[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 4 (Monday, January 24, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S116-S126]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     NOMINATION OF CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ TO BE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3 
o'clock having arrived, the Senate will proceed to executive session 
for consideration of Executive Calendar No. 1, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Carlos M. Gutierrez, of 
Michigan, to be Secretary of Commerce.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
hours of debate on the nomination, with 1 hour of debate under the 
control of the Senator from Alaska, and 1 hour of debate under the 
control of the Senator from North Dakota.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, it is my intention to make a statement 
presenting the nominee's qualifications and the consideration the 
Commerce Committee gave to this nomination, to be followed by time that 
I will yield to the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye. I hope that will 
be acceptable to Senator Dorgan. His time would start following Senator 
Inouye's time, who I understand is on the way to the Chamber.
  This was the first nomination that came before the Commerce Committee 
after I became chairman. President Bush nominated Mr. Carlos Gutierrez 
to be Secretary of Commerce on November 29, 2004. Mr. Gutierrez is the 
chairman and chief executive officer of the Kellogg Company, a major 
food products company based in Battle Creek, MI. The incredible story 
of how he got there, rising through the ranks, is a testament to the 
American spirit.
  Shortly after Fidel Castro assumed power in Cuba during the Communist 
revolution, Carlos Gutierrez and his

[[Page S117]]

family fled their native country. They arrived almost penniless in 
Florida and, after several years, eventually settled in Mexico City. 
There at the age of 20, Carlos Gutierrez took a job selling cereal out 
of the back of a van to small grocery stores.
  With a lot of hard work, 10 years later, he was general manager of 
Kellogg's Mexico division. Fifteen years after that, he was running the 
whole company. It is a great American success story by any measure.
  Mr. Gutierrez's nomination comes before the Senate at a time of 
significant change in the American economy. The shock of September 11, 
2001, a series of corporate scandals, and the spending pressure of the 
war on terror, including the Iraq conflict, have taken their toll.
  However, the President's economic stimulus program, centered around 
tax relief, is helping our economy turn the corner. The economy has 
created more than 2.4 million new jobs since August of 2003--15 
straight months of job gains. The unemployment rate is at 5.4 percent, 
down from 6.3 percent last June, and is below the average of the 1970s, 
1980s, and 1990s. After-tax income has risen more than 10 percent since 
the end of 2000, and household wealth is now at an all-time high. Even 
the stock market has shown strong gains in recent months.
  Secretaries of Commerce spend much of their time promoting American 
business at home and abroad. If confirmed, Mr. Gutierrez will have an 
impressive record of growth at his disposal.
  There is much more to the Department of Commerce than representing 
America's economic interests. Most of the Department's budget is 
devoted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA's 
role in predicting tsunamis was not well known outside of the Pacific 
coastal States before last month's devastating tsunami in Asia. The 
administration recently announced a strong proposal to improve 
detection and response to tsunami events along the U.S. coast. NOAA 
will be the lead in this critical endeavor.
  Mr. Gutierrez has probably already learned more about fisheries than 
he ever expected. If confirmed, he will learn much more. The recent 
report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy reaffirms the important 
role that domestic fisheries play in our society. Fisheries create jobs 
in rural communities and provide valuable protein in the world's food 
supply. The report of that commission highlighted the need to manage 
all fisheries in a sustainable, regional manner. And that is exactly 
what has taken place in the State that the occupant of the Chair and I 
have the honor to represent. Our State, with half the coastline of the 
United States, has led in developing new policies to protect and 
preserve the reproductive capability of the fisheries off our shore.

  I commend the President for his Executive order creating a Committee 
on Ocean Policy within the White House. Those of us on the Commerce 
Committee look forward to working with the President and Mr. Gutierrez 
to ensure that our Nation's fisheries are managed sustainably, 
responsibly, and regionally.
  On January 5, Senator Inouye and I held a hearing in the Commerce 
Committee on this nomination. Mr. Gutierrez answered a variety of 
questions at the hearing and has since responded to many more written 
questions. The next day, the committee voted unanimously to report this 
nomination to the full Senate. I am here today to recommend the 
Senate's quick confirmation of this nomination.
  I thank Mr. Gutierrez for his willingness to serve our Nation and the 
Department of Commerce, and I join in congratulating the President on 
this fine nomination.
  Mr. Gutierrez has my strong support, and I do urge the Senate to vote 
to confirm this nomination as quickly as possible.
  Madam 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. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 4 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I rise in support of the confirmation of 
Mr. Carlos Gutierrez to serve as our Nation's Secretary of Commerce. As 
Secretary of the Department of Commerce, Mr. Gutierrez will take over 
the helm of a very diverse department, for example, responsible for 
counting fish as well as people, predicting the weather, developing and 
promoting standards, technology, and promoting fair trade. This is a 
very difficult and complex appointment, but I believe Mr. Gutierrez's 
impressive background and experience will serve him well in this 
position.
  He was born in Cuba. Mr. Gutierrez left Havana in 1960, shortly after 
Fidel Castro took power. Although he has no college degree, through 
hard work and perseverance, he rose from delivering corn flakes to 
small stores in Mexico City to the moment when he took over Kellogg's 
cereal and convenience food empire.
  While at Kellogg, he revitalized the company and put it on a new path 
of success. Mr. Gutierrez will face a variety of demanding challenges 
during his tenure. But few are greater than addressing the 
administration's current record on trade. Just this month, our trade 
deficit hit an astounding and recordbreaking $60.3 billion, and I am 
certain that all of us will agree that this is entirely unacceptable. I 
would like to see the new Secretary lead the Department in an 
innovative and comprehensive effort to reverse the current trend. I can 
assure Mr. Gutierrez that this committee will be a committed partner in 
such an effort.
  I urge my colleagues to support the confirmation of Mr. Carlos 
Gutierrez to serve as Secretary of Commerce.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I yield such time to the Senator from 
Montana as he may desire to use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee. I rise in 
strong support of Carlos Gutierrez as the next Secretary of Commerce. I 
applaud the President for this choice for many reasons. Not only is he 
a classic American success story, as we have heard from Senators Inouye 
and Stevens, but he is an example for all the opportunities that are 
afforded to Americans.
  I am especially happy to see the President chose someone from a 
manufacturing background. He also has a background on the ground, so to 
speak. It is something to manufacture a product; it is also something 
to sell the product because we live in an economic system where nothing 
happens until a sale is made. Mr. Gutierrez understands both ends of 
that equation.
  For a long time, and since I have been here, this is the first 
Secretary of Commerce who has an agribusiness background. Everything 
the Kellogg Company does starts in the ground. I am especially happy 
about that. I would hope we could work together. I have always said 
there is nothing wrong on the farm except we just don't get as much of 
the consumer dollar as we used to. We are going to work on that kind of 
situation.
  The Commerce Committee oversees some of the most important and 
controversial issues that challenge this country and my State of 
Montana. With his commitment--I have yet to meet the man, but we have 
had an extended telephone call--to work with Congress on these issues, 
his quick response to the questions I sent to him, and the things he is 
going to be doing at Commerce, will put him in a position to assist 
many sectors of our economy. I would like to take a few moments and 
highlight some of them and where these issues will be discussed 
prominently in the upcoming session.
  Let's start with one that affects my State, the timber industry and 
softwood lumber. Small mill operators in Montana rely on effective 
enforcement of U.S. trade laws, particularly against unfair trade acts, 
such as we have seen coming out of Canada. It is important that the 
Commerce Department ensures full enforcement of the trade laws in the 
softwood lumber sector, including selection of accurate subsidy 
measurement benchmarks. The 911 implementation was critical 
legislation. The enhanced 911 bill that

