Kay Hagan

Mrs. HAGAN

Mrs. HAGAN. 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.

Mrs. HAGAN

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

Mrs. HAGAN. 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.

Mrs. HAGAN

Mrs. HAGAN. 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.

Mrs. HAGAN

Mrs. HAGAN. 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.

Mrs. HAGAN

Mrs. HAGAN. 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.

Mrs. HAGAN. 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.

Mrs. HAGAN

Mrs. HAGAN. 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.

Mrs. HAGAN

Mrs. HAGAN. 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.

Mrs. HAGAN

Mrs. HAGAN. 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.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mrs. HAGAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HAGAN. 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.

Mrs. HAGAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HAGAN. 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.

Mrs. HAGAN

Mrs. HAGAN. 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.

Mrs. HAGAN

Mrs. HAGAN. 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.

Mrs. HAGAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HAGAN

Mrs. HAGAN. 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.