Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to rise in support of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Sotomayor's background demonstrates that she is an extremely well-qualified, mainstream judge who has the utmost respect for precedent and believes in fidelity to the law.

I have always said I do not believe in a litmus test for judicial nominees, and I will look at the nominee's record as a whole. Judge Sotomayor's record, in its entirety, is nothing short of impressive. With 17 years on the Federal bench, she has more Federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in 100 years.

Judge Sotomayor has a compelling, ``pull yourself up by your bootstraps'' personal story. She was raised by a single mom who emphasized education as she struggled to support her family while working as a nurse. With her mother's strong work ethic and focus on education deeply ingrained in her, Judge Sotomayor went on to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton University, and she received her law degree from Yale Law School, where she was editor of the Yale Law Journal.

She then became a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's office, where she was tough on criminals and gained valuable perspective for her later career as a judge. She also became active in many areas of her community, showing her desire to serve others and promote justice in society. Having served as a volunteer for many efforts in my hometown of Greensboro, North Carolina, I know how serving others can enhance one's understanding and appreciation of the world.

After her time as a prosecutor, Judge Sotomayor went into practice as a commercial litigator, where she dealt with business and finance law-- an area of importance to my State of North Carolina. In 1991, upon the recommendation of then-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, she was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to serve as a Federal judge for the Southern District Court of New York, and in 1992 she was unanimously confirmed for that position by the Senate.

While serving as a district court judge, she was known for her toughness, fairness, and dedication to the law--characteristics of a strong judge. Because of her outstanding record on the district court level, Judge Sotomayor was nominated, in 1997, by President William Jefferson Clinton, to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In 1998, the Senate confirmed her by a wide margin.

Among the Senators voting for her confirmation was former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms. I would like to think that Senator Helms saw in Judge Sotomayor the same qualities President Obama saw: fairness of mind, supreme intellect, and an unsurpassed devotion to the law and to our system of government.

Some opponents have repeatedly brought up a few select comments made by Judge Sotomayor to suggest that she will not be impartial. However, Judge Sotomayor has made it clear she does not let her background influence her interpretation of the law. Her statements to the Judiciary Committee and her 17-year record on the bench confirm this.

As Judge Sotomayor has said:

My record shows that at no point or time have I ever

permitted my personal views or sympathies to influence an

outcome of a case. In every case where I have identified a

sympathy, I have articulated it and explained to the litigant

why the law requires a different result.

Judge Sotomayor has also said that as much as her experiences influence her perspective, they have also taught

her to be aware of other people's perspectives. In 2001, she said:

I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect

people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete

vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and

perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited

abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them

and change as circumstances and cases before me require.

As Judge Sotomayor said in her confirmation hearing, her underlying judicial philosophy is ``fidelity to the law.'' In an independent study, Supreme Court expert Tom Goldstein looked at 97 race-related cases in which Judge Sotomayor participated while on the Second Circuit. He found that she and the rest of her panel ``rejected discrimination claims roughly 80 times and agreed with them 10 times.'' The circuit rejected discrimination claims by a margin of 8 to 1. Goldstein wrote: ``Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous'' and ``of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge.''

``Given that record,'' Goldstein concluded, ``it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.''

Judge Sotomayor has also demonstrated she does not legislate from the bench, and she gives deference to Congress in clarifying the intent of laws. In her dissent to the majority's opinion in Hayden v. Pataki, Judge Sotomayor wrote:

The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question

its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to

disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent

exceptions to the statutes it has created.

She also said:

I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed

changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it.

Additionally, a comprehensive study of Judge Sotomayor's criminal appellate decisions by the majority staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee found, as an appellate judge, Sotomayor sat with Republican- appointed judges on more than 400 criminal cases. In those cases, she agreed with all Republican-appointed judges 97 percent of the time; and she agreed with at least one Republican-appointed judge 99 percent of the time.

Judge Sotomayor's sensible attitude toward following the law and her ability to objectively evaluate all angles of her cases has resulted in high ratings and endorsements by numerous organizations.

