws and 
enforcement fall short of standards that virtually every country in the 
world has accepted as a minimum.
  Negotiations with some Democrats had been ongoing to resolve the 
continuing labor issues, but the administration appears to have decided 
that it will ignore their concerns. That was a regrettable decision. I 
have heard a lot of people lament the decline of bipartisanship in 
trade policy. I think if you were to date this decline, it would have 
started in 2001. The administration cannot just roll Democratic 
concerns one day and then expect a great working environment the next.
  I am not sure why President Bush thinks we need excuses to ban goods 
made from slave labor and forced labor, but if we do, then I think I 
have just outlined a pretty good rationale.
  I have heard some argue that we do not need to ban goods made with 
slave labor from Oman because U.S. law already bans all goods made with 
slave labor. People who make this argument are either misinformed or 
being misleading. The law at issue unfortunately has a ``consumptive 
demand'' exception--it does not block imports of products made with 
slave labor if there is not sufficient U.S. production to meet U.S. 
demand. The Court of International Trade just last year confirmed that 
the consumptive demand exception applies. Given that our trade deficit 
stands at over $700 billion, the exception clearly swallows the rule. 
So, again, anyone making a defense of this indefensible position by 
pointing to existing law is just plain wrong.
  The President's decision to undermine Senate Democrats' efforts to 
curb slave labor and forced labor is not the only reason that I oppose 
this bill. As I noted above, Oman's labor laws--while much improved 
from 3 years ago--are still not up to international norms. The Bush 
administration has steadfastly refused to incorporate these minimum 
standards into the text of the agreement itself. There are minimum 
standards for intellectual property, for protecting the rights of 
foreign investors, for certain regulatory decisions, and in numerous 
other areas--as there should be. But the Bush administration has 
refused to include minimum standards for workers.
  Finally, I want to restate my serious concerns about the Arab League 
Boycott against Israel. For decades now, the United States has had a 
policy to oppose the Arab League boycott against Israel. There is an 
entire office in the Department of Commerce tasked with implementing 
this anti-boycott policy. Congress has also directed USTR to 
``vigorously oppose'' WTO admission for countries that engage in the 
boycott. In my view, it is an implicit corollary of this latter rule 
that the U.S. should not enter into bilateral trade agreements with 
countries that participate in the boycott.
  Here, Oman has traditionally been one of the good guys. It renounced 
the boycott--primary, secondary, and tertiary--in 1994. The Government 
of Oman has stated numerous times that it does not apply any aspect of 
the boycott.
  So, it was confusing to say the least that the Jerusalem Post 
reported earlier this month that an interview with two separate senior 
Customs officials in Oman revealed that Oman does in fact enforce the 
primary boycott. An official from Oman's Directorate of Customs stated, 
``Products from Israel are not permitted because of the boycott. . . . 
You might put yourself in problems if you do that [i.e., if you try to 
bring in products from Israel].'' The chief of Customs Officers at the 
capitol airport stated, ``No products from Israel are allowed.''
  The Government of Oman quickly sought to correct the record. I again 
applaud these efforts. Still, it certainly raises a serious question 
when you have nonpolitical people with no agenda whose very job it is 
day in and day out to enforce the Oman customs law claiming that the 
boycott exists. There seems to be a major disconnect here.

[[Page S6763]]

