[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 648-665]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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


                      American Opportunity Agenda

  Mr. SCOTT. Madam President, when I was growing up, my now 93-year-old 
granddaddy would hold the newspaper and read it while he drank his 
coffee. Every morning it seemed he was always focused on reading the 
paper. He looked like an executive, a doctor or an attorney, always 
making sure his grandsons saw him reading.
  I learned several years later that my granddaddy couldn't read, but 
he was wise enough to model the behavior that he wanted his grandsons 
to follow. The circumstances of his life forced him out of the 
classroom at a very young age and into the cotton fields to help 
support his family. But granddaddy has now lived long enough to see a 
grandson elected to Congress and another grandson earn the rank of 
command sergeant major in the U.S. Army. Only 1 percent of NCOs reach 
that rank.
  In a single lifetime, families can go from not having a fair chance 
to learn to read to seeing their kids graduate from college, as my 
grandfather has seen two of his grandsons graduate. That is the power 
of America. That is the power of opportunity.
  Over the last several months, I have spent many hours talking and 
working with people from every walk of life, beginning when I was 
bagging groceries at the local Piggly Wiggly or waiting tables at the 
California Dreaming or 2 weeks ago when I took a ride on the public bus 
just to have an opportunity to sit back and talk with everyday 
Americans about their hopes, their dreams, and their fears or, last 
weekend, as I swept floors at the local Moe's restaurant. What I have 
heard is that people in America and throughout South Carolina are 
hungry for opportunity. They are working hard, but still they are 
struggling.
  People want to work. They want to get ahead, and they still want a 
better life for their children and their grandchildren. So the 
questions for those of us in government are simple: Are we a part of 
the problem or are we a part of the solution? Do we make things more 
difficult or are we an ally in this struggle to get ahead? Are we 
trying the same tactics and getting the same results?
  It has been said several times that insanity is doing the same things 
the same ways and hoping for different results. After a nearly 50-year 
government-led war on poverty, the poverty rates are increasing. Were 
this a military conflict, we would have changed our strategy decades 
ago, but somehow we fail to learn and continue to believe that next 
year it will be different. It has not been different in nearly half a 
century.
  I propose a new way forward--a new way forward so a little girl can 
rise from the depths of poverty and become the CEO of a Fortune 500 
company, a new way forward that will create a place where young men 
raised in a single-parent household and living in the inner city 
housing projects can become a world-renowned surgeon, a new way forward 
so an intelligent young lady living in rural South Carolina who ages 
out of the foster care program can still afford a college education. I 
propose a new way forward, and our opportunity agenda does just that.
  We will help to turn neglected neighborhoods ravished by poverty into 
centers of excellence. We will see that these amazing centers of 
excellence will become economic engines because of the creativity of 
the people living in the neighborhoods. We will see economic activity 
in a place that we once thought not possible.
  Today, too many Americans are trapped in low-paying jobs because they 
lack the skills to improve their incomes. These folks are not asking 
for a handout; they are asking for a hand up. Every day Americans are 
struggling, working hard, looking for a way to change their destiny.
  That is why we have introduced the SKILLS Act. With nearly 4 million 
jobs vacant in America today, we believe the skills gap can be covered 
because of the SKILLS Act.
  Our second bill we have filed is called the CHOICE Act, Creating Hope 
and Opportunity for Individuals and Communities through Education. One 
of the opportunities we see within the CHOICE Act is for those kids who 
have special needs to have the opportunity to make their education 
dollars portable. I believe every single American deserves the 
opportunity to realize their full potential, but too many of

[[Page 649]]

these young kids--bright kids with special needs--do not receive the 
education that is best for them. So the CHOICE Act provides their 
parents with portability so they can choose the school that best fits 
the needs of their kids.
  The American Opportunity Agenda encourages each of us to reach our 
full potential. In the coming months we will introduce legislation that 
encourages reform of our welfare programs. We will fight to change our 
Tax Code so small businesses can hire more people and not simply pay 
higher taxes. Finally, we will work with anyone, anywhere, at any time 
to reduce the regulatory burdens that stand in the way and close the 
doors of opportunity.
  Last week we submitted an amendment that restores a 40-hour workweek 
that was destroyed in ObamaCare. The effort to restore the 40-hour 
workweek has been led by my colleague, the Senator from Maine Susan 
Collins, who understands the devastation caused by ObamaCare, where 
more than 20 million Americans face the loss of up to 25 percent of 
their income when they move from 40 hours a week to less than 30 hours 
a week. I applaud my colleague and others for standing strong and 
standing tall to make sure we have a serious debate about the income 
inequality that is caused by ObamaCare. The effort to restore the 40-
hour workweek should be something we all champion, realizing its 
massive impact on our economy.
  I have lived a family's journey from cotton to Congress. I know the 
sense of empowerment and optimism it provides. Once the standard is set 
in a family, as my grandfather set it in our family, and once the 
standard is set in a community or a State, the generations to come will 
set even higher expectations for themselves because success is created 
almost anywhere in America today. It happens in studio apartments, at 
kitchen tables; it happens in garages and classrooms throughout 
America, but it doesn't often happen in government conference rooms in 
Washington. I believe, and I have experienced, that with a good 
education, strong work skills, and the help of our Heavenly Father, all 
things are truly possible.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. COONS. Madam President, today, this week, we have come together 
to consider an omnibus appropriations bill. That is a big mouthful--an 
omnibus appropriations bill--but I hope to lay out in plain language 
for our folks back home and for those in this Chamber why that matters, 
why I am excited about it, and why I support it.
  This is first time since I joined this body 3 years ago that we have 
considered one, and it is a real step forward. The agreement we came to 
on the budget and the agreement I hope we will pass on this 
appropriations bill means no more shutdowns, no more crises, no more 
autopilot, at least not for this fiscal year. This bill helps us return 
to regular order and to the process that, once election day is over, it 
is our job as the representatives of the people, elected to come 
together to find common ground, to solve bigger problems together, and 
to move the Nation forward.
  This appropriations bill is the result of a lot of hard work by 
Members and staff. I must begin first and foremost by thanking the 
Senate Appropriations Committee chair, Senator Mikulski, and the vice 
chair, Senator Shelby, as well as the House chairman Rogers, and the 
ranking member, Congresswoman Lowey, who showed great leadership and 
worked together on a very tight deadline to craft such a vast and 
comprehensive bill. Their work follows on the leadership of Senator 
Murray, chair of the Senate Budget Committee, and Congressman Ryan, of 
the House Budget Committee, after they came together on a bipartisan 
budget that paved the way for the Appropriations Committee to reach 
this deal this week.
  I applaud their leadership and thank them for the example they have 
set. As a member of both the Budget Committee and the Appropriations 
Committee, it has been a privilege to work with them to craft these 
bills and ensure we meet our Nation's needs.
  The bill before us is, of course, a compromise. It is the essence of 
a compromise that it is not perfect by any means. There are many who 
can find fault within it or disappointments aplenty among choices made 
or not made. It doesn't include--for example, to pick one thing of 
great importance to my State--enough funding to make real headway on 
Amtrak's critical infrastructure improvements that I think are 
essential--just in dealing with the $6 billion backlog of investments 
needed in aging tunnels, bridges, and tracks.
  So while this bill does provide adequate funding for Amtrak today, 
which I am very pleased about, it puts off those critically needed 
investments in repairing these essential elements of its 
infrastructure, which we will inevitably need to make. That is only one 
example, and in a bill this big there are hundreds, maybe even 
thousands, of the tough tradeoffs that had to be made between House and 
Senate, between the appropriators, and between the majority and the 
minority.
  But as we consider our vote on this bill and how it does or doesn't 
meet our own priorities or our State's priorities, we can't let the 
perfect be the enemy of the good. We need to remember that at least in 
this case the alternative to this bill isn't our own individual or 
perfect vision of government--whatever view we might hold. The 
alternative is crisis after crisis, government that doesn't move 
forward with the country but treads water as the world passes us by in 
an increasingly competitive global environment.
  What this bill does in a very real way is bring back some stability 
to our government, to our economy, and it allows us to make important 
investments in our country's growth. For instance, it takes a number of 
valuable steps for my home State of Delaware.
  It funds meat and poultry inspectors, critical to Delaware's chicken 
industry and its 13,000 jobs. It funds the next stage of an Army Corps 
of Engineers project to deepen the Delaware River from 40 to 45 feet so 
that we are ready and can be competitive when the expansion of the 
Panama Canal nears completion.
  It dedicates funding through the Victims of Child Abuse Act--and I am 
an original cosponsor of a bill reauthorizing the Victims of Child 
Abuse Act--for the three children's advocacy centers throughout my 
State. These centers are critical to delivering justice for the victims 
of child abuse without harming their healing process.
  The bill maintains funding for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership, an 
initiative that has supplied Delaware police officers with nearly 1,000 
bulletproof vests in the past 2 years. Two of those vests, I should 
add, saved the lives of two officers during a shooting at the New 
Castle County Courthouse only last spring.
  These are only a few of the things for which I am grateful in this 
broad omnibus bill. Nationally, it also allows us to meet our key 
priorities of training our workforce for this century, making our 
communities safer, building a circle of protection around the most 
vulnerable in our society, and, in combination, making us safer, 
stronger, and more just.
  The investments it makes in America's workforce by funding education 
programs can last a lifetime. Head Start Programs ensure kids don't 
fall behind before they have even had a chance. This bill increases 
that funding by $1 billion to serve 90,000 more kids this year.
  There is a competitive grant program to help States and communities 
find innovative ways to provide high quality preschool options for low- 
and middle-income families that I am particularly excited about.
  In Delaware, we saw the power of this program when we competed for--
and