The American Bar Association unanimously found Sotomayor to be ``well qualified,'' which is the highest rating the ABA gives to judicial nominees. The Congressional Research Service conducted an analysis of her opinions and concluded:

As a group, the opinions belie easy categorization along

any ideological spectrum. . . . Perhaps the most consistent

characteristic of Judge Sotomayor's approach as an appellate

judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis,

i.e., the upholding of past judicial precedents.

Judge Sotomayor has an impressive list of law enforcement endorsements and supporters, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the National Association of Police Organizations; the National District Attorneys Association; the Fraternal Order of Police; the National Latino Peace Officers Association; the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; the Federal Hispanic Law Enforcement Officers Association; the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives; and the National Sheriffs' Association.

Judge Sotomayor has also been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which stated:

The Chamber evaluated Judge Sotomayor's record from the

standpoint of legal scholarship, judicial temperament, and an

understanding of business and economic issues. Based on the

Chamber's evaluation of her judicial record, Judge Sotomayor

is well-qualified to serve as an Associate Justice of the

U.S. Supreme Court.

The nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice reviewed all of Judge Sotomayor's constitutional law decisions and said:

Based on this exhaustive review, the conclusion is

unmistakable: in constitutional cases, Judge Sotomayor is

solidly in the mainstream of the Second Circuit.

Judge Sotomayor's former law clerks wrote a letter endorsing her nomination, in which they said:

As former law clerks to Judge Sotomayor, each of us can

attest to her intellectual prowess, extraordinary work ethic,

and commitment to the rule of law. Working for Judge

Sotomayor is an awe-inspiring experience. We each had the

privilege of working closely with her as she confronted, and

resolved, incredibly complex and intellectually demanding

legal challenges. Judge Sotomayor approaches each case with

an open mind and arrives at her decision only after carefully

considering all of the pertinent facts and applicable rules

of law.

The law clerks said they agree with many of Judge Sotomayor's other colleagues, who ``respect her intellectual dynamism, collegiality, and balanced, fair jurisprudence.''

I would like to thank and congratulate the members of the Judiciary Committee for holding an extraordinarily civil and open Supreme Court nomination process. I commend President Obama for selecting a woman, a Hispanic, and, above all, an extremely well-qualified nominee. I am thrilled to have the opportunity to be a part of this historic moment, and if she is confirmed, I believe she will serve our country well.

Based on my conversations with the nominee, her statements in her confirmation hearings, and my review of her record, I intend to support her confirmation when it is voted upon later this week, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for reporting out a bill that enacts reforming the Defense Department's budget and reorients weapons systems geared toward the wars we are fighting today. Our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen need capabilities that are conducive to implementing the Department's shift to counterinsurgency tactics, techniques, and procedures. There is nothing more important than enhancing the force protection of our troops. That is why I am pleased that this bill provides proven, effective ground capabilities, such as the MRAP vehicles to protect against IEDs.

I want to highlight a couple of provisions in the bill. First, I support funding the administration's request for $7.5 billion for the Afghanistan security forces fund to train and equip the Afghan national army and police. The commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, Brigadier General Nicholson, recently indicated that the success of the Marine offensive in the Helmand Province is dependent upon placing an Afghan face on the operation, in order to instill confidence among local Afghans in the Afghan Government's abilities to provide safe communities and to govern efficiently.

Equally important is providing coalition support funds for Pakistan. The stability of Afghanistan is dependent on the stability of Pakistan, and vice versa. We need to enable the Pakistan Army and Frontier Corps with the capability to conduct sustained direct action missions against the dangerous elements of the Pakistani Taliban along the federally ministered tribal areas, as well as against the Afghan Taliban High Command in Pakistan's Balochistan province.

Key to successful operations in theater are effective aviation assets. I am a big proponent of the Joint Strike Fighter as it can serve multiple roles, including close air support, tactical bombing, and air defense missions. I am disappointed that we were unable to secure enough votes for Senator Bayh's amendment. I want to reiterate that I think it is important we safeguard language to authorize funding to develop and procure an alternate Joint Strike Fighter engine.

