Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Credit Card Accountability and Disclosure Act of 2009 and the ways in which I believe this measure is in the best interests of my constituents in North Carolina.

Before I begin, I would like to thank my colleagues from Connecticut and Alabama, Senators Dodd and Shelby, for bringing together concerns and ideas from both sides of the aisle to craft a bipartisan compromise. This bill could not come at a more critical time for North Carolina's hardworking families.

More often than not, through no fault of their own, North Carolina families are suffering tremendously during this time--the harshest economic climate since the Great Depression. Our unemployment rate is 10.8 percent--the fourth highest in the Nation. Home values have declined dramatically. Many families have lost nearly all their savings. Nearly a half million jobs have been lost in North Carolina. From banking to manufacturing, North Carolina is home to some of the industries that have taken the biggest hit in this economic downturn. To say the least, the situation is dire for many families in North Carolina and around the country.

The people of my State are hardworking and honest. While they are struggling to make this month's mortgage payment or put food on the table for their families, they are troubled by next week's and next month's bills. They are concerned about the unexpected expenses they may have to bear--for example, an illness or their car breaking down. With all the other issues these families are dealing with in this economic downturn, imagine realizing that you are still paying interest on a balance you thought you had already paid or watching that interest rate double because times are tight and you fell just a little behind.

Unfair, yet all-too-common credit card practices, such as interest charges on debt paid on time--a practice known as double-cycle billing--arbitrary interest rate increases, and exorbitant and unnecessary fees are only making matters worse for families who are already struggling just to get by. Obviously, it costs money to borrow money. Nobody is suggesting that credit card issuers shouldn't be able to make a profit. But for consumers the rules should be fair, transparent, and exactly the same from the beginning to the end.

I support the Dodd-Shelby amendment because it requires just that. The bottom line is that this bill restores fairness and sensibility to credit cards and a sense of security to families in North Carolina. This bill ensures that credit card companies honor their promises and specifies that the card companies can't change the rules in the middle of the game. While North Carolina's families are struggling, they shouldn't have to worry about hitting a moving target when it comes to paying their bills.

The Dodd-Shelby amendment will also provide consumers with simple, clear information that allows them to make informed decisions that make the most sense for themselves and their families. One important step which will provide consumers with the information they need to make their choice is the payoff timing disclosure language included in this bill. The legislation we are considering would require credit card issuers to prominently display two important numbers on billing statements: the amount of time it would take to pay off the bill if the cardholder is paying only the minimum balance due each month, and the minimum monthly payment required to pay off the entire bill in 36 months.

For example, it would take a cardholder with a $4,000 balance and an 18-percent interest rate, making the minimum payments, nearly 6 years to pay off their credit card. It costs next to nothing for issuers to provide borrowers with this information, but this information can be extremely helpful as cardholders try to become more efficient in their financial planning.

Ultimately, by keeping the rules fair, clear, and consistent, we can save American families thousands of dollars each year. As we work to right this ship and get our economy moving again, I cannot imagine this relief coming at a better time for North Carolina's families.

I am proud to stand on the floor of the Senate and voice my support for this measure. My constituents deserve progress, not lip service, on this and so many other important issues that they are grappling with in these hard economic times.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I rise today in support of the Children's Health Insurance Program, more commonly known as CHIP. I believe the expansion we are considering right now is long overdue. But I also must express my dismay at the way in which we are paying for the expansion in this program.

Since 1997, the Children's Health Insurance Program has been helping low-income and disadvantaged children access medical services to treat or prevent conditions that can affect their ability to lead a healthy and productive life. If this bill is not passed, we will be jeopardizing coverage for the roughly 10 million young children whom this bill helps, over 4 million of whom are currently without health care. With our economy in dire straits, job losses increasing and job opportunities decreasing, and with the rising cost of health care, the staggering thought of 10 million young children without the health care coverage they need is unacceptable to me and to many of my colleagues.