  The administration should be able to lift the cloud of confusion, but 
unfortunately, the administration lacks credibility on this issue. 
Unwittingly or not, USTR has helped obfuscate the issue by giving 
incomplete, inaccurate, and on occasion misleading information to 
Congress on the boycott. In light of this lack of credibility, there is 
too much uncertainty on whether Oman has indeed terminated all aspects 
of the Arab League boycott. Accordingly, until this uncertainty is 
cleared up, I cannot support giving Oman the most preferential trade 
treatment under U.S. law.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few minutes, we will be voting on the 
United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement
  This agreement is a model for free trade in the Persian Gulf region 
and will become America's fourth agreement with an Arab country.
  We struck similar deals with Jordan in 2000, Morocco in 2004, and 
Bahrain in 2005. Like these earlier deals, the Oman agreement will open 
and expand opportunities for exports of many American products to the 
benefit of America's workers, manufacturers, consumers, farmers, 
ranchers, and service providers.
  As soon as the agreement takes effect, Oman and the United States 
will provide each other immediate duty-free access on virtually all 
products in their tariff schedules, including all consumer and 
industrial products, and will phase out tariffs on the remaining 
products within 10 years.
  Former Trade Representative Rob Portman calls it ``a high quality, 
comprehensive free trade agreement that will contribute to economic 
growth and trade.''
  America's relationship with Oman dates back to the early years of our 
Republic, when a treaty of friendship and navigation was signed with 
Muscat in 1833.
  Since then, relations between our two countries have continually 
expanded. Today we enjoy a close and cooperative partnership.
  Although not a formal member of the coalition, Oman has been a 
committed, dependable ally in the global war on terror. Oman has been a 
solid partner on terrorist finance issues and has reached out to work 
with partner nations in the region on trans-border terror threats.
  Oman cooperates closely with us and other allies on counterterrorism 
and has publicly supported the democratic transition in Iraq. It has 
also supported stabilization operations, and the democratic and 
economic transition in Afghanistan. And its government and religious 
leaders consistently and courageously denounce acts of terror and 
religious intolerance.
  Unfortunately, some have sought to undermine the agreement with myths 
that do not stand up to the scrutiny of the facts. For example, despite 
claims to the contrary, Oman does not implement any aspect of the 
boycott of Israel, a position they publicly reaffirmed in a letter from 
its commerce minister in September of 2005.
  Moreover, Oman does not tolerate or allow the use of slave labor. To 
the contrary, Oman has also substantial commitments to the United 
States on labor reform and has promised to enact additional reforms by 
October 31, 2006.
  The agreement before us builds on the progress already made and 
strengthens our relationship with a key friend and ally in the region. 
Indeed, rejection of the trade agreement would send a strong negative 
signal to our friends in the Middle East.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this measure. As the 9/11 Commission 
advised, expanding trade with the Middle East will ``encourage 
development, more open societies and opportunities for people to 
improve the lives of their families.''
  Passing the free trade agreement will promote economic reform and 
development in the gulf and advance President Bush's broader goal of 
freer and more open Middle East. It will help both our allies and 
America move forward.
  I yield back all time for both sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, all time is 
yielded back.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill, having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. FRIST. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee) and the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. 
Murray), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) would 
each vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--34

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Burr
     Byrd
     Carper
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boxer
     Chafee
     Gregg
     Leahy
     Murray
     Stabenow
  The bill (S. 3569) was passed, as follows:

                                S. 3569

       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.

[[Page S6764]]

                     TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS

Sec. 301. Definitions.

     Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement

Sec. 311. Commencing of action for relief.
Sec. 312. Commission action on petition.
Sec. 313. Provision of relief.
Sec. 314. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 315. Compensation authority.
Sec. 316. Confidential business information.

           Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures

Sec. 321. Commencement of action for relief.
Sec. 322. Determination and provision of relief.
Sec. 323. Period of relief.
Sec. 324. Articles exempt from relief.
Sec. 325. Rate after termination of import relief.
Sec. 326. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 327. Compensation authority.
Sec. 328. Confidential business information.

                         TITLE IV--PROCUREMENT

Sec. 401. Eligible products.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to approve and implement the Free Trade Agreement 
     between the United States and Oman entered into under the 
     authority of section 2103(b) of the Bipartisan Trade 
     Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3803(b));
       (2) to strengthen and develop economic relations between 
     the United States and Oman for their mutual benefit;
       (3) to establish free trade between the 2 nations through 
     the reduction and elimination of barriers to trade in goods 
     and services and to investment; and
       (4) to lay the foundation for further cooperation to expand 
     and enhance the benefits of such Agreement.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the United 
     States-Oman Free Trade Agreement approved by Congress under 
     section 101(a)(1).
       (2) HTS.--The term ``HTS'' means the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule of the United States.
       (3) Textile or apparel good.--The term ``textile or apparel 
     good'' means a good listed in the Annex to the Agreement on 
     Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the 
     Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)).

TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT

     SEC. 101. APPROVAL AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE AGREEMENT.

