[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.

                          ____________________