[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 117 (Tuesday, September 19, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9694-S9699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES-OMAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 5684, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 5684) to implement the United States-Oman free
trade agreement.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be 30 minutes divided as follows: Mr. Dorgan, 10 minutes; Mr.
Conrad, 10 minutes; the chairman and ranking member of the Finance
Committee, 10 minutes, equally divided.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I believe I had reserved 1 hour of which I
had used 30 minutes previously. The vote is at noon, so I intend to
speak for the other 30 minutes, if that is appropriate?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me talk about the Oman Free Trade
Agreement. There are nine additional free-trade agreements being
negotiated right now, nine of them. This past week there was an
announcement that the monthly trade deficit is now $68 billion a month;
a $68 billion monthly trade deficit. If ever there was a definition of
failure, this is it.
So here is what we have: We have the good old boys negotiating trade
agreements--Republicans and Democrats. They happen to be Republicans
now because they are in power, but it has gone on for some long while.
Here is what you see: Trade deficits, which are
[[Page S9695]]
represented by a mountain of red ink--or a deep valley of red ink in
the case of this chart--the highest trade deficit in history, an
unbelievable trade deficit. No country has ever had these kinds of
deficits. They will have significant consequences for our country.
These deficits must be paid for with a lower standard of living in
our country. Every single day, we send $2 billion out to foreign
countries because we import $2 billion more than we export. That means
every single day we are selling $2 billion of this country. We are
selling America piece by piece.
Does this give anybody pause? Is anybody concerned? No. You know what
we need to do? Let's do another trade agreement. We have done trade
agreements here, at this point on the chart, we have done them here, we
have done them here, and every single incompetent trade agreement this
country signs up for ends up dramatically increasing our Federal
deficits. We are choking on them, pulling the rug out from under
American workers, shipping more American jobs overseas. And what is the
response of this Congress? You know, let's do more of it. Why? Because
we live in a global economy, and this is free trade.
I once knew, in my little home, a three-legged blind dog with fleas
that they used to call Lucky. Labels didn't mean much to me--didn't
mean much to that dog either, as a matter of fact. ``Free trade,'' that
is the label on this nonsense. It is not free and it certainly is not
fair.
This country has become Uncle Sucker on trade agreements. We have
signed up to almost anything. Most of our trade is foreign policy and
soft-headed foreign policy at that. I am in favor of trade. I want to
expand trade--the more the better, but I demand it be fair to this
country. When it is not fair, I think we ought to insist. It doesn't
matter to me whether it is Oman or China or Europe or Japan or Korea or
Mexico or Canada, I think we ought to say it is a new day. And the way
we are going to trade with you is with circumstances that are fair to
our country, to our workers, and to our country's interests.
Trade ought to be mutually beneficial. When we sign up to trade with
somebody, it ought to be mutually beneficial.
Let me tell you what is coming next year. Next year everyone in this
country will have an opportunity to start buying Chinese cars because
China has announced that they intend to start shipping Chinese
automobiles to the U.S. marketplace. We have a trade agreement with
China about cars. Let me describe what it is.
It says: China, when you ship a car to the United States--it will
happen starting next year--we are going to hit you with a 2.5-percent
tariff, a tiny little tariff, a 2.5-percent tariff you are going to
have to pay on the cars you ship into our marketplace. And, by the way,
any American cars that we send to China next year, we agree we will pay
a 25-percent tariff.
So a country with whom we have a $2.5 billion trade deficit, we
signed up, on bilateral automobile trade, that they should be able to
charge a tariff 10 times higher on automobiles when we try to sell a
car in their country. That is unbelievably incompetent. That is what
our country has agreed to.
That is just one little piece. Most people wouldn't know about
dealing with bilateral automobile trade. It affects American jobs. It
pulls the rug out from under our workers. That is just one. There are
dozens and dozens of similar examples.
Since I am speaking about automobiles, let me describe the situation
with Korea. South Korea sent us over 700,000 cars last year. I will
show you the chart. South Korea sent 730,000 cars last year into our
marketplace. Do you know how many American cars we sold in South Korea?
