Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today we remember Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila, and his daughter Marcia. Today my wife Connie and I send our thoughts and prayers to the Wellstone sons, Mark and David. Paul, so many of our colleagues noted earlier today, was more than a Senator, more than a professor. He was, of course, first and foremost a loving husband and a proud father. But for millions of Americans, Paul Wellstone was a hero. Paul was an unparalleled champion for social and economic justice. He led by example, fighting for the weakest among us, those whose voices are too often drowned out or altogether ignored. In the Senate, Paul Wellstone was their voice. He may have had the title ``Senator,'' but he proudly, perhaps more proudly, wore the moniker ``activist.'' From this Chamber, he fought for the poor, for the veterans, the environment, and working men and women not just in Minnesota but across the land and across the world. He led by example, an example we in this Chamber are well served to follow. Five years after his death, he remains sorely missed.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate seeing the Senator from Pennsylvania in the chair. We were both in the Agriculture Committee today. I thank him for his leadership for dairy farmers and for nutrition and feeding kids and all that he did that way. The 2007 farm bill is a chance for Congress to make historic strides in agriculture, alternative energy, and to literally help improve the lives of millions of families across the country--families struggling from Harrisburg to Erie, from Ashtabula to Gallipolis, from Lima to Toledo. In a State such as Ohio, with a long and rich agricultural history, this means a bright future for our agriculture industry, for our family farmers, and for our families. I applaud the leadership of Senator Harkin. I am proud, as Ohio's first Senator to sit on the Agriculture Committee in four decades, to be part of this process. This bill could mean that low-income families will have more access to better nutrition by increasing Food Stamp Programs and access to affordable healthy foods. That means more fruits and vegetables into the schools in Hamilton, Middletown, and Akron, and more fruits and vegetables available, grown by local farmers, to go into farmers markets in Columbus and Zanesville and all over our State. Earlier this year, as the occupant of the chair and I and others gathered in the committee, we heard from Rhonda Stewart of Hamilton, OH. Rhonda is perhaps in her early thirties and has, I believe, a 9- year-old son. She is a single mother, struggling and working full-time and making about $8, $9, or $10 an hour, with no health insurance. She was president of the local PTA and her son is involved in the Cub Scouts and she is a food stamp beneficiary. She struggled every month. At the beginning of the month, she told the committee back in February, she would serve her son pork chops that first week, which is his favorite meal. By the middle of the month, they went to McDonald's or another fast-food place maybe twice. But by the end of the month, as times got tough and she struggled financially, she would almost invariably sit at the dinner table, at the kitchen table with her son, he would be eating and she would not. He would say: What's wrong, Mom? Aren't you hungry? She would say: No, I don't feel well. She simply ran out of money at the end of the month. In the farm bill, we are helping people like her and her family who work hard and play by the rules and do everything in the workplace and in their homes that we ask them to do as citizen of their communities and our country. This bill could mean new investment and a new direction for farmers in Ohio. The 2007 farm bill reflects the values of farmers across Ohio: forward-thinking, responsible, and working to protect our natural resources and our rural communities. This bill will help family farmers in my State and in Pennsylvania and across the country by strengthening the farm safety net, one that will provide better protection for farmers against disasters, such as either low yield or low prices. Either one can be obviously devastating to farmers. The Average Crop Revenue Program, which Senator Durbin and I introduced a bill to create as part of the farm bill--amended by Chairman Harkin into the farm bill--offers a much needed choice to farmers. It represents significant reform for farmers and huge savings--literally $3.5 billion--for taxpayers. Farmers can stay in the current or old program that does little to protect against drops in revenue or, for the first time ever, farmers will be able to switch to a forward-looking policy that better protects against volatile crop prices, natural disasters, and rising production costs. If farmers are doing well and prices and yields are good, farmers would not get tax dollars. If times are bad--the yield is low or there are floods or tornadoes that cause major crop yield drops or if the price is low--then the farmer will get help. That is the way that agriculture should be. That is the way most farmers I find in northwest Ohio and all over my State want to do it too. I traveled throughout Ohio this Spring--to Chillicothe, where we did roundtables with fruit and vegetable farmers, and in Montgomery County, not too far from Troy, and Piqua, near Dayton. We talked to farmers there, and near Wooster, OH. We talked to dairy farmers. In Lake County we talked to specialty farmers, especially those who do landscaping and greenhouses. In northwest Ohio we talked to farmers who grow corn and soybeans. I met with a corn farmer in Henry County who will be supplying corn to one of the first ethanol plants in Ohio. I met with a hog farmer in Montgomery County who uses wind turbines