[[Page S118]]

passed the 108th Congress is now law. The law authorizes $1.25 billion 
in grants to build out lifesaving emergency location capabilities 
across the country. I can remember passing the 911 bill some years ago. 
I said then it is probably the best step that we have taken in public 
safety in a long time. These grants will be administered by a joint 
program office run by the Department of Commerce and the Department of 
Transportation. Basically, what it is, on your cell phone, you dial 911 
to get emergency. Many years ago, that call did not know where to go. 
It could have gone anywhere. Today, it goes to the nearest first 
responder or communications center, no matter where you are in the 
country. They can also locate you.
  ICANN reform. I am concerned about the organization that manages the 
Internet critical domain system. ICANN is falling victim to a little 
bit of a mission creep, turning into a mini-international organization. 
ICANN should retain its focus on technical coordination, which makes me 
all the more concerned that the Department of Commerce plans to abandon 
all oversight of ICANN next year. I urge the Secretary to review that 
issue closely and get back to Congress.
  Our Nation's spectrum policy remains outdated, and I look forward to 
working with the Secretary in reforming that to keep pace with the 
communications revolution. Broadband expensing; the Hollings 
manufacturing extension partnership program; it is important that these 
programs move forward, with a good deal of interest coming from his 
Department.
  Again, I want to reiterate my support for Mr. Gutierrez's nomination. 
I look forward to working with him on many of the challenges that my 
State and this country face under a vast umbrella called the Department 
of Commerce. That is what makes our committee probably one of the most 
exciting committees of any that operates in the Senate. I heartily 
support his nomination. He should be confirmed.
  Mr. President, again, I applaud the President for his choice. Mr. 
Gutierrez certainly has a classic American success story and can be 
looked at as an example of how great our country really is and the 
opportunities it presents.
  I am especially happy to see the President has chosen someone with a 
manufacturing background. I believe Mr. Gutierrez's tenure at the 
Kellogg Company will bring an important insight to the Department in an 
area that certainly needs attention.
  The Department of Commerce oversees some of the most important and 
controversial issues that challenge my State of Montana. I appreciate 
Mr. Gutierrez's commitment to working with Congress on these issues, 
and his quick response to my questions following his hearing in the 
Senate Commerce Committee.
  Mr. Gutierrez will soon be in the position to assist many important 
sectors of our economy. I would like to take a few moments to discuss 
some of the challenges, priorities and issues faced in my State and 
many others.
  As you know, the U.S. timber industry jobs and operations, including 
small mill operators in Montana, rely on effective enforcement of U.S. 
trade laws, particularly against unfair Canadian lumber imports. In 
evaluating the extent of Canadian timber subsidies, for example, it is 
imperative that the Commerce Department ascertain the true market value 
of Canadian timber in comparison to timber pricing data that reflects 
full value. It is important the Department ensures full enforcement of 
the trade laws in the softwood lumber sector, including selection of 
accurate subsidy-measurement benchmarks. Mr. Gutierrez has indicated 
his support of full enforcement of trade laws in the softwood lumber 
sector and I applaud that support.
  Mr. President, during my time as the Chairman of the Communications 
Subcommittee, I made it a priority to move forward and implement the 
deployment of universal broadband. Along with my colleague Senator Jay 
Rockefeller we have pushed for legislation that would allow for 
broadband expensing. As you may know, broadband expensing would allow 
companies to accelerate depreciation of capital-intensive broadband 
equipment. I am hopeful the Department will provide assistance in 
passing this legislation as part of the President's vast broadband 
vision.
  I also would urge the Secretary to devote his personal attention to 
an important issue regarding the future of the Internet. I am referring 
to the security of the Domain Name System, which is what ensures that 
each website address in the Internet resolves to a unique website 
reliably and securely. It is vital for the future of e-commerce, and 
those parts of the economy that increasingly depend on it, that this 
process work flawlessly. During the Clinton administration, a private 
non-profit company known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 
and Numbers, or ICANN, was established to oversee the real technical 
challenges associated with managing the Domain Name System during a 
time of explosive growth and political challenges.
  However, I am concerned, and I know some of my colleagues are as 
well, that ICANN may fall victim to ``mission creep'' in this case, the 
tendency for it to turn into a mini-international organization, and all 
the political baggage that comes with that. If so, ICANN's actions 
could potentially go well beyond the narrow technical mandate that was 
envisioned for it at its creation. ICANN currently is subject to an 
agreement with the Commerce Department, and I am concerned that not 
enough high-level attention in the Department gets paid to this issue 
especially since, as I understand it, the Department of Commerce plans 
to abandon any and all oversight role over ICANN some time next year. I 
hope the Secretary will review this issue carefully and with all due 
attention to the national interest and to the interests of Internet 
stakeholders everywhere.
  The U.S. Government has played a crucial and positive role in the 
creation of the Internet and in Internet governance, and I do not think 
that such a decision as this should be taken without thorough review 
and understanding of its implications. I hope that Secretary Gutierrez 
will take the initiative to understand this vital issue and consult 
with Congress closely on it in the coming years.
  Finally, I would like to voice my support for the Hollings 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership which is administered at the 
Department of Commerce. Montana is a rural State but we have needs and 
opportunities that the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership has 
addressed. In recent years, I have grown concerned for the programs 
advancement, but I am hopeful Mr. Gutierrez, with his manufacturing 
background, will see the important role the program plays in small 
States. It is important the Department ensures small manufacturers have 
access to technical and information resources to allow them to remain 
competitive.
  Again, I would like to reiterate my support of Mr. Gutierrez' 
nomination and I look forward to working with him on many of the 
challenges my State and the country are faced with under the vast 
umbrella of the Department of Commerce.
  I yield the floor and thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee 
for giving me this time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have no further speakers on this side. 
I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is my intention to support the 
nomination of Mr. Gutierrez to be the Secretary of Commerce, an 
important position in this administration and for our country's 
economic well-being. However, before I do, I want to call the attention 
of the Senate to some important issues.
  I come to the floor to speak at some length about a very serious 
problem: the burgeoning U.S. trade deficit. This is a deficit that 
fundamentally weakens this country, a trade deficit that last month 
alone was $60 billion, a trade deficit that will be something over $600 
billion for the year 2004, when we finally get the year-end numbers. 
Despite this growing crisis in international trade, the Congress, the 
President, and virtually all of the official Government, seems to be 
willing to snore through all of this and pretend it does not exist.
  I think it is fitting that we discuss this at some length at a time 
when we are putting a new Commerce Secretary in place.

[[Page S119]]

  Before I do that, let me talk for a moment about Social Security. In 
recent days there has been a great deal of discussion on that issue. 
The President indicated that this would be one of the first items we 
will be confronted with. He proposes to create private accounts in the 
Social Security system, because he says there is a crisis in Social 
Security. Well, there is not a crisis in Social Security. Let me make 
it clear. There is no crisis in Social Security. If we have the same 
economic growth rates in the next 75 years that we had in the past 75 
years, Social Security will be just fine.
  The only way there is a crisis in Social Security--or you can at 
least create the impression that there is a crisis--is if you attempt 
to project growth rates that are dramatically lower than that which we 
have experienced. If you are going to project lower economic growth 
rates--1.8 percent, for example--over the coming years, then you cannot 
predict that somehow investing money in the stock market through 
private accounts is going to solve any kind of problem.
  It is interesting to me that the ethic and value system in America 
has been that if you are going to provide for your future, you save for 
retirement. The President is suggesting that we should borrow $1 
trillion to $3 trillion and dump it in the stock market and hope things 
will be all right. Even as we do that, the amendment leaked from the 
White House says we will cut Social Security benefits by changing the 
adjustment on wages and prices. The construct is this: Claim there is a 
crisis where there is not, and borrow $1 trillion to $3 trillion and 
put it into the stock market at the same time you cut Social Security 
benefits.
  In my judgment, that is a bad policy, one we ought to resist. It is 
important for people to understand the Social Security system is not an 
investment program; it has never been that. It was created in the 1930s 
and signed into law by Franklin Delano Roosevelt to help the elderly 
escape the plague of a poverty-ridden old age. When he signed that 
bill, 50 percent of America's senior citizens were living in poverty. 
Now it is less than 10 percent. But it is not now and has never been an 
investment program. It is a core insurance retirement program. It is 
the foundation of retirement security. It is always there, not subject 
to risk. It is core retirement insurance. In fact, if you look at your 
paycheck, it says the money that comes out of your paycheck for this 
program is FICA. The ``i'' in the FICA is for insurance.
  The President wants to confuse us by talking about investments. We 
have a Social Security program that is a core retirement insurance 
program. It has worked well for over 70 years. It lifted the hopes and 
lives of so many tens of millions of senior citizens out of poverty.