We sold them just 4,251 cars. Is it because they don't want American
cars? No. It's because the Koreans largely closed their market to our
product even as we opened our markets with theirs. Do we do anything
about it? No. We sit around twiddling our thumbs--sucking our thumbs in
some cases--and lament that this is going on. It is an unbelievable
failure.
Ninety-nine percent of the cars driven on the streets of South Korea
are Korean-made cars. Why is that the case? That is exactly the way
they want it, and that is the way it will stay because our country
doesn't seem to care. We sign up to all of these trade agreements. In
fact, we are doing a new agreement with Korea now. That is one of the
nine. Does anyone really care about fair trade?
So in this context, let me talk about Oman now.
There are about 400 organizations, ranging from the League of Rural
Voters to the National Farmers Union to the Sierra Club to the AFL-CIO,
about 400 organizations have come out in opposition to this trade
agreement. What is the reason for that? Let me describe it with a
letter which many of them signed which says the following:
Like NAFTA and CAFTA, OFTA [the Oman Free Trade
Agreement]--fails to include any meaningful labor and
environmental protections. The lack of effective labor
provisions in OFTA is particularly significant in light of
the recent revelations of massive labor abuses in Jordan--a
Nation with which the United States has a free trade
agreement. These violations involve widespread human
trafficking, 20-hour workdays and widespread failure to pay
back wages. More troubling is the fact the Oman FTA contains
weaker labor provisions than the Jordan FTA.
Let me describe what is going on in Jordan. This is actually a New
York Times piece. I have actually spoken to the people who went to
Jordan and saw these sweatshops.
Propelled by a free trade agreement with the United States,
apparel manufacturing is booming in Jordan, its exports to
America soaring twenty-fold in the last 5 years.
But some foreign workers in Jordanian factories that
produce garments for Target, Wal-Mart and other American
retailers are complaining of dismal working conditions--20-
hour days, of not being paid for months, and of being hit by
supervisors and jailed when they complained.
Here is what happens in Jordan. They fly in so-called guest workers
from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, put them in a corner of Jordan in
sweatshops, in factories with closed doors, and then they fly in
Chinese textiles, and in sweatshop conditions, with imported workers
from Bangladesh and imported textiles from China, they produce products
which they ship to the United States.
Let me describe some of the conditions. Some of these workers
imported from Bangladesh were promised $120 a month but in some cases
were hardly paid at all. One worker was paid $50 for 5 months of work.
Forty-hour shifts were common. Let me say that again. Forty-hour
shifts--not weeks--were common. Forty-hour shifts in those sweatshops
apparently replaced the 40-hour workweek. There were frequent beatings
of any workers who complained.
What is the relevance of all this to an Oman Free Trade Agreement?
First of all, the country of Oman has about 3 million people. Of that
rather small population, over one-half million are actually foreign
guest workers. The majority of Oman workers involved in manufacturing
and construction are not from Oman. The majority of the workers in Oman
are foreigners brought in from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and other very
poor Asian countries, under labor contracts to work in construction and
in factories.
Here is what our own country's State Department's 2004 Report on
Human Rights said about Oman. We are doing a trade agreement now with
Oman. Our own State Department reports that:
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.
Our own State Department talks about forced labor in Oman. It doesn't
matter to the people who put this agreement together. They could care
less. They do not intend to put in strong labor provisions with respect
to this trade agreement.
There are no labor unions in Oman that would be protective of workers
or negotiate for workers. In 2003, the Sultan of Oman issued a Sultanic
decree which categorically denies workers the right to organize and
join unions of their choosing. In some circumstances, workers in Oman
can join ``representative committees,'' but those committees, just as
is the case in China--China is now advertising a lot of unions--those
committees are not independent of the employers or of the Government.
China now has unions that
[[Page S9696]]
are part of the Communist government, and the Sultanic decree that
prohibits unions in Oman allows representatives of workers to get
together but not independent of employers or the Government.
By the way, the Sultan of Oman has written to our U.S. Trade
Ambassador and promised that he will improve Oman's labor laws in
October of this year. That would be next month. How do you calculate
that? That would be after the U.S. Congress votes, wouldn't it? They
are going to improve their labor laws after we have voted. Yes, I guess
I have heard that before. Maybe this country ought to be suggesting
that some of these things be improved before they negotiate free-trade
agreements.