[[Page 650]]

won--Federal funding on a competitive basis for high-quality early 
education only last year.
  The Department of Education's first in the world initiative will help 
colleges to measure--and thus improve--outcomes, and it brings down 
costs for students and families. This bill increased our investment in 
job training programs such as Job Corps and the Veterans' Employment 
and Training Service, which help everyone from low-income Americans who 
failed to get on their feet in the job market to veterans who stood for 
us around the world and have earned our support upon their return.
  Next, this bill includes crucial funding that makes our communities 
safer. We are upping our investment in the COPS program--first 
championed on this floor by my predecessor Senator Joe Biden. It will 
put 1,500 more officers on our streets and in our neighborhoods, 
keeping us safe.
  The Violence Against Women Act, which we came together in a 
bipartisan manner to pass last year, is fully funded. We are taking 
important steps to stop the scourge of gun violence that affects each 
and every community: a new comprehensive school safety program I am 
excited about, new investments to improve background checks, and new 
training to help local law enforcement react and protect the public 
from active shooters.
  Of course, the second part of making our communities safer is 
ensuring that justice is delivered in our courts when crime does 
happen. Unfortunately, the sequester's cuts to our Federal courts cut 
the judiciary to the bone, imposing furloughs, and hurting our Nation's 
justice system by leading to layoffs of hundreds of experienced, 
seasoned, senior court staff. Yet, thankfully, the bill before us 
reverses these and many other cuts and will minimize the delays of 
justice that resulted and that are unacceptable to our Nation.
  Finally, this bill allows us to build and sustain what I like to call 
a circle of protection around the most vulnerable in our society that 
reflects our shared commitment to each other. Our most basic values: 
Investments in the WIC Program, for women, infants, and children, will 
make sure 87,000 more mothers and children will have the food they need 
at a vital early stage of development. LIHEAP--or the Low-Income 
Heating and Energy Assistance Program--ensures that low-income families 
don't freeze during the coldest months of the year, and this bill's 
funding increases will ensure 400,000 more houses have this critical 
assistance. And lastly, when we pass this bill, which I pray we will by 
week's end, we will reverse the sequester's devastating cuts to housing 
programs and, as a result, prevent more than 100,000 American families 
from becoming homeless.
  Each of these investments in our workforce, in our public safety, and 
in protection for our most vulnerable, together make up the foundation 
of a safer, a more just, and a more inclusive society. But when we also 
combine them with investments in research and innovation and 
infrastructure, we lay the groundwork for growth and shared prosperity 
today and tomorrow.
  After the last 3 years, which in my experience have been mostly 
defined by bipartisan gridlock--stopgap budgets, crisis governance--
this bipartisan Appropriations bill allows us to create some stability 
for our Nation and our economy. I think it reminds us we are a nation 
that is at its best when we are determined to be open to each other's 
ideas, to hear each other's concerns and criticisms, and to find ways 
to work together.
  Although there are plenty of areas where I disagree with my 
Republican colleagues, as I have gotten to know them over the past 3 
years we have found many more areas of common good and common work. Let 
me briefly mention a few of them as I celebrate what I think is the 
most important aspect of this bill, which is that it is truly 
bipartisan.
  Senator Marco Rubio and I were both elected in 2010 and came to this 
Chamber at roughly the same time, and we found ways to work together to 
invest in STEM education and to open pathways to college for young 
Americans. Senator Hatch and I wrote a bill together called I-Squared--
and we are joined by Senators Klobuchar and Rubio--and this is a bill 
that helps bring high-skilled workers to our shores and helps invest in 
STEM education for American citizens. Senator Kirk and I have worked 
together to create a national manufacturing strategy that focuses our 
energy and resources on creating manufacturing jobs in America. And 
just this Monday Senator Roberts of Kansas and I announced our 
partnership on a new bill to make the research and development tax 
credit and its funding available to startups and to young innovative 
companies.
  There are so many issues where we can work together to invest in our 
workforce, to protect the public, to sustain this storied circle of 
protection around the most vulnerable, to invest in long-term economic 
growth, and to lift up every community and every American.
  I am incredibly thankful for the leadership of Senators Mikulski and 
Shelby and the way they displayed that leadership with action through 
this process, by putting aside their differences and finding common 
ground. I wish to also close with a note of personal thanks to the 
countless committee staff on both sides who worked tirelessly 
throughout the holidays to make this bill a reality. With this Omnibus 
appropriations bill it is my sincere hope we are putting an end to a 
cycle of manufactured crises and we are sending to the American people 
and to our markets and to our communities the message that we can and 
will work together to confront the many challenges that remain here and 
in the future.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I came to the floor to spend some time 
on the unemployment insurance, but I have to comment, after hearing my 
colleague mention his esteemed favor of the bill that will be in front 
of us, I have to say my perspective is totally different.
  We have a 1,500-page bill that nobody has read, other than my staff, 
and we have read it completely and outlined it completely. We have a 
bill that is dishonest, because you still have changes in mandatory 
funding and programs and you create $17.9 billion out of nothing, which 
everybody on the Appropriations Committee knows allows you to spend 
$17.9 billion but not pay for, and you transfer that sleight of hand to 
our children.
  But it doesn't seem to bother anybody on the Appropriations Committee 
that we actually lie to the American public about how much we are 
actually going to spend. The bill actually spends about $63 billion, 
the way you have written it, more than we did last year--about 6\1/2\ 
or 7 percent. The bill is loaded with parochial benefits, which is the 
pleasure of the appropriators, I understand, but it doesn't pass muster 
in terms of no earmarks.
  But there is one point that I agree with. This has been an agreement 
between Republicans and Democrats to bring the bill to the floor. And 
it will pass because it is an agreement, because people did work 
together. Whether I like it or not, they worked together and came to a 
conclusion. The only problem is there are going to be no amendments, so 
no way to be honest with the American people on this $17.9 billion that 
is supposedly paid but isn't. It is truly an untruth. It is dishonest. 
It has no integrity with it whatsoever. It undermines every Senator up 
here who is going to vote for this bill because you say one thing and 
you are going to do exactly the opposite.
  I was just given a poll as of today. The No. 1 problem Americans see 
in our country is us--the U.S. Government. Twenty-one percent of the 
people in this country identify us as the problem. Is it any wonder, 
when we tell them we are going to do X and then we don't do X? For 
example: We had a budget agreement, and then we changed the budget 
agreement because we couldn't live within our means and

[[Page 651]]