       (a) Approval of Agreement and Statement of Administrative 
     Action.--Pursuant to section 2105 of the Bipartisan Trade 
     Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3805) and section 
     151 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2191), Congress 
     approves--
       (1) the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement entered 
     into on January 19, 2006, with Oman and submitted to Congress 
     on June 26, 2006; and
       (2) the statement of administrative action proposed to 
     implement the Agreement that was submitted to Congress on 
     June 26, 2006.
       (b) Conditions for Entry Into Force of the Agreement.--At 
     such time as the President determines that Oman has taken 
     measures necessary to bring it into compliance with those 
     provisions of the Agreement that are to take effect on the 
     date on which the Agreement enters into force, the President 
     is authorized to exchange notes with the Government of Oman 
     providing for the entry into force, on or after January 1, 
     2007, of the Agreement with respect to the United States.

     SEC. 102. RELATIONSHIP OF THE AGREEMENT TO UNITED STATES AND 
                   STATE LAW.

       (a) Relationship of Agreement to United States Law.--
       (1) United states law to prevail in conflict.--No provision 
     of the Agreement, nor the application of any such provision 
     to any person or circumstance, which is inconsistent with any 
     law of the United States shall have effect.
       (2) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
       (A) to amend or modify any law of the United States, or
       (B) to limit any authority conferred under any law of the 
     United States,

     unless specifically provided for in this Act.
       (b) Relationship of Agreement to State Law.--
       (1) Legal challenge.--No State law, or the application 
     thereof, may be declared invalid as to any person or 
     circumstance on the ground that the provision or application 
     is inconsistent with the Agreement, except in an action 
     brought by the United States for the purpose of declaring 
     such law or application invalid.
       (2) Definition of state law.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``State law'' includes--
       (A) any law of a political subdivision of a State; and
       (B) any State law regulating or taxing the business of 
     insurance.
       (c) Effect of Agreement With Respect to Private Remedies.--
     No person other than the United States--
       (1) shall have any cause of action or defense under the 
     Agreement or by virtue of congressional approval thereof; or
       (2) may challenge, in any action brought under any 
     provision of law, any action or inaction by any department, 
     agency, or other instrumentality of the United States, any 
     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.

[[Page S6765]]

                      TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. TARIFF MODIFICATIONS.

       (a) Tariff Modifications Provided for in the Agreement.--
       (1) Proclamation authority.--The President may proclaim--
       (A) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
       (B) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
       (C) such additional duties,

     as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to 
     carry out or apply articles 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 3.2.8, and 3.2.9, 
     and Annex 2-B of the Agreement.
       (2) Effect on omani gsp status.--Notwithstanding section 
     502(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2462(a)(1)), 
     the President shall, on the date on which the Agreement 
     enters into force, terminate the designation of Oman as a 
     beneficiary developing country for purposes of title V of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.).
       (b) Other Tariff Modifications.--Subject to the 
     consultation and layover provisions of section 104, the 
     President may proclaim--
       (1) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
       (2) such modifications as the United States may agree to 
     with Oman regarding the staging of any duty treatment set 
     forth in Annex 2-B of the Agreement,
       (3) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
       (4) such additional duties,

     as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to 
     maintain the general level of reciprocal and mutually 
     advantageous concessions with respect to Oman provided for by 
     the Agreement.
       (c) Conversion to Ad Valorem Rates.--For purposes of 
     subsections (a) and (b), with respect to any good for which 
     the base rate in the Tariff Schedule of the United States to 
     Annex 2-B of the Agreement is a specific or compound rate of 
     duty, the President may substitute for the base rate an ad 
     valorem rate that the President determines to be equivalent 
     to the base rate.

     SEC. 202. RULES OF ORIGIN.