I know the issue of the location of the Navy's OLF has already been debated and voted on, so I will not spend a lot of time on it. I cosponsored an amendment with Senator Burr to prevent the Navy from building an OLF in the Sandbanks and the Hale's Lake locations within Camden, Currituck, and Gates Counties in North Carolina. I am against an OLF at these proposed sites because it would destroy small family farms that have been around for generations, as well as thousands of acres of farmland, essential to the livelihood and economic base of those communities. An OLF in these locations would only bring 52 jobs, and it would destroy valuable farmland that currently employs over 2,000 workers. Moreover, the OLF would only be a few miles away from ongoing projects that will attract new businesses and tourists.

Last week, I met with local government leaders of the respective counties to discuss their concerns regarding construction of the OLF. The State of North Carolina recently passed a law banning the construction of an OLF at these sites. I do not think it would be in the Navy's interests to continue to pursue construction of an OLF at these sites, knowing that it will more likely than not be tied up in litigation for years.

I want to make sure North Carolina is treated fairly. The residents of these counties simply do not want the OLF there. The State of North Carolina is the friendliest military State in the Nation, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with the Navy in identifying sites that could potentially meet the Navy's OLF requirement, and also have the support of the North Carolinians in those counties. One of those sites can be at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point or a site close to it within Craven County. All of the elected local officials in that community are in support of having an OLF located there.

The Navy excluded Cherry Point as a potential OLF site because Navy standards specify that an OLF should be no more than 120 nautical miles from home base. Cherry Point sits approximately 135 nautical miles from Oceana, VA. That is just 15 nautical miles beyond the Navy's current requirement. I want to work with the Navy to examine the impact of having an OLF that is located just outside its current requirements, and especially on the readiness of the Navy's personnel and aircraft fleet.

Senator Webb and I worked together to insert additional language within the committee report to do two things: one, to mandate the Secretary of the Navy issue a report detailing the Navy's consultations with local governments, communities, and stakeholders in North Carolina and Virginia regarding OLF site options; two, to mandate the Navy identify all suitable options for the location of an OLF beyond the five sites identified in both States.

However, I don't think that is good enough. The State of North Carolina has had previous negative experiences with the manner in which the Navy has implemented its OLF site selection process. I strongly feel that the Navy should delete the two current sites in North Carolina.

I also thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting my amendment in committee that provides the Department of Defense with the option to increase the acquisition of additional C-27s in the outyears as mission requirements dictate. That amendment requires the Department to provide its strategic plan to deploy and station C-27 joint cargo aircraft in theater and in the continental United States, as well as plans to procure additional aircraft beyond the 38.

Forty-eight adjutants of the National Guard signed a letter to the committee last month supporting the funding of 78 joint cargo aircraft. Their letter emphasized the C-27 provides an essential airlift capability in war, as well as to State emergency management teams in 48 States.

I also thank the chairman and Ranking Member McCain for accepting my amendment to direct the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to assess the feasibility and advisability of creating a trainees, transients, holdees, and students account within the Army National Guard to ensure all soldiers in

units have completed their initial entry training prior to being deployed.

Approximately 27,000 of the National Guard's end strength are not deployable because they are awaiting training. This account would allow new Guardsmen to be fully trained prior to reporting to their assignment. A TTHS account with the National Guard would improve the unit readiness, increase individual dwell time between deployments, and provide more predictability to soldiers, families, and employers.

Finally, I thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting my amendment involving depot maintenance work. This amendment directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a cost-benefit analysis report identifying each alternative the Secretary is considering for the performance of the AV-8B Harrier aircraft planned maintenance and aircraft modifications.

We are working with the Navy and the Marine Corps to ensure that depots allow partnerships with the commercial sector, while recognizing the legitimate national security need for the Department of Defense civilian and military personnel to retain the key skills to be responsive to our soldiers fighting in these two wars.