we wouldn't raise the revenue to be able to do that. Then we come to a 
new budget agreement that is much higher--don't honor the previous 
budget agreement. Then we put an appropriations bill on the floor that 
is going to fund all the Federal Government until September 30 and 
nobody has totally read it. They pick out the things they like in it 
and then talk about it. Is it any wonder why 21 percent of the people 
think the Congress, politicians, poor leadership, corruption, and abuse 
of power in Washington are the No. 1 problem with our country?
  You know what. They are right. It is an abuse of power to vote for a 
bill that you know spends $18 billion--$17.9 billion--more than what 
you are telling the American people it is going to spend. You do it 
through sleight of hand, and you pass muster with the powers that be, 
but it is not honest with the American public. So we are going to do it 
again. We are not going to have a government shutdown, everybody is 
going to get to go home on break and spend a week away from here and 
say: Oh, look at us, we are not at loggerheads anymore.
  The only reason we are at loggerheads is because we have abandoned 
the process of the Senate through the majority leader who does not 
allow the Senate to force consensus. For the life of me, I don't 
understand why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle accept it. 
They get no amendments either. So we have 1 person out of 100 who 
decides what amendments will be acceptable and what will not.
  Jefferson has to be spinning in his grave because he wrote the 
original rules for the Senate. It had nothing to do with one person 
deciding. As a matter of fact, until 1917, one person stopped 
everything in the Senate if they didn't have consensus. So the whole 
goal was to trade what you would like to do to give somebody else the 
ability to do that. When we have a czar running the Senate, we no 
longer have that ability. The whole purpose for having a bicameral 
legislature, with a minority rights provision protecting it, was so we 
would generate consensus so that their views could then be sold to the 
American public.
  This isn't about me being able to offer an amendment. This is about 
the 4 million people in Oklahoma not having a say in the Senate. I 
mean, there are some bright people in Oklahoma who have some good 
ideas. But those ideas cannot be heard in this body anymore. They are 
not my ideas. It is not my vote. It is their vote. And yet 54 of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle acquiesced their right for 
their States to offer their State's ideas as we debate issues in this 
body. They give that away and say one person gets to decide. It has 
never been that way in the Senate--never before.
  The prime example of that is the unemployment bill. If this were 
really a priority for the majority leader, why are we doing it now 
instead of before it expired? All the weeks of time in quorum calls in 
the Senate we could have been doing this. It wasn't a priority. It is a 
political priority.
  I actually think we ought to extend the unemployment insurance, but I 
think we ought to do it in a smarter way, and I certainly think we 
ought to pay for it. I can sit and show $9 trillion of waste and 
spending reductions that 80 percent of average Americans would agree 
with. Yet we can't find $20-some billion out of all this mess of a 
Federal Government to help people who are not employed.
  My colleague from Delaware mentioned job training. The only thing 
that has happened based on the GAO reports of this government on 
duplication is that the House took it to heart and they took the job 
training programs and they converted the 47 job training programs, 
spending almost $30 billion a year, and they passed the SKILLS Act, 
which consolidated those into 6 programs that actually have metrics.
  When you study our job training programs, regardless of whether we 
fund them, here is what you find. All but three of them duplicate one 
another--all but three--and not one of them has a metric on whether 
they are actually training people to do a job, giving them a life 
skill. So the House passes that bill and we won't even take it up. You 
save money and you actually improve what the Federal Government is 
trying to do in terms of that. So if we were to expand unemployment 
insurance or continue the emergency in the sixth year, might we not 
want to do something about the quality of the jobs programs that are 
available for the people who are on unemployment? Might we also not 
want to give people back their dignity by having them do something in 
their community for the earning of that?
  There have been no tax dollars paid by any worker for this program. 
They didn't contribute anything to it through their past unemployment 
or FICA fees. Would we not do better if we did what Norway has done, 
where they show that people will start hunting for a job earlier if you 
plus up the benefits early and taper the benefits later so that they 
start looking for a job long before they run out of benefits? What the 
studies actually show, especially the three States that have now been 
disqualified from this, is their employment numbers went up, their 
unemployment went down, and the number of people needing assistance 
actually went down as well.
  So it is one thing to say we want to help people; it is totally 
different when it is all in a political contest about the next 
election.
  That brings me to my final point. I believe children need to have a 
good start toward school. But as the Senator from Delaware just 
mentioned, we are going to add $1 billion to Head Start, and that is 
going to give us 90,000 new kids in Head Start. If anybody does the 
math on that, $11,000 per year for a Head Start Program? Think about 
that. Give the money to the States and let them run it themselves 
outside of the Federal Government and they will do it for $4,000 or 
$5,000. Because it is a Federal program, it costs twice what it should. 
Or if you did it through the States, you could do $180,000 versus what 
we are doing.
  So we are going to have a debate. Hopefully we will get back to the 
unemployment insurance. But if we want to have that debate, it has to 
be paid for. We owe that to the very people we say we want to help. 
And, No. 2, you have to have the input of everybody, not just one 
person in the Senate.
  I will finish up by saying this: When you see this poll, where 21 
percent of the country thinks the biggest problem in the country is us, 
the government--the corruption, the abuse of power, and the poor 
leadership are the specific things that were mentioned in this poll--
what we ought to do is look inside and ask ourselves: Why is that?
  That is because we concentrate on the political and not on the 
people. We use them as pawns to advantage our own political careers, 
our own elections, and the long-term best interests of the country get 
sacrificed. What this poll shows is the American people are pretty 
darned smart, because they see the problem, they know what it is, and 
they know what is going to happen.
  So we are going to pass a bill that is going to spend over $1 
trillion, with all sorts of favors in there--not truly earmarks, but as 
close to them as you can come--with new programs by the appropriators 
instead of the authorizing committee. That is the other thing in this 
bill, programs written by the Appropriations Committee instead of the 
authorizing committee. We are going to pass this bill, and this number 
is going to jump from 21 percent to 25 percent.
  The jig is up. We can no longer come down here and say with honesty: 
Here is what we are doing. Because what we are doing is not honest. And 
what the American people are saying with this is: Integrity matters, 
straightforwardness matters, truth in budgeting and spending matters.
  At least if we are going to do this, let's own up to what we are 
doing. Let's not be dishonest with the American public about the 
numbers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to start by thanking my friend, 
the distinguished Senator from Maryland, as well as her counterpart in 
the House, Chairman Rogers. They have shown

[[Page 652]]

great leadership in working across the aisle to accomplish this mammoth 
task we had given them on a very tight timeline, and I appreciate their 
efforts.
  I am here today to talk about why it is important we pass this 
Omnibus appropriations bill and continue to build on the bipartisan 
steps we have taken so far.
  Last week I spoke at a press conference on youth unemployment with a 
young man who was present. His name was James. Listening to James, it 
was pretty clear he was hard-working and ambitious. But he explained to 
me, as old as he is, in his twenties, he is still living at home with 
his parents because despite a lot of searching he has not been able to 
find a job.
  What was clear to me from James' story and from a lot of others 
across the country is that even though the economy has made progress, 
far too many Americans still aren't feeling the benefits. Too many of 
them are working more hours and earning less or wondering whether they 
can afford to send their kids to college or worrying that they won't be 
able to save enough to retire. Those are the kinds of problems we need 
to be thinking about here and solving.
  I hope our work this session, this year, will be entirely focused on 
doing everything we can to create more jobs and more opportunities for 
all Americans, especially those who are struggling in what is still a 
very tough economy. There is a lot we need to get done. If one lesson 
came out of the constant crises last year, it is that in a divided 
government the only way to get things done is through compromise and 
bipartisanship.
  The budget deal Chairman Ryan and I worked together on and reached is 
a good example. It wasn't the bill I would have written on my own. It 
wasn't the bill Chairman Ryan would have written on his own either. But 
after hearing from families and communities in my home State of 
Washington, I knew we needed to do more to restore the critical 
investments that were being lost as a result of sequestration, and we 
needed to break out of the constant crises which have caused so much 
gridlock and dysfunction over the last several years. So I worked with 
Chairman Ryan to reach a compromise. I am pleased that our agreement 
rolled back some of those automatic across-the-board cuts to priorities 
important to all of us, such as education, infrastructure, and 
research. We did that in a balanced way, without relying on spending 
cuts alone.
  Importantly, in reaching that deal we were able to lay some 
groundwork so Chairman Mikulski and Chairman Rogers could move forward 
on the important work of funding the government. Families and 
communities across the country will be better off as the result of 
their leadership. Their legislation invests in starting our children 
off strongly by expanding access to early Head Start for infants and 
families. It expands access to Pell grants to help more of our young 
adults today afford higher education. It supports other important 
priorities such as medical research, which help create jobs and spur 
innovation.
  In my home State of Washington, I know all of these investments, as 
well as others, such as funding for the Columbia River Crossing 
Project, for repairs and improvements at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, are 
going to make a huge difference.
  I wish to spend a few moments as chair of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development to talk about some of the 
important parts of that bill within this Omnibus.
  That bill addresses critical challenges on everything from 
homelessness, affordable housing, to traffic congestion, and 
transportation safety. This bill represents a very firm commitment to 
providing housing and supporting services to families in need. It 
actually increases funding for the section 8 program which provides 
housing for our low-income families in this country. If funding had 
remained at the sequester level, more than 100,000 families today would 
be at risk of losing that assistance and becoming homeless. Under our 
bill, that will not happen.
  I am also very proud that the bill includes $75 million for vouchers 
for the joint HUD-Veterans Affairs supportive housing program. As a 
result of that funding, an additional 10,000 homeless veterans and 
their families will have access to housing and supportive services.
  Our housing and transportation bill prioritizes job creation and 
economic growth by investing in transportation. It includes $600 
million in TIGER funding, which supports projects that improve 
transportation safety and reduce traffic congestion. That, by the way, 
is in addition to the $41 billion in much-needed funding to repair our 
Nation's roads and bridges.
  But our bill isn't just about roads and bridges. Americans are 
increasingly relying on public transit, so I am especially pleased our 
bill provides more than $10.7 billion to support our public transit 
system.
  Also, last year across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration 
forced the Federal Aviation Administration to enact a hiring freeze, 
which meant when employees such as our air traffic controllers left the 
agency, no one was hired to replace them. So our bipartisan bill 
ensures the FAA has the resources it needs to end that hiring freeze 
and hire and train new employees who can help our air travel be safe. 
This bill fully funds the Essential Air Service and contract tower 
programs on which so many of our communities depend.
  We also include reforms to improve the programs we fund--for example, 
important section 8 reforms to reduce costs and create efficiencies.
  In short, I am very pleased with what my colleagues and I in the 
Senate and House have been able to accomplish together on housing and 
transportation investments in this bill. I wish to take a moment and 
especially thank my colleague on the Senate transportation and housing 
appropriations bill, Senator Collins, for all of her great work and 
support during this entire process.
  I am very proud to be part of the tireless effort of Chairwoman 
Mikulski. She has worked very hard to make sure we have a full 
appropriations bill and act considered, and not just another continuing 
resolution.
  Just like Chairman Ryan and I said when we finished our deal, I am 
pretty sure Chairwoman Mikulski and Chairman Rogers would each agree 
this package is not perfect. Each of them probably would have done 
certainly different things on their own. But because they were willing 
to compromise, they are delivering far more for the American people 
than either could have done if they had refused to work together.
  If this legislation is passed into law--which I strongly believe it 
will be--we will have a choice to make: We can build on the bipartisan 
work which has been done so far and continue reaching agreements 
through compromises, as people across this country do every day, or we 
can see more of the all-or-nothing approach which caused so much damage 
last year.
  I was in fact really disappointed that yesterday my colleagues 
rejected a good-faith offer to provide relief to workers and families 
who are still struggling in this country to get back on their feet, 
even after Democrats time and time again offered compromises to try to 
get a deal. We tried hard to reach a fair agreement that both sides 
could support, and we are going to keep trying. I hope today our 
Republican colleagues will think of the many families out there who 
need this lifeline and look at the great bipartisan work done on the 
appropriations bill, and I hope they will reconsider their return to 
all-or-nothing political tactics.
  I know there are fundamental differences here between the two 
parties. I know compromise is never easy. But we can't afford to let 
those challenges get in the way of delivering for the families and 
communities we serve. And we don't have to. The legislation Chairwoman 
Mikulski and Chairman Rogers just completed is proof that there is a 
much better way to get things done. If both sides are willing to 
continue to make some tough choices, there is much more we can do 
together to create jobs, strengthen the recovery,

