Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am thrilled that after 11 months on the Executive Calendar, we are finally voting to confirm Judge Albert Diaz to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. I have spoken about Judge Diaz's qualifications a number of times here on the floor, so I will not list them again. But let me say that every Senator should feel comfortable voting to confirm this excellent judge to the Federal bench. I have no doubt that as the first Hispanic judge on the Fourth Circuit, he will serve our Nation with distinction. The senior Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr, also strongly supports Judge Diaz. I wish to thank him for his work on this nomination.

I wish also to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his tireless work to confirm so many desperately needed judges, including Judge Diaz. Judge Diaz will make an outstanding addition to the Fourth Circuit. I would urge all of my colleagues to support his nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when the fiscal commission released its report on December 1, it started with the guiding principle on which all Americans can agree: We have a duty to make America better off tomorrow than it is today. But the picture is pretty bleak right now. Let me give a few examples.

In 1982 our deficit had never exceeded $100 billion. By March of 2004, 22 years later, the debt was $3.7 trillion. Today, 6 years have passed, and the debt held by the public has ballooned to $8.7 trillion. The Federal debt was 33 percent of GDP in 2001. It is now 62 percent and on a trajectory to reach 90 percent of GDP by 2020. Interest on our national debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion annually by 2020. That is the entire amount of the individual income taxes we are collecting this year.

It is impossible to look at these numbers and believe this trajectory will result in an America that is better for our children than it is for us.

We cannot continue to just grow the debt and run huge deficits each year with the expectation that our children will pay the bill. This trend of borrowing will eventually have to come to an end one way or the other. The only question is, How are we going to reduce our deficit responsibly and in a bipartisan fashion and in a way that encourages investment and economic growth? Are we going to cruise blissfully along until some external crisis forces us to make these adjustments in the most sudden and painful way possible?

The time for Congress to act is now. There is a mounting chorus growing from all sides that recognizes our current path is unsustainable. Eleven members of the fiscal commission voted for the bipartisan deficit reduction report, including my friends, the Senators from Illinois, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Idaho, and New Hampshire.

Just today, Moody's announcement that it could move a step closer to cutting the AAA rating on our debt is why I am here today joining with my colleagues in vigorous support of concerted bipartisan action on the deficit in 2011 and the resolution introduced by my colleagues, Senator Chambliss and Senator Warner.

It is past time to get to work. We need to think seriously about reforming the Tax Code and tackling the deficit and the debt in a civil and bipartisan manner, and we need to do it now.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 500, S. 3386.

I ask unanimous consent that a Rockefeller-Hutchison managers' amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the committee substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk. I ask for their first reading en bloc.

I now ask for second reading en bloc, and I object to my own request en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, December 1; that 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 the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the next 30 minutes; and, finally, I ask that the Senate recess from 12:30 until 3:30 p.m. for the Democratic caucus meeting.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

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

Mr. President, as I see my colleague, Senator Burris, still on the floor, I wish to thank him for his excellent work and his comments today. He will certainly be missed by all of us.

Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, and also in support of an amendment I cosponsored with my colleague from Montana, Senator Jon Tester.

Each year, upwards of 70 million Americans are sickened from foodborne illnesses. Thousands of the most vulnerable, including children and the elderly, die. I do not think there is anyone who has not heard of the massive recall of millions of tainted eggs that sickened nearly 1,500 people. We need to find a better way to protect Americans from these tragic deaths.

During the HELP Committee's consideration of the bill late last year, we had the opportunity to hear from Dan Ragan, director of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Food and Drug Protection Division, about the innovative steps that North Carolina is taking to prevent and address food safety problems. North Carolina was one of the first pilot States for the Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standards, MFRPS. And North Carolina has a robust training program for those dealing with food safety issues. I am proud that my State is leading the way forward in trying to prevent and quickly address foodborne illnesses.

At the same time, North Carolina is a farming State. And in my State, we have honest farmers who work very hard to make a living. Unfortunately, oftentimes when there is a food safety breach followed by a massive recall, the producers or farmers suffer dire financial consequences. Farmers are at the front of the food supply chain and frequently are not responsible for the food safety breach further down the line.

Many farmers in North Carolina are still struggling, particularly after the salmonella outbreak at the Peanut Corporation of America and after the massive recall of tomatoes nationwide in 2008.

One such farm is Patterson Farms, a third generation family-run farm in China Grove, NC. The family has been growing tomatoes since 1919 when James A. Patterson began growing vegetables.