This is an important bill, and despite my and Senator Burr's ongoing concerns about this outlying landing field, I think that Senators Levin and McCain deserve our gratitude for their work on this bill, and this bill deserves the support of all of my colleagues.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Catalyst to Better Diabetes Care Act, which is S. 1473. Without question, diabetes is an epidemic in our country, and we have to do something. Twenty-three million adults and children suffer from diabetes. Another 57 million Americans are prediabetic cases. In North Carolina, my State, 600,000 adults have been diagnosed with diabetes and another 288,000 are undiagnosed and over 400,000 have prediabetes. But with our lifestyle choices, it is not surprising that these numbers are so high. Nearly three in five North Carolinians are overweight

or obese. Being overweight is a leading cause of diabetes. A quarter of our State's citizens do not exercise. Unfortunately, it is not just adults who are suffering from this disease. In North Carolina, there are over 4,000 children who have diabetes. While type 1 diabetes is the most frequent diabetes in children, it is because of increasing obesity rates that the incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes is growing.

Not only is diabetes wreaking havoc on people's health, it is also costing the country millions of dollars to treat. In my State of North Carolina, diabetes costs $5.3 billion annually in medical interventions, lost productivity, and premature mortality. Annually diabetes accounts for 16,000 hospitalizations. People suffering from diabetes have greater risk of renal disease, heart attack, stroke, and blindness. Diabetics also have a high risk of amputations if they fail to get appropriate foot care.

However, with proper prevention and treatment, we can curb the staggering cost of diabetes and people can live healthier, happier lives. Lifestyle changes in diet and physical activity can reduce the development of diabetes in prediabetics. Early detection and treatment of diabetic eye disease can reduce blindness and lowering one's blood pressure can reduce the decline in kidney function, thereby averting renal failure. It is because of these proven interventions that I introduce this important bill today.

The Catalyst to Better Diabetes Care Act will address five major issues to further the fight against this debilitating and deadly disease. This bill creates a cross-agency, collaborative patient and provider outreach program to increase the utilization of the Medicare diabetes screening benefit. Although this screening program was established in 2003, at present, very few seniors are taking advantage of this benefit. Early screening allows diabetics to better monitor and control their condition and prevent complications. This provision will save money and lives. When employees have incentives to select more nutritious food and to exercise, not only are they more productive, their overall health is improved. Companies like Pitney Bowes are implementing innovative practices to encourage their employees to live healthier lives, and such initiatives have shown remarkable results.

Building upon these experiences, this bill establishes an advisory group to promote innovative private sector wellness and disease management programs. Diabetes takes an enormous toll on society. Yet we have very little consolidated data which measures the true impact and outcome of this disease. To address this gap, this bill creates a national and State-by-State level diabetes report card which will track our progress toward beating diabetes. The report card will contain information on preventative care practices and quality of care, risk factors, and outcomes of individuals who are diagnosed with diabetes and prediabetes.

Studies indicate that only 35 to 40 percent of diabetics who die have diabetes listed anywhere on their death certificate, and only about 10 to 15 percent have diabetes listed as the underlying cause of death. Without this information, our country is not able to grasp the full impact that complications from diabetes has on our health care system and society.

In order to better understand the scope of this epidemic, this bill requires the director of the CDC to promote the education and training of physicians on properly completing a birth and death certificate as well as the possibility of promoting language to improve the collection of diabetes mortality data, despite estimates that nearly one in three children today will go on to develop diabetes. Today's medical students are only required to have 4 hours of education in diabetes to become a board-certified physician. As diabetes touches more and more Americans, it will be critical that our doctors recognize this disease and have the tools and understanding to discuss prevention and proper treatment with their patients. That is why this bill requires HHS to collaborate with the Institute of Medicine and other related entities to study the impact of diabetes on the practice of medicine and develop recommendations to appropriate levels of diabetes medical education that should be required prior to licensure, board certification, and board recertification.

Diabetes has taken an enormous toll on our society's health and our economy. But in many cases, this disease can be preventable.

The Catalyst of Better Diabetes Care will address some of the fundamental obstacles that prevent us from tackling this disease head on. Better outreach, better data, and better education of patients and physicians are the keys to reducing morbidity and mortality from diabetes and lessening the costly burden this condition has inserted upon our country.