For every 1 point rise in our national unemployment--which we have seen a lot of to date--700,000 more children join the ranks of the uninsured. Importantly, 91 percent of all children covered under CHIP live in families with incomes at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. In North Carolina, this would represent $42,000 for a family of four, with which they would then have to purchase their own insurance without the program.

Not passing this bill is simply not an option. But it is important to note, too, that the original CHIP legislation passed almost 12 years ago by a Republican Congress with the support of a Democratic President, and it was an extremely bipartisan measure. So, too, was an almost identical bill last year which was passed by two-thirds of the Senate and vetoed by the President. This program has widespread bipartisan support, and we should not allow differences over particular provisions of this bill to obscure that fact.

I commend Chairman Baucus and Senator Rockefeller for the inclusion of several important provisions, including providing financial incentives for States, including my home State of North Carolina, to lower the number of uninsured children by enrolling eligible children in CHIP and Medicaid; creating an initiative within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services charged with developing and implementing quality measures and improving State reporting of quality data--I think over time this data will improve healthy outcomes in our children; implementing initiatives to reduce racial and ethnic health care disparities by improving outreach to our minority populations; and prioritizing the coverage of children under this program, not the adults without children and others who in the past have been given waivers to participate.

But my vigorous support of this program itself does not mean I approve of the way this expansion is being funded. I vehemently believe the increase in the tax on cigarettes this bill includes is regressive and patently unfair to States such as North Carolina, which employs more than 65,000 people in jobs related directly to the tobacco industry.

While 30 percent of the adults earning less than $15,000 are smokers, only 15 percent of adults earning more than $50,000 are smokers. Through the funding mechanism we are putting in place in this bill, the result is this: We are asking for the lowest income households to pay for the health care for children in homes that make more than they do.

Under this bill as written, in my home State of North Carolina a package of cigarettes will ultimately cost $4.27, of which more than half--51 percent--of the price represents Government taxes. Furthermore, taxing cigarettes now is shortsighted and an unreliable source of funding for this program.

Since fiscal year 1999, the average price of a package of cigarettes has increased by 80.5 percent.

If we are going to include this provision on the assumption that taxing cigarettes reduces youth smoking and therefore increases the number of healthy, productive, and successful children in our country, why aren't we also taxing sugary soft drinks, junk food, and sweets? The obesity epidemic is so strong in children, yet the only funding mechanism right now is cigarettes. All of the above lead to an increase in conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure in our children, which in turn we know leads to an increase in health care costs.

This is a matter of fairness. Taxing only tobacco could cost the State of North Carolina up to 3,000 jobs and $32 million to $36 million in revenue shortfalls for our State budget. While I applaud the desire to pay for the increased spending under this bill, which I think we should be doing, I believe singling out just one industry concentrates the impact in a few States, such as North Carolina, in a way that is fundamentally unfair. In 2009 alone, the 61-cent increase we are proposing in this bill--61-cent increase in taxes on cigarettes--adds up to $3.69 billion, and in 2010 that number increases to $7 billion from one industry alone.

I am a cosponsor of and I would like to voice my support for the amendment of my colleague, Senator Jim Webb, which would reduce the proposed tax on cigarettes by 24 cents. As I have said before, the way in which this bill taxes only cigarettes is unfair, and I believe the proposed 61-cent increase per package is outrageous. It is my hope this amendment represents a compromise palatable to all sides in this debate.

I have outlined my complete support for this vital program but also my dismay in the way in which it is funded. But this is the bill in front of us, and this is what we are being asked to vote on. When I was a State senator, I worked hard to protect and expand North Carolina's SCHIP. As the mother of three children, I know what it is like when one of your kids wakes up in the middle of the night with an earache or a stomachache or worse. I have seen firsthand how important this program is and the unmet need for its services.