Currently, Patterson Farms, Inc., operated by James A. Patterson's grandsons, Doug and Randall, grows about 350 acres of tomatoes, including mature green, vine ripe, and Roma tomatoes. In addition to growing tomatoes, the Pattersons grade, pack, and ship their tomatoes across the United States and Canada. Patterson Farms is currently the largest tomato grower in the State of North Carolina.

The 2008 erroneous safety citation for tomatoes by the Food and Drug Administration cost the Pattersons dearly. While consumer demand for tomatoes dropped between 50 and 60 percent, Patterson Farms lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The damage was so severe that Doug and Randall could not pay back their farm operating loan at the end of the year--marking the first time in the history of Patterson Farms that they were not able to pay back their operating loan.

In fact, they had to borrow more money to stay in business. With very narrow profit margins, the massive recalls such as this certainly can jeopardize the financial stability of farms that have been in families for generations. That is why I think the FDA needs to be very sure about the source of a foodborne illness when it institutes a recall, and why I fought hard to include a provision in this bill to look at new and existing mechanisms available to provide restitution.

Specifically, the language in this bill directs the GAO to conduct a review within 3 months on new and existing mechanisms available to provide restitution in the event of an erroneous mandatory food safety recall. If such mechanisms do not exist or are inadequate, then within 90 days the Secretary of Agriculture must conduct a feasibility study on implementing a restitution program.

One false recall can put a family farm out of business. And while I support giving the FDA mandatory recall authority, I want to make sure there are enough protections in place for farms such as the Patterson farm, which were brought to the brink of bankruptcy through no fault of their own. This study language is an important step in ensuring that farmers are treated fairly.

I am also pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment by my colleague Senator Tester, which will be included in the final bill. While I believe strengthening our food safety standards and giving FDA the enforcement authority it needs is critical to ensuring public safety, this bill would have imposed Federal regulation on even the smallest food producers, including family farms.

Take, for example, a small family farm in North Carolina that produces homemade jams and jellies to sell on their farm, at the farmers market, or to the local food co-op. This farm would have to register with the FDA and develop a costly hazard analysis and risk- based preventive control plan, similar to the plans required of large food companies. Small producers in North Carolina already have to use a North Carolina Department of Agriculture-approved commercial kitchen to make these products.

To allow small producers to remain in business, this amendment ensures that the smallest producers selling directly to consumers can continue being regulated at the State level. Also, farmers raising produce to sell directly to consumers at farmers markets and food co- ops face significantly different issues and pose less risk than those selling into the industrial supply chain, and should not be regulated in the same way.

North Carolina is a farming State, and I value farming as an institution that is central to my State and America's history and our culture. In my

State we have honest farmers who work very hard to make a living.

I believe, with the restitution study language, and with the adoption of the Tester-Hagan amendment, this food safety bill strikes the right balance between protecting the public health from foodborne illnesses while ensuring our Nation's farmers can continue to feed Americans.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Healthy Media for Youth Act. The purpose of this bill is to promote positive media depictions of girls and women among our nation's youth.

The majority of 8- to 18-year-olds spend about 10 hours a day watching television, on the computer, or playing video games. Unfortunately, the images they see often reinforce gender stereotypes, emphasize unrealistic body images, or show women in passive roles.

Positive and realistic female body images remain a problem. A recent survey by Girl Scouts of the USA's Research Institute found that 89 percent of girls feel the fashion industry places a lot of pressure on teenage girls to be thin. Even among girls as young as grades 3 through 5, fifty-four percent worry about their appearance, and 37 percent of these young girls worry specifically about their weight.

Women are often portrayed in passive or stereotypical roles, rather than in positions of power. Violence against women continues to be prevalent throughout media. The Parents Television Council reports that between 2004 and 2009, violence against women and teenage girls increased on television programming at a rate of 120 percent, compared with the 2 percent increase of overall violence in television content.

In 2007, the American Psychological Association, APA, conducted a report on the Sexualization of Girls and found that three of the most common mental health problems among girls--eating disorders, depression or depressed mood, and low self-esteem--are linked to the sexualization of girls and women in media. Boys are also negatively affected by the portrayal of girls because it sets up unrealistic expectations, which may impair future relationships between girls and boys.

The bill I'm introducing today starts to tackle this problem by promoting positive media messages about girls and women among our nation's youth.