       (a) Application and Interpretation.--In this section:
       (1) Tariff classification.--The basis for any tariff 
     classification is the HTS.
       (2) Reference to hts.--Whenever in this section there is a 
     reference to a heading or subheading, such reference shall be 
     a reference to a heading or subheading of the HTS.
       (b) Originating Goods.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of this Act and for purposes 
     of implementing the preferential tariff treatment provided 
     for under the Agreement, a good is an originating good if--
       (A) the good is imported directly--
       (i) from the territory of Oman into the territory of the 
     United States; or
       (ii) from the territory of the United States into the 
     territory of Oman; and
       (B)(i) the good is a good wholly the growth, product, or 
     manufacture of Oman or the United States, or both;
       (ii) the good (other than a good to which clause (iii) 
     applies) is a new or different article of commerce that has 
     been grown, produced, or manufactured in Oman or the United 
     States, or both, and meets the requirements of paragraph (2); 
     or
       (iii)(I) the good is a good covered by Annex 3-A or 4-A of 
     the Agreement;
       (II)(aa) each of the nonoriginating materials used in the 
     production of the good undergoes an applicable change in 
     tariff classification specified in such Annex as a result of 
     production occurring entirely in the territory of Oman or the 
     United States, or both; or
       (bb) the good otherwise satisfies the requirements 
     specified in such Annex; and
       (III) the good satisfies all other applicable requirements 
     of this section.
       (2) Requirements.--A good described in paragraph (1)(B)(ii) 
     is an originating good only if the sum of--
       (A) the value of each material produced in the territory of 
     Oman or the United States, or both, and
       (B) the direct costs of processing operations performed in 
     the territory of Oman or the United States, or both,

     is not less than 35 percent of the appraised value of the 
     good at the time the good is entered into the territory of 
     the United States.
       (c) Cumulation.--
       (1) Originating good or material incorporated into goods of 
     other country.--An originating good, or a material produced 
     in the territory of Oman or the United States, or both, that 
     is incorporated into a good in the territory of the other 
     country shall be considered to originate in the territory of 
     the other country.
       (2) Multiple producers.--A good that is grown, produced, or 
     manufactured in the territory of Oman or the United States, 
     or both, by 1 or more producers, is an originating good if 
     the good satisfies the requirements of subsection (b) and all 
     other applicable requirements of this section.
       (d) Value of Materials.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     value of a material produced in the territory of Oman or the 
     United States, or both, includes the following:
       (A) The price actually paid or payable for the material by 
     the producer of the good.
       (B) The freight, insurance, packing, and all other costs 
     incurred in transporting the material to the producer's 
     plant, if such costs 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

[[Page S6766]]

     manufacture of the good, such as administrative salaries, 
     casualty and liability insurance, advertising, and sales 
     staff salaries, commissions, or expenses.
       (2) Good.--The term ``good'' means any merchandise, 
     product, article, or material.
       (3) Good wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of oman 
     or the united states, or both.--The term ``good wholly the 
     growth, product, or manufacture of Oman or the United States, 
     or both'' means--
       (A) a mineral good extracted in the territory of Oman or 
     the United States, or both;
       (B) a vegetable good, as such a good is provided for in the 
     HTS, harvested in the territory of Oman or the United States, 
     or both;
       (C) a live animal born and raised in the territory of Oman 
     or the United States, or both;
       (D) a good obtained from live animals raised in the 
     territory of Oman or the United States, or both;
       (E) a good obtained from hunting, trapping, or fishing in 
     the territory of Oman or the United States, or both;
       (F) a good (fish, shellfish, and other marine life) taken 
     from the sea by vessels registered or recorded with Oman or 
     the United States and flying the flag of that country;
       (G) a good produced from goods referred to in subparagraph 
     (F) on board factory ships registered or recorded with Oman 
     or the United States and flying the flag of that country;
       (H) a good taken by Oman or the United States or a person 
     of Oman or the United States from the seabed or beneath the 
     seabed outside territorial waters, if Oman or the United 
     States, as the case may be, has rights to exploit such 
     seabed;
       (I) a good taken from outer space, if such good is obtained 
     by Oman or the United States or a person of Oman or the 
     United States and not processed in the territory of a country 
     other than Oman or the United States;
       (J) waste and scrap derived from--
       (i) production or manufacture in the territory of Oman or 
     the United States, or both; or
       (ii) used goods collected in the territory of Oman or the 
     United States, or both, if such goods are fit only for the 
     recovery of raw materials;
       (K) a recovered good derived in the territory of Oman or 
     the United States from used goods and utilized in the 
     territory of that country in the production of remanufactured 
     goods; and
       (L) a good produced in the territory of Oman or the United 
     States, or both, exclusively--
       (i) from goods referred to in subparagraphs (A) through 
     (J), or
       (ii) from the derivatives of goods referred to in clause 
     (i),

