Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S335-S343]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

HOMEOWNER FLOOD INSURANCE AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 2013--MOTION TO PROCEED

Mr. REID. I move to proceed to Calendar No. 266.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 266, S. 1846, a bill to
delay the implementation of certain provisions of the
Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, and for
other purposes.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, on this issue we have a bipartisan coalition
that badly wants to get this done. So we are going to do everything we
can to move forward. At this stage the Republicans have not cleared the
proposed consent agreement. I have indicated to the Republican leader
that later today I would ask that. But also, to stopgap, we have
started a rule XIV procedure which in just a minute I will move to, and
we will have a second reading so that, if we can't work anything out on
the consent agreement, we will tee this up so this will be the first
vote we have when we get back after our recess.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Certainly.
Mr. McCONNELL. The majority leader is correct. There is substantial
bipartisan support for the flood insurance bill. We are not in a
position to clear it yet, but Senator Isakson, who has taken the lead
on this issue on our side, is working with our Members. Hopefully, we
will be able to figure out a way forward here in the not too distant
future.
Mr. REID. On our side, Senator Landrieu has been persistent for
months now. So she and Senator Isakson, I hope, can work something out
so we can maybe work on this before we leave.

Schedule

Mr. President, following my remarks, and those of the Republican
leader, the time until noon will be equally divided and controlled
between the two of us or our designees. At noon the Senate will begin
consideration of H.J. Res. 106, which is the short-term continuing
resolution. At 12:15 there will be a rollcall vote on the joint
resolution. Just before coming here I was told the vote in the House
will be between 3 and 5 o'clock this afternoon. So we should get that
at a reasonable hour today.
We expect to begin consideration of the omnibus bill when it is
received from the House, as I have indicated, later today.

measures placed on the calendar--s. 1917 and s. 1926

Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are two bills at the desk due for a
second reading.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bills by
title for the second time.
The clerk read as follows:

[[Page S336]]

A bill (S. 1917) to provide for additional enhancements of
the sexual assault prevention and response activities of the
Armed Forces.
A bill (S. 1926) to delay the implementation of certain
provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act
of 2012 and to reform the National Association of Registered
Agents and Brokers, and for other purposes.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on either
one of these measures at this time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection having been heard, the
bills will be placed on the calendar under rule XIV.

Unemployment Insurance Benefits

Mr. REID. Mr. President, last night's vote to block emergency
unemployment insurance was, I am sorry to say, what goes on and has
been going on for a number of years here. It was blocked by the
Republicans. It is really a tragedy for millions of Americans who are
relying on Congress to help them get through these hard times. Today's
long-term unemployment is double what it was at any other time Congress
has allowed emergency benefits to lapse. Yet Republicans refuse even to
allow an up-or-down vote on our plan to restore benefits to 1.5 million
Americans, and there are 2.3 million children.
I thought we had satisfied every complaint and demand my Republican
colleagues made throughout the week. They said they wouldn't vote on an
extension which would provide an average of $300 a week to families
struggling to get by unless the bill was paid for. So we proposed an
offset. That wasn't unique for us. It was originally proposed by
Congressman Paul Ryan, chairman of the Budget Committee in the House
and the Republican candidate for Vice President in the last election.
Then Republicans said they couldn't vote for an extension of
unemployment insurance without reforms to the program. We also did
that. What we did will prevent double dipping and reduce the number of
weeks recipients could receive unemployment benefits. Then Republicans
said they couldn't vote to extend unemployment benefits unless they
were allowed to offer amendments. So Democrats agreed to vote on up to
20 amendments, 10 on each side. They again refused.
So, Mr. President, unless Democrats agree to vote on an unlimited
number of unrelated, irrelevant minority amendments, the minority will
filibuster the bill that will help people who have been looking for
work for a long time. This callous vote yesterday proves Republicans
want it to seem like they support an extension of unemployment
insurance even though they didn't vote and wouldn't vote for an
extension. The minority has hidden behind one process argument after
another as they voted to end a program that has been successful for
millions of Americans, including, as I indicated, more than a half
million children, which has kept them out of poverty in recent years.
Middle-class Americans can see right through these flimsy Republican
excuses. They see last night's vote for what it was--a slap in the face
to almost 1.5 million Americans, including tens of thousands of
veterans; a slap in the face for 18,000 Nevadans who are still looking
for work, and 2.3 million children whose parents don't have jobs; and a
slap in the face for 70,000 more people who will lose their
unemployment benefits each week until Congress acts.
But the fight is not over. We are not going to give up on Americans
struggling to get back on their feet. We are working on other
proposals. We can move forward at any time on a 3-month extension,
unpaid for, and that is really what we should have done 2 weeks ago, so
that during this 3-month period we could continue working on a long-
term solution.
We must take up this short-term continuing resolution, which, by the
way, is bipartisan. Senator Heller from Nevada joined with Senator Reed
of Rhode Island--the two States who lead the Nation in unemployment.
The economy can't afford another manufactured crisis over whether the
U.S. Government will stay open for business or pay its bills. But soon
Republicans will be faced with the same choice: Put their middle-class
constituents first or keep playing political games.
I received a letter this week from a Nevadan who, by the way, is a
lifelong Republican. Here is what happened to him. After 13 years at a
job he loved, this 54-year-old man was laid off, through no fault of
his own. He hasn't been able to find work for 10 months, despite having
applied for dozens and dozens of jobs. He is appalled at the way his
own party has treated him and other unemployed Americans. This is what
he wrote: ``I am shocked and dismayed and outraged at how Republicans
have dealt with this matter.''
Let me read this again:

I am shocked and dismayed and outraged at how Republicans
have dealt with this matter. The Republican leadership has
talked about people like me as if we're thieves, not worthy
of help. That will cost Republicans their jobs and should
cost them their jobs.