to provide on-farm energy. This farm bill makes a commitment to move beyond antiquated energy sources and wean ourselves from Middle Eastern oil and prepare American agriculture to lead the world in renewable energy production. With the right resources and the right incentives, farmers can help decrease our dependence on foreign oil and produce clean, sustainable, renewable energy. In a State such as Ohio, with a talented labor force and a proud lead-the-nation manufacturing history, that doesn't just mean stronger farms and more prosperous farmers; it means a stronger economy. Rural communities across the Nation will benefit from additional Federal assistance in the farm bill and small towns not far from where I grew up in Lexington, OH, places like Butler and Belleville, will benefit from funding for infrastructure and hospitals, while expanding access to broadband for all of my State, especially southeast Ohio, which doesn't have the access it needs. This bill will also provide more than $4 billion in additional funding for conservation programs to help farmers protect our water quality, expand wildlife habitat, and preserve endangered farmland. While I am pleased with the bill overall, it can be improved. The public is perfectly willing to help family farmers when they need it, but taxpayers will not support massive payments to farms that have substantial net incomes. We should not be sending tax dollars to Florida real estate developers, to city farmers who live in New York, to NBA players, or to media personalities. Those are not the people who should benefit from the farm bill. I regret that we have not funded the McGovern-Dole international feeding program. I hope as this legislation progresses, we will do so. The agricultural industry in Ohio has experienced unprecedented change in recent years, but the values of Ohio farmers--hard work, stewardship of the land, caring for their families--remains steadfast. We, too, must be steadfast in our support for farmers, but we must also change how we go about providing that support. I applaud the proposal put before us in the Agriculture Committee today. I hope we can even improve upon it in the weeks ahead. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. I call up amendment No. 3361, which I am offering with my colleague, Senator Webb of Virginia.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, our amendment does not create a new government program or require new spending. It is a modest amendment designed to achieve a major goal, to reduce school violence. On October 10, a 14-year-old boy brought two guns to a Cleveland public school. He shot four people before turning the gun on himself. On April 16, a student at Virginia Tech shot 49 people, 32 of them fatally, before turning the gun on himself. The next act of school-based violence may already be taking shape in the mind of another deeply troubled child, adolescent, or adult. Parents send their children to school every day trusting that they will be safe. It is a crucial premise. And school-based violence shatters it. It doesn't matter that violent incidents are rare. The fact that a school, any school, could become a killing field is unthinkable to a parent, to any of us. Yet we must think about it. We must think about school-based violence so we can minimize it. There are no easy answers for a school faced with a potentially violent student who has not yet acted on that potential. Schools should and must respect the rights of each student while ensuring the safety of all students. There are no easy answers, but there are answers. In 2002, the Department of Education and the U.S. Secret Service put together a comprehensive guidance document to help schools respond appropriately when faced with a potentially dangerous student, as well as how to prepare for and respond to acts of violence on school campuses. School administrators have confirmed that this document is very useful. Unfortunately, it is also out of date. Following the Virginia Tech tragedy, the President asked three Members of his Cabinet: Secretary Leavitt of Health and Human Services, Secretary Spellings of the Department of Education, and Attorney General of the Department of Justice, to review the events surrounding the tragedy and recommend ways of preventing such tragedies in the future. This report, which was released June 13, gives us new information, and we should use it. We don't have the luxury of time. It doesn't make sense to wait a minute longer than necessary to get the right information into the hands of every school administrator in this country. The Brown-Webb amendment instructs the Department of Education to use its existing authority and funding under the Safe and Drug-Free School and Communities Program, to update the 2002 guidance based on what was learned from Virginia Tech, and to distribute the updated guidance to schools within a 3-month timeframe. That is a fast turnaround, and it is completely appropriate. Updating the document will take staff time; distributing the document will take computers and some legwork. Getting this done quickly is most important because it can prevent an act of school-based violence. It is what we should do. I ask my colleagues for their support. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, this was a good week in this body for changing the direction of U.S. trade policy. My fellow Senators--and I think we are seeing the same in the House of Representatives--are beginning to listen to the elections of last fall, beginning to listen to what voters are saying, beginning to listen to what workers and small businesses are telling them about a failed U.S. trade policy and how we need a new direction in trade policy. On Monday this week I offered a modest amendment, a reminder to the Bush administration that we need to vigorously enforce our trade laws. That amendment passed overwhelmingly, with fewer than a half dozen negative votes. Few in this Chamber can disagree with that, especially when we see what the unfair trade and the absence of a vigorous trade enforcement team can do to American manufacturing. In our country, there are rules to protect the free market from anticompetitive schemes, such as monopolies and collusion and price gouging. In the global economy, there are similar rules to protect the free market from anticompetitive schemes such as Government subsidies and the dumping of underpriced foreign products on domestic markets. Once you put domestic markets out of business, then foreign prices are free to rise unchecked. Lax labor and environmental laws also undercut the free market by creating insurmountable price differences. But when our country does not combat the anticompetitive behavior in the global marketplace, our economy suffers for it. That is why the amendment this week was important, to instruct the administration to be more aggressive, as the Justice Department needs to be more aggressive in our country, to protect the free market from anticompetitive schemes such as monopolies and collusion and price gouging; our trade representative, our trade negotiators, our trade policy enforcers need to be more aggressive in enforcing international trade laws against anticompetitive schemes such as Government subsidies and the dumping of underpriced foreign products on domestic markets. American manufacturing fuels our economy, whether it is in Minneapolis or whether it is in Cleveland, and it supplies our national defense infrastructure. In my home State of Ohio, well over 200,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared in the last 7 years. We know American industry can compete with anyone in the world when it is actually a fair fight. But some foreign governments have unfairly and illegally doled out massive subsidies to their own companies. Some are encouraged through our tax system to reestablish offshore, contributing to the outmigration of manufacturing jobs from our country overseas. As reported today in the Hill, the Bush administration is using steel from China to build a fence on the Mexican border: ``[The Department of Homeland Security] criticized for Chinese steel in U.S.-Mexico fence.'' We are using taxpayer dollars to build a fence on the U.S.-Mexican border, and much of the steel comes from China. We know what NAFTA did to Mexico's middle class. We know it has run more than 1\1/3\ million farmers off their land into the cities to compete for dwindling manufacturing jobs, jobs where wages continue to drop despite increased foreign investment from NAFTA. We know that many make the dangerous trek to our country, trying to get through security, go over the desert, across the river--all they do to find work and money for their families. Yet here we are building a wall made of Chinese steel. How will history judge this Congress when we see more of the same failed trade policies that contribute to this migration and then build a wall of Chinese steel? I wish President Bush would talk to Ohioans about that. I wish he would talk to a steelworker in Lorain or a machine shop owner in Mansfield or a tool-and-die worker in Youngstown, people who are hard-working men and women who have made America the strongest Nation in the world, workers who, frankly, feel betrayed by America's trade policies. Presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements like NAFTA, promising they would create millions of jobs and enrich communities. Instead, too many of these agreements have cost millions of jobs and devastated communities. It is not just the worker who suffers. It is the family, people down the street, as the valuation of houses contributes to delinquency and foreclosures. It means fewer police, fewer teachers, and fewer firefighters, as communities are devastated from layoffs and workers losing their jobs. In the cities, workers lose their jobs too. Yet the Bush administration and proponents of deals with Peru, Colombia, Panama, and South Korea want more of the same. They want the current system to keep going, to be expanded, despite evidence that the NAFTA model and the CAFTA model have not been working for Mexican workers, Central American workers, American workers, or small businesses in those countries and is not working for small manufacturers. The number of workers filing for unemployment benefits jumped last week to its highest level since late August. Last week, 2,000 more Ohioans were seeking unemployment benefits, thousands more in Michigan, in Minnesota, in Indiana, North Carolina, all over the country--hardly the sign of a good economy, hardly the time for another trade agreement. History will be on the side of those who want a different trade policy. The Founders gave Congress the responsibility to set the terms of trade policy. To vote up or down on a flawed agreement is in no one's best interest. It is not smart policy or politics. We need to begin by evaluating agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, as Senator Dorgan proposed this week. We need to pause. Let's say no more trade agreements for a while until we fix our trade policy and learn what those agreements and our trade commitments have accomplished for workers. If I am wrong and they are working for workers, communities, consumers, and our small business owners, then let's proceed. But let's stop and look, figure this out. We need a new model for trade agreements that requires negotiators to not just ensure better labor and environmental rules are enforced--we made some progress in the Peru trade agreement on that, and that is a small step but not enough--but also raises safety