[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 54 (Thursday, April 28, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4528-S4533]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       NOMINATION OF ROBERT J. PORTMAN TO BE UNITED STATES TRADE 
                             REPRESENTATIVE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report Executive Calendar No. 74.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Robert J. Portman, of 
Ohio, to be United States Trade Representative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the cloture motion 
on the nomination is vitiated, and there is now 1 hour for debate under 
the control of the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, and 10 minutes 
equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I certainly do appreciate my colleagues' 
patience this evening. I know that it is late. I apologize for keeping 
people here late. I find it quite ironic that I come to the floor this 
late in the evening under the same purposes as my colleague from 
Delaware, Senator Carper. Most of it is out of disappointment in the 
lack of response from this administration on an issue that I think is 
absolutely critical to the fabric of this Nation, critical to our 
families, and critical to our children.
  I have asked that the Senate take time tonight to debate the 
nomination of Robert Portman to be the U.S. Trade Representative to 
highlight some of the issues related particularly to Saudi Arabia that 
I believe deserve more time and attention than they have been getting. 
I certainly expect Congressman Portman will become involved with these 
issues in his new position.
  I support the nomination of Congressman Portman to be our country's 
top trade negotiator. I have met with him. I have served with him. I 
believe he brings the right skills to the position and that he will do 
a very good job at representing our Nation and its vital interest in 
that position.

[[Page S4530]]

  I look forward to working closely with him on many issues in the 
years ahead that are important to my constituents, as I did with his 
predecessor. But today I would like to focus on one issue in particular 
that is critically important to me, and that is the children of this 
Nation.
  In May of 2004, I wrote a letter to then-Ambassador Robert Zoellick, 
with four of my Finance Committee colleagues, raising objections to 
Saudi Arabia's accession to the WTO. Over the past several years, our 
Government has been negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with Saudi 
Arabia that I understand is now very close to completion. It is also 
the only major hurdle which prevents Saudi Arabia from being granted 
favored trading status with the United States and other WTO member 
nations.
  In our letter, we specifically raised concerns regarding Saudi 
Arabia's participation in the Arab League boycott of Israel and the 
appropriateness of our Government supporting its admission as a result, 
given that current law requires the United States to vigorously oppose 
states that implement that boycott.
  We also highlighted concerns regarding Saudi Arabia's efforts to stop 
the financing of terrorist activities from sources within Saudi Arabia.
  Finally, we objected to Saudi Arabia's continued refusal to respect 
the rights of American women and girls who may never have a meaningful 
opportunity to leave the Kingdom even as adults. My concerns about the 
rights of American citizens is one I feel deeply about on a personal 
level, as a proud citizen of this great Nation, as a mother, and 
certainly as a Senator from the great State of Arkansas, with 
tremendous responsibilities to those I serve.