This Nevadan is not alone. People all over America feel the same way.
Republicans around the country support the extension of unemployment
benefits.
Mr. DURBIN. Would the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Sure.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the majority leader through the Chair
for clarity: Is the Senate Republican filibuster holding up
unemployment benefits for 1.3 million Americans?
Mr. REID. It is actually now up to about 1.5 million.
Mr. DURBIN. Again, addressing the majority leader through the Chair,
so the refusal of the Senate Republicans to allow us to vote on the
extension of unemployment benefits is denying, on average, about $300 a
week to 1.4 million or 1.5 million Americans; is that a fact?
Mr. REID. That is true, Mr. President.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the majority leader this question: Is
it not true that the initial complaint of the Senate Republicans was
that this payment of unemployment benefits was not paid for?
Mr. REID. That is true.
Mr. DURBIN. Is it also true that Democrats came up with a pay-for
that would have paid for the unemployment benefits, as the Republicans
requested?
Mr. REID. And the pay-for was originally discovered by Paul Ryan.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the majority leader: After the
Democrats came up with the pay-for, the first demand of the Senate
Republicans to stop their filibuster, did the Senate Republicans then
join us in calling this measure for passage?
Mr. REID. Would my friend repeat the question?
Mr. DURBIN. After we came up with a pay-for, which the Senate
Republicans insisted on, did they stop their Senate Republican
filibuster on unemployment benefits and allow us to move forward?
Mr. REID. No.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the majority leader if this followed:
It was my understanding the Senate Republicans then came up with a new
demand, and the demand was they be allowed to offer amendments to the
unemployment insurance benefit package before they would drop their
Senate Republican filibuster that was stopping unemployment benefits
for 1.4 million Americans.
Mr. REID. That is true. And the biggest advocate we had for that on
this side of the aisle was the whip, the senior Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the majority leader this question: Is
it not true that yesterday, in response to this Republican demand, the
majority leader offered a unanimous consent that would have given up to
10 amendments on each side of the aisle--Democrats and Republicans--to
this measure and that the Democrats did not specify what the amendments
would be; that it would really be the decision of the Republicans to
offer those amendments? Did the Senate majority leader offer that to
the Senate Republicans so they would stop their filibuster of
unemployment benefits?
Mr. REID. The answer is yes. And in addition to that, there would be
available on each side, if they wanted, five side-by-sides, as we call
them here. So that could be a total of 10 amendments on each side, so
20.
Mr. DURBIN. So the Senate Republicans insisted on a pay-for, and the
Senate Democrats provided it. The Senate Republicans still refused to
stop their filibuster. Then the Senate Republicans insisted on
amendments. We offered up to 10 amendments on each side.

[[Page S337]]

Can the Senate majority leader say, after offering that unanimous
consent, whether the Republicans agreed to it and stopped their
filibuster of unemployment benefits?
Mr. REID. I am sorry to say they did not.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the majority, at this point in time what are we
waiting for? What are the Senate Republicans now demanding to stop
their filibuster of providing unemployment benefits to 1.4 million
people across America?
Mr. REID. I have no idea.
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senate majority leader that it strikes
me as unfair, if not cruel, that we are holding 1.4 million unemployed
Americans hostage to this continued political negotiation where each
day the Republicans come up with a new demand before they will stop
their Senate Republican filibuster.
I ask the Senator from Nevada, our majority leader, does he believe
that a majority of the Members of the Senate would vote for the
extension of unemployment benefits to these 1.4 million Americans if
the Senate Republicans would drop their filibuster?
Mr. REID. No question about that.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the majority leader.
Mr. REID. Finally, let me say that the man from Nevada is not alone.
There are 1.4 million people just like him in this country. Sadly, that
number will grow every week Congress fails to act. And my Republican
colleagues denigrate or ignore these hard-working Americans at their
own political peril.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Senate Procedure

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say in response to the colloquy
we just heard that it used to be the assistant majority leader's view
that, as he put it, if you don't want to fight fires, don't become a
firefighter, and if you don't want to cast tough votes, don't come to
the Senate. Obviously, those days have changed.
What really happened over the last week is the refusal to have an
open amendment process, the refusal to treat both sides the same. The
final proposal we objected to yesterday requiring all the amendments to
get 60 votes but final passage only 51 still does not restore the
Senate to the way it has formerly functioned. Any Member of the Senate
ought to be able to have a fair chance to get his or her amendment
adopted. That is the way it used to be around here before the majority
leader decided to dictate everything everyone does.
So what we are seeking is fundamental fairness and, on this
particular bill, an open amendment process and an opportunity to pay
for it. I think the real concern was that the majority leader was
afraid that some of the Republican amendments might actually pass,
might actually enjoy bipartisan support.
So we will get back to that bill. It is a very important bill. But if
anybody had any doubts that Washington Democrats wanted to see the
unemployment insurance bill fail, well, I think we had those doubts
erased yesterday and by the comments just made. It is just the latest
example of Senate Democrats putting politics over policy. And in this
case it is doubly tragic because this time they are putting politics
over struggling families who deserve some certainty from Congress.
Look. It is no secret that our Democratic friends plan to spend the
year exploiting folks who are still struggling in this economy for
political gain. They have been telling reporters that for weeks. That
is no secret, but that doesn't make it any less disturbing. It is still
wrong.
I would probably want to be talking about something other than
ObamaCare too, if I had voted for it. They want to talk about anything
other than ObamaCare. But to create a conflict where the possibility of
agreement was so close while more than 1 million people are stuck in
the middle is just simply outrageous--making pawns out of these people
stuck in the middle of this political game.
Here is the larger issue. Here we are in the sixth year of this
administration, and we are still talking about emergency unemployment
benefits--6 years into the Obama administration. After all the stimulus
bills and all the other big-government solutions we were told would
help the little guy, we are still looking at record long-term
unemployment. We are still looking at hundreds of thousands of able-
bodied men and women basically giving up on finding work in this
economy in the last month alone, in just 1 month. One report I saw even
suggested that about half of our Nation's counties have yet to return
to their prerecession economic output--half the counties in America.
The bottom line: The Obama economy isn't working for middle-class
Americans.
Democrats tell us again and again that their policies will help
people who are struggling. Yet we always seem to end up in the very
same situation--debating whether to provide more emergency help instead
of talking about how to provide a long-term solution and a stable
economy that doesn't require permanent life support from Washington.
What is needed is a fundamental course correction. What is needed is
for our colleagues to finally acknowledge what has failed and then
actually work with us on the underlying problem. That is what
Republicans are saying in this debate. What we are saying is, how about
actually trying to create jobs for a change?
That will be the President's challenge today when he speaks in North
Carolina. We hear he might lay out some ideas to get the private sector
moving again. If that is the case, then maybe he will be taking a step
in the right direction--a step away from big-government policies that
have failed so many Americans for so many years--because if he is truly
serious about getting the economy back on track and creating jobs, he
will do more than just talk about job creation or bipartisanship today;
he will actually work with us on real bipartisan solutions to get
there, and there are some simple ways he can show he means it.
The Republican-controlled House has sent over a number of bills that
would give a boost to jobs and to our economy. A good start would be
for the President to lean on Democrats who run the Senate to take up
those for immediate consideration.
He could acknowledge the real pain ObamaCare is inflicting on middle-
class families and then work with us to start over with real bipartisan
reforms that actually lower costs and won't hurt the economy the way
ObamaCare does.
He could call for true bipartisan tax reforms.
He could announce construction of the Keystone Pipeline. I see the
Senator from Pennsylvania on the floor, who will remember that the
President came to a lunch with Senate Republicans last year, and the
President said he would make a decision on the Keystone Pipeline last
year, sometime during 2013. Apparently, that was in the same category:
If you have your policy and you like it, you can keep it. If you have
your doctor and you like them, you can keep them. I will make a
decision on Keystone Pipeline by the end of 2013. Well, we are still
waiting.
He could actually deliver on one of the brightest spots of his
economic agenda: trade. That means that instead of allowing the United
States to lag behind our trading partners, the President could find a
way to bring his party on board with a bipartisan bill introduced last
week that would get the administration back in the game of helping
American workers with increased exports.
These are just a few of the many areas where we could work together
to get some good things done for the American people.
I hope he will be serious in his speech today. I hope he will focus
on actually getting the job done instead of just providing another
distraction from the pain of ObamaCare and the Obama economy because if
this devolves into just another political exercise that is focused more
on making a point than making a real difference in the lives of