I wish to thank my Republican colleague, Senator John Cornyn, for joining me in cosponsoring this measure. I urge my other colleagues to join us in supporting this very important bill.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Catalyst to Better Diabetes Care Act, which is S. 1473. Without question, diabetes is an epidemic in our country, and we have to do something. Twenty-three million adults and children suffer from diabetes. Another 57 million Americans are prediabetic cases. In North Carolina, my State, 600,000 adults have been diagnosed with diabetes and another 288,000 are undiagnosed and over 400,000 have prediabetes. But with our lifestyle choices, it is not surprising that these numbers are so high. Nearly three in five North Carolinians are overweight

or obese. Being overweight is a leading cause of diabetes. A quarter of our State's citizens do not exercise. Unfortunately, it is not just adults who are suffering from this disease. In North Carolina, there are over 4,000 children who have diabetes. While type 1 diabetes is the most frequent diabetes in children, it is because of increasing obesity rates that the incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes is growing.

Not only is diabetes wreaking havoc on people's health, it is also costing the country millions of dollars to treat. In my State of North Carolina, diabetes costs $5.3 billion annually in medical interventions, lost productivity, and premature mortality. Annually diabetes accounts for 16,000 hospitalizations. People suffering from diabetes have greater risk of renal disease, heart attack, stroke, and blindness. Diabetics also have a high risk of amputations if they fail to get appropriate foot care.

However, with proper prevention and treatment, we can curb the staggering cost of diabetes and people can live healthier, happier lives. Lifestyle changes in diet and physical activity can reduce the development of diabetes in prediabetics. Early detection and treatment of diabetic eye disease can reduce blindness and lowering one's blood pressure can reduce the decline in kidney function, thereby averting renal failure. It is because of these proven interventions that I introduce this important bill today.

The Catalyst to Better Diabetes Care Act will address five major issues to further the fight against this debilitating and deadly disease. This bill creates a cross-agency, collaborative patient and provider outreach program to increase the utilization of the Medicare diabetes screening benefit. Although this screening program was established in 2003, at present, very few seniors are taking advantage of this benefit. Early screening allows diabetics to better monitor and control their condition and prevent complications. This provision will save money and lives. When employees have incentives to select more nutritious food and to exercise, not only are they more productive, their overall health is improved. Companies like Pitney Bowes are implementing innovative practices to encourage their employees to live healthier lives, and such initiatives have shown remarkable results.

Building upon these experiences, this bill establishes an advisory group to promote innovative private sector wellness and disease management programs. Diabetes takes an enormous toll on society. Yet we have very little consolidated data which measures the true impact and outcome of this disease. To address this gap, this bill creates a national and State-by-State level diabetes report card which will track our progress toward beating diabetes. The report card will contain information on preventative care practices and quality of care, risk factors, and outcomes of individuals who are diagnosed with diabetes and prediabetes.

Studies indicate that only 35 to 40 percent of diabetics who die have diabetes listed anywhere on their death certificate, and only about 10 to 15 percent have diabetes listed as the underlying cause of death. Without this information, our country is not able to grasp the full impact that complications from diabetes has on our health care system and society.

In order to better understand the scope of this epidemic, this bill requires the director of the CDC to promote the education and training of physicians on properly completing a birth and death certificate as well as the possibility of promoting language to improve the collection of diabetes mortality data, despite estimates that nearly one in three children today will go on to develop diabetes. Today's medical students are only required to have 4 hours of education in diabetes to become a board-certified physician. As diabetes touches more and more Americans, it will be critical that our doctors recognize this disease and have the tools and understanding to discuss prevention and proper treatment with their patients. That is why this bill requires HHS to collaborate with the Institute of Medicine and other related entities to study the impact of diabetes on the practice of medicine and develop recommendations to appropriate levels of diabetes medical education that should be required prior to licensure, board certification, and board recertification.

Diabetes has taken an enormous toll on our society's health and our economy. But in many cases, this disease can be preventable.

The Catalyst of Better Diabetes Care will address some of the fundamental obstacles that prevent us from tackling this disease head on. Better outreach, better data, and better education of patients and physicians are the keys to reducing morbidity and mortality from diabetes and lessening the costly burden this condition has inserted upon our country.