     at any stage of production.
       (4) Indirect material.--The term ``indirect material'' 
     means a good used in the growth, production, manufacture, 
     testing, or inspection of a good but not physically 
     incorporated into the good, or a good used in the maintenance 
     of buildings or the operation of equipment associated with 
     the growth, production, or manufacture of a good, including--
       (A) fuel and energy;
       (B) tools, dies, and molds;
       (C) spare parts and materials used in the maintenance of 
     equipment and buildings;
       (D) lubricants, greases, compounding materials, and other 
     materials used in the growth, production, or manufacture of a 
     good or used to operate equipment and buildings;
       (E) gloves, glasses, footwear, clothing, safety equipment, 
     and supplies;
       (F) equipment, devices, and supplies used for testing or 
     inspecting the good;
       (G) catalysts and solvents; and
       (H) any other goods that are not incorporated into the good 
     but the use of which in the growth, production, or 
     manufacture of the good can reasonably be demonstrated to be 
     a part of that growth, production, or manufacture.
       (5) Material.--The term ``material'' means a good, 
     including a part or ingredient, that is used in the growth, 
     production, or manufacture of another good that is a new or 
     different article of commerce that has been grown, produced, 
     or manufactured in Oman or the United States, or both.
       (6) Material produced in the territory of oman or the 
     united states, or both.--The term ``material produced in the 
     territory of Oman or the United States, or both'' means a 
     good that is either wholly the growth, product, or 
     manufacture of Oman or the United States, or both, or a new 
     or different article of commerce that has been grown, 
     produced, or manufactured in the territory of Oman or the 
     United States, or both.
       (7) New or different article of commerce.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``new or different article of 
     commerce'' means, except as provided in subparagraph (B), a 
     good that--
       (i) has been substantially transformed from a good or 
     material that is not wholly the growth, product, or 
     manufacture of Oman or the United States, or both; and
       (ii) has a new name, character, or use distinct from the 
     good or material from which it was transformed.
       (B) Exception.--A good shall not be considered a new or 
     different article of commerce by virtue of having undergone 
     simple combining or packaging operations, or mere dilution 
     with water or another substance that 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

[[Page S6767]]

       (2) suspension of liquidation of the entry of a textile or 
     apparel good for which a claim has been made that is the 
     subject of a verification referred to in subsection (a)(1) 
     regarding a claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B).
       (c) Action When Information Is Insufficient.--If the 
     Secretary of the Treasury determines that the information 
     obtained within 12 months after making a request for a 
     verification under subsection (a)(1) is insufficient to make 
     a determination under subsection (a)(2), the President may 
     direct the Secretary to take appropriate action described in 
     subsection (d) until such time as the Secretary receives 
     information sufficient to make a determination under 
     subsection (a)(2) or until such earlier date as the President 
     may direct.
       (d) Appropriate Action Described.--Appropriate action 
     referred to in subsection (c) includes--
       (1) publication of the name and address of the person that 
     is the subject of the verification;
       (2) denial of preferential tariff treatment under the 
     Agreement to--
       (A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the 
     person that is the subject of a verification referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) regarding compliance described in 
     subsection (a)(2)(A); or
       (B) a textile or apparel good for which a claim has been 
     made that is the subject of a verification referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) regarding a claim described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(B); and
       (3) denial of entry into the United States of--
       (A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the 
     person that is the subject of a verification referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) regarding compliance described in 
     subsection (a)(2)(A); or
       (B) a textile or apparel good for which a claim has been 
     made that is the subject of a verification referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) regarding a claim described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(B).

     SEC. 205. RELIQUIDATION OF ENTRIES.

       Subsection (d) of section 520 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1520(d)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``or''; and
       (B) by striking ``for which'' and inserting ``, or section 
     202 of the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement 
     Implementation Act for which''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and information'' 
     after ``documentation''.

     SEC. 206. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out--
       (1) subsections (a) through (i) of section 202;
       (2) the amendment made by section 203; and
       (3) proclamations issued under section 202(j).