  We have also, under the rubric of retirement incentives, created 
401(k) programs and IRA programs and pension incentives, all of which 
represent investment accounts. I support those. But that is different 
than the core insurance program called Social Security. In my judgment, 
we ought to aspire in this Congress to be working toward Social 
Security-plus, not Social Security-minus. Those who say the way to 
build retirement security is to injure the foundation, or begin to take 
away the foundation that is Social Security insurance, do no favor to 
senior citizens. The way for us to enhance and embrace and strengthen 
retirement security is to build on the first, second, and third floors, 
not destroy the foundation.
  Once again, there is no crisis in Social Security. Let me be the 
first to say that we are living longer, healthier lives, and so the 
problems that might occur 20, 40, 60 years from now in Social Security 
are born of success. We are living longer, healthier lives. And if you 
are a pessimist and believe we will have only 1.8 percent economic 
growth rates, which is what the basis is for suggesting there is a huge 
problem in Social Security--if you are a pessimist, then you can 
suggest there need to be adjustments in Social Security. But that 
cannot be a pretext for taking apart the Social Security system. That 
is what some wish to do. They never liked it, don't like it now, and 
want to take it apart. How? They want to create private investment 
accounts inside the Social Security system, which is a big wet kiss to 
Wall Street to move money that is borrowed to Wall Street and hope that 
somehow the social program will be solvent.
  We have already had substantial experience in the last several years 
with economic projections by the people telling us this will work. They 
inherited the largest budget surplus in the history of this country and 
we now have the largest budget deficit in history. They didn't see it 
coming. They said, by the way, let's count these 10 years of surplus 
before they exist and give them back in tax cuts. Some of us said maybe 
we ought to be more conservative. These surpluses don't yet exist. The 
President said never mind, Katy bar the door, give all these moneys 
back even though they have not been realized; give them back in tax 
cuts.
  The fact is we turned the largest budget surplus into the largest 
budget deficit in history. The same people who predicted success for 
economic failure are the people telling us we ought to take apart the 
Social Security program under the guise of there being a crisis.
  Let me make one additional point that I think is very important. 
Those who tell us that we will have only 1.8 percent economic growth 
for the next 75 years, and therefore we have a financing problem with 
Social Security, also say that private accounts in Social Security 
invested in the stock market will yield 7 percent. Therefore, it will 
fix the problem. Double-entry bookkeeping doesn't mean you can pretend. 
You cannot say on the one hand we are going to have slow economic 
growth, and therefore a crisis in Social Security, and on the other 
hand, during periods of slow economic growth we will have 7 percent 
annual return on private accounts. It doesn't work that way. Third-
grade math will tell you that is fundamentally wrong.
  My hope is we will have a thoughtful, interesting debate about 
retirement security and about Social Security. I hope at the end of 
that debate, we will all agree that we should do nothing to undermine 
Social Security. If we believe that there is nothing more important 
than our children and taking care of them, and nothing more important 
than taking care of our parents when they are elderly, we ought to 
protect the social safety net that promotes those values.

  Social Security has lifted so many in this country out of poverty. It 
has worked for 70 years and it will work for the next 70 years and well 
beyond. I for one am not interested in taking apart that which works 
and which makes this a better place to live. After all, those who gave 
us what we now have in this country, who went before us and helped 
build this country, built our communities, factories, and our schools, 
and helped increase the standard of living, expanded opportunities for 
our country--those are the people from whom we have inherited this 
great life.
  If we have decided somehow that we don't have the wherewithal to 
continue to make this Social Security system work for them, to keep it 
a promise they can count on, then there is something wrong with the 
value system of this Congress. I don't believe that to be the case. I 
think at the end of the day we will all agree Social Security is a 
value that is important, one we will strengthen and keep.
  Enhancing retirement security is important as well and, at the end of 
the day, we ought to have what is called Social Security-plus. We can 
do Social Security, keep it strong in the long term, and build further 
incentives for IRAs, 401(k)s, and pension programs. That ought to be 
our mission statement.
  Let me turn back now to the issue of international trade. We have 
before us the nominee for the U.S. Department of Commerce. That is one 
of the agencies in our country that deals with trade issues.
  Mr. Gutierrez, President Bush's selection to head the Department, is 
someone whom I will support today. But I don't want this moment to pass 
without all of us having to confront something that is very 
uncomfortable for this country, and that is we have a trade policy that 
is weakening America and that is in fact a ``crisis.'' I described 
where the crisis doesn't exist, in Social Security; but there is a bona 
fide crisis in international trade.
  Last month, we heard a report that we had a $60 billion trade 
deficit--just

[[Page S120]]

last month alone, $60 billion. We are told that we should expect, when 
all of last year's numbers are in, that our trade deficit will top $600 
billion. Add to that the budget deficit of over $400 billion, and we 
have a combined indebtedness of over $1 trillion in this past year 
alone--$1 trillion. Talk about being irresponsible with our kids' 
future. This is it. Yet, do you hear anybody talking about the urgency 
of this? Not a word. Not a whisper. It is like shouting into a strong 
wind to talk about trade.
  Well, let's talk about some of the issues related to this soaring 
trade deficit. I am going to go through a series of examples.
  The January 10 edition of Time Magazine had an interesting article in 
it. It says:

       Chinese pirate companies have long been accused of 
     illegally copying easy stuff like shoe polish and digital 
     movies. Now General Motors says a Chinese firm knocked off an 
     entire vehicle--and Americans could soon start buying its 
     cars.