[[Page S338]]

people who are struggling, that is not going to help middle-class
families get back on their feet. That won't help college graduates find
full-time work. All it will do is continue a cycle of economic pain
that the President needs to work with Republicans to stop.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
Under the previous order, the time until 12 noon will be equally
divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with
Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Unemployment Benefits

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to address this situation we find
ourselves in on the unemployment bill.
I have to say that this most recent episode in which the majority
leader refuses to permit an open process, refuses to allow debate,
refuses to allow the kinds of amendments Republicans would like to
offer to improve this bill is very disturbing and is now part of a very
well-established trend.
It is actually shocking to me that over the last 6 months, since July
of last year, through today, this body has voted on a grand total of
four Republican amendments--four recorded votes on Republican
amendments in 6 months.
Under every previous majority leader, under every previous majority
the Senate didn't work this way. It would be routine to have four votes
in a morning before we broke for lunch. We have had four votes on our
ideas that have been permitted in 6 months. So we are systemically
being shut out of the process.
What is particularly maddening about this is that my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle know full well that the votes are there to
pass an extension of unemployment insurance. They know it. If they
would allow an open amendment process, we would have a few amendments,
we would have a debate, and we would have some votes. In the course of
an afternoon, maybe two, we would have finished up last week and we
would have passed an extension of unemployment benefits.
Evidently that is not the goal of my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle. They insisted on making sure we could not engage in this
debate, offer the amendments, and do this in a way consistent with what
the American people want us to do, which is move forward in the most
sensible way possible.
I have an example this morning of the kind of very modest reform we
would like. As for myself, I think that we should extend unemployment
benefits for certain Americans who are in the really tough
circumstances in which they find themselves provided that the cost of
doing so is properly offset with a legitimate offset so we don't simply
add still more to our excessive deficit and debt; that we have some
modest reforms; that we begin the process of fixing a program that
doesn't work. If this is working, then why are there so many Americans
who are unemployed for such long periods of time? Clearly, this program
is not working.
Let me give one example of an amendment I think most Pennsylvanians
think is common sense. It is an amendment Senator Coburn offered, and
it would simply end Federal unemployment benefits for people who have
an income of over $1 million a year.
My guess is that most Pennsylvanians are shocked to discover that we
extend unemployment benefits to millionaires. And I am not talking
about a net worth of $1 million, someone who maybe has a farm that is
worth $1 million on paper but they might have no income. No. I am
talking about people who actually have earned income of over $1 million
and then they stop working and start collecting unemployment benefits.
I think most people think that is ridiculous.
It is not as isolated as we may think. In 2011 there were over 3,200
households that reported income of over $1 million, and yet they were
paid $30 million in unemployment benefits. In fact, there were over 100
households that had income of over $5 million. And taxpayers are paying
them unemployment benefits? This doesn't make sense, and it doesn't
make sense to Members of this body.
In April of 2011 the Senate had a vote on the substance of this very
amendment--ending unemployment benefits for millionaires and
multimillionaires--and the vote was 100 to 0 in favor of making this
modest reform to this program. Now, if we did actually enact this
reform, it would save about $300 million over 10 years, which could go
to paying for benefits for the people who actually need extended
unemployment insurance.
Of all of the Members of the Senate who are here today and were here
at the time of this vote in 2011--that is the vast majority--everyone
agreed. There is no dissent on this. There are bipartisan cosponsors of
this amendment, Democratic and Republican alike, who recognize this is
just common sense. So despite the fact this is not controversial, that
it is germane and relevant, that it is a modest reform that makes sense
and would save money and would free resources to pay unemployment
benefits for the people who truly need it, despite all of those facts,
we are blocked. We are not allowed to offer this amendment on the
Senate floor.
We attempted it yesterday. The minority leader, the senior Senator
from Kentucky, asked unanimous consent to offer this amendment. That
consent was denied. So then he moved to table or to eliminate, if you
will, the amendments the majority leader uses to block our
opportunities to offer our own, his blocking amendments, and the
majority party defeated that attempt to do away with those blocking
amendments. As we sit here this morning, the majority leader continues
to block our opportunity to offer any amendments, even a modest,
commonsense amendment with bipartisan support that passed this body 100
to 0.
I am going to make one more attempt to offer this amendment because I
cannot for the life of me understand why we cannot have a vote on this
little bit of common sense.
I rise to offer the Coburn amendment, No. 2606, to S. 1845.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The amendment is not in order
as the motion to proceed to S. 1846 is the pending question.
Mr. TOOMEY. I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair that the Coburn
amendment is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The appeal is debatable.
Mr. TOOMEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to
talk about another very important bill. There was an hour exchange
about unemployment, which is extremely important for the Nation. I
think people got to hear arguments on both sides. They can continue to
try to process that.
I came to the floor this morning to talk about another very important
piece of legislation that we do have very deep and very genuine
bipartisan support for; that is, the flood insurance provision, the
Homeowner Affordability Act, which will correct some of the more
egregious provisions of a bill that passed a year-and-a-half ago called
Biggert-Waters.
The bill, Biggert-Waters, that was passed, named for the two Members
of the House who led that effort, was well intentioned. In fact, I have
had many wonderful conversations with Maxine Waters, the absolutely
distinguished Congresswoman from California whose name is carried on
that bill.
She had wonderful intentions because California, like Louisiana,
depends on a program to work that is sustainable and affordable, but
she even recognized and has been so gracious with her time to come to
Louisiana to say we intended for this to fix the problem, but I admit
we made it worse; the way FEMA has interpreted some of the things we
have done has made it worse and the fact that the Federal Government
continues, despite our efforts, to recognize levees people have built.
So she has agreed to help lead our effort to reform a bill she and
Congresswoman Judy Biggert passed a year-and-a-half ago.