                     TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS

     SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Omani article.--The term ``Omani article'' means an 
     article that--
       (A) qualifies as an originating good under section 202(b); 
     or
       (B) receives preferential tariff treatment under paragraphs 
     8 through 11 of article 3.2 of the Agreement.
       (2) Omani textile or apparel article.--The term ``Omani 
     textile or apparel article'' means an article that--
       (A) is listed in the Annex to the Agreement on Textiles and 
     Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)); and
       (B) is an Omani article.
       (3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the United 
     States International Trade Commission.

     Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement

     SEC. 311. COMMENCING OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.

       (a) Filing of Petition.--A petition requesting action under 
     this subtitle for the purpose of adjusting to the obligations 
     of the United States under the Agreement may be filed with 
     the Commission by an entity, including a trade association, 
     firm, certified or recognized union, or group of workers, 
     that is representative of an industry. The Commission shall 
     transmit a copy of any petition filed under this subsection 
     to the United States Trade Representative.
       (b) Investigation and Determination.--Upon the filing of a 
     petition under subsection (a), the Commission, unless 
     subsection (d) applies, shall promptly initiate an 
     investigation to determine whether, as a result of the 
     reduction or elimination of a duty provided for under the 
     Agreement, an Omani article is being imported into the United 
     States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or 
     relative to domestic production, and under such conditions 
     that imports of the Omani article constitute a substantial 
     cause of serious injury or threat thereof to the domestic 
     industry producing an article that is like, or directly 
     competitive with, the imported article.
       (c) Applicable Provisions.--The following provisions of 
     section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) apply 
     with respect to any investigation initiated under subsection 
     (b):
       (1) Paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) of subsection (b).
       (2) Subsection (c).
       (3) Subsection (i).
       (d) Articles Exempt From Investigation.--No investigation 
     may be initiated 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.

[[Page S6768]]

       (d) Period of Relief.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), any import 
     relief that the President provides under this section may 
     not, in the aggregate, be in effect for more than 3 years.
       (2) Extension.--
       (A) In general.--If the initial period for any import 
     relief provided under this section is less than 3 years, the 
     President, after receiving a determination from the 
     Commission under subparagraph (B) that is affirmative, or 
     which the President considers to be affirmative under 
     paragraph (1) of section 330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1330(d)(1)), may extend the effective period of any 
     import relief provided under this section, subject to the 
     limitation under paragraph (1), if the President determines 
     that--
       (i) the import relief continues to be necessary to remedy 
     or prevent serious injury and to facilitate adjustment by the 
     domestic industry to import competition; and
       (ii) there is evidence that the industry is making a 
     positive adjustment to import competition.
       (B) Action by commission.--
       (i) Investigation.--Upon a petition on behalf of the 
     industry concerned that is filed with the Commission not 
     earlier than the date which is 9 months, and not later than 
     the date which is 6 months, before the date any action taken 
     under subsection (a) is to terminate, the Commission shall 
     conduct an investigation to determine whether action under 
     this section continues to be necessary to remedy or prevent 
     serious injury and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic 
     industry to import competition and whether there is evidence 
     that the industry is making a positive adjustment to import 
     competition.
       (ii) Notice and hearing.--The Commission shall publish 
     notice of the commencement of any proceeding under this 
     subparagraph in the Federal Register and shall, within a 
     reasonable time thereafter, hold a public hearing at which 
     the Commission shall afford interested parties and consumers 
     an opportunity to be present, to present evidence, and to 
     respond to the presentations of other parties and consumers, 
     and otherwise to be heard.
       (iii) Report.--The Commission shall transmit to the 
     President a report on its investigation and determination 
     under this subparagraph not later than 60 days before the 
     action under subsection (a) is to terminate, unless the 
     President specifies a different date.
       (e) Rate After Termination of Import Relief.--When import 
     relief under this section is terminated with respect to an 
     article, the rate of duty on that article shall be the rate 
     that would have been in effect, but for the provision of such 
     relief, on the date on which the relief terminates.
       (f) Articles Exempt From Relief.--No import relief may be 
     provided under this section on any article that has been 
     subject to import relief under this subtitle after the date 
     on which the Agreement enters into force.

     SEC. 314. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.

       (a) General Rule.--Subject to subsection (b), no import 
     relief may be provided under this subtitle after the date 
     that is 10 years after the date on which the Agreement enters 
     into force.
       (b) Presidential Determination.--Import relief may be 
     provided under this subtitle in the case of an Omani article 
     after the date on which such relief would, but for this 
     subsection, terminate under subsection (a), if the President 
     determines that Oman has consented to such relief.