With the health and vitality of 10 million of our Nation's children on our hands, I cannot in good faith vote against this bill. Less than a month into my service here in the Senate, I am faced with a situation in which the health of millions of my State's children is at odds with a key industry in North Carolina. But, ultimately, I have to vote on behalf of the 10 million low-income and disadvantaged children whom this bill helps. In this economy, when families are being forced to choose between paying their bills and putting food on their tables, I cannot make it harder for them to keep their children healthy, safe, and cared for.

I cast this vote in the affirmative as a mother and as a former budget chairman for the State of North Carolina who knows how difficult it is for the State to close the gap in funding for this critical program when the Federal Government drops the ball and as a Senator who sees in this bill a chance for our neediest families and our most disadvantaged kids to get ahead in the face of the daunting odds they will no doubt face in their future.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Before I do so, please allow me to thank my colleagues in the Senate, so many of whom have gone out of their way to help welcome me into this body. Both Majority Leader Reid and Senator Durbin have made these first days in the Senate as smooth as possible, as has the entire Democratic leadership: Senators Schumer, Murray, Dorgan, and Stabenow. These first few weeks in the Senate are an exercise in thinking on your feet, adapting quickly, and soaking it all in. I appreciate all they have done to help me hit the ground running. Their advice and guidance have been so important to me.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including Leader McConnell and especially the senior Senator from North Carolina, Richard Burr, have also been very helpful both to me and my staff. There is too much to be done in this country to differentiate a Republican idea from a Democratic idea. We just need good ideas. I hope to work with all of my colleagues to identify and implement as many as I can.

Thanks also to the primary sponsor of this bill, Senator Mikulski, whom I was honored to have walk with me as I was sworn in as one of 100 Senators and one of 17 female Senators in this body. I wish to thank Senator Mikulski, who has led the way for women her entire career, for her leadership in this body and on this important bill. I am honored to be one of the 16 other women for whom she has paved the way.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help deliver for those in our country who are struggling to provide for themselves and their families. A few days before our new President is sworn in, there is a sense of urgency but also a

sense of optimism. I am so honored to be a part of this body at this historic time.

As I said, I rise in support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which will restore protections against pay discrimination in the workplace. This bill would reestablish a fair rule for filing claims of pay discrimination based on race, national origin, gender, religion, age, or disability.

A few months ago, this bill's namesake, Lilly Ledbetter, joined me at several roundtable events in North Carolina. Her courage and determination were inspiring. She is committed to this cause even though it is too late to do anything in her own case.

In North Carolina, families are facing a serious enough challenge trying to make ends meet on a full paycheck, never mind trying to do so on a paycheck reduced by discrimination. Women in my home State make an average of 78 cents for every dollar that men make for similar jobs and responsibilities. In these tough economic times--when families are being forced to choose between putting food on the table and filling a prescription; can no longer afford the payments on their house, their own small part of the American dream; are being forced to dip into their savings to help pay their bills--why would anyone find it acceptable for women to make less than men or white workers to make more than African Americans or someone to be discriminated against based on national origin, religion, or disability? Why would we allow it to be more difficult for working families instead of less?

When someone is discriminated against in the workplace or anywhere else, surely they feel the impact of that discrimination for longer than 180 days. This bill would restore a reasonable time limit for filing pay discrimination claims, reestablishing the longstanding rule currently applied by 9 courts of appeals and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in pay discrimination cases before this unfortunate Supreme Court decision in May 2007.

Importantly, this bill does not hold employers responsible for decades and decades of back pay. Current law limits back pay awards to 2 years before the worker filed the claim. This bill does not change that. It is limited to 2 years of back pay. When discrimination in the workplace results in a lower wage for those discriminated against, the people responsible should be held accountable. This bill helps them to do that. It does not place an undue burden on employers, nor does it open them up to decades-old litigation. It simply says, for all of the legal jargon, that it is not acceptable for women to make less than men on the same job with the same qualifications and with the same performance. In 2009, that is not too much to ask.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.