[[Page S339]]

I wish to start by commending the leadership. In the House, the
effort is being led by Congresswoman Waters and Congressman Grimm.
There are chairs of standing committees, working with them as we speak,
to figure out how to move forward in the House.
But in the Senate we have been working so well together. Despite all
of the commotion and adversarial positions on other issues, we put
together a very excellent coalition of about 200 organizations. I am
going to read those names in just a minute--200 organizations that have
been working with us to fashion a reform bill that meets these
objectives.
The Presiding Officer has spoken on the floor of the Senate now at
least a half dozen times that I have listened to her speak on the
floor, so she knows all this that I am going to say because she said it
even better than I can. But the provisions that are in our reform bill
for flood insurance meet important goals. First of all, it is
affordable to the middle-class people who are required to have it. That
is the most important thing about flood insurance, that it be
affordable to the people required to have it.
Yes, there are some very wealthy families who live in mansions on
beaches that are required to have it. They will have no problem paying
a substantial premium. But there are millions of middle-class
families--many of them in Louisiana--who do not live anywhere near the
water and they most certainly do not live in mansions on the beach.
They live in middle-class, blue-collar, working neighborhoods far from
lakes, a distance from rivers, and nowhere near the ocean. They have
found themselves caught up in paying premiums they cannot afford.
If we do not fix this, the premiums coming into the program will be
less and less. People will be defaulting on homes. Banks, communities
will take a downward economic spiral and the program itself will
collapse.
We cannot have this program collapse. So even though our critics--and
this has been in the newspapers--are saying we are trying to saddle
taxpayers with a huge debt, nothing could be further from the truth. We
are trying to save taxpayers from a big bailout by reforming a program
that needs to be reformed and fixed so middle-class people can afford
it, banks can operate well with it, homebuilders can build homes with
it, realtors can sell the homes with the program, which they are not
able to do now. Everyone can get back to work, anxiety can be reduced
and give us some time to figure out how to reach those two important
goals: so the taxpayers do not have to bail us out and homeowners and
businesses can afford it. Is that too much to ask? I don't think so.
Happily, Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson, two veteran leaders of
the Senate, have put a very good bill together. We are ready to vote.
We are ready to vote. We could vote, actually, right now if we could
just get a few matters worked out.
I would like to talk about what those few matters are publicly so
people can start working them out because I think the more things that
are transparent around here the better off we all are and things that
are done in secret are usually problematic.
Let me say to the many people following this that the base bill is
still basically in the order that everyone understands it to be. It is
printed. It has been visible, public, for weeks now. That bill that is
the basic essence of the compromises worked out by Senator Menendez and
Senator Isakson and, I might say, with Senator Merkley's extraordinary
leadership as a subcommittee chair, that is the base bill. There are
amendments that Senators want to offer. Happily they are all related to
flood.
To my knowledge--and Senator Isakson has worked through this, as I
have, and Senator Menendez--there is a Hagan provision about escrow
requirements that we think we should vote on. We are not sure how that
vote will turn out, but we are happy to vote on it. There is a Blunt
amendment the National Association of Home Builders has suggested we
have an amendment on. We could vote on that as well. There is a Crapo
amendment that is in the works. Some of these amendments have been
filed and have language. Some of them are just in theory form. There is
a Crapo amendment that would adjust the rate increases in the
underlying bill. We could vote on that. There is a Reed amendment,
Senator Reed of Rhode Island. This would require FEMA to conduct a
study on the viability of offering community-based flood insurance
policies. My notes say there is broad support for that.
There is a Coburn amendment, which is an alternative to the NARAB.
That amendment will probably not receive the votes required, but we are
happy to talk about his amendment and have him offer it. There is a
Merkley amendment that will subject NFIB policyholders to force-placed
insurance policies if they let their policies lapse--it is a technical
amendment--and also a Rubio-Nelson amendment that is being discussed.
Those are the only amendments we know about. If there is anybody else
who has an amendment on flood who would like to offer it or have it
considered, the next couple of hours would be the last opportunity to
get those amendments in. I know everybody is busy. I cleared my
calendar. I had meeting. I cleared my calendar to do this today because
it is very important that we not just get so busy with other things
that we leave this place and not get this done. We are working
transparently, openly, so there are no games to be played by either
side.
Again, I wish to repeat, there is a Hagan amendment pending--not
pending but that we know of--a Rubio-Nelson, a Reed of Rhode Island, a
Coburn, a Merkley, a Blunt, and then Toomey, who was just on the floor,
the Senator from Pennsylvania, has indicated he wants to offer a
substitute to what we are proposing.
I am not the manager of this bill so it is not my authority to make
these definitive statements. Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson will
ultimately decide the strategy. But as far as I understand, because we
have all been working very hard together to move this bill to final
passage--as far as I understand, these are the only amendments people
would like to offer and there does not seem to be any objection to
offering them.
In addition, if people want 51 votes or if they want 60 votes, we are
very open to that as well. We could pass the bill with 51 votes, we
could pass the bill with 60 votes, so we are open. That is the game
that is played here. You say we want 60, no, we want 51 or 51 and 60--
we can take it in any arithmetic anyone wants to give us. You want 51
votes, we can deliver them. You want 60 votes, we can deliver 60 votes
because we have done the homework on this bill, working with
coalitions, working with homeowners and businesses from South Dakota
and North Dakota to New Jersey and New York, Mississippi, Louisiana,
California, and Oregon. There is no disagreement.
Well, there is some disagreement, but there is not enough
disagreement to overcome the great coalition which was put together,
which was evidenced by an extraordinary press conference a couple of
days ago, where almost 20 Senators showed up, or they were represented
by their staffs, saying we are ready to go. My message on the floor--I
don't know how many more minutes I have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 12 minutes.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like another 5; I ask unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. What was evidenced earlier--and the coalition knows
this--there is broad consensus. There are a few Senators who want to
vote against this bill. There are a few Senators who want to offer
amendments. Fine. Let the record show these amendments could be
offered--these amendments, germane to this bill and any that would come
to us in the next hour or so that are germane to this bill, we can take
these amendments and have a 51-vote, a 60-vote requirement, and final
passage on 51 or 60. Let's just get this done.
There should be no confusion at all. I am glad no one on the opposite
side is here debating me on this. That is a good sign for us that there
truly is only one side to this story and this is the side.
I am trying to be as fair as I can. I have named the people who have
amendments, to our knowledge. We, the Democrats, have said we have no