[[Page 653]]

and build the foundation for stronger, broader growth in the future.
  I thank Chairwoman Mikulski and Chairman Rogers again for their 
leadership. I hope we can all build on their bipartisan step forward by 
choosing to work together, and find opportunities for compromise and 
continue to deliver for the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                              Health Care

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I wish to stress the problems and 
impact the President's legacy program, the Affordable Care Act--known 
as ObamaCare--is having on Kansans and, for that matter, patients and 
people all over the country.
  I know some of this has been repeated over and over. The problem is, 
it seems the administration continues to turn a blind eye, 
unfortunately, to some very egregious problems which plague the 
President's legacy program. Perhaps the title of my remarks should be 
``Promises Made and Promises Not Kept.''
  When I travel home to Kansas and talk to people involved in the rural 
and urban health care delivery system, folks who came to the townhall 
meetings because they were worried and concerned about ObamaCare to 
begin with, that concern turned to frustration, then it turned to fear, 
and now it switched back into anger. They have said: What on Earth can 
we do to solve some of these problems and these challenges which are 
directly affecting people in such an egregious way?
  I think everybody now understands the rollout of the health care 
exchanges was a debacle. I think that is the favorite word of the 
people writing and providing news about this. But the point is the 
administration has failed to hold anyone at the Department of Health 
and Human Services accountable for the complete failure of the 
exchange, the waste of taxpayer dollars, and the confusion and 
headaches this has caused. I know the only one who has been held 
accountable--or terminated, if you will, fired--was the current 
contractor and they have hired a new contractor. There is news--which 
we would have to confirm--that the new contractor was recently fired by 
the National Health Service in Great Britain for being $2 billion over 
on the contract. That doesn't bode well if we are going to actually fix 
this Web site.
  At the time of the rollout, the refrain was that ObamaCare is 
certainly more than a Web site. Similar to Nancy Pelosi's words prior 
to passage, we were all told: Just wait and see. That is still what the 
refrain is, with the presumption that things are going to work out, it 
will just take time, for the American people.
  Unfortunately, what I and many of my colleagues have said is coming 
true and a lot of people back in Kansas have told me is coming true in 
what they are going through, and it is the polar opposite of what was 
promised by this President. Again, promises made, promises not kept.
  Estimates are that over 5 million people have received cancellation 
of their health care policies and that is just in the 35 States for 
which we have estimates. So much for the promise, ``if you like your 
plan, you can keep it,'' which has been highly publicized.
  The President proposed a so-called fix to this problem, which caused 
insurance companies to scramble to delay things until after the midterm 
election, and the only person in America for whom this was convenient 
was the President. It is still not working.
  What about the promise of less cost? A specific promise made by the 
President, of those people forced into the exchanges we continue to get 
reports--firsthand reports, I know, to everybody in the Senate and the 
House as well--reports that have received a lot of coverage with regard 
to the news media that the premiums are going up, not down, as promised 
by the President. There are reports of ObamaCare more than doubling 
people's costs and increasing deductibles by sevenfold. I am not sure 
that is the average, but that at least is a high one with regard to 
some of the reports that are still coming in, obviously becoming then 
more than people can afford.
  It is no surprise that only 2.2 million have signed up, and 2 to 1 on 
that goes to Medicaid as opposed to the new program, so one can see 
where we are headed with regard to Medicaid and some of the challenges 
there. That is according to the recent estimates of the Department of 
Health and Human Services. That is far below what was expected.
  Of those enrollees, only one-quarter of them are young and healthy 
individuals, and that is a problem. Without younger and healthier 
people in the exchanges to offset costs, we can only expect premiums to 
rise even higher. Once people are enrolled that is not the end of their 
problems, however. Some folks in Kansas are reporting that when they go 
to the doctor, they only then discover they do not have the insurance 
they thought they purchased. Some have had to cancel planned 
appointments with their doctors because their exchange coverage was not 
in order or could not be confirmed. In some of the worst cases, 
patients in the emergency room were forced between getting care they 
desperately needed or leaving to avoid high costs when their coverage 
could not be verified. That is exactly opposite of what the President 
promised--again, promises made and promises not kept.
  Emergency rooms will face more problems in the future. Recent studies 
have shown that instead of reducing emergency room utilization as the 
President promised, which has been identified as a crowning 
achievement, people with coverage are actually accessing the emergency 
room more than their uninsured counterparts.
  Some weeks ago I spoke about one of my favorite topics, in that as a 
member of the HELP Committee and the Finance Committee, the amendments 
that I had dealt with rationing and the worry of rationing with regard 
to the Affordable Health Care Act or at that time what was called 
PPACA, now referred to as ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act, 
depending on which side you are on.
  These rationing boards represent some of the more frightening aspects 
of the law. I have always referred to them as the four rationers. I 
think a colleague of mine, who is an expert on health care, actually 
said they are the ``Four Horsemen of the ObamaCare Apocalypse.''
  Let me go down these four rationers. It gets involved, but patients 
and people worried about their health care coverage have every reason 
to worry about them.
  First is the CMS Innovation Center. We know what that stands for, the 
CMS Innovation Center. That allows CMS to use taxpayer dollars to 
invest in ways to reduce patient access to care that they may want. 
What this means for patients is the CMS has a new and expanded power 
over and above what they are already doing to cut payments to Medicare 
beneficiaries, with the goal to reduce program expenditures but the 
reality being they will reduce patient access to health care, to their 
doctor.
  Second, rationing. The new authorities granted to the U.S. Preventive 
Services Task Force--that is a mouthful, USPSTF--I don't know how on 
Earth one would pronounce that acronym, but it is the U.S. Preventive 
Services Task Force. These folks are to determine what should and 
should not be covered by health insurance. It is some unelected group 
of bureaucrats deciding what should and should not be covered by health 
insurance. What this means for patients is that if the USPSTF, the 
mouthful acronym doesn't recommend it, then it will not be covered by 
your health care plan and you will bear the cost of the procedure.
  Here is the third rationing. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 
Institute, that is the PCORI, if you are discussing health care policy 
with CMS or the Department of Health and Human Services, does 
comparative effective research--comparative, effective research, CER.
  To me, that is a slippery slope--that I tried to amend back during 
consideration within the HELP Committee and the Finance Committee, 
unsuccessfully on a party-line vote--that will lead to