     SEC. 315. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

       For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President 
     under section 313 shall be treated as action taken under 
     chapter 1 of title II of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).

     SEC. 316. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION.

       Section 202(a)(8) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2252(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence--
       (1) by striking ``and''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end ``, and title 
     III of the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement 
     Implementation Act''.

           Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures

     SEC. 321. COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--A request under this subtitle for the 
     purpose of adjusting to the obligations of the United States 
     under the Agreement may be filed with the President by an 
     interested party. Upon the filing of a request, the President 
     shall review the request to determine, from information 
     presented in the request, whether to commence consideration 
     of the request.
       (b) Publication of Request.--If the President determines 
     that the request under subsection (a) provides the 
     information necessary for the request to be considered, the 
     President shall cause to be published in the Federal Register 
     a notice of commencement of consideration of the request, and 
     notice seeking public comments regarding the request. The 
     notice shall include a summary of the request and the dates 
     by which comments and rebuttals must be received.

     SEC. 322. DETERMINATION AND PROVISION OF RELIEF.

       (a) Determination.--
       (1) In general.--If a positive determination is made under 
     section 321(b), the President shall determine whether, as a 
     result of 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.''.


[[Page S6769]]


  Mr. GRASSLEY. With today's passage of S. 3569, the U.S.-Oman Free 
Trade Agreement Implementation Act, we have solidified our commercial 
relations with Oman, a longstanding friend and ally for over 200 years. 
The agreement will result in new economic opportunities for U.S. 
farmers, manufacturers, and service providers.
  None of this would have been possible without the support of my 
colleagues. In particular, the Senator from Montana, ranking Democrat 
of the Committee on Finance, Senator Max Baucus. I want to thank 
Senator Baucus for his cooperation and good faith in moving this 
legislation through the Senate with bipartisan support. We would not be 
here today without his strong commitment to raising the living 
standards of people in the United States and abroad.
  Senator Baucus's trade staff deserves recognition. The Democratic 
Staff Director on the Finance Committee, Russ Sullivan, and the Deputy 
Staff Director, Bill Dauster, worked well with my staff and provided 
helpful insight throughout the process. I also appreciate the efforts 
of Brian Pomper, Chief International Trade Counsel, as well as 
Demetrios Marantis, Anya Landau, Janis Lazda, and Chelsea Thomas.
  I would also like to thank President Bush for his leadership. His 
commitment to improving the U.S. economy through increased access to 
foreign markets has made this agreement a reality. Oman is just one of 
his latest successes on this front.
  The dedication of two former United States Trade Representatives, 
Robert Zoellick and Rob Portman, merits special thanks. Their efforts 
at the negotiating table produced a comprehensive, commercially-
meaningful agreement. I would like to recognize the current United 
States Trade Representative, Susan Schwab. Ms. Schwab was confirmed in 
her current position after negotiations of the agreement were 
concluded. Her consultations with the U.S. Congress are appreciated. 
Her negotiating skills and experience make her well suited for future 
talks. I also appreciate the service and hard work of Assistant United 
States Trade Representative for Europe and the Middle East Shaun 
Donnelly.
  My trade staff on the Finance Committee deserves recognition. First, 
my Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Kolan Davis, merits special 
mention. His legislative expertise has been instrumental in moving 
countless bills. The work of the Finance Committee's International 
Trade Counsel, David Johanson and Stephen Schaefer, is invaluable. 
Their depth of knowledge, dedication, and ability to juggle several 
policy issues at that same time is key in advancing the Committee's 
trade agenda. Their long hours are much appreciated. I would like to 
recognize my former Chief International Trade Counsel, Everett 
Eissenstat. While on my staff, he worked diligently on this agreement 
and others. I want also want to thank Tiffany McCullen Atwell, 
International Trade Policy Advisor on the Committee for her hard work 
that produces results behind the scenes. Claudia Bridgeford, 
International Trade Policy Assistant, has also contributed 
significantly to the Committee's work. Russ Ugone, my detailee from 
Customs and Border Protection, has lent us his technical expertise.