[[Page S340]]

objection to them offering those amendments. If they want 51 or 60
votes, just let us know. I feel confident that our coalition can hold
against any amendments that would try to gut this bill.
We will let people know what those amendments are and who has offered
them because we think this is absolutely right for the country, for the
States we represent, and for the taxpayer. Give us a little time to
work together to figure out how to strengthen the National Flood
Insurance Program without bankrupting 5 million families. If we don't
stop this train that has already left the station--we have to stop it,
reverse it, and put it back in the train barn because it is going down
the track pretty fast. This is not a good place to be.
As I said, we probably should have never passed this bill, but it was
put in a conference committee report that was unamendable and some
provisions of it were indecipherable at the time. That is a little
strong of a word, but they were not well understood. It wasn't that it
was indecipherable; it was not well understood. After the bill was read
and implemented, people thought, oh, my gosh, what have we done? This
is not going to work. And they were right.
I am going to stay on the floor this morning. If anyone on the
Republican side wants to come down and disagree and challenge what I
have presented, please do so because I want this to be a very open
process. There is nothing for us to hide from, and that is what a
democracy is about.
There are some people who want to vote against our bill. Fine. Go
ahead and vote against it. We have the votes to pass it. As I said, we
have 60 votes. We may even have more than 60 votes. If we don't have
the votes, all I can say is we tried our level best and we don't have
the votes to correct it. I don't think that is the case.
I am not going to allow the smoke and confusion and all the hot air
around here to confuse the coalition that has worked too hard, and they
need to hear my voice very clearly, which is why I am here. There is
clarity. There is no opposition on the Democratic side to this bill. We
are waiting for a few clarifications from the Republican side. We hope
to get those clarifications. The only Democrats who have amendments
that I know of are Senator Hagan, Senator Reed from Rhode Island, and
Senator Merkley. We have no objection on the Democratic side for this
bill and there are only three Members who have amendments, and we are
happy to have a vote on those amendments. They are not controversial.
Somebody might have a problem with them and might vote no. Fine, but
they don't gut the bill. There is no problem with the bill.
We are waiting on the Republican side for clarity. Again, I know how
busy everyone is. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania is working very
hard. He was just here speaking about unemployment insurance, and I
know that is a very important issue to the people he represents, and to
Louisiana. If he could get a little time to work on the amendment that
we think he wants to offer on flood whenever he can, we are happy to
have his amendment, and we will vote on it.
Senators Isakson and Menendez will decide when and how and what the
number is--51 or 60. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter. If
his intention is to gut the bill, the bill will not be gutted. If his
intention is to strengthen the bill, then that is a definite
possibility. People are desperate to get an answer from Congress now.
We should have done this 4 months ago before these rate increases.
Escrow accounts are being collected. Some people were paying $500 a
year and now they are paying $5,000. According to the Biggert-Waters
law, the banks have to get that $5,000 and put it in the bank now to
pay that insurance. That is a real hardship on people. We need to stop
that and figure this out.
Madam President, I ask for 1 additional minute. I think I have
extended my time already.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. We have delayed this fix too long, and we need to go
ahead and take care of it. I am going to stay on the floor this
morning. I will periodically bring everyone up to date.
I will close by reminding people what we are talking about. These are
the new flood maps in the United States. The purple shows where it is
in effect, green shows the proposed areas, and yellow shows the new
flood map. There is not a State that is exempt from what I am speaking
about. The amazing thing is to see this cluster in Pennsylvania, New
York, and in Ohio. Everyone thinks about this as a Texas, Florida, or
Louisiana issue. But when we see the inland States being affected by
flood maps--States that have never been issued before are being issued
without good data because FEMA doesn't have the science, technology, or
resources to do this correctly yet. The affordability study has not
even been done, and they didn't do it even though the last bill asked
them to do it.
We need to put this train back in the station. It is not ready for
prime time. We need to bring it out in a way that, yes, rates may have
to rise. No one is opposed to that. But rates have to rise in a way
that people can afford them and can be notified.
From our standpoint, Louisiana would like levees to be recognized.
Since we spent billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money building
them, we would like them to be recognized. If you are behind a levee,
you don't have to pay $15,000 a year because you already paid for the
levee. You don't pay twice. Taxpayers should not have to pay three
times. They are happy to pay their fair share. Most everybody I know is
happy to pay their fair share. But under Biggert-Waters, it is not
fair, it is not shared. It has to be not completely pushed back but it
has to be delayed, which is what our bill does.
I will stay on the floor, and if someone comes to the floor, that is
fine. I will talk about this. It is important to get this done. I am an
appropriator. I am chair of Homeland Security. This is a big, important
bill for our country. This bill is almost as important--don't get me
wrong, it is not as important as the whole Appropriations bill, but
there are 5 million people who are getting ready to lose their home or
business, and it is really important to them. It is important for us
since there doesn't seem to be any real objection to work hard to get
it done.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
during the quorum call be equally divided between the Republicans and
the Democrats.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I just had a conversation with the
distinguished Senator from Louisiana with regard to the flood control
bill. I am the Republican sponsor of that bill and am very adamantly in
support of that bill passing.
Senator Menendez is the principal sponsor from the Democratic Party.
Senator Landrieu, myself, and Senators all over this country who have
coastlines and rivers and flood issues are all very concerned. I want,
as much as anybody in the world, to expedite that bill going from where
it is now to the floor, so we can expedite its processing.
I have been working with some who have objections to the bill or
objections with part of the bill to get an agreement on amendments with
the leadership on the Democratic side, so when we do that debate, we
have a fair number of amendments that are equally divided in terms of
the time and the vote threshold is at 51 votes.
I am close to getting there, but I am not there yet. So if a
unanimous consent were propounded right now, there would be an
objection, maybe even from me to let everyone know I am for this bill.
I want this bill to pass. But I