Under fast-track rules, the Congress, in its own lack of wisdom,
said: We would like to put ourselves in a straightjacket. We can
negotiate agreements and treaties on nuclear arms without fast track,
but on trade agreements, we must negotiate in a way that says when we
come back to the Congress, we are prohibited from offering amendments.
So the Congress actually votes to put itself into a straightjacket and
prohibit any amendments. I don't vote for that. I lead the fight
against it because I think it is fundamentally undemocratic. But the
Congress has already done that. That is why there will be no amendments
to the Oman Free Trade Agreement.
Let me describe one other provision in the Oman agreement, and it has
been in a couple of other agreements as well.
Earlier this year, there was a big fight in this country about Dubai
Ports World, which is a company owned by the United Arab Emirates,
taking over major seaports in this country--six major U.S. seaports--
New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Miami--taken over to
be managed by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. There was a
huge blowup as a result of that, a massive firestorm of protest. The
President had already approved it, said: It is fine; don't worry about
it; we think American ports can be managed by the United Arab Emirates
or the company it owns, Dubai Ports World. I didn't think so, but the
President said it is fine.
Brushing aside suggestions from Republicans and Democrats alike,
President Bush endorsed the taking over of shipping operations at six
major seaports by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.
He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block that
amendment. But still, in all, there was such a storm of protest by the
American people saying: With all of the terrorist threats, maybe we
ought to manage our own seaports; there was such a storm of protest
that Dubai Ports World announced they had reached an agreement and they
decided they would sell or negotiate to sell their interests in
managing our ports.
Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security Secretary, said during that
period that the proposed takeover of terminal operations at five U.S.
ports by a Dubai company would give U.S. law enforcement a better
handle on security at U.S. terminal operations. Let me talk about
terminally bad judgment here. Here is the guy in charge of Homeland
Security who says that allowing foreign interests to take over the
management of America's ports will fully actually provide better
security for our country. You talk about unbelievably bad judgment.
Everybody has a right to be wrong, including the head of Homeland
Security. Let's just hope that when he is wrong, it doesn't result in
another terrorist attack on this country.
Here is what is in the Oman Free Trade Agreement, a provision that
says that the U.S. government cannot block Oman's acquisition of the
following activities:
Landside 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 at piers.
That is the managing of a port. That provision says that we can't
block Oman from acquiring or an Oman company from acquiring--that is in
the trade agreement. This agreement says we will not be able to block,
without abrogating this trade agreement, a company from Oman from
operating America's seaports. This alone should defeat this trade
agreement. It will not because there are 60 or 65 Members of this body
who will vote for any trade agreement, almost. This provision alone
should defeat this trade agreement.
Let me finish by talking about the consequences of this senseless
trade policy on jobs in this country. I know it is tiresome to some of
my colleagues to keep hearing about this, but I believe it is worthy to
describe where we are headed in textiles, manufacturing, high tech, and
other areas.
You will remember the television commercials advertising Fruit of the
Loom underwear. It ran a lot of commercials talking about how wonderful
Fruit of the Loom underwear would be for each of us. They paid someone
to dress as green grapes and someone to dress as red grapes. I guess
that is the little logo on Fruit of the Loom underwear. They danced,
the green and red grapes danced and sang and played music and various
things. I don't know who would actually accept money to dance as
grapes, but they found actors to dance as grapes, and they danced right
out of this country. They don't make one pair of Fruit of the Loom
underwear in this country anymore, not one.
If you want Mexican food, go to the grocery store and buy Fig Newton
cookies. They left this country. They went to Monterrey, Mexico.
Every Member of this Senate, I will bet, once had a Radio Flyer, a
little red wagon. It was made in America for 110 years. You can still
buy them here, but they are not made here anymore; they left for
China--all made in China, the little red wagon, the Radio Flyer.
If you wear Tony Lama cowboy boots, you might be wearing Chinese
shoes. I have told this story until everyone is tired of it. Americans
used to make them, but they lost their jobs. When they were fired, the
last job they had was to take the ``American made'' decals off existing
inventory. They had an hourly job plus benefits. The jobs left our
country and went to China.