[[Page 654]]

the government deciding whether the care or a treatment a patient wants 
is worth paying for. What this means for patients is that research 
could be abused to arbitrarily deny patients access to treatments or--
and treatments by age or by gender or by race--services to save the 
government money.
  If that was not enough, finally, the fourth horseman, there is 
everyone's nemesis, IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. We 
don't want to saddle up on this horse. This is a board made up of 15 
unelected bureaucrats who will decide what gets to stay, what gets to 
go into Medicare coverage. We used to do that in this body and over in 
the House. It was alleged during debate that we could not make those 
decisions because we were too close to the people involved.
  What is that all about? Isn't that what we are supposed to be doing 
in terms of representing the folks we represent? No, it has to go to 
this 15-member unelected board that will decide what gets to stay and 
what gets to go in Medicare coverage.
  They will decide what treatments and services will be covered and 
which will not. The primary reason is to save money. Goodness knows we 
are all for saving money in the health care system--or saving money 
period, given our national debt and all that involves. This Board has 
no accountability. There is no confirmation process; they are 
appointed. There is no real transparency and we cannot do anything 
about it. I think the provision of the bill is we can say, wait a 
minute, they made the wrong decision on Medicare payments to hospitals 
or to any part of our health care delivery system, that we could by a 
supermajority, 67 votes, maybe change it, maybe not.
  I have been talking about the four rationers for a long time and what 
it means to patients. I will continue to talk about that. I will come 
to the floor after next week and see if we can't put this together in a 
little bit better way so people are alert to what is going on and 
people are alert to what dangers lurk for them in regard to the 
availability of their doctor and their current way of treating 
themselves and their family.
  What is scary about this, as I watched all the other warnings and 
broken promises come true, is what is going to happen to Kansas 
constituents and those across the country when these new warnings about 
ObamaCare continue to come true. The bottom line? We need to protect, 
we truly need to protect the all-important relationship between the 
doctor and the patient, which now is at risk.
  In order to do that, it seems to me that small fixes are not going to 
do this. We need to repeal and, most importantly, replace ObamaCare 
with real reforms that work, not only for Kansans but everybody across 
the country. The whole program needs to be repealed, replaced, 
defunded, delayed, not just the parts that are politically convenient 
for the President or the parts that have yet to be decided by the 
President as the Lizzy Borden ax falls in regard to those decisions. I 
know Kansans and the American people certainly deserve better.
  I am going to talk and talk about the four rationers again in more 
detail. This only serves as a warning and an alert about promises made, 
promises not kept, but people have to understand who these four 
rationers are, what they intended to do, and what the dangers are and 
why amendments to prevent rationing were not successful in the 
beginning when this bill was passed.
  I yield the floor and it appears to me we do not have a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today the Gallup organization released a 
new poll that asked the American people a simple question: What do you 
think is the most important problem facing the country today? The 
results should not shock anyone. Twenty-one percent of the American 
people think the Federal Government is the problem. This is a quote 
from the poll: ``Dissatisfaction with government/Congress/politicians; 
poor leadership/corruption/abuse of power.''
  Eighteen percent of the American people say the economy is the 
biggest problem facing the country. So 21 percent say it is Washington 
and the Federal Government, and 18 percent say it is the economy.
  I would point out that, not coincidentally, Politico has a story this 
morning that highlights one of the sources of this dissatisfaction. It 
cites senior White House officials describing the Senate Democrats 
meeting with the President at the White House this afternoon to talk 
about their 2014 playbook, and some of it is going to be to cover the 
themes the President is going to talk about at his State of the Union 
speech. According to Politico, the aim is to highlight the differences 
with the GOP and to provide fodder for the Democrats along the campaign 
trail even though these measures stand little chance of passing in 
Congress.
  There is nothing wrong with our Democratic friends having a 
philosophical difference with the Republicans, or political 
differences, for that matter, and it is logical that there would be 
different approaches to solving our Nation's problems. But this 
calculated effort--starting at the White House with the President of 
the United States having a team meeting with our Democratic friends to 
look at how they can contrast their agenda with that of the 
Republicans--strikes me as a shallow and cynical effort to distract 
people from the fundamental problems which are facing our country.
  We know the President has been in office 5 years now. The economic 
recovery, after 2008, has been anemic. After the Federal Government has 
paid out almost $\1/4\ billion in deficit spending for unemployment 
benefits on an extended basis, you would think the kind of meeting the 
President would want to have--not with just Democrats but with 
Republicans--is to figure out what we can do together to deal with this 
anemic economic growth and get America back to work.
  The President's promises about ObamaCare, one after another, have 
proven to be untrue. The statements he made about his health care 
plan--such as if you like what you have, you can keep it; the price of 
your health care will go down an average of $2,500 a family; if you 
like your doctor, you can keep your doctor--have not proven to be true. 
None of it has proven to be true.
  So why in the world can't we work together to try to address the 
problems? The problem about lack of access to health care isn't going 
to go away, but it looks as though all of this has been put on the 
shelf in an effort to try to drive a wedge between Americans for no 
other reason than to shore up his political base leading up to the 2014 
midterm election. Why else would the President use his bully pulpit to 
stump for legislation that has no chance of passing in Congress?
  This last exercise--actually a very sad exercise--started about a 
week ago when the majority leader brought a bill to the floor that 
would extend long-term unemployment benefits. It wasn't paid for. In 
other words, it would add $6 billion to the national debt, and it would 
be for 3 months.
  Well, on Monday of last week when we had a vote--the Presiding 
Officer will remember we had a lot of bad weather--17 Senators were not 
able to be here for that vote. It was as if the majority leader 
intended to go forward knowing 17 Members of the Senate were not going 
to be here, because he really wanted the bill to fail, not to succeed. 
Well, I and others encouraged him to reconsider, and thankfully he did. 
So we had that vote on Tuesday a week ago, and we got on the bill.
  The President ought to be bringing Americans together, not pitting 
them against one another. Of course, the President isn't the only one 
to blame for the people's dissatisfaction with government. I am sure 
there is plenty of blame to go around, but Majority Leader Reid has to 
accept a major part

[[Page 655]]