standards, doesn't allow backdoor challenges to public interest laws, doesn't give corporations the power, as NAFTA did for the first time ever in a trade agreement, to sue foreign governments, including foreign corporations to sue our Government to weaken our environmental laws, to weaken our food safety laws, to weaken our worker protection laws, to undercut our ``Buy American'' laws. That is when we end up doing stupid things like building a wall between Mexico and the United States and using Chinese steel. Finally, we need to reward corporations. We have introduced the Patriot Corporations Act. Those corporations that play by the rules, hire Americans, provide health care, provide a pension, and take care of their communities should be rewarded with tax advantages instead of penalizing those companies and rewarding those companies that go offshore. Ultimately, our commitment is to protect our country. That means to protect our children from foreign products that have lead. It means to protect workers, our small businesses, and our communities. That is how we provide opportunity to build a thriving middle class. That is why it is time to take a breath, stop. Before we move forward in Peru and Panama, before we move forward in Colombia and South America, we need to examine how this trade policy is working. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. This important bipartisan amendment, offered by Senators Voinovich, Lieberman, and Whitehouse, would provide $2 million in paid- for funding for the Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program. It is administered by the Department of Education to research, display, interpret, and collect artifacts relating to the history of the Underground Railroad. Senators Alexander, Cochran, Isakson, Levin, and I offered a similar reauthorization bill that this amendment is taken from. I ask for the support of my colleagues for the amendment.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I would like to be notified when a half minute is gone so I can yield the other 30 seconds to Senator Voinovich.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment with Senators Lincoln, Obama, Feingold, Collins, Wyden, Menendez, and Kerry. This amendment would halt the implementation of an invalid and unethical Department of Education evaluation of Upward Bound programs. Across the country, Upward Bound serves low-income, first-generation students who are at risk of not completing high school or pursuing higher education. The evaluation requires that Upward Bound programs aggressively recruit twice as many students as they can serve simply to provide enough students for a control group that will never actually receive Upward Bound services. It forces program directors to engage in a sort of bait and switch that contradicts their mission as educators. It places in danger longstanding trust relationships between Upward Bound directors and school administrators, between students and their families, and, most critically, it dashes the hopes of vulnerable teens who lack the academic or the financial or the emotional support necessary to successfully pursue higher education. Not only will students be given false hope under this evaluation and this process, but there remain serious questions about the adequacy of research designs based on randomly assigned control groups in educational research. These concerns are based on the difficulty-- perhaps even the impossibility--of imposing laboratory conditions in nonlaboratory environments. Unless we take action, the evaluations will proceed on about 100 campuses across the country, 10 percent of those--10 of those--in my State of Ohio. Upward Bound programs are critically important. We know how effective they are to our Nation's youth, and we should evaluate their effectiveness. But we should do it the right way, in a fair, ethical, and valid way. I will continue to work with my colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and in the Senate to develop an evaluation methodology that will truly let us know how our Upward Bound programs are performing. I urge adoption of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3349, which is at the desk.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Growing Trade, Growing Vigilance: Import Health and Safety Today and Tomorrow.''

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 3 p.m. in order to consider the nomination of the Honorable Ellen C. Williams to be Governor, U.S. Postal Service.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet in order to continue the hearing on the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey to be Attorney General of the United States, on Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 10 a.m. in the Hart Senate Office Building Room 216. Witness list: Panel I: The Honorable Charles E. Schumer, United States Senator [D- NY]. The Honorable Joseph Lieberman, United States Senator [ID-CT]. Panel II: Michael B. Mukasey to be Attorney General of the United States. Panel III: Dick Thornburgh, Of Counsel, K&LGates, Washington, DC. Chuck Canterbury, National President, Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC. Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, JAGC, USN (Ret.), President and Dean, Franklin Pierce Law Center, Concord, NH. Dawn Johnsen, Professor, Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington, IN. Theodore M. Shaw, Director-Counsel and President, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., New York, NY. Mary Jo White, Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP New York, NY.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 18, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Perils of Politics in Government: A Review of the Scope and Enforcement of the Hatch Act.''