They still sell these Huffy bicycles in this country, but they are
made for 33 cents an hour by people working 7 or 8 days a week, 14
hours a day. The last thing those American workers did on their last
day of work and leaving the parking lot was to leave a pair of empty
shoes in the parking lot. They left a pair of empty shoes in their
parking space. It was a way for workers to say to the company: You can
ship our jobs to China, but you are not going to fill our shoes.
It goes on and on and on--yes, with product after product, textiles
and manufacturing, high tech. One-half of the Fortune 500 are now doing
software development offshore, overseas. It is pretty unbelievable.
In all of this, we give a tax cut, tax break. We not only manage bad
trade agreements to make it easy to ship jobs overseas, we say: If you
do that, we will give you a big fat tax cut. Four times I have tried to
eliminate that in the Senate, and four times the Chamber of Commerce
and others who support that tax cut rounded up enough votes in the
Senate to preserve it. I find that appalling. Nonetheless, that is what
is happening with trade.
Ultimately, this country will not long remain a world economic power
if it does not retain a world-class manufacturing base. This country
will not continue to expand the middle-class workers if it continues to
incentivize the shipment of jobs overseas. The construct of many big
companies of saying: We want to produce where it is cheap--China,
Indonesia, Bangladesh; we want to sell in the established marketplace
of Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver, Fargo, Pittsburgh, and run the income
through the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes--will undermine the
economic interests of this country.
This country made great progress by expanding the middle class with
good jobs that paid well. We debate a lot of things in this Senate, but
there is nothing we debate with respect to a social program that is
more important than a good job that pays well. We would do well to
remember that as we take a look at bad trade agreements and prepare
ourselves, once again, as the majority of this Chamber--but not me--
votes yes in favor of trade agreements which pull the rug out from
under workers, pull the rug out from under farmers, and undermine the
long-term economic interests of this country.
We have the same chorus of a tired song that is being sung today in
the
[[Page S9697]]
Senate about the virtues of another bad trade agreement. This one was
with a very small country of 3 million people. I have never been to
Oman. I don't know much about Oman. I am not opposed to the country of
Oman in any way. I am interested in standing up for the economic
interests of this country. This is one more chapter in a book of
failures on international trade. This country, this Senate, has a
responsibility, finally, to start getting it right.
I will vote against the trade agreement with Oman and hope that, even
as this trade agreement will likely pass, as other trade agreements
have, an agreement that undermines our country's economic interests, in
the next nine trade agreements, all of which are being negotiated now,
we will finally see some negotiations that stand up for our interests.
It is long past the time, when we have a $68 billion-a-month deficit
and nearly $800 billion-a-year trade deficit, it is long past the time
to ask the questions: What is wrong? How do we make it right? What is
not working? How do we fix it?
This Congress, this administration, seems content, as has been the
case now for the last dozen years, in snoring through all of this,
saying it will be handled by someone else, sometime later, pretending
somehow the consequences do not matter.
The consequences do matter. There are significant consequences.
One can make a case when the Budget is debated here that whatever the
budget deficit is, it is money we owe to ourselves. One can make that
case. Economists make that case. It is not a case I make, but it is
money we owe to ourselves. We cannot make that case with a trade
deficit. That is money we owe to others. Over one-half of our trade
deficit is now held by the Japanese and the Chinese, which is used to
buy American property, American stocks, bonds, to buy part of this
country--drip, drip, drip, every day, $2 billion a day.
I will vote against this trade agreement and hope the next trade
agreement that comes to the Senate will be an agreement that fixes
previous problems rather than negotiates new agreements. The problems
in the previous agreements are legend: NAFTA, CAFTA, United States-
Canada. It is absolutely legend, the problems that exist, and not one
of them has been fixed. All of them continue to exist. We turn a blind
eye to all them as we negotiate new agreements. That disserves this
country's economic interests.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, two-and-a-half months ago, the Senate
passed the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
We did so because we expected that this agreement will benefit our
economy. That is still true. And we should pass it again today.