of the responsibility for the dysfunction of the Senate and for the 
failure of the unemployment insurance extension bill.
  Republicans, in an act of good faith, filed 36 amendments that we 
believe would have made that bill a better bill. The majority leader 
said, no, there will be no amendments, no votes. Take it or leave it. 
He then came back later on and said: We will make these other changes, 
but these are the only changes we are going to make, and we are not 
going to have an open amendment process and vote. So instead of 
allowing the Senate to function, the majority leader filled the 
amendment tree and blocked every single Member of the Senate--Democrats 
and Republicans alike--from offering even the most reasonable 
amendments.
  Senator Coburn, for example--Senator Toomey was down here talking 
about this today--had an amendment which would have ended unemployment 
compensation for millionaires and billionaires. What could be more 
common sense than that? Why can't the Senate--Republicans and Democrats 
alike--come together to vote on such amendments? Well, you will have to 
ask the majority leader about that because the Senate voted on a 
similar amendment in 2011 and voted 100 to 0, but the majority leader 
still decided to block this amendment on this bill even though it would 
have improved the integrity of the Unemployment Insurance Program.
  Many other colleagues worked in good faith with the majority leader 
through the weekend to try to come up with another option. Senators 
Collins, Hatch, Inhofe, Paul, Scott, Thune, and Portman all filed 
amendments which would have created jobs in a variety of ways and help 
grow the economy. What better way to deal with the problem of 
unemployment than to help grow the economy and create jobs? The 
alternative seems to be: Let's just give them unemployment compensation 
and they will be happy. I daresay there are very few people who are 
unemployed who are happy accepting unemployment compensation. They 
would much prefer the dignity and self-respect that comes along with 
working if they could simply find a job to do.
  Irrespective of this demonstration of good faith by Republicans to 
try to improve the bill and help grow the economy and get people back 
to work, the majority leader's response was to block every single vote. 
He instead chose politics over commonsense proposals that would help 
get Americans back to work.
  I must say this is in stark contrast with what we have seen happening 
in the House of Representatives. This is a shocking figure, but the 
House of Representatives has passed 170 pieces of legislation--many of 
which deal with the poor growth of the economy and the need to create 
jobs--that the majority leader has ignored. One hundred seventy pieces 
of legislation have passed the House. Basically all of them passed on a 
bipartisan basis, but the majority leader of the Senate has ignored 
them.
  These include the Northern Route Approval Act, which approves the 
Keystone XL Pipeline. By the way, the President said he would announce 
his decision on whether to approve the connection of this pipeline 
which would connect the pipeline from Canada all the way down to Port 
Arthur, TX, where refineries exist that would make this into gasoline 
and jet fuel and other byproducts.
  The House passed a piece of legislation called the Keep the IRS Off 
Your Health Care Act, which prohibits the IRS from implementing 
ObamaCare. I understand that is controversial. The majority leader 
wants to try to protect ObamaCare, with all of its flaws, which are 
becoming apparent on a bipartisan basis.
  Here is another one that should have enjoyed bipartisan support in 
the Senate. It is something called the SKILLS Act, which eliminates and 
consolidates Federal job training programs. There are over 40 different 
job training programs in the Federal Government. Can you imagine what 
might happen if those programs were consolidated so the money that is 
now used for overhead and administration could be used to actually 
train people and provide them the skills they need in order to qualify 
for many high-paying jobs that go without trained workers? If Senator 
Reid were serious about that, he would have taken up that bill and 
allowed Democrats and Republicans to improve it with their amendments. 
Yet he refused to allow it to even be considered.
  Then there is the REINS Act, which allows Congress to vote on major 
regulations that cost the economy over $100 million a year.
  One big frustration back where I come from in Texas, when I go home 
every weekend, is people ask: How come nobody seems to be held 
accountable? When things don't work, how come nobody gets fired? How 
come Congress and the President kick the can down the road?
  Well, of course, one of the biggest challenges we have when it comes 
to accountability is the regulatory state--the bureaucracy, the people 
who are appointed by the President who have the authority to issue 
regulations. As the Presiding Officer knows, this isn't legislation 
that people vote on. These are regulations that are promulgated by 
administrative agencies. But when they have an impact of over $100 
million on the economy a year, doesn't it make sense that Congress--the 
only people the American people can hold accountable--would get a 
chance to actually vote on whether they should be approved and have a 
discussion on the cost-benefit analysis rather than have the regulatory 
agencies run amok and have litigation as our only recourse? Well, you 
get my point.
  The majority leader has shut down every effort by the House of 
Representatives to pass legislation and have it come over here to the 
Senate to try to improve our anemic economic recovery since the great 
recession of 2008. That is the reason economists say this is an 
atypical, an unusual recovery from a recession, because usually it is 
kind of V-shaped. Once you hit bottom, you bounce back pretty quickly. 
What we have is a U-shaped recovery that is almost flat-lined with an 
economic growth that is not fast enough to keep up with the population 
increase. So not only do we have 7 percent or higher unemployment, we 
have--at least for the last 30 years--a historically lower percentage 
of Americans actually participating in the workforce.
  One of the reasons the unemployment figures are coming down is not 
necessarily because the economy is getting that much better, but 
because people are giving up. They quit looking for work. That is an 
American tragedy.
  The House is acting not only to try to earn the American people's 
trust and confidence but to get the government out of the way and to 
let the private sector create more jobs.
  Conversely, the Senate, under the iron rule--and some might say the 
dictatorship--of the majority leader, is neither afforded the 
opportunity to actually consider this legislation that has passed in 
the House nor to offer amendments and improve legislation that is on 
the floor of the Senate, such as the long-term unemployment insurance 
bill that was on the floor this last week. That is one reason why I 
think Gallup says that 21 percent of the American people cite that as 
the biggest problem facing the American people today: dissatisfaction 
with government, poor leadership, and abuse of power. It doesn't have 
to be that way, and it won't be if the American people give our side of 
the aisle the majority in November. It will be different.
  I thought the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, gave a really 
important speech last week, saying if the voters give us the 
responsibility for leading in the Senate, we will return the Senate to 
its prior reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body. Whether 
a person is a Democrat or a Republican, whether I like an amendment or 
not, we will all have an opportunity to offer our ideas, and we will 
have a chance to vote them up or down. That is the way the Senate used 
to work. That is the way I think most Americans think it should work, 
and that is the way it will work if we are given that opportunity.
  On the topic of the health care exchanges that opened on October 1

[[Page 656]]

under ObamaCare, we learned that the first reports about the 
composition of the pool of people who signed up for ObamaCare has 
caused reasons for grave concern. The vast majority of people who 
signed up under the exchanges are older and sicker. That, of course, is 
their right. But many young people--necessary to provide the actuarial 
stability and success of these exchanges--have chosen to take a pass. 
We have asked for those numbers to be released on a weekly basis. As a 
matter of fact, the House is going to take up a bill that will increase 
transparency in these insurance exchanges so Congress and the American 
people can be better informed about what is exactly happening with the 
implementation of ObamaCare.
  I remember 5 years ago I was out on the Capitol steps when the 
President, in his inaugural speech, told the American people--he said 
these words: ``Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones 
of this Presidency.'' Those are stirring words. As an advocate of open 
government, transparent government, and freedom of information, I 
thought that was a very positive statement by the President. But, 
today, in light of what has happened since that time, they seem to be a 
bad joke.
  ObamaCare is the most recent example. It has been 3\1/2\ months since 
these Federal exchanges officially came online, and the administration 
still won't provide the American people with reliable, detailed 
information on exchange enrollment numbers and the problems with the 
Web site. I don't have any doubt that the Web site problems are going 
to be and have been substantially repaired. One problem the House has 
pointed out is there is still no guarantee that if a person puts their 
personal information into the Web site, that it will be protected 
against cyber attacks and identity theft--something that ought to 
concern everybody. One would think that the majority leader was 
concerned about that too, that he would give us a chance to vote on the 
legislation that passed the House earlier this week.
  In order to help Americans get better information about ObamaCare, 
Senator Alexander, the senior Senator from Tennessee, has introduced 
legislation that would require the administration to provide weekly 
updates on exchange enrollment and Medicaid enrollment, as well as Web 
site problems and other issues. The cost of this legislation, according 
to the Congressional Budget Office, which is the gold standard when it 
comes to scoring the cost of legislation, is zero. It is a big goose 
egg. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that legislation. Unfortunately, 
the White House has already issued a statement saying it would veto the 
legislation if it passed because it would be ``too costly.'' The 
majority leader and the President have been pursuing legislation this 
last week that would have increased the deficit and the debt by $6 
billion, but they are unwilling to consider this transparency 
legislation that would cost zero because they say it is too costly.
  It is true the problems with ObamaCare go well beyond just a lack of 
transparency, as we all know. For starters, the President continues to 
treat ObamaCare as a law that means whatever he wants it to mean, 
whenever it is convenient for him, because he continues to change the 
law by executive waiver. This is another common question I get back 
home. People say: How can the President delay the employer mandate 
while the penalty against me as an individual--the individual mandate--
remains the law of the land? How can he carve out or exempt certain 
parts of the population from the application of the law? How can he 
claim executive privilege when it comes to cooperating with oversight 
investigations by the Congress? How can he do all of these things in a 
country that is founded on the rule of law and where no man and no 
woman is above the law, and no man and no woman is below the law? We 
are all entitled to equal protection of laws. How can the President 
choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore?
  Sadly, I don't have a good answer for that. Congress has the 
authority to pass the law, but the executive branch, under our 
Constitution, is the one that is supposed to enforce the law. But when 
the executive branch refuses to enforce the law or ignores the law or 
purports to waive the law, there isn't a lot of recourse, other than 
private litigation which takes months and years to conclude. From my 
perspective, these waivers reflect an utter disregard for the 
constitutional duties of the executive branch of government. If the 
President feels as though certain aspects of ObamaCare have become 
unworkable, it is his duty to come to Congress and say: Work with me to 
change it. But he refuses to do that. I think some of the most popular 
words out of his mouth are: I will go it alone. I will issue an 
Executive order. I will ignore Congress and the constitutional coequal 
branches of government, and I will do it alone.
  The President knows just how unpopular his signature legislative 
achievement, ObamaCare, has become, even among many Democrats. I talked 
about accountability a little earlier. Many Democrats who walked the 
plank with him on ObamaCare and actually believed and, indeed, repeated 
the promises he himself made about how the law would work are going to 
be up for election in 2014. He won't be on the ballot. He has been 
through his last election. There is no way to hold President Obama 
accountable for his broken promises on ObamaCare. But there is a way to 
hold the people who supported the President accountable and who 
repeated statements which have proven to be false about how ObamaCare 
would work. But if the President feels as though the law isn't working 
the way it should or if our Democratic colleagues feel as though--
notwithstanding their hopes and their aspirations for how it might 
work--it didn't turn out that way, then what we ought to be doing is 
working together in order to fix the problem, not perpetuate it.
  We know the President is acting as if he is above the law. He is 
acting as if he can selectively enforce the law based on political 
expediency. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that this 
behavior is undermining our democracy and making the American people 
even more cynical about Washington, DC. Again, I don't think it is any 
coincidence that the Gallup poll cites the government as the single 
biggest problem in America today, according to the people polled in 
this Gallup poll published January 15, 2014.
  This administration was supposed to be defined by transparency and 
the rule of law. That is not what I said; those aren't my words. Those 
are the President's words. In reality, it has become an administration 
defined by obstruction, deception, and partisan power grabs, and that 
is a sad development. One of these power grabs, of course, is ObamaCare 
itself, which passed on a party-line vote in 2010. But, amazingly, it 
wasn't really implemented until 2013, starting in October, and people 
are just now beginning to see what ObamaCare is really like.
  We know, as a historical fact, that it was muscled through on a 
party-line vote, despite major public opposition. Thus far, it has been 
a complete disaster on just about every level. First, the 
administration wanted us to believe it was all about the Web site: Yes, 
we have a bad Web site contractor, but we are going to fix it. These 
are glitches that can be repaired, and everything will turn out just 
fine.
  But the reality is far different. Much of the regulatory confusion 
surrounding the President's health care law is a result of conscious 
decisions and politically motivated delays.
  People don't have to take my word for it. The Washington Post 
reported last month that the White House ``systematically delayed''--
those are their words--``key provisions of ObamaCare''--and this again 
is another quote from the Washington Post--``to prevent them from 
becoming points of contention before the 2012 election.''
  There was a conscious decision to delay the implementation of 
ObamaCare until after the President ran for reelection, and now we have 
seen many aspects of ObamaCare unilaterally delayed until after the 
2014 midterm elections.