  So let's talk about that a bit. It is reported that a Chinese firm, 
called Chery, has stolen production line blueprints for a GM compact 
car called the Chevrolet Spark. It is a car that General Motors spent 
hundreds of billions of dollars to develop and the copy car is called 
QQ. It looks like an identical twin to the Spark. The Chinese company 
is now offering it for sale in China for $3,600, a third less than the 
General Motors car.
  Chery, the automobile company in China, has now announced plans to 
sell five different models, including a sport utility vehicle, in the 
U.S. It teamed up, apparently, with Malcolm Bricklin, who brought the 
Subaru to America in the 1960s. Their plan is to import up to a quarter 
of a million Cherys a year starting in 2007. The Chinese want to send 
us a quarter million Chinese cars in a year.
  Well, what to make of that? Let me describe a trade agreement that 
our country made with China a while back. We had a bilateral trade 
agreement with China. This is a country that had a large surplus with 
us. Our negotiators negotiated a deal with China. Inexplicably, they 
agreed to this. They negotiated a deal where the Chinese can impose a 
25 percent tariff on any United States cars we ship to China.
  But on any Chinese cars sent to the United States, we impose only a 
2.5-percent tariff. So our negotiators said to a country with which we 
have a giant trade deficit: We will agree with you that you can impose 
a tariff on bilateral automobile trade that is 10 times higher than 
that we will agree to impose: 2.5 percent on Chinese cars coming into 
our country, 25 percent on U.S. cars that we try to sell in China.
  You ask yourself: Who on Earth would have done that? I don't have the 
foggiest idea. Our trade negotiators did it. They apparently wear blue 
suits, they have tiny little glasses, they are supposed to think, 
probably have advanced degrees. And yet they close a door somewhere in 
a private room, someplace in secret, and reach a deal that says to the 
Chinese: on bilateral automobile trade, you go ahead and impose a 
tariff 10 times the tariff we will impose on automobiles between China 
and the United States.
  Guess what. We sell very few cars in China. We cannot get them in, 
and the Chinese, having apparently stolen the designs on a new compact 
car from General Motors, are set to send us a quarter of a million 
cars.
  Should we perhaps find out who negotiates this sort of incompetence 
so we make sure they never again negotiate on behalf of our country 
because this is not some theory?
  This is about jobs. When you do this, it means you are reducing 
America's job base and enhancing the job base in other countries.
  On a related note, in a recent year, we saw 690,000 Korean 
automobiles come to the United States to be sold in the United States. 
Guess how many American cars we sold in Korea? We sold 3,800. So Korea 
sent us 690,000, and we sold them 3,800.
  There was a time during this period when Korean consumers seemed to 
want to buy a pickup truck called the Dodge Dakota. Several dozen 
orders for Dodge Dakota trucks were coming into Dodge dealers in Korea. 
Guess what. The Korean government decided to announce that the Dodge 
Dakota wasn't safe, because it was capable of having a topper installed 
in the back, and that wasn't customary in Korea. So they did a big 
splashy announcement, and before you knew it, all the orders were 
cancelled. Korean consumers got the message.
  So in Korea they want to sell their cars in the American marketplace, 
but they do not want our cars sold in Korea. Will we say to the Koreans 
or the Chinese, for that matter, that either your market is open to our 
products, or you are going to have to see your products in Zambia or 
Nigeria? I don't think so because our country does not have the nerve, 
strength, will, or backbone to stand up for America's economic 
interests, for American workers, American businesses, and American 
jobs.
  I want just one Member of Congress, in the House or Senate, to 
justify this to me--just one. Or to justify the circumstances of mutual 
automobile trade with China by which we agreed with China that we will 
allow them to impose a tariff that is 10 times ours on bilateral 
automobile trade. Just one person I would like to stand up and say: 
Yes, that makes sense. We know it doesn't make sense. We know it 
undercuts American workers. It moves American jobs overseas, and yet no 
one seems to care very much about it.
  Here is another item in the news. There is a new report that talks 
about the export of jobs from this country to India. AMR Research 
estimates that the Indian information technology labor force will be 
larger than 3 million by 2010, and half the workers will be performing 
jobs for U.S. companies.
  Let's talk for a moment about that: these information technology jobs 
that are being outsourced to India are good jobs. But there are some 
who think that this outsourcing is a good thing. In fact, the 
President's economic report to Congress said that, for example, having 
Indian radiologists reading x rays of U.S. patients would be a good 
thing.
  What will happen to the 1.5 million Americans who will lose their 
jobs in information technology services to the country of India?
  Well, one thing they will not be doing is producing merchandise for 
export to India. In 2003, we had a trade deficit with India. That same 
year the average duty, the average tariff on goods that we were to sell 
to India was 30 percent. According to the U.S. trade ambassador's 
office, India's economy is one of the most closed in the world and, 
thus, India's tariffs remain among the highest in the world.
  Now the trade ambassador's office says the Indian economy has the 
most potential for U.S. exports. I expect that is true, because India 
has 1 billion people. One out of six consumers on the planet lives in 
India. It is the second most populous nation in the world. Yet where 
does it list on the U.S. export markets? Second, 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th? 
No, 24th.
  In fact, we export nearly twice as much to Peru as we export to 
India. And yet we see all of these reports now about American jobs 
being sent to India. Apparently, the only thing we can send to India 
are jobs, not goods. India has a 105-percent tariff on cars and 
motorcycles--in fact, we cannot get motorcycles into India--40 percent 
on oranges, over 100 percent on raisins, 30 percent on soybeans, 100 
percent on durum wheat.
  You know, you can't have balanced trade these days, even if you want 
it.
  A family in Illinois this year decided to do something different for 
Christmas. They decided they were going to ban China from under their 
Christmas tree. The mother decided that she was going to buy U.S.-made 
Christmas gifts. Peggy and Dave Smedley were going to buy American for 
Christmas.
  Of course, that meant no iPods, no digital cameras, no tabletop 
football games. And in the end, it was nearly impossible for them to 
find the Christmas gifts they wanted for their children. They found a 
Monopoly board game that appeared to be made in the U.S. but they 
discovered the dice actually came from China. Their son wanted 
American-made boots, and Peggy Smedley looked in 30 stores for boots 
that were made in America before giving up. The Smedley kids were 
concerned they might not get any presents at all for Christmas because 
of their mom and dad deciding they wanted to buy American.
  The 13-year-old Smedley son said he did not know what to expect 
because ``I

[[Page S121]]

have never bought American before,'' which I suppose is an innocent 
comment from a 13-year-old kid about the world in which we live.
  Levis used to be all American. They are gone. In fact, I am told that 
the Levis Company does not make any Levis anymore. The Levis Company 
makes no Levis. All the Levis are made under contract by contractors.
  The Christian Science Monitor reported the other day something else 
that I thought was kind of interesting. One would have thought when 
they walked around with a pair of cowboy boots that they were walking 
in an all-American pair of shoes, but last month I noticed in the 
Christian Science Monitor even the cowboy boots now sport ``made in 
China.'' Tony Lamas, top of the line cowboy boots, inside the label it 
may read ``made in China.'' Thirty-five to 40 percent of these cowboy 
boots have now been outsourced.
  I have spoken often of Fig Newton cookies. It used to be that Fig 
Newton was the all-American cookie. Well, next time somebody says, let 
us have some Mexican food, just say, give me a Fig Newton, from 
Monterey, Mexico. By the way, Kraft Foods moved the production of Fig 
Newton cookies to Monterey, Mexico. So eat a Fig Newton and you are 
eating Mexican food.
  Fruit of the Loom used to be all-American underwear but not any 
longer. They are gone. Levis are gone. Huffy Bicycles are gone. Schwinn 
Bicycles are gone. Little Red Wagon Radio Flier is gone. They were all 
American, all made by Americans, all represented jobs for American 
families, and they are all gone.
  Why is all of this happening? Well, what has happened is 
multinational corporations have discovered there are somewhere around a 
billion people available on this globe who work for a very small amount 
of money. There is someone in Indonesia today who is making a pair of 
shoes. There is 24 cents direct labor in that pair of shoes that will 
be sold in Pittsburgh, Fargo, or Los Angeles for $80 a pair, and that 
woman named Shadisha is going to be paid 24 to 30 cents an hour.
  There is someone in China today who is making Huffy bicycles. That 
man or woman took the job of someone in Ohio who was making $11 an 
hour, plus benefits. They got fired. They lost their jobs because the 
Huffy bicycles were moved to China and now workers in China are paid 33 
cents an hour. They work 7 days a week, 12 to 14 hours a day making 
Huffy bicycles.

  The Little Red Wagon Radio Flier Wagon that has been made in American 
for over a century is gone. It is because corporations have discovered 
there are a billion people who will work for very little money. In some 
cases, they employ 12-year-olds. They work 12 hours a day. They pay 
them 12 cents an hour. If my colleagues do not believe it, I can show 
them.
  The question is, What does all that mean to our country? What does it 
mean to the world's strongest economy? What does it mean when one 
hollows out the manufacturing base of a country such as the United 
States? What does it mean when we say to American workers that there is 
a new day and a new competition, when we say to the American workers, 
yes, for a century they fought for rights, some lost their lives in the 
streets of this country fighting for the right to organize; they fought 
for the right to work in a safe workplace; the American people fought 
for the right to understand that corporations and factories would not 
pump effluents and poisons into the air and water; we fought for child 
labor laws so 12-year-olds would not be sent down into the mines or 
into the factories? What does it mean when we are told it is a new day 
and none of those things matter because those who produce can produce 
elsewhere where no restrictions like that apply?
  A kid can be hired and he can be worked 7 days a week and paid 
pennies. And it is said to the American worker, you must compete with 
that, and if you cannot compete, we are going to outsource, and if you 
do not like outsourcing, tough luck.
  I am just wondering how all of this adds up. This country has been a 
wonderful country because going all the way back to when Henry Ford 
made the Model T he understood that production needs customers. Even as 
he produced, he was hiring workers and saying: I want to give workers a 
decent income with which they can purchase that which we are producing. 
He understood he was employing his own customers.
  Now we have a different set of circumstances in our country. Now we 
have products made by child labor, in countries that pollute their 
environment, and we are asked to compete with that. After 9/11, when 
there was a surge of demand for American flags, do you know where they 
came from? From overseas. The import of American flags jumped to 113 
million American flags in a year. And I bet you that many of those 
flags were made in conditions that would gravely offend the principles 
that the flag represents.
  I will put up a chart that shows the growth of the trade deficits 
over recent years, because it describes what this is all about. Year 
after year, we see these trade deficits growing and growing. It is as 
if it does not matter. Nobody here cares. Nobody here has lost their 
job because of these numbers. There is not one politician in America 
who has lost their job to outsourcing. There is not one journalist who 
has lost their job to outsourcing of which I am aware. So it is as if 
it does not exist. It is just the other people who lose their jobs. It 
is people who take a shower after work because they sweat all day at 
work working long and hard on the factory floor and they are told 
somehow they cannot make it.
  I have talked about Huffy bicycles. I received a letter from the 
Huffy folks that they were upset about the fact. They were a little 
huffy, as the saying would go, about my discussion.
  In Ohio, workers used to make Huffy bicycles. In fact, Huffy bicycles 
had a little decal of the American flag.
  I do not know any of those folks but my guess is that they loved 
their jobs. They made a great bicycle. They had 20 percent of the 
bicycle market in America. People could buy them at Sears, Wal-Mart, 
Kmart. I am sure that one day when they had to go home and tell their 
spouse, honey, I have lost my job, that it was a painful day. They had 
to tell their spouse and their families: I lost this job not because I 
was a bad worker--I worked for 20 years for this company; I did a good 
job; I produced a good product--but I lost my job because my company 
discovered they could hire somebody for 33 cents an hour to build that 
bicycle.
  Incidentally, that bicycle took the American flag off the front decal 
and replaced it with a decal of the globe once they moved production to 
China.
  What does all of that mean? What does it mean for our country? We are 
running giant trade deficits with virtually everyone in the world: 
China, huge trade deficits. This map shows the world, and it shows in 
red the countries with which we run trade deficits. It is unbelievable. 
Here is the United States. Of course we can't run a deficit with 
ourselves. We are running a surplus with Australia down here. We will 
probably fix that soon, as soon as the new trade agreement with 
Australia kicks in, because in almost every case, every trade agreement 
we have done turned out badly for this country because we don't have 
the backbone to stand up for the interests of our producers.

