Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 397, S.J. Res. 13.

Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, October 3; that on Wednesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two sides, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final portion; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 3222, as provided for under a previous order, and that the mandatory quorum be waived as required under rule XXII.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 342, submitted earlier today.

Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, en bloc; and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I understand that S. 2128 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 319 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 343, submitted earlier today.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the Children's Health Insurance Plan legislation was delivered to the White House this afternoon for, I hope, the President's signature, but unfortunately, I fear the President's veto. It is unbelievable that the President would veto legislation that means so much to many working families in Ohio, in the great State of Colorado, and any of the other 48 States in our great Nation. The Children's Health Insurance Program was conceived in 1996 and took effect in 1997, with a Democratic President and a Republican House and Senate. It now insures some 6 million children in our country. These are the sons and daughters of working families, parents who are working hard, playing by the rules, paying their taxes, but they make too much to be on Medicaid but make too little to be able to afford insurance, especially if one of their children has a preexisting condition of any serious nature. They are making $20,000, $30,000, and $40,000 a year. The President--as Senator Grassley has pointed out in criticism--has said we don't want to give help to these rich children. These are families making $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, and as much as $50,000 or $60,000 a year but mostly families making less. They are struggling, and it is not easy to pay the bills when you make $30,000 or $40,000 a year, let alone pay for health care bills and health insurance. The President also said he doesn't want this big Government program. He talked about socialism, or something I don't understand. The President of the United States and most Members of Congress go out to Bethesda. That is a Government health care system. They get great health care at Bethesda Naval Hospital. The VA has terrific facilities, not just the CBOCs, community-based outreach clinics, such as in Mansfield, Youngstown, Lorraine, Springfield, Marion, Lima, and all over the State and all over this country; but the big VA hospitals in places such as Brecksville, Columbus, and Chillicothe, and what all that means. The President says these are kids who should be covered by private insurance. Sure, they should. I wish these children did have private insurance. But the fact is that millions of children in our country don't have private insurance. At relatively little cost--because most children don't cost much to insure--we can put them in the Children's Health Insurance Program. If the President vetoes this bill, it will immediately mean that some number of children--several hundred thousand--will lose their health insurance immediately, and it will mean a lost opportunity for 4 million other children in Colorado, Ohio, and all over this country, to get health insurance. Again, these are children of working parents-- parents who are struggling and doing the best they can to make a go of it. All they want is health insurance for their children. The President is critical of the cost of the bill. This bill will cost about $7 billion a year, the Children's Health Insurance Plan. The Presiding Officer voted for it and I voted for it and it passed this Senate with 68 votes, with almost 20 Republicans--almost 40 percent of the Republicans voted for this bill in the Senate and all of the Democrats. This is a bipartisan bill. The House is the same way, where dozens of Republicans in the House voted for it. So it is clearly a bipartisan bill, and the President says it costs too much. It costs $7 billion a year in the next 5 years. What does that mean? In contrast, we spend in 1 week in Iraq close to $3 billion. So we are spending $3 billion a week in Iraq, and we want to spend $7 billion a year to cover 4 million children--some 60 or 70 or 80 in Ohio would take advantage of this--and the President says no to that. He wants more than $3 billion additional per week in Iraq. Something is wrong with those priorities. The President has had the legislation delivered to him at the White House. I hope the President will reconsider some of his public comments and listen to middle-class families. This is one of those times when Government can directly help the middle class and make a difference in the lives of so many middle-class families who are struggling, such as the Demko family in Columbus. I just wish the President would open his mind and his ears and his eyes for the next few days and let's send some children, some families we have met, whom you have met, Mr. President, in Boulder or Denver, whom you met in Colorado Springs, whom I have met in Columbus, Cincinnati, or Dayton, or Zanesville, or Steubenville--let's invite some of those families to the White House, sit down with the President and say: Mr. President, here is what the Children's Health Insurance Program means to me and my family and to a lot of my neighbors. Please, Mr. President, sign this bill. I believe, because I think he is a decent person, if the President would open his ears, eyes, and mind to that conversation of those families, it would be a very different outcome. I am hopeful in the next couple of days that the President will sign the Children's Health Insurance Program. If he does not, I am confident we will override his veto in the Senate, and I am hopeful that enough Republicans will get on this bipartisan bandwagon and join the Democrats in overriding that veto because it will mean a stronger, more vibrant, more humane policy and a stronger middle class for our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, earlier today, I left a Banking Committee hearing to go out to Arlington National Cemetery to meet with a group of World War II veterans. A woman by the name of Ms. Best, who had served in World War II, was laying the wreath on behalf of Miami