  I am grateful to Justin McCarthy, Assistant United States Trade 
Representative for Congressional Affairs, and Andy Olson, Deputy 
Assistant United States Trade Representative for Congressional Affairs, 
for their work with Congress on the U.S-Oman Free Trade Agreement.
  Finally, I would like to thank Polly Craighill of the Office of the 
Senate Legislative Counsel for the long hours she put into working on 
this legislation. Without her patience and hard work, today's vote 
would not have been possible.
  I look forward to the signing of this legislation into law by 
President Bush.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, it is with great disappointment that I 
cast a ``nay'' vote on the Oman Free Trade Agreement today.
  Last summer, when we were debating the Central America Free Trade 
Agreement, or CAFTA, I expressed frustration with the direction of 
free-trade agreements and free-trade policy, in general. I expressed a 
hope that the administration would do more to consult with Congress 
and, particularly, with moderate, free-trade Democrats.
  Many times, representatives of this administration have said that 
they want to bring back the strong bipartisan support for free-trade 
agreements and ``make it easier for Democrats to support free-trade 
agreements.'' Well, one of the ways they can do that is by consulting 
with and responding to concerns expressed by Democrats and moderates in 
Congress--before we are asked to vote up or down on those agreements.
  When the Oman Free Trade Agreement was considered in the Finance 
Committee, 18 members voted in favor of an amendment offered by Senator 
Conrad that would ban the import of goods made by slave labor or by 
workers trapped in abusive conditions through human trafficking. And 
with that amendment approved, all 19 members of the Finance Committee 
were able to support the free-trade agreement. Clearly, supporting that 
language was a way to make it easier for Members of Congress to support 
this agreement.
  Yet the administration decided to ignore that strong signal. They did 
not try to address the concerns voiced through the adoption of the 
Conrad amendment. They chose to omit the amendment from the 
implementing language they sent to the Congress for its approval.
  This action may not backfire today: the Oman agreement may still 
pass. However, it will backfire one day, and I expect it to be in the 
not so distant future.
  Next year, Congress will be asked to reauthorize trade promotion 
authority. But trade promotion authority is about trust, and the 
actions taken by this administration in agreement after agreement have 
not inspired trust. And at this point, they have very little time to 
reestablish that trust before the vote on trade promotion authority 
next summer.
  Lowering trade barriers and promoting free trade is about more than 
just economics. It is about increasing opportunities and improving 
quality of life both here and abroad. In offering access to our 
markets, we can help to peacefully spread democracy and encourage 
developing countries to increase transparency in government, strengthen 
their judiciary, improve conditions for their workforce, and protect 
their environment. But this administration does not seem to recognize 
this opportunity, even when strong supporters of trade--like myself--
tell them that this is an important part of our support for free-trade 
agreements.
  So today we have been sent a free-trade agreement that does not 
reflect an understanding of the concerns expressed by Members of 
Congress. This bill is not amendable. All I can do is vote yes or no. 
Last summer I voted yes, giving the administration the benefit of the 
doubt and hoping that they would listen to the concerns expressed by 
moderates in Congress. Today, I am going to vote no and hope that the 
administration will recognize that they must listen to the concerns 
expressed by the legislative branch and that they cannot take our votes 
for granted.
  I invite the administration to use the time between now and the 
consideration of the Peru Free Trade Agreement to show that you are 
listening, to incorporate our ideas into that agreement, and to prove 
that you deserve the trust we showed in granting trade promotion 
authority.
  I believe in lowering trade barriers, and that is why I have 
supported every trade agreement that has come before me, until today. 
But that will become considerably more difficult without trade 
promotion authority. I sincerely hope we can work together over the 
next year to save it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 3614 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. I thank my distinguished colleague 
from West Virginia for waiting. I know he has an important speech to 
give. I just conferred with the Senator from West Virginia, and it is 
his Fourth of July speech. It is a little early for the 4th, but there 
may not be too many people

[[Page S6770]]

in the Chamber on the 4th or the 3rd or the 2nd or the 1st or even 
tomorrow, the 30th of June. I compliment Senator Byrd in advance.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend, my longtime 
friend, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, for his kind 
reference to me. I value his friendship. I value his views on the 
Constitution. I do, indeed, always.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague

                          ____________________