  Australia, Egypt, Belarus--hey, look, we have a bright spot over here 
in Belarus--these are among the very few countries with whom we have a 
deficit. With almost the entire world we are running very large trade 
deficits; virtually the entire world.
  How long will that last? Mexico is a good example. We had a trade 
surplus with Mexico--a small one, but a trade surplus. Then we did what 
was called the North American Free Trade Agreement, and this chart 
shows what happened. Right here is the trade surplus. Then we did a 
North American Free Trade Agreement. We had a bunch of these 
economists, who cannot tell their home address and can't remember their 
phone numbers, give us all kind of highfalutin' predictions about what 
is going to happen. They said this is going to be good for America; the 
only thing that will come into this country from Mexico with this trade 
agreement is the product of low-skilled, low-wage jobs. Guess what. The 
three largest imports into America are automobiles, automobile parts, 
and electronics, all the product of high-skilled jobs, exactly the 
opposite of what these so-called economic experts told us.
  In the meantime, what happened with our trade with Mexico? We have a

[[Page S122]]

giant trade deficit, serious and growing.
  Canada is another example. With respect to Canada, which was part of 
NAFTA as well, the trade deficit was a modest trade deficit when we 
started. Now it has grown into a very substantial trade deficit.
  The trade deficit with China is a dramatic trade deficit and it is 
growing much worse. I just described part of the problem with China. 
You can see what is happening here to this country.
  You can make a case, if you are an economist, that the budget deficit 
is money we owe to ourselves. You can make that case. You can't make 
that case with the trade deficit. The trade deficit is a deficit we owe 
to others in other parts of the world and will be paid inevitably with 
a lower standing of living in this country. It will. You cannot make 
any other case. That is why I come to the floor to say this is very 
serious and very troublesome.
  I have not mentioned the Japanese. The Japanese are also a good 
example because every year, for well over a decade, we have had a large 
and abiding trade deficit with Japan. Japan, as you know, has managed 
trade. The result of managed trade with Japan is that the Japanese 
continue to keep certain of our products out, yet they want to ship all 
of their products to the United States.
  I recall we did a beef agreement with Japan. About 15 years ago this 
country did a beef agreement with Japan. At the end of the beef 
agreement you would have thought we won the Olympics. Our trade 
negotiators were ecstatic, big celebration, jubilation, front page of 
the Washington Post, good for us. Guess what. Fifteen years after a 
beef agreement with Japan, a country with which we have a very large 
trade deficit--we still have a 50-percent tariff on beef going into 
Japan.
  That would by any definition be a failure, but not with our country, 
because we have such low expectations of ourselves and such low 
expectations of our trade negotiators being willing to stand up for the 
economic interests of this country.
  The list is almost endless. Wheat to China. I have spoken at great 
length about wheat to China, the promises of the Chinese to allow 8.5 
million metric tons of wheat into China and, once again, promises that 
were not kept.

  The list is virtually endless.
  We have all these trade negotiators who go out and negotiate 
agreements. As I said, they wear blue suits and small glasses. My 
preference would be to put a uniform on them that says ``USA'' on the 
front, because I think they forget for whom they work half the time. 
But nonetheless they negotiate these agreements.
  Even though in my judgment these agreements have been incompetently 
negotiated, they are supposed to enforce the agreements. But let me 
tell you what is happening in the Department.
  We had roughly a $130 billion deficit with China previously. It is 
probably $160 to $170 billion just in the last year. Yet we have only 
19 people in the Department whose job it is to enforce trade agreements 
with China.
  We have a $66 billion trade deficit with Japan. There are only 10 
people in the Commerce Department working on opening up trade markets 
in Japan.
  We have a $13 billion trade deficit with Korea. There are 2\3/4\ 
people--I don't know who the three-quarters of a person is--working to 
open up the Korean market.
  Our deficit with the European Union is $77 billion. There are only 15 
people working to open up the European markets. It is unbelievable.
  As I have said, we fought for a century about the basic conditions of 
production and the basic rights of workers. We now accept into this 
country the products of working people who are told they will be fired 
if they try to start a labor union--just fired.
  We accept products into this country that are produced by kids. We 
had a hearing in the Congress some while ago that was heartbreaking. It 
described children who, in a country far away from here, were making 
carpets and rugs. They were locked in buildings making these carpets 
and rugs. It described the conditions in which the employer took 
gunpowder and put it on the fingertips of these children and lit the 
gunpowder to produce scarring, so these young children, using needles 
to sew these carpets, when they stuck their fingers would not be 
injured. The scarring would allow these children to be more productive.
  Is there an admission price to the American marketplace? Have we 
decided the 1 billion-plus people around the world under virtually any 
conditions of production are acceptable for multinational corporations 
to seek out and to employ to produce products that will be shipped into 
our marketplace? Is that what we want? Do we believe that is in the 
long-term economic interests of this country? Do we understand that it 
will injure this country's long-term economy? It will mean that we will 
hollow out not only the manufacturing sector but also the middle class 
in this country, because the jobs they used to expect, the 
manufacturing jobs that would pay well, with benefits, are not there. 
They have been outsourced for a quarter an hour or 50 cents an hour.
  Those who talk about these issues are often called protectionists; 
xenophobic isolationist stooges who just don't get it.
  The fact is, I am interested in protecting the economic interests of 
this country. No, I am not interested in protecting Americans from fair 
competition. I think competition represents something that is important 
to our producers as well because it makes them better producers. But 
fair competition is critical. I don't believe producers or workers in 
this country can or should be linked to competition with those in other 
parts of the world who can produce in circumstances where they pollute 
the air and water, hire children, pay pennies, and work in unsafe 
plants. That is why on trade agreements we have fought on the floor of 
the Senate to add provisions dealing with environment and labor, and we 
have been rebuffed at every circumstance and at every turn. We are 
seeing the results of that now--day after day after day.
  I want to talk just for a moment about something else that Mr. 
Gutierrez will inherit at the Commerce Department. I know it is not 
quite the important issue that China, the European Union, Mexico, 
Canada, and Korea are with respect to trade, but I want to talk for a 
moment about Cuba.
  Cuba is 90 miles off our shores. It is a Communist country. The fact 
is, we do business with Communist countries. We sell and buy from 
China, a Communist country. We do the same with Vietnam. We do that 
because our country's official policy is engagement through trade and 
travel. That is the way to move these countries in the right direction. 
We believe that very strongly. Republicans and Democrats claim that to 
be the case.
  It seems to be different, however, with Cuba. Although we do business 
with Communist China and Communist Vietnam, Cuba seems somehow to be 
different.
  Then Senator John Ashcroft and I offered an amendment on the floor of 
the Senate which became law. It became law after 40 years of an embargo 
in which we couldn't sell a thing to Cuba. Senator Ashcroft and I said 
it is immoral to use food and medicine as a weapon; that we ought to be 
able to sell food into the Cuban marketplace. So we got it passed. The 
provision was that the Cubans had to buy food with cash. But, 
nonetheless, we got it passed.
  The Cubans have purchased nearly $1 billion worth of agricultural 
products from American farmers. But some in this administration have 
never liked that, and they are doing everything they can to derail and 
try to stop the sale of agricultural products into Cuba. We have had 
farm fairs and agricultural fairs in Cuba. The Farm Bureau, the Farmers 
Union, and American farmers and ranchers have gone to Cuba. Cuba has 
bought nearly $1 billion worth of agricultural products from this 
country.
  Let me tell you what has happened. At an organization called OFAC, 
the Office of Foreign Assets Control, they have been doing everything 
conceivable to stop people from traveling to Cuba--yes, even to travel 
to sell agricultural products--and to stop the sale of agricultural 
products into Cuba.
  I want to give an example of the absurdity of this. This is a young 
woman, Joni Scott, who is looking at a Bible. She is a wonderful young 
woman, a Christian woman, who went to Cuba to