  Needless to say, when I received a response to our letter last week, 
11 months after we sent the letter to the administration--we received a 
response last week from our Acting Trade Representative 2 days before 
Congressman Portman's confirmation hearing--it only referenced the 
boycott and did not make one reference to the other two issues. I was 
deeply troubled, and I hope others will be, too.
  I was even more alarmed to read press reports about our trade 
negotiators working around the clock to finish the agreement prior to 
the meeting between President Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah in 
Crawford, TX, this last Monday.
  I want to start at the beginning of this story regarding the rights 
of American citizens because I think this issue is very important. Over 
the past several years, I have worked with Congressman Dan Burton of 
Indiana and others to highlight our Government's failure to 
aggressively defend the rights of American women and children in Saudi 
Arabia. This issue came to my attention because Heidi Al-Omary from 
Jonesboro, AR, was abducted by her Saudi-born father in 1997. Saudi 
Arabia continues to invoke its law and religion to detain my 
constituent in violation of U.S. law and a valid court order.
  Heidi was abducted more than 7 years ago, and she has been stuck 
there ever since because the Saudi Government does not believe Heidi's 
father, who is a wanted fugitive in our country, has done anything 
wrong. This man used our legal system to gain access by pressing the 
judge for unsupervised visitation, knowing full well that the first 
unsupervised visit and the child would be gone. Her mother knew that. 
Her mother argued with the judge, and the judge said: I have to give 
this man the visitation rights. On the first unsupervised visit in the 
dead of the night, that woman lost her child. She was taken from her. 
She did not see her child for 5 years. I do not know how we can stand 
by and let that happen.
  I attended a Little League game with my boys recently. I sat in that 
field and I thought how blessed I am to be a part of these children's 
lives. Then I thought of this poor woman whose child was taken from her 
against our laws, and for 5 years she missed those precious years of 
that child's life.
  Earlier tonight, waiting on these votes, I sat in a dark room with my 
children as they said their prayers. That woman has not had that. She 
has not experienced that blessing because her child was taken from her. 
She was only allowed to see that child 2 years ago, under restrictive 
supervision.
  That is not what we are about in this country. We are about standing 
up for our children and the citizens of this great land. We have an 
opportunity to do it, and we should.
  Heidi's mother Margaret McClain resides in my home State, in 
Jonesboro, AR. In July of 2002, Ms. McClain was permitted to travel to 
Saudi Arabia to visit her daughter. She was brought there under the 
assumption that she would have a visit with her child. When she 
arrived, the visit had been moved. She traveled through the desert to 
some unknown place where she finally got to meet with her daughter with 
people breathing down her neck. After 5 years, when her child was taken 
from her in the dead of the night, she finally gets to see her. It is 
unbelievable to me that that child was taken from this country in 1997 
and it took us until 2002 to ask for her return.
  Ms. McClain spent 6 days traveling to and from Saudi Arabia, yet Mr. 
Al-Omary permitted her to spend only a few hours with Heidi during that 
trip. Prior to that visitation, Ms. McClain had not seen or spoken to 
her child since she was taken from her from the United States 5 years 
previously.
  During Ms. McClain's first trip to Saudi Arabia in July of 2002, Mr. 
Al-Omary acted in a verbally abusive manner toward her, took steps to 
disrupt Ms. McClain's planned visit with her daughter and, in addition, 
officials at United States diplomatic installations in Saudi Arabia 
reported at the time that Mr. Al-Omary was uncooperative in arranging 
United States Consular visits with Heidi.
  At one point following Ms. McClain's visit to Saudi Arabia, Mr. Al-
Omary demanded the United States Government send him a letter of 
appreciation for allowing Ms. McClain to visit her daughter who he had 
kidnapped before he would authorize future United States State 
Department welfare-and-whereabout visits with their daughter Heidi.
  Thankfully, our Government did not send Mr. Al-Omary a thank-you 
note, and a subsequent welfare-and-whereabout visit did occur after 
pressure was applied by United States and Saudi officials.
  In May of 2003, after months of preparation by Ms. McClain, my 
office, and the Vice President, Ms. McClain and Heidi's two adult 
siblings were permitted to travel to Saudi Arabia to see Heidi a second 
time. Ms. McClain was permitted greater access to her daughter compared 
to the first visit, but Mr. Al-Omary refused to grant a simple request 
to spend time alone with her daughter. Ms. McClain is now making 
preparations for a third trip to Saudi Arabia to visit her daughter 
again this summer.
  I believe in communicating. I believe in working hard to get along. 
Visitation and communication between the left-behind parent and an 
abducted child is important and should be encouraged. However, after 
more than 7 years we ought to do a little bit more than just talking 
about more travel dates and more plane tickets. We should be talking 
about bringing a young American citizen home.
  For too long, it seems, the U.S. Government's goal in difficult cases 
such as this has been to simply maximize visitation and contact between 
U.S. parents and their abducted children in an effort to avoid 
confrontation with foreign governments. We know there are sensitive 
situations and sensitive relationships with countries all across the 
globe, but you do not gain respect until you demand respect in the 
relationships that you hold.
  We in no way have acted aggressively enough in demanding the respect 
for the laws of our land and the citizens, particularly Heidi, who are 
being held against their will.
  It is safe to say that I am not satisfied with the approach of just 
another plane ticket and just another travel date. I firmly believe our 
policy should be aggressively to seek recovery of abducted children, 
especially when they are taken to a country in which women, regardless 
of their age, never achieve independence--a right we cherish as 
Americans and we fight for.
  In Saudi Arabia, women and girls are under the complete control of 
their fathers, husbands, or other close male relatives their entire 
lives. According to the State Department's Country Report on Human 
Rights Practices most recent edition which was released in