Specifically, this bill would direct the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to award grants to nonprofit organizations to promote positive media depictions of girls and women among youth, and to empower girls and boys by developing self-esteem and leadership skills.

The bill also directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, in coordination with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to review, synthesize, and research the role and impact of depictions of girls and women in the media on the psychological, sexual, physical, and interpersonal development of youth.

Finally, this bill requires the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to convene a National Task Force on Girls and Women in the Media in order to develop voluntary steps and goals for promoting healthy and positive depictions of girls and women in the media for the benefit of all youth.

We must reverse this trend for this generation of youth and for future generations.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Healthy Media for Youth Act. The purpose of this bill is to promote positive media depictions of girls and women among our nation's youth.

The majority of 8- to 18-year-olds spend about 10 hours a day watching television, on the computer, or playing video games. Unfortunately, the images they see often reinforce gender stereotypes, emphasize unrealistic body images, or show women in passive roles.

Positive and realistic female body images remain a problem. A recent survey by Girl Scouts of the USA's Research Institute found that 89 percent of girls feel the fashion industry places a lot of pressure on teenage girls to be thin. Even among girls as young as grades 3 through 5, fifty-four percent worry about their appearance, and 37 percent of these young girls worry specifically about their weight.

Women are often portrayed in passive or stereotypical roles, rather than in positions of power. Violence against women continues to be prevalent throughout media. The Parents Television Council reports that between 2004 and 2009, violence against women and teenage girls increased on television programming at a rate of 120 percent, compared with the 2 percent increase of overall violence in television content.

In 2007, the American Psychological Association, APA, conducted a report on the Sexualization of Girls and found that three of the most common mental health problems among girls--eating disorders, depression or depressed mood, and low self-esteem--are linked to the sexualization of girls and women in media. Boys are also negatively affected by the portrayal of girls because it sets up unrealistic expectations, which may impair future relationships between girls and boys.

The bill I'm introducing today starts to tackle this problem by promoting positive media messages about girls and women among our nation's youth.

Specifically, this bill would direct the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to award grants to nonprofit organizations to promote positive media depictions of girls and women among youth, and to empower girls and boys by developing self-esteem and leadership skills.

The bill also directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, in coordination with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to review, synthesize, and research the role and impact of depictions of girls and women in the media on the psychological, sexual, physical, and interpersonal development of youth.

Finally, this bill requires the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to convene a National Task Force on Girls and Women in the Media in order to develop voluntary steps and goals for promoting healthy and positive depictions of girls and women in the media for the benefit of all youth.

We must reverse this trend for this generation of youth and for future generations.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss an issue that is vitally important to North Carolina's economy, and to the heritage and cultural identity of more than 40,000 Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Lumbee Recognition Act.

The Lumbee Indians are among the earliest North Carolinians. They descended from the coastal tribes of North Carolina and lived along the Lumber River before our Nation was founded.

During that time, the Lumbee have maintained a distinct community in what is now Robeson County, NC, with more than 40,000 current members in and around the county seat of Lumberton.

Tribe members have worked diligently throughout the generations to sustain a strong tribal society.

Each and every Lumbee can trace his or her ancestry to the tribe's base roll, which is comprised of school and church records and early 20th-century census data. This common ancestry has bound the tribe for generations and established the Lumbee as a longstanding, distinct community in southeastern North Carolina.

Nearly two-thirds of the tribe live within 15 miles of the city of Pembroke, where they start families and businesses, run for tribal office, and attend the annual Fourth of July parade.

The Lumbee fought alongside the American Colonists during the Revolutionary War, and helped shape North Carolina's history.

But because the tribe lacked a formal treaty relationship with the new United States, the tribe has worked for over 120 years to win the recognition that they so clearly deserve.

As has been noted by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, ``The Lumbees have a longstanding history of functioning like an Indian tribe and being recognized as such by State and local authorities. Since 1885, the Lumbees have maintained an active political relationship with the State of North Carolina.''

The State officially recognized the tribe in 1885, and established a separate school system for Lumbee children.

With initial enrollment limited to children who could demonstrate at least four generations of Lumbee descent, this autonomous school system has remained in place for over 100 years.

And in the late 1800s, the State of North Carolina established the Indian Normal School to train Lumbee teachers for the tribe's school system. This school has been in continuous operation since that time and has grown into the University of North Carolina at Pembroke.

The university is obviously now open to enrollment for all Americans, but continues to serve as an anchor of the Lumbee community.

Despite generations of uninterrupted self-governing, the Lumbee still have not received full recognition by the Federal Government.