[[Page S123]]

distribute free Bibles. Guess what happened to this young American 
woman who went to Cuba to distribute free Bibles? Our Treasury 
Department tracked her down and tried to slap her with a $10,000 fine. 
What was her transgression? Trying to distribute free Bibles in Cuba.
  Or, I could show you a picture of Joan Sloat who joined a Canadian 
bicycle tour. What was her transgression? This 76-year-old grandmother 
rode a bicycle for 10 days in Cuba. They wanted to attach her Social 
Security through our own Treasury Department. The Office of Foreign 
Assets Control tracked her down and levied a big fine. What they are 
doing is unbelievable.
  The Office of Foreign Assets Control in Treasury is supposed to be 
tracking the funding for terrorists. But let me describe the way they 
are using their assets. Twenty-one people down at the Office of Foreign 
Assets Control are tracking American citizens who are suspected of 
taking a vacation in Cuba. They are under suspicion of taking a 
vacation in Cuba--21 people. They have four people tracking Osama bin 
Laden's financial network. It is unbelievably dumb--the allocation of 
resources in this manner.

  Why do I raise this? Because in the last 2 months or so the 
administration has decided they want to shut down the agricultural 
sales that do exist and can exist legally by reinterpreting when 
payment must be made and trying to create a circumstance that will wave 
off those who want to sell into Cuba.
  Mr. Gutierrez and I had a discussion about that when he came to see 
me. He is probably going to have to follow the administration line. It 
is that our farmers ought to be penalized and ought to be prevented 
from selling into the Cuban marketplace. The European farmers can sell 
there. The Canadian farmers can sell there. We have a natural advantage 
to sell into that marketplace because it is closest to us. But this 
administration wants American farmers and ranchers to pay the cost of 
their foreign policy.
  One day about 2 years ago, as a result of the legislation which I got 
passed, 22 train car loads of dried peas left North Dakota, the first 
shipment in 42 years into the Cuban marketplace. I am proud of that.
  I think the administration ought to be ashamed at what they are 
doing. They are saying that trade and travel is the road to 
enlightenment and the road to democratic reform in China and in 
Vietnam, but it is not in Cuba.
  It has nothing to do with common sense. It has to do with politics. 
The administration knows it, and they are doing everything they can to 
have American farmers and ranchers--for that matter, people such as 
Joni Scott or Joan Sloat--paying the price of that burden. It makes no 
sense at all.
  My hope is that as we proceed, some small modicum of commonsense 
might infiltrate the basic trade policies that are debated both in this 
Congress and also in the administration.
  It is not the case, for instance, that outsourcing of American jobs 
strengthens this country. The President's chief economic adviser said 
outsourcing is good. I guess it's good as long as he doesn't lose his 
job. The fact is, neither he nor people like him ever lose their jobs 
in these kinds of constructs. They never lose their jobs.
  This is about working families, the kind of people who helped build 
this country of ours, the kind of people who value work. They are the 
ones who lose their jobs. They are the victims of unfair trade.
  My hope is just once--perhaps just once--there would be some kind of 
fire alarm with a $60 billion-a-month trade deficit. But I hear 
nothing. There is this vast silence. I hear nothing about that being a 
crisis. All we hear is Social Security is in crisis, which, of course, 
is not the case.
  My hope is that perhaps we can find a way in the coming months, we 
can wake up to the fact that there is a crisis in trade, and perhaps 
have the President call an emergency meeting of policymakers and decide 
what we do about this. But there is this vast silence about it. Nobody 
wants to talk about it. Again, I suspect it is because nobody here is 
losing their jobs. But this country will not long remain a world 
economic power if it doesn't put its fundamentals in order.
  There is a wonderful book called ``The Lexis and the Olive Tree'' 
written by Tom Friedman. In it, he makes the point that just because 
there is a run on a bank, it is not about whether the bank is solvent 
or has a problem, it is about whether people perceive it to be solvent. 
He makes the point that market traders always perceive strengths and 
weakness. And when they move against your country and against your 
currency, beware.
  This country cannot long exist with a $1 trillion annual shortfall. 
In both budget deficits and trade deficits, the fundamentals are out of 
line--completely out of order--and everyone here should know it. Yet we 
are waltzing around here acting as if nothing is happening. That 
doesn't serve this country's interest. We know better. The American 
people know better. Our trade policies are in serious trouble and 
deserve our full attention.
  On behalf of American workers, on behalf of American businesses, and 
on behalf of the future of this great country, we owe it to our kids, 
we owe it to our future to address this important issue.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I wanted to let my colleagues know 
briefly of the reasons why I support the nomination of Carlos M. 
Gutierrez to be Secretary of Commerce. The Senate will vote on this 
nomination later today. I had the opportunity to sit down and speak 
with Mr. Gutierrez at length. While he has limited experience with 
matters handled and regulated by the Commerce Department that are 
important to Washington, such as fisheries, aerospace, and 
telecommunication, I was impressed by his general business acumen and 
management skills. I also found him willing to be personally engaged 
and to engage others on issues outside of his area of expertise. I 
appreciate his willingness to serve, and I look forward to working with 
him in the future.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to share my views on the 
nomination of Carlos Gutierrez to become United States Secretary of 
Commerce.
  Mr. Gutierrez's rise in the ranks at Kellogg Company--from selling 
cereal out of a truck in Mexico City 30 years ago, to serving as the 
company's CEO--is truly a remarkable achievement. Such business 
expertise will be pivotal for Mr. Gutierrez as Secretary of Commerce. 
In part, for this reason, I am confident that Mr. Gutierrez is a 
qualified candidate for this office.
  Nonetheless, I believe that it is important to take note of the 
breadth of agencies and issues that the Secretary of Commerce oversees.
  Advancing technology, trade, and business development are just a few 
of the important responsibilities that the Secretary of Commerce must 
assume. Particularly, in my home State of California, the Secretary has 
enormous influence.
  The Secretary is responsible for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, NOAA, which is critical to our ability to make use of 
oceanic and atmospheric research. For instance, NOAA operates the 
National Tsunami Mitigation Program, which NOAA created in 1997 and 
maintains in the Pacific Ocean today.
  The Secretary of Commerce also oversees the International Trade 
Administration--ITA. In agriculture, manufacturing and numerous other 
sectors, trade plays a vital role in the daily lives of Californians. 
According to the ITA's latest data, 55,421 companies exported goods 
from California in 2002. Of these companies, the overwhelming majority 
were small or mid-sized enterprises with fewer than 500 employees.
  I believe that strengthening our relationships with trading partners 
is fundamental to the continued growth of California businesses. With 
the Secretary's leadership, fair and balanced trade policies will help 
California's markets increase our export capacity even further.
  I applaud the nominee's openness in his previous statements on the 
need for reforming specific trade policies that need improving. I hope 
that Mr. Gutierrez will be a force for leveling the playing field for 
trade in the future.
  Although his role representing Kellogg Company was decidedly narrower 
than that of Commerce Secretary, I expect that Mr. Gutierrez will weigh 
every position and consequence when considering trade policy. The 
people of California and the United States depend on it.