[[Page S4531]]

February of this year, all women in the country are prohibited from 
driving and were dependent upon males for transportation. Likewise, 
women must obtain written permission from a male relative or guardian 
before the government would allow them to travel abroad. The 
requirement to obtain permission from a male relative or guardian 
applied also to foreign women married to citizens of Saudi Arabia and 
to the minor and single adult daughters of Saudi fathers.

  The report goes on to say that women have few political or social 
rights and were not treated as equal members of society. Women are 
restricted in their use of public facilities when men are present. For 
example, women must enter city buses by separate rear entrances and sit 
in specially designated sections.
  Further, under Saudi law, women may not be admitted to a hospital for 
medical treatment without the consent of a male relative. However, 
according to the report, this was not always enforced, thank goodness.
  Perhaps most troubling to me is that arranged marriages at an early 
age are socially acceptable in Saudi Arabia. Heidi is a young lady. She 
left here as a child, abducted, taken against her will, and against our 
law. This summer, she turns 13. I am increasingly concerned that she 
may be deprived of any meaningful choice about who she marries and when 
she bears a child. Ultimately, Heidi's ability or inability to exercise 
control over these most personal matters may very well determine if she 
is ever able to return to her rightful home in the United States.
  I recognize the issue of international child abduction is not limited 
to Saudi Arabia. However, the status of female abductees in the Kingdom 
is quite unique since, under Saudi law and custom, women have very 
limited autonomy and may never, ever have a meaningful opportunity to 
leave, even as adults.
  As I mentioned earlier, I focused my attention on this issue because 
I don't believe our Government is doing everything it can to stand up 
for the rights of American citizens such as Heidi. After studying the 
history of Heidi's case and others, I have sadly concluded that our own 
Government has failed to stand up for Heidi and others such as her. 
Perhaps most telling in this case is that even though Heidi is a U.S. 
citizen and was kidnapped in August of 1997, our Government did not 
formally ask that she be returned until October of 2002. To me, that is 
inexcusable. It is why I think our Government owes this young girl an 
extra effort now, when she is most vulnerable, about to turn 13, about 
to have life-threatening decisions made for her without her consent, 
and without any of her emotional input.
  To bring greater attention to this issue, in June of 2002, all 13 
women Senators who were Members at the time sent President Bush a 
letter, asking him to take up the cause of American women and children 
held against their will in Saudi Arabia. I received a response to this 
letter from the then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in November of 
2003. And that was 18 months after 13 women Senators wrote to this 
administration specifically addressed to the President of the United 
States. I only heard from the Secretary of State after I had placed a 
hold on the nomination of James Oberwetter to be our Ambassador to 
Saudi Arabia. In his letter, Secretary Powell stated that the State 
Department is committed to recovering abducted children and will 
continue to seek the return of abducted children such as Heidi.
  Over the past several years, I have also met with multiple members of 
the administration, submitted written questions to nominees to the 
positions in the administration who have jurisdiction over these 
matters.
  In 2002, in 2003, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs 
Maura Harty stated in meetings with me, in public testimony, in 
response to my written questions, that the return of abducted children 
is a priority and it is the State Department's goal and our Government 
will continue to press to recover abducted children.
  In November of 2003, now United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia 
James Oberwetter stated in response to my written questions that the 
release of Americans who have been abducted to Saudi Arabia is a 
priority and that he will raise the case of Heidi Al-Omary at the 
earliest opportunity. That was 2003.
  In January of 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated in 
written responses to my written questions that she would raise the case 
of Heidi Al-Omary at the earliest opportunity and that the return of 
abducted children is truly a priority.
  In April of 2005, USTR nominee Robert Portman made a commitment to me 
at his confirmation hearing this month and in written responses to my 
written questions to work with me in collaboration with the State 
Department to address this issue.
  It sounds like more plane tickets. It sounds like just more dates and 
more plans for visitation, eliminating that mother's opportunity to 
share the kind of time with her child that each one of us has enjoyed.
  Finally, last week, I wrote President Bush prior to his meeting on 
Monday with Crown Prince Abdullah in Crawford, TX, asking him to raise 
this issue. I do not know who else to write in the administration. I do 
not know who else to appeal to. I do not know who else to sit around 
waiting for an answer from on an issue that could not be more 
important, our children--not just my children, not just your children, 
Mr. President, not just the children of other Senators, but children of 
this Nation.
  I continue to be in contact with the White House, and I welcome the 
opportunity to work with them in resolving this matter. But as my 
colleague from Delaware came to the floor, and having asked for the 
last 2 or 3 years for a working relationship that might bring about 
results, I come to the floor tonight with a heavy heart, disappointed 
in the response I have gotten over the last 3 years but hopeful, 
because a mother's heart is always hopeful, just as the mother of that 
child's heart is hopeful every time I talk to her. Every time I talk to 
her, she never gives up.
  I know officers at the State Department who have responsibility for 
abduction and wrongful retention cases work hard. I know they do. I 
know they care about the children involved. I am not doubting that. I 
am not frustrated with them because I know their hands are tied. They 
take their instructions from higher up. And higher up does not seem to 
feel like this is a priority. But I am speaking out to express my 
profound frustration with the lack of results in this case and our 
Government's apparent policy of not rocking the boat when difficult-to-
solve cases like Heidi's linger in limbo indefinitely. I know our 
Government has said repeatedly that the return of abducted children is 
a priority, but it is just not a big enough priority. I do not think we 
have done everything we can in this case, which brings me back to the 
nomination now pending before the Senate.
  When countries such as Saudi Arabia ask our Government to grant 
favored trading status, I think it is only appropriate to step back and 
consider all facets of our relationship and foreign policy goals before 
we hand them the cookie jar.
  I have already discussed in some detail the letter I wrote to 
Ambassador Zoellick in May of last year. Since that time, in September 
of 2004, I think it is important to note that the Secretary of State 
has designated Saudi Arabia as a country of particular concern in the 
State Department's annual International Religious Freedom Report. So 
according to the administration, Saudi Arabia's record in this area is 
getting worse, not better. This status is reserved for a handful of 
governments that have ``engaged in or tolerate particularly severe 
violations of religious freedom.'' Respect, Mr. President, respect for 
our faith and for other faiths--just as we try desperately in our 
country to respect those.
  According to the State Department's report on Saudi Arabia:

       Freedom of religion does not exist. Citizens are denied the 
     freedom to choose or change their religion, and noncitizens 
     practice their beliefs under severe restrictions.

  Further, the report states that Saudi custom officials routinely open 
mail and shipments to search for contraband, which includes the Bible.
  As my colleagues may also be aware, under this designation, the 
President is supposed to choose from a menu of sanctions stipulated by 
Congress, which raises questions in my mind about why we should be 
sanctioning

[[Page S4532]]

Saudi Arabia on one hand while trying to reward them with a trade deal 
on the other without evidence of meaningful improvement.
  When I inquired this week about the status of sanctions on Saudi 
Arabia under this law, I was told that even though the deadline 
established in the statute to make a decision passed on March 15, no 
decision from this administration has been announced.
  I truly regret that Congress does not have the opportunity under 
current law to vote on a bilateral trade agreement relating to Saudi 
Arabia's accession to the WTO. I think that could make a real 
difference with a country such as Saudi Arabia, and it would 
significantly enhance our Nation's ability to make meaningful progress 
on many of our foreign policy goals.
  To put this into a little different context, I point out what I see 
as a direct contradiction in our trade policy specific to congressional 
review of certain countries. I will use the country of Ukraine as a 
good example. Many of you remember the moving address before a joint 
session of Congress by the brave new President of the Ukraine just a 
few weeks ago. We heard him. In his address, he asked, pleaded that 
Congress graduate his country from what is known as Jackson-Vanik--a 
procedural step taken by Congress before any former Communist country 
receives the most favored trading relationship with the United States; 
a procedural step that is proving to at least get the attention of the 
Vietnamese Government, that is working desperately within the next 
year, hopefully; a procedural step that Saudi Arabia does not have to 
overcome; a procedural step unavailable to Members of Congress to have 
their legitimate concerns addressed.