I wish to thank my Republican colleague, Senator John Cornyn, for joining me in cosponsoring this measure. I urge my other colleagues to join us in supporting this very important bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 44, S. Con. Res. 11.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the technical amendment at the desk be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 951 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Senator Nelson of Florida amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; that an amendment to the title, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and that the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration of PN498, the nomination of Evan Segal to be CFO at the Department of Agriculture; that the Senate then proceed to the nomination; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, July 21; that following the prayer and the 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 resume consideration of Calendar No. 89, S. 1390, the Department of Defense authorization bill; that the Senate recess from

12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons.

Mr. President, as a result of an agreement reached earlier today, around 12 o'clock the Senate will proceed to a vote on the Levin-McCain amendment regarding F-22 funding.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous conent to speak in morning business.

Thank you.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act that is before us. While the bill purports to reduce smoking among teenagers and to regulate tobacco products, it goes far beyond these two goals.

This broad, sweeping legislation will further devastate the economy of North Carolina and the lives of many of my constituents. In my State, we have 12,000 tobacco farmers and 65,700 jobs tied to this industry. It also generates close to $600 million annually in farm income. And the economic impact of tobacco in North Carolina is $7 billion. We know we are in the midst of an economic crisis, and the bill before us today will further impact the economy in North Carolina by putting thousands of people out of work and exacerbating the already high levels of unemployment throughout our State.

Many aspects of the bill will make it impossible for tobacco manufacturers to earn a living. For example, the labeling requirements in the bill will present a burdensome and costly obstacle for many of the smaller tobacco manufacturers, as will the marketing and advertising restrictions in this bill.

But I am also concerned that the bill will allow the FDA to develop standards for tobacco products for which technology now may not exist. For example, the bill requires the FDA to establish standards for the reduction or elimination of certain components, including smoke components. The problem is that many of these components are naturally found in the tobacco leaf and technology may not be available to extract these natural--they are not artificial--components. Allowing the FDA to develop unattainable standards will put farmers in an outright impossible position--again, hurting generation-old families and businesses in North Carolina.

But let me make it clear that the bill is going to make it more difficult for

domestic tobacco manufacturers to compete with foreign tobacco manufacturers who are not going to be forced by the FDA to abide by the same standards as our domestic manufacturers.

For example, the bill requires that tobacco products be tested. I want to offer an amendment that is going to require that this testing be done in a laboratory in the United States because it is hard to fathom that the FDA is going to be allowed into foreign manufacturing facilities.

I believe we need to be cognizant of the burdens these new standards will impose on our domestic tobacco manufacturers in terms of greater costs to implement the reporting, testing, and labeling requirements. And we have to ensure that these costs are not going to put our domestic manufacturers at a total disadvantage with foreign competitors.

The bottom line is that in North Carolina, people are working hard to make a living. Some 65,000 work in this industry, and 12,000 work on our wonderful tobacco farms. In this economic downturn, I do not think now is the time to pass a bill that is going to disproportionately impact so many people in my State.

I have three amendments I wish to discuss at this point. I understand the majority leader is working on an agreement with the Republican leader so that these amendments will be called up at a later date.

The first amendment I wish to discuss is amendment No. 1249, requiring that the technology exist before the FDA can develop standards. This is an amendment I wish to have serious consideration given.

This amendment, No. 1249, simply clarifies that the FDA cannot establish technological standards until they have determined that the technology is available to meet that particular standard.

The bill does not limit the FDA's authority to reduce or ban compounds found naturally in tobacco leaf. Rather, this bill gives the FDA the authority to require the removal of harmful components from tobacco products, including components that are native to the tobacco leaf. Because of this, many of the new requirements will only be achievable through dramatic changes in tobacco farming operations and could affect the growing and curing of the actual tobacco leaf. As such, this bill allows the FDA to establish standards on tobacco products that may not be achievable with the technology that exists. While the bill does include language that would require the FDA to consider technical achievability, it does not go far enough to ensure that the technology does, in fact, exist.

My amendment would require the FDA to actually establish that the technology is available before it sets the standards. This approach is similar to the standards the EPA must meet to implement environmental laws. I believe if we are going to put 65,700 jobs on the line in North Carolina, we certainly have to ensure that the technology is available to give those people and employers and employees a chance to adhere to the FDA standards.

I urge support of this amendment.

Madam President, I also wish to discuss amendment No. 1253, disallowing FDA regulation of the actual tobacco farmer.