[[Page S124]]

  Much of the Commerce Secretary's time must be spent encouraging 
business development. Too many jobs go overseas and I believe that a 
robust policy to vigorously promote job growth should be a top priority 
for the Secretary.
  Since 2001, over 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. We 
have also sustained net job losses in the private sector since 2001 and 
household median income continues to lag. We can and must do better.
  Through agencies like the Economic Development Agency--EDA, the 
Commerce Secretary can be a real catalyst for economic growth. By 
funding public works projects and innovative enterprises the EDA brings 
opportunity to the communities that need it most.
  I hope that as Commerce Secretary, Mr. Gutierrez will aggressively 
protect American jobs and encourage job creation, making full use of 
resources like the EDA.
  The responsibilities of the Secretary of Commerce are complex and 
far-reaching, and this will certainly be a challenging position for Mr. 
Gutierrez.
  There is a great deal of work to be done, and I look forward to a 
productive working relationship with Mr. Gutierrez.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I want to share a few thoughts on 
the nomination of Carlos Gutierrez to be Secretary of Commerce.
  The Commerce Department has responsibility for a broad range of 
important issues. Managing this diverse portfolio would be difficult in 
the best of circumstances. But there are a number of special challenges 
that make the job facing Mr. Gutierrez even tougher.
  Let me start with trade. A couple of days ago, the Commerce 
Department reported that our trade deficit for November exceeded $60 
billion. Twelve years ago, our trade deficit for the entire year was 
just $40 billion. Now, it is on track to exceed $600 billion. This 
course is unsustainable. If we do not start taking steps now to address 
this imbalance, we could face a collapse in the value of the dollar 
that would spark inflation, roil our markets, and dampen our economic 
prospects for years to come.
  I hope Mr. Gutierrez will take this issue very seriously. We need to 
make it clear to our trading partners that it is no longer acceptable 
for them to devalue their currencies to gain a competitive advantage 
over American producers. We need to strictly enforce our laws against 
unfair trade practices. We need to insist that our trading partners 
comply with the trade agreements they have signed with this country. 
And we need to forcefully advocate for global trade rules that will 
unequivocally benefit U.S. businesses, farmers, and workers.
  I want to touch on one issue in particular. During Mr. Gutierrez's 
tenure as CEO, Kellogg lobbied to increase sugar imports into this 
country. Sugar is a vital industry in my part of the country. The sugar 
industry pumps $2 billion a year into the economy of the Red River 
Valley in North Dakota and Minnesota. So it concerns me greatly when 
anyone suggests we should dismantle our successful sugar program to 
take in more foreign sugar. I had the opportunity to visit with Mr. 
Gutierrez a few days ago, and he has assured me he understands that as 
Secretary of Commerce he would be representing all U.S. businesses, 
including the U.S. sugar industry, and not just the interests of sugar 
consuming companies.
  We also face big challenges on a host of domestic issues within the 
jurisdiction of the Commerce Department. For example, over the next 2 
years, the Congress will be revisiting the 1996 Telecommunications Act. 
In the 8 short years since that act was passed, we have had a 
revolution in communications technology that will require us to rethink 
many of the rules we adopted then. As we do so, it is critically 
important that rural areas not be left behind. I have always been a 
strong supporter of the Universal Service Fund and the assistance it 
provides to North Dakota. I remain dedicated to making sure rural areas 
have access to innovative and affordable telecommunications technology, 
and look forward to working with Mr. Gutierrez on initiatives to close 
the technological gap between urban and rural areas.
  Carlos Gutierrez brings an impressive business background to this set 
of challenges. Born in Cuba, raised in Florida, Mr. Gutierrez started 
his career working for Kellogg in Mexico. From that start, he was 
steadily promoted until he became chairman and chief executive officer. 
As CEO, he has been credited with turning Kellogg around. It is my hope 
that he will have the same success in turning around our trade policy 
and bring the same energy to tackling the domestic challenges under his 
purview.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I heartily support the nomination of Mr. 
Gutierrez to be Secretary of Commerce. In nominating Kellogg's CEO 
Carlos Gutierrez to be the next Secretary of Commerce, President Bush 
selected a Michigander who has a wealth of business experience both in 
the U.S. and abroad which gives him a unique understanding of our 
country's role and challenges in the global marketplace. He also has a 
proven track record of wise budget management.
  Mr. Gutierrez represents the quintessential American dream, 
emigrating to this country with his parents at the age of 7 from Cuba 
and working his way up the ranks of the Kellogg Company, starting with 
selling Kellogg cereal from a van, stocking the shelves of his 
customers, to becoming the highly respected President and CEO of a top 
American Fortune 500 Company. His story is as American as Corn Flakes 
and baseball. He is a passionate fan of both.
  Mr. Gutierrez's home is in Battle Creek, MI, a medium-sized, 
midwestern city in America's heartland. Mr. Gutierrez has a firm 
grounding in many of the values and strengths that make this country 
great. He also has a firm grasp of some of the challenges facing 
American manufacturers.
  The U.S. has battled for decades to open foreign markets to U.S. 
goods. Carlos Gutierrez knows the ropes of those markets and can 
provide this Nation with that invaluable experience. I have confidence 
that he will recommend firm action both to pry open foreign markets now 
closed or partially closed to American goods as well as to reinvigorate 
America's manufacturing base.
  The leadership that Mr. Gutierrez used to turn around Kellogg's 
financial standing is desperately needed in this country, which has 
seen high unemployment, record trade deficits, and an unprecedented 
loss of manufacturing jobs. Mr. Gutierrez will need every bit of his 
experience to meet the challenges of this new job.
  We are facing a manufacturing jobs crisis in our country. The U.S. 
lost a record number of manufacturing jobs during President Bush's 
first term, 149,000 of which were in Michigan. Michigan's unemployment 
rate stands at 7 percent, the third worst State in the Nation.
  Unfortunately, this crisis has been worsened by the administration's 
failure to fund many of the programs that could strengthen the 
manufacturing sector. The Commerce Department's Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership program, for example, which helps small and medium-sized 
manufacturing companies remain competitive and has led to $8.7 billion 
in sales and helped create over 100,000 manufacturing jobs in the past 
four years, faced an 88 percent cut in the President's 2004 fiscal year 
budget request and a 63 percent cut in the 2005 fiscal year request.
  The President also proposed eliminating the Commerce Department's 
Advanced Technology Program, which encourages public-private 
cooperation and focuses on improving the competitiveness of American 
companies in the global marketplace. Manufacturing jobs pay high wages, 
provide health benefits and offer retirement security. We cannot afford 
to lose these good jobs or let them leave our country. I am hopeful 
that as Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez will prove to be a 
strong advocate for these programs.
  In addition to rebuilding our base of manufacturing jobs, we need to 
devise a trade policy that focuses on opening foreign markets rather 
than employing policies that encourage jobs to move overseas or 
tolerating foreign barriers to our goods and expanding trade deficits.
  During his time at Kellogg, Mr. Gutierrez managed several of the 
company's international divisions, including serving as the general 
manager of Kellogg of Mexico, the president and CEO of Kellogg Canada, 
Inc., and the

