[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18434-18439]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 18435]]

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 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

[[Page 18436]]

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 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 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

[[Page 18437]]

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 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

[[Page 18438]]

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 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.''

[[Page 18439]]

  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

                             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.)

                          ____________________