[[Page S341]]

want to make sure that those I have been working with to lift their
holds are accommodated in terms of their opportunity to debate a
germane amendment to the flood bill that is relevant to flood control.
So I come to the floor for only the purpose of education, to let
everybody know that I am the Republican sponsor and am deeply involved
and engaged in the passage of this bill. I also have respect in regard
to those who have differences of opinion or have some technical
corrections they want to make. I want to work to get those incorporated
into an agreement before we get a UC, so when we have the UC, we know
what the amendments are, we know what we are going through, and we can
expedite the handling of this legislation and deal with the problem
that is affecting many homeowners all over the United States of America
in flood map areas.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, may I say, before the Senator from
Georgia leaves, how appreciative this coalition is of his leadership.
He has been literally--I am not making this up--extraordinary in his
time and effort to work through the final amendment process because
this process has been going on for over a year.
We just did not start talking about this last week. He has given over
a year of his time, and as the chief cosponsor he has been phenomenal.
I think he would agree with me--if he doesn't, then we could
respectfully disagree--that it is time now for the Members that have
been hearing about this and have been told about this for weeks, weeks
and months, to get their amendments to Senator Isakson so that we can
make some decisions about how many amendments we can have. We could
have four. We could have six. We could have ten. We can have a 51-vote
threshold. We are ready. The Democratic side has, for the most part,
cleared the amendments we know about.
So the Senator is terrific. I thank him for coming. I do not intend
to ask unanimous consent at this point. The leaders are still working
together, Senator McConnell and Senator Reid.
I know the Senator from Georgia is trying to work through this. Would
that be a generally good description of where we are?
Mr. ISAKSON. The Senator is correct. In fact, to be precise, there
were seven concerns about the legislation when the first UC was
propounded on our side, five of which involve potential amendments that
need to be made to the bill or in their opinion need to be made. In the
case of two of those, in working with the leadership on the Democratic
side, they are acceptable and would be included in the base bill.
There are three that would be allowed to be debated with the time
equally divided on the floor. They have asked for a 51-vote threshold.
There is the potential, as we all know, for a point of order. But
amendments and points of order would be the only issues that I am aware
of in all of those conversations. I continue to work at this very
moment to get a final agreement so we can get a UC.
But we are just not there quite yet. I am going to continue to try to
work toward that goal.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I am aware that we are not quite there yet. But I am
also aware that the clock is ticking, that it is Wednesday, that we may
be out of here on Saturday, and we need to pass an appropriations bill.
This is something that also deserves a tremendous amount of attention.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that
the time in quorum calls be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unemployment Insurance Benefits