Under the agreement, virtually all American merchandise exports will
enter Oman duty free. Oman will eliminate most of its duties right
away. And Oman will liberalize the remainder of its duties within 10
years. This agreement gives free access to the growing Omani market to
American industrial equipment, medical devices, frozen beef, and snack
foods.
Oman has also agreed to go beyond its multilateral commitments to
provide greater American access to its services markets. It has
committed to protect intellectual property. It has committed to combat
corruption and bribery. And it has implemented reforms of its labor
laws to address American concerns.
I support this trade agreement on its merits. It is a good agreement.
And it will strengthen our ties with a valuable partner in the Middle
East. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
Some may wonder why a small agreement like this has generated any
controversy. In part, that is due to the process by which this
agreement came before Congress.
The Finance Committee unanimously adopted an amendment to the Oman
implementing legislation. Then the administration rejected that
amendment outright. This disregard for the constitutional authority of
Congress over international trade only weakens support for the
administration's trade policy.
But more broadly, the controversy over Oman reflects more general
frustration with trade agreements. In Congress, there is deep
frustration with the way that the administration has negotiated these
agreements. And there is frustration with the way that the
administration has handled important issues like labor and the
environment.
Americans are concerned about job losses. Americans associate
globalization with threats to their jobs. And Americans are concerned
that trade agreements might erode conditions in the workplace.
These issues will come to the fore as we approach the expiration of
Trade Promotion Authority in the middle of next year. In the wake of
the controversy surrounding Oman and other trade agreements, it is high
time that we take a hard look at American trade policy. It is high time
that we ask ourselves how we can make it work better.
For starters, we have to refocus our trade policy. We have to make
sure that it helps American workers and businesses meet the competitive
challenges that they face in the global marketplace. We have to rethink
the types of trade initiatives that we pursue in the future. We have to
build grassroots support for trade. And we have to pay far greater
attention to domestic initiatives to increase our savings, reduce our
trade deficit, improve education, and help the workers whom trade
leaves behind.
I look forward to that debate. I look forward to laying the
foundation for a broader consensus on trade. And I look forward to the
day when we can once again join together on the trade agreements of the
future.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I oppose this deeply flawed trade
agreement. When the Senate passed its version of this legislation a few
months ago, I noted that one group had said that this trade agreement
is as bad as CAFTA, except where it is worse.
The Oman trade agreement is the latest in a series of agreements that
have been based on the failed NAFTA-CAFTA model of trade that has
shipped thousands of businesses and millions of jobs overseas,
devastating communities across our country. The record of that model of
trade is crystal clear. During the post-NAFTA era, our trade deficit
has exploded from $98 billion in 1994 to $805 billion in 2005. And yet,
once again we are debating more of the same.
As I noted in June, the Oman Free Trade Agreement is stamped from the
NAFTA-CAFTA cookie cutter. It provides no real enforcement for the
labor or environmental provisions. And even the most modest efforts to
address the deficiencies of the NAFTA-CAFTA model were rejected by the
White House. Most notably, an attempt by the Senate Finance Committee
to deny trade benefits for products made with slave labor, approved
unanimously by the Committee on an 18-to-0 vote, was rejected by the
administration, which submitted this agreement without that reasonable
protection.
You don't have to be a trade expert to know that our trade policy is
alarmingly bad. When even the most reasonable addition is proposed by
the Finance Committee to deny preferential benefits for products made
by slaves, the administration refuses to include it.
Mr. President, any consultative role Congress was to have as part of
the fast-track process has been shown to be meaningless. I very much
hope my colleagues will remember this when we consider legislation to
renew fast-track implementing authority. Until then, we should reject
this and similarly flawed trade agreements.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). 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 would like to use my 10 minutes that
has been allocated to me on the Oman Free Trade Agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5684,
the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. The
United
[[Page S9698]]
States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will benefit U.S. farmers, workers,
and businesses. It will lead to economic growth and enhance the
predictability of the rule of law in Oman, a reliable ally of the
United States in the Middle East.
The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will also serve as a
model for other free-trade agreements in the Middle East.
In this way, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will
contribute to the formation of a Middle East free trade area, a
development that would provide major economic and political benefits
for the United States.