  We will not have a vote when it comes to their being rewarded with 
membership to the WTO. And sadly, the only votes we really have much of 
any say over are these nominations, when we put holds on the names of 
very capable individuals who want to serve this country. But without 
that vote, our concerns will be left to Congressman Portman and the 
administration to raise. So that is why I am here in the dead of the 
night, to put into the Record and, hopefully, into the hearts and minds 
of the few people who are left listening that these nominations are 
important, and we do believe in these individuals to have great 
capabilities, but oftentimes they are not allowed the authority to 
exercise that.
  Given all these issues I have highlighted--the Arab boycott of 
Israel; terrorism financing, which is costing us more and more in Iraq; 
the lack of religious freedom; and the lack of respect Saudi Arabia has 
shown for our laws and its citizens--for the life of me, I cannot 
understand why we are in such a hurry to walk down the aisle on this 
trade agreement. What is going on?
  Most of the Members of this body know me pretty well. I am not trying 
to be ugly. But I think someone must stand up and tell the truth. Our 
policy with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is go along to get along, even 
when the rights of American citizens and fundamental principles such as 
equality and freedom that define what is good about our Nation are 
sacrificed.
  As a proud mother of twin boys, I try hard to make sure they 
understand that actions in life are based on priorities. They are based 
on choices that each of us has to make. But without a doubt, the 
choices we make and the actions we take have real and substantive 
consequences and can have ramifications far beyond a single issue or 
event. I try so hard to teach them that friendships are based on mutual 
trust and respect.
  To all of those nations across this globe, who are our neighbors, we 
want desperately to build on our friendships. But if those friendships 
are to be long lasting and to be worthwhile, they must absolutely be 
built on respect.
  I do not advocate severing our relationship with Saudi Arabia. 
Neighbors and friends are important to have. Whether you grew up in 
rural America, as I did, and depend on them to help you bring your 
crops in or to raise your children or to just get you through the 
month, it is important to be a good neighbor, and it is important to 
have good neighbors. But it is hard to have that relationship if you 
don't ask of them the kind of respect that allows you to depend on one 
another.