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, first, the state of play in the Senate
is that we want to pass an unemployment insurance benefit bill for 1.4
million Americans who, on January 1, had their unemployment checks cut
off. Unemployment checks are sent to those Americans who have lost
their job through no fault of their own and who have to prove to us
they are trying to find another one. So while they are looking for a
job, they receive unemployment benefits.
These benefits come from a fund which employers and, in some way
indirectly, employees, pay into while they are working. This insurance
policy is there so that if you lose a job there will be, on average,
$300 a week to keep you and your family together while you look for
your next job. It turns out that on January 1, 1.4 million Americans
saw those checks cut off. In my State of Illinois, that affected 83,000
people.
These are people who have been unemployed for a while and are still
looking for work. They have to because that is what the law requires.
But here is the problem: The average period when someone is out of work
when they lose a job in America is 38 weeks. That is the average. We
cut off benefits at 27 weeks. That means that for 11 weeks a lot of
people out of work get no unemployment benefits. What do they do? They
turn to their friends, to their savings, and then they are out of luck.
They may find themselves unable to make rent payments or mortgage
payments, put food on the table, gas in the car to go look for work or
pay for that cell phone they absolutely positively need if they are
going to find a job.
So we came here and said: That isn't right. We are getting better.
The economy is getting stronger. But the unemployment rate is too high.
The national average is about 6.7 percent. It is over 8 percent in my
State of Illinois, and in some States even higher, unlike the State of
North Dakota, incidentally, which the Presiding Officer lives in and so
doesn't worry about this at the present time. We came in and said:
Let's extend unemployment benefits to these 1.4 million unemployed
people in America so they can get by while they are looking for work.
This isn't a new idea. This is an old idea. It has happened over and
over. In fact, under President Bush we did it five times, and the
unemployment rate was even better than the one we have today. So it
used to be bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans would say: Come on,
give these folks a helping hand. These are workers facing tough times.
We hear from them. They tell us their stories.
I ended up getting an email from a lady. For 34 years she had worked
for the same company. She must be a pretty good employee, right? But
now the company has laid her off and she can't find work. Another
person had 9 years with the same company and lost his job. When he
applies for a job, they look at his resume and say: Wait. You are way
overqualified for this job. If we gave you this job, you would leave
the first chance you get to get a better job. So there he sits, unable
to find a job. He is trying, but he can't.
So these people are asking us: Can you help us keep our families
together while we go through this tough period? And I think we should.
So we want to call this bill to the floor of the Senate and pass it and
extend unemployment benefits for 3 months. I would like to see it for 1
year, but even for 3 months we should extend these unemployment
benefits so folks in this circumstance can get a helping hand.
The Republicans come in and say: No. We object to that. You cannot
extend unemployment benefits unless you pay for them.
Well, that is new. Five times under President Bush they voted for
their President's extension of unemployment benefits and didn't pay for
it. Now they insist we pay for it. I don't like that. I think this is
an emergency expenditure. But we live in a divided Congress, Democrats
and Republicans. We have to find some common ground. So we came up with
a pay-for. We came up with a way to pay for the benefits for this
unemployment.
Then they said: No. We are still going to filibuster. We are still
going to stop it unless you allow us to offer amendments. We have some
ideas we want to bring to the floor and get them to a vote. Yesterday,
the majority leader came to the floor and said: OK. We will give you
amendments, up to 10 amendments on each side, to this unemployment
issue. You pick the amendments. We are not going to pick them. They
said: No. We still object.

[[Page S342]]

So today we sit in the middle of a Republican filibuster stopping
unemployment benefits for 1.4 million Americans. What used to be a
bipartisan effort has now turned into an extremely partisan effort.
That happens too much in this town. It happens too much on Capitol
Hill. But it shouldn't happen at the expense of 1.4 million unemployed
Americans.
That is why this floor is empty today. That is why we are giving
speeches on a lot of different subjects. We are stuck in another
Republican filibuster stopping unemployment benefits. I don't think
that is right or fair. A lot of us believe we ought to extend these
benefits and move on to deal with our economy and putting people to
work, trying to find ways to make sure those who are working get a
decent wage.
These are some of the things we ought to be taking up. But again, we
are stuck in this filibuster, and so that is why I come to the floor to
give a speech on two unrelated issues.