County, OH, veterans--some 35 or so veterans from Ohio who took a bus under the sponsorship of Glenn Devers, who raises money so veterans can come to Washington and lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and then proceed to see the World War II monument. I was struck, first, by all the stories of Mr. and Mrs. Whited, for instance. Mr. Whited was called off to the service and went overseas. His child was born a few months after he left, and when he returned, he saw his son for the first time, who was the age of 2. He is now more than 60 years old. I was taken by the stories of so many of these World War II veterans, their courage and heroism, their love of country, their duty, their commitment, and their patriotism. They surely-- without overusing the phrase--were part of ``the greatest generation.'' Few veterans have asked for credit or recognition, but it was such a pleasure to go there and talk to them today. I had one request of them. Of course, I thanked them over and over. I had one request, and that was that these veterans, both men and women, tell their stories to their children and grandchildren. My father, a World War II veteran who enlisted about a year after Pearl Harbor, sometime during 1942, and went overseas, he didn't talk about it much. He passed away 6 years ago at the age of 89. He didn't talk about it much. I encouraged these men and women who served our country valiantly in World War II--or any veteran since then--to share the stories with their children and grandchildren because it will enrich their lives. They don't need to brag, but they ought to tell friends and families about their accomplishments and feats. These are stories that their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren will treasure for the rest of their lives. I thought of that visit yesterday before I made the visit, as I was planning it. I thought yesterday, when the Senate passed the Defense reauthorization bill, of an amendment that Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan and I have been working on. Currently, the Department of Defense--prior to this amendment--is allowed to use any combination of air, rail or road transportation to bring the body of a fallen soldier home. But what has been done, because the rule is so broad, the law is so broad, the Department of Defense in many cases has brought the body of a soldier killed in action to the nearest big city airport, which could be 50, 100, 200 or 300 miles away. Congressman Stupak represents an area in northern Michigan, the Upper Peninsula, and often bodies are brought back to Green Bay, which is too far from many of these families who have to go to an airport that is 2 or 3 hours away with the funeral home, paying the expenses and accompanying the body back to the hometown. That has happened in southern Ohio, where there is no airport. Maybe they would go to Charleston, Columbus or Pittsburgh. It is outrageous that the Department of Defense doesn't bring the bodies to the communities where the families live, when they are already so distraught from losing a loved one. We were able to get the fallen servicemember respectful return amendment included in the Department of Defense bill. This means that when our soldiers make the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country, the least the Government and the DOD can do--and for reasons I don't even understand they had failed to do. We talk so much about honoring our soldiers, but they failed to do this. All of the money we are spending--hundreds of billions of dollars--and they didn't get these bodies back to the funeral home in the local communities. It is incumbent upon us to do that. Congressman Stupak in the House and my amendment in the Senate finally has done that. The least we can do is ease the path for these families as they confront their loss.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Tuesday, October 2; that on Tuesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that there then be a period for the transaction of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two sides, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final portion; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to H.R. 3222, as provided for under a previous order; that on Tuesday, the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. in order to accommodate the respective party conference meetings.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, if there is no further business, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 340, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in this Chamber about a story unfolding right now in Costa Rica. This country of 4 million people is having a national referendum on October 7--next week--on the Central American Free Trade Agreement, the trade deal this Congress passed by a narrow margin a couple of years ago. CAFTA stipulates that the last signatory country must approve the deal no later than 2 years after the first signatory country implements the agreement. So over the past 2 years, the United States, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic enacted the NAFTA expansion. The Costa Rican people have resisted it. My colleagues have seen news reports this weekend about a massive rally of fair traders--people who want trade but under different rules--against CAFTA in Costa Rica. Some 150,000 citizens in a country of 4 million people spoke out expressing their opposition to the agreement--150,000 people--and most thought that a conservative estimate. The pro-CAFTA government gave up efforts to pass CAFTA in the legislature after continued protest against it, including a 2-day general strike last October. Their is strong opposition to a NAFTA-style agreement. In fact, the issue of whether to approve CAFTA has stirred up such political upheaval that the Government chose to go to a public referendum instead of going to the legislature. Legislators not unlike our peers in Congress did not want to face voters in their home district if they voted for the pact. The agreement must be implemented as domestic law--meaning Costa Rica has to enact new laws in order for the trade agreement to take effect. That bothers hundreds of thousands of Costa Ricans because they have in place today strong laws on health, on the environment, on education, on privatization, on generic drugs, on all the kinds of issues that have helped to build the middle class in Costa Rica. Costa Rica is a progressive country. More than a third of its land is protected in