[[Page 657]]

  What about accountability? While the White House is trumpeting a 
recent increase in signups for ObamaCare--as I said, they are unwilling 
to release on a real-time basis what the facts are--the number of 
signups is still dwarfed by the number of people who have had their 
health coverage canceled because of ObamaCare. If we look back to 2010, 
it was the very regulation that would result in the estimate by the 
Congressional Budget Office that tens of millions of Americans would 
lose their existing coverage under ObamaCare, primarily because of the 
mandate in terms of the coverage.
  For example, a person has grandparents who are required to buy health 
insurance that includes maternity coverage they don't need and they 
don't want, so why should they have to pay for it? Well, because 
ObamaCare says they have to. Why should young people have to pay more 
for their health insurance when it doesn't really cost that much for 
them to get the medical care they need? Because they have to subsidize 
the older generation.
  Perhaps no one other than the President has maneuvered more to cover 
up ObamaCare's shortfalls than the person at the head of the Department 
of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius. My colleagues will 
recall that back in 2010, Secretary Sebelius threatened to ban certain 
insurance providers from ObamaCare if they communicated with their own 
customers. They wanted to tell their customers what would happen to 
their existing insurance coverage if this law passed, and they were 
threatened by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who said: If 
you communicate with your own customers, you are going to be punished.
  Last year, it came out that Secretary Sebelius later on was shaking 
down private insurance companies to help fund ObamaCare's 
implementation. For that matter, when Americans began to lose their 
existing coverage because of ObamaCare regulations, the President 
initially blamed it on what he called ``bad apple insurers,'' even 
though this administration knew years ago that the law would force 
millions of people to forfeit their existing coverage. Yet the 
President--I think it was almost 30 times; certainly more than 20 
times--said: ``If you like what you have, you can keep it.'' But he 
said that knowing that tens of millions of Americans would lose their 
existing coverage, and many of them would lose the ability to continue 
to be treated by a doctor of their own choosing because they would no 
longer be part of their plan.
  I submit that what I have just recited has contributed a lot to this 
poll which has said people think government is the biggest problem 
facing the country today. I have just a few final thoughts--I see the 
Senator from Missouri here--before I yield the floor.
  I conclude by saying that the core conceit of ObamaCare, indeed, the 
most offensive part of it, is that the folks who supported it--from the 
President to those who voted it into law--understand that the health 
insurance needs of individuals are better decided by those individuals 
and their families and the doctor they trust. But as a result of this 
arrogance, millions of health plans have been canceled, and millions 
more will be in the future. The premiums and the cost of health care 
coverage have skyrocketed, together with huge deductibles, which 
essentially would leave people self-insured. Many people have been 
forced into ObamaCare plans that have $5,000 deductibles. So for all 
practical purposes, people are self-insured.
  We know that health care providers have also been forced to deal with 
enormous uncertainty. I hear it every day from the physicians and 
hospitals and health care providers in Texas.
  We also know that America's already weak recovery has been made even 
weaker. As I said earlier, historically, a rebound after a recession is 
sort of V-shaped. After you hit the bottom, you bounce back, and you 
get a spurt of economic growth. But not this time, not with the 
ObamaCare recovery or lack thereof.
  The National Bureau of Economic Research has said that ObamaCare may 
eventually ``cause substantial declines in . . . employment,'' and that 
seems very intuitive in what we are seeing happening today.
  It did not have to turn out this way. How was ObamaCare sold to the 
American people? Well, under false pretenses. We know that because 90 
percent of people polled said they liked their current coverage. That 
is why the President said: If you like what you have, you can keep it--
which has proven to be false. But the premise of ObamaCare was 
everybody gets covered. But even under the Congressional Budget Office 
estimate, ObamaCare will leave 31 million people uninsured by 2023. So 
not even the underlying premise of universal coverage under ObamaCare 
is true.
  Republicans believe that expanding health care choice and health care 
portability are important ways to reduce costs across the board, and 
really the reason why people are uninsured is because they cannot 
afford it. We need to bring down the cost, not to raise the cost, which 
has happened under ObamaCare.
  I believe, and I believe my colleagues believe, that by adopting 
sensible, targeted reforms--not to undermine the coverage for 90 
percent of the people who like what they have but to deal with the 10 
percent who do not like what they have or do not have coverage they can 
afford--we need those kinds of targeted reforms to help the uninsured 
and help those with preexisting conditions, without disrupting everyone 
else's existing coverage, without throwing out the baby with the bath 
water.
  We believe families understand better than the bureaucracy what the 
health care needs are in each family. If given the opportunity, we will 
start over, once ObamaCare collapses of its own weight or when finally 
there is a universal recognition in the halls of Congress that we have 
to start over and do better, but do it better by replacing ObamaCare 
with patient-centered reforms that I know the American people want and 
they deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I want to follow right along with what my 
good friend, the Senator from Texas, was talking about.
  First, I would like to say, I think one of the philosophies of 
government was so well stated in such a succinct way by Abraham Lincoln 
at Cooper Union in New York in 1860 when he said: Government should do 
for people only those things that people cannot better do for 
themselves.
  There are some things in health care that government actually could 
do to then let people do things better for themselves. That is why our 
side, beginning in 2009--and before that--advocated things like buying 
across State lines, a bigger marketplace. Organize a marketplace. Do 
not try to operate a system. Do not try to create an environment where 
people cannot make decisions about what they want and somehow that we 
think the government can make those decisions better.
  As the Senator from Texas said, we all talk to people every day who 
had coverage they were happy with that met their needs, and now they 
are told by the government: Your new coverage is better. It does not 
matter if you do not have any children, you have pediatric dental care. 
It does not matter if you are retired and plan not to have children, 
you now have maternity coverage. It does not matter if you have always 
had insurance, this covers people with preexisting conditions.
  The American people have figured this out, and they do not like it. 
The system we had at the workplace-based insurance was largely a system 
that developed by accident after World War II, but, interestingly, 85 
percent of the people who had insurance, got it at work, and 90 percent 
of them were happy with it. I think that is going to be the next thing 
we find out as we walk down the road: how many people are no longer 
going to get their insurance at work.
  But now we know the impact on people who generally did not have 
insurance at work or have insurance for the first time. I have some 
stories I want to share from people who have contacted our office in 
the last few days, and that is since I was here a week ago

[[Page 658]]

to talk about some stories I had then from people who were telling me.
  Just earlier today--additional anecdotal evidence--I heard from 
somebody who, at age 27, left their family policy to get their own, 
first insurance policy ever, with the biggest insurance company in the 
country. They went to the doctor they had always gone to, and the 
receptionist, the people dealing with her, said: We don't take that 
insurance here anymore. Then her request was: Well, I want to see the 
doctor I have always seen. Can I just pay cash? The answer was: No, you 
can't pay cash because we now know you have insurance. Under the new 
Federal requirements, you cannot pay cash to see the doctor you want to 
see; you have to go somewhere that will take your insurance.
  Surely that is not what we all really intended to do. Those people 
here who voted against the bill, even those who voted for the bill, 
even those who, like me, spoke against it, would not have anticipated 
that one of the prohibitions would be that you could not pay cash to 
see the doctor you want to see because you find out that your insurance 
does not cover your doctor. This is actually a step beyond: If you like 
your doctor, you can keep your doctor. This goes to: If you like your 
doctor, you cannot even pay your doctor to see your doctor, if the 
policies available to you did not let you see your doctor.
  But here are some letters I got just this week and some email 
messages and some text messages, but all from Missourians. Even though 
I am not going to give anybody's last name, these happen to be all 
Missourians whom I think my staff has called and asked: Do you mind if 
we tell your story, just in case your neighbor figures out this must be 
you if you are, for example, Christina from Lee's Summit, MO.
  Christina says she is a single mother of two. She is working her way 
through school as a waitress, working 25 hours a week. She previously 
received insurance through her employer, but she was not allowed to 
renew that plan, and now the cost of her daughter's deductible will go 
up from $100 a year to $2,500 a year--a 2,500 percent increase.
  As the Senator from Texas said earlier, some of these deductibles for 
most families are like you do not have insurance at all. I do not know 
what Christina's situation is, but I know somewhere there is a 25-hour-
a-week waitress with two kids where if they are told their deductible 
is $2,500, that means they really do not have any coverage because they 
do not have $2,500, and they are not going to figure out how to get 
$2,500, and they cannot get insurance that makes that difference.
  Jeanna from Kansas City has a birth defect that eventually resulted 
in her having to have a hip replacement and hip revision. She has had 
health insurance every year of her life until this year. Her previous 
Blue Cross Blue Shield policy is no longer available, and policies on 
the exchange are just too expensive.
  She says:

       At this rate, we won't be able to afford health insurance 
     in our current situation. I want to go back to the old 
     system! At least I know I have insurance and that I have my 
     doctors too. My primary doctor retired due to Obamacare.