[[Page S125]]

president of Kellogg Asia-Pacific. These experiences provide him with 
the expertise needed to address our soaring trade deficit and create a 
climate where U.S. products have the same access to foreign markets as 
we give in this county to foreign products.
  The U.S. trade deficit has soared to record levels in the past 4 
years. We have a failed trade policy as a nation because we have not 
insisted that our trading partners grant us true reciprocity and we 
have not forcefully implemented our trade laws.
  The U.S. needs to fight much harder to open foreign markets to U.S. 
goods. In 2003, we had a $124 billion trade deficit with China, and it 
is expected to exceed $150 billion in 2004; we have a large and 
persistent automotive deficit with Japan; and we have tolerated 
currency manipulation by several of our trading partners who have 
rigged their currency values, making their exports artificially cheap 
and thus giving their companies a huge trade advantage and devastating 
U.S. workers, farmers and businesses.
  We can reduce this trade deficit by insisting on a level playing 
field with our trading partners; by closing tax loopholes that provide 
incentives to businesses to move jobs overseas; and by supporting 
efforts to ensure that China complies with commitments it has made to 
the World Trade Organization.
  We also need to adequately fund the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
program, which provides relief for small and medium-sized manufacturing 
and agricultural companies that experience loss of jobs and sales 
because of foreign imports. These are all areas that would come under 
Mr. Gutierrez's jurisdiction as Secretary of Commerce.
  The nomination of Mr. Gutierrez is part of an overhaul of President 
Bush's economic team. I am hopeful that this reorganization also 
represents a new direction for the country, and that we are able to 
rebuild our manufacturing sector and reverse our trade deficit. Mr. 
Gutierrez's background at Kellogg has given him the experience to take 
the important steps that are necessary to begin to do that.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to express my support 
for the nomination of Carlos Gutierrez to be the next Secretary of 
Commerce. Mr. Gutierrez's personal history is remarkable. Born in 
Havana, Cuba, Mr. Gutierrez came to the United States at the age of 
six. He learned to speak English from a hotel bellhop and at the age of 
20, he began working for the Kellogg Company as a truck driver in 
Mexico City. A little less than 25 years later, Mr. Gutierrez was in 
charge of the entire company as the chief executive officer and 
chairman of the board. As CEO, he quickly turned the battered and 
declining Kellogg into a strong, stable and increasingly profitable 
company.
  While the next Secretary of Commerce will face serious challenges in 
coming years from a surging trade deficit to a depleted domestic 
manufacturing base to a weakened dollar--I am confident that Mr. 
Gutierrez is more than capable to do his agency's part in taking on 
these challenges. I believe that Mr. Gutierrez will bring the same type 
of leadership and determination to the Department of Commerce that he 
has shown throughout his career in the private sector.
  I commend the President for making this nomination. Although Mr. 
Gutierrez and I may not agree on all economic issues, there is every 
indication that he will serve our country effectively and fairly as the 
Secretary of Commerce. I am proud to support his nomination.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
nomination of Carlos Gutierrez to be Secretary of Commerce. Mr. 
Gutierrez has set a great example for all Americans and has proved 
himself a true leader and visionary in the world of business. It is for 
this reason I fully support his nomination and I have no doubt he will 
be a truly superb Secretary of Commerce.
  Carlos Gutierrez's story is truly inspiring and sets a wonderful 
example for all Americans. Born in Cuba, Carlos, along with his family 
fled to the United States in 1960 to escape the dictatorship of Fidel 
Castro. Eventually, the Gutierrez family chose to live in Mexico and 
settled in Mexico City.
  At the age of 20, Carlos Gutierrez's journey through the world of 
business began when he took a job driving a truck for the Kellogg 
cereal company in Mexico City. Within 10 years, Mr. Gutierrez proved 
himself an invaluable asset to the company and was promoted to general 
manager of Kellogg's entire operation in Mexico. Only 15 years later, 
Mr. Gutierrez achieved the unthinkable and began running the operations 
for the entire company. This is truly a prime example of the American 
dream and definitively demonstrates Carlos Gutierrez's considerable 
talent for business.
  I am also pleased by this nomination because of the diversity it adds 
to President Bush's Cabinet. This President has demonstrated a 
commitment to selecting Americans from all walks of life and ethnic 
backgrounds to serve him, and I believe that the selection of Carlos 
Gutierrez is a clear sign of the contributions that Hispanic Americans 
are making to our Nation.
  I believe as Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez will continue to 
display the values and leadership which have been prevalent throughout 
his career. I have no doubt that as Secretary of Commerce Mr. Gutierrez 
will be able to meet any challenge facing this country in the future.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for Mr. Carlos 
Gutierrez as our new Secretary of Commerce.
  Considering the global nature of the marketplace, Carlos Gutierrez is 
an outstanding choice for Secretary of Commerce. Without a doubt, Mr. 
Gutierrez possesses the necessary skills to assume this important 
position. His skillful leadership has brought strong growth and success 
to one of the world's most notable companies. Because of his many years 
with the Kellogg Company, Mr. Gutierrez understands how to create jobs 
and foster greater opportunity for all Americans. I believe that Mr. 
Gutierrez will do an excellent job in creating conditions for economic 
growth and opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, 
competitiveness, and stewardship.
  Consumer demand, rising sales, and increased profits are creating 
confidence in the growing economy. For example, in my home State, the 
Utah Department of Workforce Services confirms that Utah added 32,200 
new jobs in 12 months ending on October 31, 2004, and the Salt Lake 
City-Ogden metro area topped the list of U.S. cities in the growth rate 
of women-owned businesses. According to the Department of Labor, Utah 
ranks third in terms of the largest one-year percentage gains in non-
farm employment. And, just recently, Forbes magazine named Headwaters, 
Inc., a Utah-based alternative energy technology company, as second of 
the top 200 best small companies in the United States. These are just a 
few of many indicators proving that President Bush's policies are 
succeeding in creating jobs and expanding the economy.
  I look forward to working with Mr. Gutierrez, as he is undoubtedly 
qualified and prepared to take the helm of the Commerce Department. Of 
course, Mr. Gutierrez has many challenges ahead of him, but I am 
confident that he will serve our country with dedication and 
distinction.
  Mr. FRIST. Fortune magazine describes him as possessing ``disarming 
charisma, steely resolve, and an utter lack of pretension.'' The 
President of the United States hails him as a ``great American success 
story.''
  It is my pleasure to support the nomination of Carlos Gutierrez, 
chairman and CEO of the Kellogg Company, to become America's next 
Secretary of Commerce.
  Mr. Gutierrez is a true testament to the American Dream. From humble 
beginnings as a Cuban refugee, he has become one of the most respected 
and admired businessmen in America.
  Mr. Gutierrez and his family fled Cuba when he was just 6 years old. 
His father ran a successful pineapple company in Havana. Then one day, 
there was a knock at the door. Fidel Castro's regime had named the 
elder Gutierrez an enemy of the state. Mr. Gutierrez's father was 
briefly imprisoned. The business was confiscated. Mr. Gutierrez recalls 
that, ``We were on a plane right after that.''
  The family landed in Miami Beach in 1960. It was there that 6 year 
old Carlos learned English from hotel bellhops.
  The family eventually settled in Mexico City, and at the age of 20, 
Mr.

[[Page S126]]

Gutierrez took a job driving a Kellogg van selling frosted flakes to 
small grocery stores.
  Ten years later, he became general manager of Kellogg's Mexico 
operations. Within 3 years, he turned the Mexico plant from the 
company's least productive to most productive.
  After stints in Asia and Canada, Mr. Gutierrez returned to the United 
States in 1990, and in 1999 became Chairman and CEO of the Kellogg 
Company.
  In 5 short years, Mr. Gutierrez has steered the cereal maker into the 
number one spot in the U.S. cereal market. Under his leadership Kellogg 
has become a food industry powerhouse with industry leading sales 
growth.
  Those who have studied his business techniques say that Mr. Gutierrez 
is successful because he is able to focus in on the key issues and 
convey his vision to everyone--from the assembly line worker to members 
of the board. He believes that every American should have the 
opportunity to succeed.
  He also believes that America is, and should be, the best place in 
the world to do business.
  Former Governor John Engler of Michigan, who has worked with Mr. 
Gutierrez, rightly points out that Mr. Gutierrez would be ``the most 
international leader that Commerce has ever had.''
  Mr. Gutierrez says that one of his proudest accomplishments was 
helping his son and his wife become American citizens. From one 
American citizen to another, I can assure him the pride is mutual.
  From his remarkable biography, to his meteoric success, Mr. Gutierrez 
is an inspiration to all. He took the American dream and ran with it--
and, I should note, without ever having finished college.
  I am confident that his accumulated wisdom, knowledge and skills will 
make Mr. Gutierrez an effective Commerce Secretary and eloquent 
advocate of our economic policies and ideals.
  I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of this extraordinary 
American.
  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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 45 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. STEVENS. Has the minority no time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three and a half minutes remaining for the 
minority side.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is it possible to get permission to yield back the 
balance of the minority's time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may ask consent to do so.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent all time be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask the Chair to put the issue before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Carlos M. Gutierrez to be Secretary of 
Commerce.
  The nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask that the President be immediately notified of the 
confirmation of this nominee.

                          ____________________