national parks. More than 90 percent of its electricity comes from renewals. Costa Rica's high literacy rates are well known, and it has a strong health care system. Its life expectancy is not too different than our own in this country. Costa Rica's citizens have also seen what NAFTA--the North American Free Trade Agreement--did to Mexico's middle class, and what especially it has done to Mexican farmers, small peasant family farmers. These factors have created strong resistance to entering into an agreement that can handcuff policymakers from setting progrowth, prodevelopment policies in their own country. As this Chamber knows, NAFTA/CAFTA-style deals are about a whole lot more than just tariffs and quotas. These agreements are top-down pacts that lock in new rules on investment, on food safety, on services, and on procurement. This month, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development issued a report warning developing countries to be wary of bilateral and regional free-trade deals as they are currently written. They warned them against signing these agreements. The U.N. report cited NAFTA as an example of a trade agreement that may have short-term benefits but does long-term harm. You hear a lot of talk from the Bush administration that free trade is necessary to address poverty. You hear that the ``people,'' as they say, of these mostly poor countries want trade deals like NAFTA. But what we are seeing in Costa Rica right now is what we are seeing around the globe when it comes to trade deals that purely and simply give too much power to multinational corporations. What we are seeing is a loud and clear demand for change. We see it in the WTO negotiations, which continue to falter as developing countries resist WTO expansion. We see it in Ohio--in Lorain and Mansfield, in Youngstown and Lima, in Dayton and Chillicothe--where hard-working men and women who have made America the strongest Nation in the world are betrayed by Washington's trade policy. Presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements such as NAFTA, promising they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities. Instead, too many of these agreements, too often, have cost millions of jobs and devastated communities. Two years ago, when I served in the House, we created a bipartisan coalition against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Religious organizations, labor unions, environmentalists, small businesses, human rights advocates, and small manufacturing companies were part of this bipartisan opposition. The opposition that was evident in Washington and, more importantly, in congressional districts around the country caused the Bush administration to make deals and promises and--in the words of one sympathetic lawmaker to the Bush administration--helped us so that we ``twist[ed] arms until they break into a thousand pieces.'' The Bush administration got what it wanted when it pushed NAFTA through. But we won the debate. Today in Costa Rica, we are seeing similar scare tactics taken by the pro-CAFTA administration. A memo was leaked to the Costa Rican press, and it has caused an uproar for good reason. In this memo, the Costa Rican Vice President and a Member of Congress outlined a plan to President Arias that uses fear, threats to local officials, and attacks on CAFTA opposition as tactics to win the referendum. The Second Vice President, one of the memo's authors, had to resign from his government office while officials investigate whether any laws had been broken. The memo states clearly: The mayor that does not win his canton-- Which is their political jurisdiction-- The mayor that does not win his canton (precinct) will not get a penny from the government in the next three years. It is pretty simple. The memo says the government then needs to ``stimulate fear'' among Costa Ricans. It even lists the kinds of fear that are effective: Stimulate fear. Create fear of the loss of jobs if CAFTA is not approved. Stimulate a fear of violence and civil strife. Stimulate a fear of Chavez and Castro if Costa Rica does not approve CAFTA. Specifically, there has been an informational campaign in Costa Rica that if this agreement fails, then the United States will punish Costa Rica by revoking the existing trade benefits that Costa Rica has under the Caribbean Basin Initiative. That is simply patently false. Costa Rica will continue to benefit from CBI because it is the law. It is a permanent program. Its existence depends on the U.S. Congress, not an edict from the Bush administration. These tactics should sound familiar to my colleagues who recall the CAFTA debate. These tactics make it very clear that what is at stake-- in Costa Rica this week and when this Chamber takes up issues of trade and globalization--is that there are very different competing ideologies. There is the NAFTA ideology and there is the fair trade ideology. In truth, I believe the defeat of this referendum may actually do more to improve Costa Rican-U.S. relations because it is clear that there is a fair trade movement on the rise in this Chamber, in the House of Representatives, and surely across the land. Look at elections last year in the Presiding Officer's State of Rhode Island, in Ohio, in Pennsylvania, in Missouri, and in Minnesota and Virginia and Montana, because it is clear there is a fair trade movement on the rise in this country and in Costa Rica. We have reason to hope. If the referendum is defeated, we can create a new trade agreement that benefits workers and communities, small businesses, religious folks, people who care about an economy that works for more of us, that helps us to create a solid, strong middle class, not just supporting the multinational corporations. We have a choice. The people of Costa Rica have a choice there this week. We can continue with the fair trade model or we can reject the NAFTA and CAFTA models and work together on a new trade deal, a fair trade deal. Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on October 1, 2007, by the President of the United States: Protocols of 2005, the Convention concerning Safety of Maritime Navigation and to the Protocol concerning Safety of Fixed Platforms on the Continental Shelf (Treaty Document 110-8). I further ask that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 339, submitted earlier today.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 338, submitted earlier today.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without further intervening action or debate.