  As I said, I don't advocate in severing our relationship with Saudi 
Arabia. I hope we can reach out. But until this administration takes 
those steps, starts to answer our letters and our phone calls, and 
makes a few attempts in reaching out to Saudi Arabia, the leaders of 
that nation, to express to them how important our children are to us, 
we have a problem. I do believe we need to step back and fully consider 
the values we cherish as Americans as we move forward into the future. 
This is a very real place where it has to begin.
  I appreciate the patience of the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there other Senators seeking to yield 
time? Does the Senator from Arkansas yield back the remainder of her 
time under the previous order?
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
nomination of Robert Portman to be our next United States Trade 
Representative.
  Congress first mandated the appointment of a special representative 
for trade negotiation in 1962. Since that time, our trade 
representative has played a vital role in shaping much of our 
international economic policy. Today, it remains an important position 
that requires a unique blend of technical and political skills for 
success.
  In that regard, we are fortunate to have Rob Portman as the 
President's nominee. Congressman Portman has a strong commitment to 
public service, having served the people of Ohio in the House of 
Representatives for the past 12 years. His thoughtful consideration of 
complex issues and his determination to achieve sound public policy 
have made him an effective leader. He has played major roles in 
pension, tax, and IRS reform. He is well known for his leadership in 
the fight against drug abuse. And, as a member of the Ways and Means 
Subcommittee on Trade, Congressman Portman has been intimately involved 
in a number of key international trade policy initiatives.
  There is strong support for the nominee among the business and 
agriculture communities. In an open letter sent to Congress on April 
18, literally hundreds of companies, associations and Chambers of 
Commerce expressed their desire to see Congressman Portman confirmed as 
the next United States Trade Representative, noting that he ``is the 
right person for the job. During his six terms in the U.S. House of 
Representatives, he has distinguished himself as a thoughtful and 
respected leader on international trade and investment issues. 
Moreover, he has demonstrated a spirit of cooperation that will be 
essential in the months ahead as Congress considers many trade issues 
on its agenda.
  Similar sentiments are expressed by over 60 representatives of the 
agriculture sector. In a letter dated April 19 they note that 
``Representative Portman has long championed bipartisan solutions to 
trade'' adding that he ``will bring tremendous talent and experience to 
this important post. We applaud Representative Portman's deep 
commitment to enforcing trade agreements and believe his desire to 
achieve meaningful results for American agriculture and agribusiness is 
precisely the leadership that is needed in the dynamic and sometimes 
difficult to navigate world of agriculture trade.''
  There is strong interest in moving this nomination quickly. There are 
a number of important events coming up over the next few weeks 
including a meeting of the World Trade Organization ministers in early 
May. So, I hope we will be able to confirm this nominee quickly.
  There is a long tradition of legislative and executive branch 
cooperation on international economic policy. The importance of working 
together became most evident following the passage of the Smoot-Hawley 
Tariff Act of 1930 which helped plunge our economy into the Great 
Depression. In 1934 President Roosevelt recognized that high tariff 
barriers were strangling our economy. To spur economic growth, he 
sought and received legislative authority to negotiate reductions in 
tariff barriers.
  That bill, the Trade Agreements Act, embodied the basic partnership 
between the legislative and executive branches of Government that we 
know today as Trade Promotion Authority.

[[Page S4533]]

It is a partnership that has served this Nation well for the better 
part of the last century, and hopefully will continue to do so for the 
next.
  But the battle for economic freedom is far from over. We cannot 
afford to return to the tyranny of tariffs embodied by Smoot-Hawley. 
Decisions we make in the near future on economic policy will have a 
significant impact on generations to come. They are decisions we cannot 
take lightly. Strong leadership at the Office of the United States 
Trade Representative is key. Congress will soon be considering free 
trade agreements with Central America, the Dominican Republic and 
Bahrain.
  We also have a number of important bilateral and regional 
negotiations underway that will bring significant benefits to the U.S. 
economy. And, perhaps most important, are on-going negotiations at the 
World Trade Organization. Successfully concluding these negotiations 
and ensuring their implementation will take a skilled champion of 
America's interests. I am confident that Rob Portman will effectively 
fill that role.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in strongly supporting Congressman 
Portman to be our next United States Trade Representative.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter dated April 28, 2005.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                         Committee on Finance,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 2005.
     Hon. Evan Bayh,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bayh: As you know, the Senate Finance 
     Committee will be holding a hearing on U.S.-China trade 
     relations before July 15th. As a co-sponsor of legislation to 
     apply countervailing duty laws to non-market economies such 
     as China you will be invited to testify at this hearing. I 
     share your concern about China's use of subsidies and their 
     potential impact on manufacturing and other workers in our 
     economy. The hearing will be an important opportunity to 
     fully air this issue and analyze the best possible policy 
     solutions to the problem including statutory application of 
     countervailing duty laws to non-market economies as proposed 
     by S. 593, the ``Stopping Overseas Subsidies'' Act.
       Since we will have a full discussion of the many pressing 
     issues surrounding U.S.-China trade relations prior to July 
     15th, I appreciate the fact that you agree it will not be 
     necessary to offer an amendment or to seek a stand alone vote 
     on this issue prior to review by the Senate Finance Committee 
     at this hearing.
       I appreciate your interest in this issue and look forward 
     to continuing our discussion on this important and timely 
     topic.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles E. Grassley,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support 
the nomination of Rob Portman to fill the post of U.S. Trade 
Representative. I have been privileged to work with Rob for over 10 
years.
  As my colleagues know, Rob represents the Cincinnati district which 
is just over the river from my home in northern Kentucky. Over the 
years, Rob and I have developed a strong professional relationship as 
we worked together on issues important to the northern Kentucky-Greater 
Cincinnati region and the Nation.
  But just as importantly, I am honored to be able to call Rob Portman 
my good friend. My wife Mary and I have come to know Rob, his wife 
Jane, and their children quite well over the years and we admire and 
respect them.
  So I come to you as someone who knows Rob Portman as well as any 
other Member of Congress to tell you that President Bush could not have 
picked a better man for this job. Rob is one of the smartest guys in 
Washington and he combines that intelligence with sound judgment and a 
strong moral compass.
  We are all aware of Rob's ability to work in a bipartisan manner to 
accomplish legislative goals. I am confident Rob will bring this 
ability to build bridges to his job as the U.S. Trade Representative--a 
job where bridge building is integral to success.
  I can't think of anyone that I would rather have representing our 
country to the world, and I urge my colleagues to act favorably and 
quickly on his nomination.