Instead, Congress in 1956 enacted the Lumbee Act, which simultaneously recognized the tribe, but denied tribal members access to Federal services.

The Lumbee Recognition Act, which I have introduced with my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, would rectify this longstanding inequity, and provide the Lumbee with the full recognition that they so clearly deserve.

Beyond simple fairness, the issue of Lumbee recognition is critically important to the North Carolina economy, and to counties and communities that have been hardest hit by the recent economic downturn.

Because the 1956 Lumbee Act forbade the Lumbee from pursuing the Federal resources available to every other recognized tribe in the country, the tribe does not have access to critical services through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service.

The Harvard School of Public Health has found that residents of Robeson County have a lower average life expectancy due to persistent poverty and limited access to affordable health care. Our bill will enable the Lumbee to combat these trends through sustained economic development and quality health services.

It will allow members of the Lumbee tribe to access critical programs through Indian Health Services, and will help treat and prevent chronic illnesses that negatively affect the quality of life in the region.

With a healthier population, and access to Federal programs, the tribe can focus on economic development. Robeson County has an unemployment rate above 12 percent, and the surrounding counties of Scotland, Hoke, Cumberland, Bladen, and Columbia continue to experience unemployment rates that are among the highest in North Carolina.

Economic development programs through the Bureau of Indian Affairs will allow the tribe to create jobs where they are needed most, and will support a true economic recovery in this distressed region.

The Lumbee Recognition Act was introduced in the House by my North Carolina colleague, Congressman Mike McIntyre, who has been a tireless champion for the Lumbee since coming to Congress.

Due largely to Congressman McIntyre's efforts, the House has passed the Lumbee Recognition Act with a strong bipartisan majority twice in the last 3 years.

Here in the Senate, the bill has been approved by the Indian Affairs Committee, and now awaits consideration on the Senate floor.

Some have also argued that the cost of providing BIA and Indian Health services to the Lumbee will be too high, and that Lumbee recognition will draw down funds that are currently going to other tribes. I certainly understand these concerns.

But, I want to be clear, the Lumbee do not want recognition on the backs of other tribes, and this bill will not increase the Federal deficit. This bill simply ensures that the Lumbee are eligible for the same services as their peers. Funding for these services will be subject to future appropriations, and the Lumbee will not dilute support for tribes that currently receive Federal resources.

I want to stress again that this effort is about one thing, providing the recognition that the Lumbee need to improve their quality of life and create jobs in their community.

The tribe is not seeking Federal gaming rights, and, in fact, this legislation explicitly denies the tribe's ability to operate casinos.

Some have also argued that the Lumbee do not need Federal recognition because they can apply for acknowledgement through the Bureau of Indian Affairs administrative process. But let me be clear about this: the Lumbees have been prohibited from being considered by this process.

This is because the Lumbee were unfortunate enough to win partial recognition during a time when the BIA was actively working to terminate longstanding relationships with tribes and roll back Federal services for Native Americans across the country.

The 1956 Lumbee Act expressly precludes the tribe from pursuing Federal acknowledgment through the Bureau of Indian Affairs administrative process. Thus, while the Lumbee were identified in Federal legislation as a tribe more than 50 years ago, existing law strictly limits the group's ability to access vital services otherwise available to a federally designated tribe.

As the Senate Indian Affairs Committee has noted, Congress placed only one other Indian tribe in a similar position. In 1965, the Tiwa Indians of Texas won recognition in Congress, but were prohibited from pursuing BIA and other Federal services.

Congress recognized this problem, and in 1987 passed legislation granting full recognition to the tribe. This has left the Lumbee as the only tribe in America that is at once recognized by the Federal Government and forbidden from accessing critical programs that are available to every other tribe in the country.

The administration has recognized this basic inequity, and at a House hearing on the bill last year, George Skibine, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Economic Development for Indian Affairs, testified that, ``There are rare circumstances when Congress should intervene and recognize a tribal group, and the case of the Lumbee Indians is one such rare case.''

I could not agree more. I urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation with no further delay.

Lumbee Chairman Purnell Swett is here in the Senate Gallery, and has been meeting with a number of Senators to discuss this effort. I thank him for joining us, and encourage my colleagues to take time to hear from him how vital this bill is for his community and his people.

Federal recognition is about more than Federal resources and creating economic development opportunities for this community. It is about tribal identity.

The Lumbee have fought for the recognition they deserve for over 100 years. Truly, this recognition is long overdue.