This amendment would clarify that the FDA does not have the authority to regulate the production of tobacco or a farmer who produces tobacco, either directly or indirectly. The underlying bill does state that the FDA does not have authority over the tobacco leaf that is not in the possession of the manufacturer and that the FDA does not have the authority to enter onto a farm owned by a producer of tobacco. But the bill provides an exception to allow the FDA to regulate activities by a manufacturer that affects the actual production. This is a backdoor way of getting at the tobacco grower because nearly every activity by the tobacco manufacturer affects the production of the tobacco leaf.

Further, the underlying bill would allow the FDA to indirectly place mandates on a tobacco producer by placing mandates on a manufacturer. It is unrealistic to expect that mandating standards on tobacco manufacturers will not trickle down to drastically impact the actual farmer and their operations. I believe the exception in this bill is too broad.

My amendment drops this exception. This amendment is critical to ensure that as new standards and regulations are imposed on tobacco manufacturers, farmers and their families will be protected.

Again, there are 12,000 tobacco farmers in North Carolina who are on the line. Their livelihoods are on the line. We need to be sure they are able to have a playing field they can work with.

I urge support of this amendment.

Madam President, the third amendment I want to discuss is amendment No. 1252, which has to do with testing in U.S. laboratories.

This bill before us today requires foreign-grown tobacco to meet the same standards applied to domestically grown tobacco. But the problem is, the bill does not contain language suggesting how the FDA is going to enforce this. I sincerely doubt we will find any foreign tobacco manufacturers willing to invite the FDA into their companies to inspect and test their tobacco products. And I doubt we will find many foreign testing facilities that are willing to submit to U.S. standards.

My amendment addresses this concern by requiring, simply, that any testing of tobacco products required in this bill be conducted in a U.S. laboratory. Undoubtedly, the FDA is going to have a difficult time regulating products coming in from overseas. We do not have to look very far into FDA's past to figure that out. The solution to this problem is to require tobacco products intended for domestic consumption to be, simply, tested in our country.

This requirement would help ensure that domestic tobacco manufacturers are not put at a competitive disadvantage to foreign manufacturers, and that foreign manufacturers do not get preferential treatment because domestic manufacturers would be subject to stricter testing requirements. It would also help to ensure that foreign manufacturers are not simply dumping unsafe products into the U.S. market.

In this time of economic uncertainty, I think we have to do what we can to protect and create American jobs. Requiring tobacco products to be tested in the United States would certainly help keep those jobs here at home.

Once again, I urge support and consideration of this amendment.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we are going to hear a lot this week about how the Family Smoking Prevention and Smoking Control Act is going to prevent youth from taking up smoking. I fully support that goal. I think all of us do. I don't think anybody here believes that smoking among our Nation's youth isn't a problem. Every day, over 3,500 youth in our country try their first cigarette and another thousand become regular daily smokers. Clearly, we must do something to deter our children from smoking.

As I mentioned yesterday, this bill before us goes much further than that. It grants the FDA extremely broad authority to take action that it considers to be in the interest of public health. I reiterate that is an interesting standard--especially when you consider that cigarettes, when used as intended, are a dangerous, unhealthy product. This bill puts the FDA in an impossible situation.

My colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, is offering a sensible alternative to the bill before us that focuses on reducing tobacco use among our Nation's youth. I joined Senator Burr in supporting this alternative because I believe it balances the need to curb teenage smoking while protecting tobacco farmers and, in turn, North Carolina's families. Similar to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, this alternative would be financed through user fees assessed on tobacco manufacturers.

While the bill before us today would place additional burdens on the already overtaxed FDA, our alternative instead creates the Tobacco Regulatory Agency--a Federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services dedicated solely to regulating the manufacture, marketing, and use of tobacco products.

Unlike the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, this alternative bill has a smoking-cessation

component which would require the administrator to develop recommendations to reduce smoking and reduce the harm of tobacco use.