Tobacco

Madam President, there is an issue that is very important to me
personally, but it turns out it is important to a lot of people:
Tobacco. I lost my father to lung cancer. He died when I was 14 years
old. He smoked two packs of Camels a day and developed lung cancer at
the age of 53 and died. I have to tell you it is one of the most
profound events of my life, to be a high school student and to live
through a parent dying slowly of lung cancer. My attitude toward
tobacco and smoking, I am sure, is a product of that.
When I came to Congress, I decided that in some small way I was going
to try to do something about it. I didn't believe I could solve the
problem, but I thought I could help. So over 25 years ago I introduced
a bill in the House of Representatives to ban smoking on airplanes. It
is hard to believe--young people still don't believe it today--there
was a time when half the airplane was smoking and half wasn't smoking.
In fact, everybody was breathing secondhand smoke. We were successful.
We passed the bill in the House of Representatives on a bipartisan
vote. It came over to the Senate, before I was here, and Frank
Lautenberg, the late Senator from New Jersey, took it up and did a
great job, and the two of us together made it the law of the land.
We didn't know what we had done, other than to make airplane flight a
little more convenient, safe, and comfortable. But it turns out it was
a tipping point. It turns out that when we banned smoking on airplanes,
people started asking questions 25 years ago: If it is not a good idea
to smoke on airplanes, why is it a good idea to smoke on trains and
buses and offices and hospitals and schools and restaurants and taverns
and everyplace we go? So today, if you walked into a room and did what
people did normally 25 years ago--pulled out a pack of cigarettes and
lit one up--people would say: Stop. What are you doing? You didn't say
a word to me. You are going to smoke in front of me?
That used to be normal. Thank goodness it isn't any longer. What
happens is Americans have a different attitude toward tobacco. The
actual debate on this issue began 50 years ago--serious debate--because
it was 50 years ago the Surgeon General of the United States of America
issued a landmark report that for the first time conclusively linked
tobacco to lung cancer and heart disease. Remember this: Tobacco is the
No. 1 preventable cause of death in America today, and it has been for
more than half a century.
When this report came out, it was at a time when people smoked in
offices, airplanes, elevators, even in congressional hearings. In 1964,
42 percent of American adults smoked. It is hard to imagine, but until
a few months before the report was released the Surgeon General himself
was a smoker. We have certainly come a long way since that time, and
the Surgeon General's report played a big role in changing America.
Today we expect measures such as warning labels on cigarettes,
keeping cigarette commercials off television, taxes on cigarettes, and
now ``no smoking'' signs almost everywhere. Thanks to these commonsense
tobacco control measures, smoking among U.S. adults in 50 years has
been cut in half. The report released by Surgeon General Luther Terry
in 1964 was a turning point.
We still have a long way to go. Approximately 44 million Americans,
nearly one out of every five, still smokes, and more than 440,000
Americans die each year from tobacco-related causes. Last week the
Journal of the American Medical Association published a study that
showed over the last 50 years about 8 million premature smoking-induced
deaths were avoided thanks to tobacco control measures. However, the
study also noted that despite this progress, more than 17 million
Americans died prematurely from tobacco over the last 50 years.
According to the Surgeon General's report, released in March 2012,
tobacco use among kids is a pediatric epidemic and is the No. 1 cause
of preventable and premature death in America. The report also found
that every day 700 young people become new regular smokers, and of
these new smokers one-third will eventually die from it.
We have young people who come and visit us in our offices, in the
Senate galleries, and other places. These young people are the targets
of tobacco companies. If they can get a kid to start smoking at an
early age, before they have the maturity to understand the seriousness
of that decision, they become addicted. Nicotine is an addictive drug
and it is in tobacco and so they are picking up new customers by
recruiting kids.
I have yet to meet the first parent anywhere, any time, anyplace who
has said to me: I have great news for you, Senator. My daughter came
home from school and she started smoking. I have never heard that. I
don't think I ever will because we know intuitively it is a terrible
thing and it could affect that young person's great young life.
The tobacco industry gets it. Our Nation pays the financial burden of
tobacco use through $96 billion in annual medical costs, $97 billion in
lost productivity of workers and, at the same time, these tobacco
companies invent new ways to lure in these young customers and to
entice people to buy their products.
Ninety percent of adult smokers began smoking before they graduated
from high school--they were just teenage kids--which is why the tobacco
companies continue to prey on children. They push products such as e-
cigarettes. They just had the Golden Globe Awards, and some of these
red-hot actors and actresses, whom we all love to watch in movies--
Leonardo DiCaprio and others--were sitting there puffing away on their
e-cigarettes. I looked at that and thought: You are killing the next
generation of fans of your movies.
We have to bring an end to this. E-cigarettes--available in shopping
malls--that release appealing fruit- and candy-flavored vapors so it is
more of a candy experience than a tobacco experience is one of the new
tactics. Unfortunately, it is working. Earlier this year, the Centers
for Disease Control released new data showing the use of e-cigarettes
among the Nation's kids is rising.
The report raises concerns that for young people, e-cigarettes could
be a gateway to traditional cigarettes. More than 3.6 million kids
under the age of 18 currently are smokers, and each day more than 3,500
kids try smoking a cigar or cigarette for the first time.
This graph I have shows how far we have come in reducing the use of
cigarettes but also how much we have left to do. Between 2000 and 2011,
the consumption of cigarettes in the United States decreased 33
percent--by one-third. During the same time, the use of loose tobacco
and cigars increased 123 percent. Cigar smokers--why in the heck would
a kid want to smoke a cigar? Because it is similar to smoking a candy
bar. They flavor these cigars with cherry flavoring, sweet chocolate or
grapes, and they are trying to get kids to start smoking.
Over the past 50 years we have seen the growing popularity of these
candy-flavored tobacco products such as smokeless tobacco, e-
cigarettes, and nicotine candies that look like breath mints. All these
products are geared to luring the young into this addiction.
I have called on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expand and
assert its authority over tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and
flavored cigars. Unlike traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes are not
subject to Federal age verification laws. Kids can legally buy them in
most places across

[[Page S343]]

America. Although we do know that most e-cigarettes contain nicotine,
we don't know what else is in them. Without FDA regulation, we will
not.
This Congress Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut joined me in
introducing the Tobacco Tax Parity Act, a bill that closes the
loopholes in how tobacco products are defined and taxed. It will end
the exploitation of these loopholes by tobacco companies. It means
taxing the roll-your-own loose tobacco we talked about and pipe tobacco
at the same level. It means raising the tax on a container of smokeless
tobacco from today's 11 cents to $1, the same as a pack of cigarettes.
I would like to show this as well. This is a story about Sharon, a
52-year-old woman from my home State of Illinois. Sharon started
smoking at the age of 13. She said it seemed as though everybody was
doing it. After her first puff, she quickly went from being a casual
user to a full-blown addict with an expensive tobacco habit. When
Sharon reached the age of 37--37--she was diagnosed with stage IV
throat cancer. Thankfully, radiation and surgery saved her life, but
she had to have her voice box removed and now speaks through an
electrolarynx.
Last year Sharon was courageous enough to allow her story to be used
as part of the Centers for Disease Control's 12-week antismoking
campaign, a federally funded national antitobacco campaign with hard-
hitting ads. It sounds like a pretty good effort by the government. But
compared to the $10 billion a year the tobacco industry spends on
marketing, the CDC campaign spent only $50 million; the tobacco
industry, $10 billion.
CDC expects the campaign to help 50,000 people quit. One of those who
called in to the quit line at CDC was a woman named Kim in Rockford,
IL. She was watching an ad which showed the devastating effect on
smoking on a North Carolina woman named Terrie. Kim said the commercial
scared her, and that her son turned to her and said: Mom, you have just
got to quit smoking. Kim called the Illinois tobacco quit line run by
the American Lung Association and was connected to the nicotine
replacement-patch program.
CDC's anti-smoking campaign is one of the many tobacco control and
prevention measures that saves lives and shows we must continue
investing in effective tobacco control measures.
This is a tough habit to break. One of my best friends in politics
happens to be the President of the United States, who used to be a
smoker. He is not now, thank goodness. His family is thankful and we
are all thankful. But he still takes a little nicotine gum to chew from
time to time to deal with the craving that is there. It is tough. But
if people work hard, they can get it done.
This week we commemorate the importance of the first Surgeon
General's Report on Smoking and Health and many other legal and
cultural changes in this country. But as we look around at the
proliferation of new and dangerous products luring kids to tobacco, we
still have a lot of work to do. With the right commitment, we can spare
future generations from this deadly epidemic of tobacco use.
I yield the floor.

____________________