We must ensure the Lumbee are no longer treated as a second-class tribe, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Lumbee Recognition Act.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am glad to join my colleagues today to discuss our elections process and the state of campaign finance. As everyone here knows, in January of this year the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission that the first amendment cannot limit corporate funding of political advertisements in candidates' elections. Effectively, this decision

overturned decades of campaign finance law that limited special interest influence on elections.

I am deeply concerned that this ruling is weakening the voice of the American people in our elections. Monday the New York Times reported that, since the ruling, many nonprofit advocacy groups have set up sister organizations and specially classified themselves under section 501(c) of the Tax Code. Organizations are using the 501(c) status as a loophole to avoid having to disclose their donors' identity.

I want America's campaign finance process to be transparent. What do I mean by transparent? That the public knows who is paying for the message and how much. We have to be aware of the influence that money has on politics.

In response to the Court's decision, the DISCLOSE Act was introduced to mitigate the harmful effects of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. The DISCLOSE Act would implement comprehensive disclosure requirements on corporations, unions, and other organizations that spend money on Federal election campaigns. This is common sense. When every one of us here in this Senate, Republicans and Democrats, runs for reelection, we have to state in our advertisements that we approved the ad. There is no reason we should not hold corporations and unions to the same standard. By increasing the transparency of campaign spending by these groups, this legislation seeks to prevent unregulated corporate power over elections.

Under the legislation, the CEOs of corporations, the leaders of unions and other organizations would be required to appear on camera for the election advertisements they have funded. The DISCLOSE Act would also require that the top five donors from organizations that pay for campaign advertisements be listed on the screen at the end of the television ad.

Additionally, the legislation would take steps to eliminate the influence of foreign corporations on American elections. I believe the Court's decision puts the voices of ordinary Americans at risk of being drowned out by direct corporate spending on elections. America deserves open and transparent elections and that is why I am a cosponsor of the DISCLOSE Act. I believe the DISCLOSE Act would ensure that average American voters are the ones in charge during elections, not special interest money and not foreign corporations.

I can assure you I will continue to do everything within my power and work with my colleagues in the Senate to protect the integrity of the election process. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us in this effort.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to associate myself with the remarks of the chair of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Lincoln, as well as Senators Grassley and Landrieu, concerning the importance of providing funding to pay the still pending claims of the Black farmers who were discriminated against by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This case has North Carolina roots. Timothy Pigford, a Black farmer, was the focal point for this class action lawsuit. He grew up in Columbus County and had a farm in Bladen County, NC. He was first denied a Federal loan to buy a farm in 1976.

Mr. Pigford and others filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pigford v. Glickman, alleging that the USDA maintained a pattern and practice of discrimination against Black farmers.

In 1999, the government settled the Pigford v. Glickman case, finding that thousands of African-American farmers were in fact discriminated against when applying for benefits that would help their farms.

Under the terms of the settlement, eligible farmers initially were required to submit completed claims packages by October 12, 1999. This deadline was subsequently extended by the court to September 15, 2000. Approximately 61,000 petitions were filed after the original October 1999 deadline but before the September 2000 late filing deadline. Of these 61,000 petitions, only around 2,500 were permitted to proceed to a determination on the merits. Over 25,000 additional petitions were filed after the September 2000 late filing deadline and before the May 2008 enactment of the 2008 farm bill.

It is quite clear that inadequate notice was provided to those who had viable claims of discrimination against the USDA. Because of this inadequate notice, many farmers were denied participation in the Pigford claims resolution process as late filers.

The 2008 farm bill provided $100 million to pay the outstanding claims of the so-called late filers. However, the amount of money that was set aside in the farm bill for the settlement is totally inadequate to satisfy the damages that more than 4,000 African-American farmers in North Carolina, and a total of 75,000 nationwide, could be eligible to receive.

Last February, Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack reached a settlement agreement with the farmers who filed claims after the deadline set by the court who were originally denied a determination of their Pigford claims. This settlement agreement provides, once and for all, sufficient awards for farmers who were the victims of discrimination at the hands of their own government, the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Federal Government has failed to live up to its obligations to our Black farmers, including more than 4,000 in my State of North Carolina.

Today the Senate has the opportunity to live up to its obligations and right this wrong. I believe it is imperative that we address this inequity for Black farmers across the country, including those in North Carolina, and I hope we are able to reach an agreement to resolve this issue today.

I yield the floor.