The alternative contains language similar to the amendment I offered in the committee to ensure that the technology is available to meet the standards and that the Tobacco Regulatory Agency does not have the authority to regulate tobacco growers. In fact, the alternative explicitly states that the new Tobacco Regulatory Agency would not have authority over the actual tobacco growers and tobacco cooperatives. It takes this protection one step further by prohibiting any changes to traditional farming practices, including standard cultivation practices, the curing process, seed composition, tobacco type, fertilization, soil, record keeping, or any other requirement affecting farming practices.

The alternative also prescribes requirements for cigarette and smokeless tobacco labels and warnings, and it requires the administrator of the new agency to publicly disclose the ingredients in each brand of tobacco.

Finally, as I mentioned, this alternative requires some thoughtful changes that will reduce teen smoking rates. It prohibits fruits and candy branding on cigarettes. None of us want that. It also reduces the utilization of any character cartoons in advertisements. It prohibits providing any free samples, sponsoring sports events, and any advertising on television and radio in order to sell cigarettes. Stiff penalties are imposed for distributing tobacco products to minors and for minors possessing tobacco products.

Again, I think this alternative offers a better approach to curb teen smoking. It helps adults to quit smoking, and it ensures that the Federal Government can adequately regulate tobacco and protect the 12,000 tobacco farmers and 65,700 employees in tobacco-related industries in North Carolina.

Finally, I say this to my colleagues. I have no doubt they would view an amendment to this bill supported by two Senators from North Carolina with suspicion. But if they will look at the amendment that Senator Burr has offered, I think they will agree this is a serious amendment that actually addresses the issues with which this underlying bill purports to deal. I hope my colleagues will consider the Burr amendment with an open mind.

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

Mr. President, I know we are going to have a lot to say about the pending business, the FDA tobacco bill, over the course of the week. I have a number of amendments, and I know many of my colleagues also have amendments they wish to offer as well.

Those amendments and the specific concerns they seek to address we will have an opportunity to discuss when we get to that stage of the process. For the moment, I simply want to lay out some of my general concerns about this legislation.

This broad, sweeping legislation will have a devastating impact on the economy in my State of North Carolina and on the lives of many of my constituents. In my State, we have 12,000 tobacco farmers. We also have over 65,000 jobs in North Carolina tied to the tobacco industry. North Carolina generates about $587 million annually in farm income from tobacco. The economic impact of tobacco in North Carolina is $7 billion.

As you know, we are in the midst of an economic crisis, and the bill before us today is further going to devastate our economy in North Carolina by putting thousands of people out of work and exacerbating the already high level of unemployment throughout the State.

First, we are going to hear about how this bill will prevent youth from taking up smoking. I fully support that goal. In fact, I know that every day probably about 3,500 youth across the United States try their first cigarette, and another thousand become regular, daily smokers. Clearly, we have to do something to prevent youth smoking.

But the bill before us goes much further than that. It grants the FDA extremely broad authority to take actions that it considers to be in the interest of public health. That is an interesting standard-- especially when you consider that cigarettes, when used as intended, are a dangerous, unhealthy product. I know that and you know that.

Given that cigarettes are an unhealthy product, asking the FDA to take actions in the interest of public health puts them in a very difficult position. It creates a practically unprecedented regulatory conundrum for the FDA that will require them to go much farther than the stated mission of reducing youth smoking.

Another issue is the product standards. Under the bill we are going to be considering this week, not only can the FDA take actions that reduce smoking, but they would also have the authority to change what actually constitutes a cigarette. I will discuss that point in more detail later, but I will state now that, unequivocally, this bill gives the FDA the authority to set standards for tobacco products, whether or not the technology actually exists today to meet those changing standards.

If we are, one, asking the FDA to set standards in the interest of public health and, two, we are giving them the authority to require the removal of harmful components from tobacco products--including components that are native to the tobacco leaf itself--and, three, if we are allowing them to move forward with these regulations even if the technology doesn't exist today, what do we expect the FDA to do? What would any of us do if we were in that position? This legislation puts the FDA in an impossible situation.

I will close by saying that I have many friends in North Carolina who are wonderful tobacco farmers. Many of their families have been growing tobacco for generations. I am very concerned about the impact this bill will have on their livelihood. I think that a reasonable compromise can be found on this bill, and I look forward to discussing some of the ways this legislation can be improved as we move forward in the process.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.