Let me begin by discussing the economic gains that this agreement
will bring to the United States. On the day that the agreement goes
into effect, Oman will no longer impose any tariffs on U.S.-produced
consumer and industrial products. The agreement will also benefit U.S.
farmers as some 87 percent Oman's tariff lines will go to zero for U.S.
agricultural products on day one of the agreement. Oman's remaining
tariffs on U.S. farm products will be phased out over 10 years.
In addition, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will result
in substantial improvements in market access for U.S. service providers
and new protections for U.S. investors.
Given the benefits that it will provide to the United States, the
agreement has been endorsed by groups as varied as the American Farm
Bureau Federation, the American Chemistry Council, the Association of
Equipment Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade Council, and the
United States-Middle East Free Trade Coalition, an entity consisting of
over 110 U.S. companies and associations supporting trade expansion in
the Middle East.
The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will result in new market
opportunities for farmers, workers, and businesses throughout the
United States, including those in Iowa.
For example, the Midamar Corporation--a small business located in
Cedar Rapids, IA, that specializes in halal foods--anticipates that the
United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will lead to new sales of Iowa-
produced foods in Oman. Profit margins in the food sector are very low,
and Oman's current average applied tariff of 5 percent on many of
Midamar's products cuts into the company's profits.
With Oman's tariffs on many of Midamar's products going to zero on
day one of the agreement, Midamar will have significantly improved
access to the Omani market immediately upon implementation of the
United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement.
At least two other Iowa businesses expect to benefit from the free-
trade agreement. The HNI Corporation of Muscatine is the second largest
manufacturer of office furniture in North America, and HNI is
specifically targeting the fast-growing market of the Middle East. HNI
anticipates that the agreement will provide improved opportunities for
it to sell its products in Oman.
Likewise, Lennox--which manufactures residential heating and cooling
products in Marshalltown--predicts that it will gain from the United
States-Oman Free Trade Agreement. Thus, the United States-Oman Free
Trade Agreement could have a direct impact on Iowans in Cedar Rapids,
Muscatine, and Marshalltown. This agreement will benefit people in
other States as well.
I am confident that the Oman Free Trade Agreement will ultimately
lead to new market access opportunities for American products in yet
more Middle Eastern countries. President Bush is advocating the
development of a United States-Middle East free trade area by 2013, and
the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement is another building block
toward the accomplishment of this goal.
The United States has already implemented free-trade agreements with
four other countries in the Middle East--Bahrain, Israel, Jordan, and
Morocco.
A completed United States-Middle East free trade area would result in
significantly improved market access for U.S. farm, consumer, and
industrial products in a region of the world populated by 350 million
people that is growing quickly.
Such an arrangement would also benefit people throughout the Arab
world by providing needed economic reforms. So a United States-Middle
East free trade area is in the best interests of the people of the
Middle East, and it would advance American interests as well.
In addition to providing new economic opportunities for the United
States, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will contribute to
the security of our country. Oman is a consistent ally of the United
States in an unstable part of the world. Given that the United States
is currently engaged militarily in two countries in the region, now is
a particularly appropriate time for us to further cement our close ties
with Oman.
By improving economic conditions in Oman, I am convinced that the
United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will contribute to the
stability of that country. Such stability will help solidify Oman's
position as a moderate Arab country and a friend of the United States.
The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement is a strong agreement. It
will provide economic benefits for the United States. It will also
benefit Oman, a consistent ally of the United States.
I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 5684, the United States-Oman
Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Under the previous order, the question is on the third reading of the
bill.
The bill was read the third time.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the
bill pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr.
Coleman) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin),
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) would each vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 32, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 250 Leg.]
YEAS--62
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Cantwell
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Jeffords
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Roberts
Salazar
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--32
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Burr
Byrd
Carper
Coburn
Collins
Conrad
Dayton
Dodd
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Inouye
Johnson
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Wyden
[[Page S9699]]
NOT VOTING--6
Akaka
Bayh
Coleman
Harkin
Kennedy
Menendez
The bill (H.R. 5684) was passed.
Change of Vote
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 250, I voted ``yea'';
it was my intention to vote ``nay''. I ask unanimous consent I be
permitted to change my vote since it will not change the outcome.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
____________________