                      Nomination of Robert Portman

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am delighted to take this opportunity to 
reaffirm my support for Representative Portman's nomination to become 
the United States Trade Representative. Throughout his professional 
career, his work his exhibited one common characteristic: excellence.
  From his time working as a young lawyer at a prestigious Washington, 
DC, law firm to his current responsibilities as a member of the House 
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, Representative Portman has done 
much to make a difference in peoples' lives, in no small part by 
supporting legislation designed to open markets and strengthen trade 
relationships. He believes that if we are to create a truly stable and 
prosperous world and strengthen our own Nation's economic position, our 
trade policy must be based on free trade agreements that open markets 
to American goods and products.
  Representative Portman also shares my belief that it as important to 
enforce free trade agreements as it is to create new agreements. 
Without vigilant enforcement of these agreements there remains a 
possibility of creating a disadvantageous environment for our exports. 
This is especially true in one of our most important areas, 
intellectual property. Representative Portman and I have discussed this 
issue, but I wanted to reiterate its importance by stating publicly how 
concerned I am about the recent reports that I have heard regarding the 
increase in intellectual piracy in nations such as Russia and China.
  Representative Portman will face many challenges in his new 
assignment as United States Trade Representative. One of the most 
immediate will be the Dominican Republic--Central American Free Trade 
Agreement. As many others, I have concerns about what this agreement 
will mean for U.S. jobs and how effectively the U.S. can compete in 
this global marketplace. However, after diligently studying the 
agreement, I have come to the conclusion that U.S. companies and 
consumers, including Utahns, will benefit exponentially from this 
agreement with increased exports to our regional trading partners and 
lower domestic prices for many goods and services.
  As Congressman Portman has pointed out to many of us and as Acting 
Representative Allgeier discussed during his testimony before the 
Senate Finance Committee 2 weeks ago, there are a number of advantages 
for the United States to ratify this agreement. Particularly 
interesting is that it would reverse the United States' policy of 
unilaterally affording preferences to Central American goods under the 
Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Generalized System of Preferences. 
That means that where once U.S. goods faced trade hurdles, barriers 
would be eliminated.
  Utah exported over $6 million worth of information technology 
products to CAFTA nations last year. This treaty will eliminate key 
distribution barriers in those countries, opening markets to Utah 
companies in the telecommunications and e-commerce arenas. Utah's 
farmers will also enjoy access to new markets as CAFTA will immediately 
eliminate tariffs on wheat, barley, oats and rye. However, despite 
these advantages we must remain on guard that this agreement and 
previous agreements are adequately enforced to ensure that American 
products are fairly treated in these markets.
  This is only the ``tip of the iceberg'' of the challenges that 
Representative Portman will face. I do not believe that the President 
could have chosen a better person to create and enforce the 
extraordinary opportunities afforded by new and existing free trade 
agreements. Representative Portman's nomination has my full support and 
confidence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Robert J. Portman, of Ohio, to be United 
States Trade Representative, with the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary 
and Plenipotentiary.
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President will be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action.

                          ____________________