  She says:

       I've always had health insurance for me and my family. 
     After 2014 I won't.

  I wish that was an unusual letter, but it is not. Surely, there have 
to be people benefiting from this system. Just the law of averages 
would catch up with you. Somebody has to be having coverage they did 
not have before. Maybe they could not get in the State high-risk pool. 
By the way, we could have expanded those. That was one of the proposals 
I made for people who had a preexisting condition.
  The biggest challenge to reality, I think, of this whole debate has 
been that nobody else had any other ideas, that this was the only set 
of ideas out there. I brought a list to the floor the other day of the 
10 or 12 bills I introduced as a House Member. The biggest one was 75 
pages long. One that, according to Senator Harry Reid, the majority 
leader, has accounted for a third of the people who went on insurance 
because they were able to join their family's policy--I introduced that 
bill in the House. It was 4\1/2\ pages. I guess if I had been really 
good at this--and that was a third of the people on insurance--I could 
have come up with a bill that was about 12 or 13 pages, and we would 
have gotten everybody. We did not need 2,700 pages of legislation, if 
4\1/2\ pages get a third of the people who are now covered.
  Mitchell in Weston, MO, said he still has insurance. His premiums 
will go up over $40 a month. Frankly, that is one of the better stories 
I have had--somebody who still has insurance, and it is $40 a month 
higher. But he says:

       This ObamaCare is not the answer for Americans with [or 
     without] health care insurance. This is a national problem 
     now.

  He says:

       My health insurance is going up only $40.00 a month 
     starting [in] January. But that is still $120.00 a week for 
     my wife and me.

  He says:

       Most of my friends' insurance rates are going up $100.00 
     and more a week.

  I do not know if that is a scientific survey, but that is Mitchell's 
view of what is happening with most of his friends.
  Toney is a former owner of a hardware store. When he closed his 
store, he was not able to find insurance. Toney is from West Plains, 
MO.
  He enrolled in the Missouri State Health Insurance Pool, the high-
risk pool. But when it was terminated, he was told to enroll in the 
Federal health exchange. I think he has finally gotten that done. He 
just says it happens to cost him more than it cost him before. 
Remember, the high-risk pool--here is what Toney says in his letter:

       When national health care became available the 
     legislature--

  This would be the Missouri legislature; I think this is what happened 
in most States--

     voted to end the [Missouri High-Risk Pool] effective Dec. 31, 
     2013 and sent me a letter saying I should enroll in the 
     Federal program. I began on the web site the first week in 
     October and made some attempt to enroll every day thru 
     October and November. I was finally successful in accessing 
     the policy plans available just before December 1st.

  Here is another point I want to make too. The rollout itself has had 
negative consequences on the makeup of people who have insurance. I 
think there are many reasons why young, healthy people will decide not 
to buy insurance. One is that it costs them relatively more than it 
ever has before under the law.
  In December, in fact, if you were in your early twenties, you were 
paying about one-fifth of what someone was paying for health insurance 
in their early sixties. But in January, you had to pay at least one-
third of what somebody was paying in their early sixties. People's 
insurance in their early sixties did not go down, but people's 
insurance in their early twenties went up. I just had a dad today tell 
me--and besides that, you tell young people--and you can get insurance 
if you have a serious health care problem because there is no 
prohibition if you have preexisting conditions.
  So if you are a young person, your insurance--this is the most 
uninsured group: young healthy people who think they are young and 
healthy and probably do not need insurance because they are young and 
healthy, who should worry about an accident. I mean, I am a dad. I 
understand how you have these discussions: Now, wait a minute. That 
does not cover all of your potential problems.
  But still, this is the biggest uninsured group. They are not signing 
up, and part of why they are not signing up--one of the smaller 
reasons, there are fundamental problems with the plan itself. But 
believe me, if you are wondering if you should get insurance every day, 
you are not going to do what Toney did. You are not going to be on the 
Web site every single day from October 1 until December 1 until you get 
insurance. At some point you are going to say: Well, I did not really 
think I needed this anyway. I am not going to keep beating my head 
against the wall to sign up for something that all of my friends tell 
me is a bad deal, and for sure is a worse deal than I would have gotten 
in December of last year because the law insisted it be a worse deal 
for young, healthy people.

[[Page 659]]

  The White House said last week that the number of people signing up--
when they were challenged about the number of people signing up was not 
nearly enough, they said--well, I think the White House spokesman said: 
It is not the number of people; it is the mix of people that matters. I 
think the number they had out there is about 40 percent of the people 
who sign up need to be under 35 and hopefully healthy. That number is 
about 25 percent. So the mix is not working. The number is not working. 
The cost is not working.
  According to Shawn from Independence, his premiums for his private 
policy went up 40 percent. If he elected to drop his private policy and 
sign up on the exchange, according to him his premiums and deductibles 
would more than double, and he would not qualify for any subsidies. So 
for Shawn the best deal was the 40-percent increase. He had a more than 
100-percent increase if he went to the exchange and higher deductibles.
  Lynn from Farmington, MO, says that at Mineral Area Regional Medical 
Center premiums increased even more than usual due to the Affordable 
Care Act requirements. We have increased the employee's portion of the 
health insurance premium in order to increase deductibles and copays 
due to the ACA-required new coverage that every plan has to include.
  Barbara at Fulton, MO--Winston Churchill gave the famous ``Iron 
Curtain'' speech at Westminster College in Fulton--says: Her husband's 
Blue Cross Blue Shield plan was canceled because it was deemed 
``illegal'' per the Affordable Care Act.
  Her family--her husband and two daughters--is now paying more money 
for health insurance.

       My husband had insurance that he liked, and then we 
     received a letter from Blue Cross Blue Shield that his plan 
     was going to be discontinued due to requirements of the 
     Affordable Care Act.

  They were disappointed.

       I was also told that my 4-year-old child should apply for 
     state Medicaid and my 9-year-old child earned too much to 
     qualify for insurance through healthcare.gov.

  They qualify for neither of those programs, she says.

       Because of ObamaCare, we, as a family, are paying much more 
     for health insurance for our children and my husband is not 
     currently fully insured.

  My last letter is from Scott in Independence, MO, who says his 
employer dropped his retiree health plan for 2014 due to increased 
costs associated with the ACA.
  I do not see here who his employer was. But we have seen big 
employers--IBM dropped their retiree health plan. UPS dropped their 
health care insurance for all of the spouses and dependents of their 
employees, in both cases saying: Well, now you have somewhere to go. 
You need to go to the exchange rather than the plan you had as part of 
being a retiree or part of being a spouse of someone who worked here.
  Scott looked at plans on the exchange. For a plan that is worse than 
what he had under his employer, he will pay 280 percent more in 
premiums, and his out-of-pocket expenses--guess that means 
deductibles--will quadruple; four times the deductibles, 280 percent 
for the premiums.
  He says--let me read one other thing here. He talks about being a 
disabled veteran.

       Since I am also a disabled veteran and exempt from the ACA, 
     I went to see what my cost would be for a policy for just my 
     9-year-old daughter. Unfortunately, I cannot enroll her 
     unless I enroll. So my costs will go from $159 dollars for a 
     Cadillac policy, to $459 per month for--

  His description.

     a horrible ACA policy this year. Essentially I was forced to 
     buy a policy I neither want or need. It will cost me far more 
     and provide far less than my cancelled employer plan.

  Bigger marketplace with more choices, more ways to ensure you can 
take your insurance from one place of work to another, more ways to 
ensure that expanded high-risk pools would let people join those high-
risk pools. By the way, if you are an insurance company, you have to 
participate in that in some way, at least you know that all of the 
other insurance companies are, too, and everybody in that group is 
somebody who had a preexisting condition as opposed to having to assume 
you are going to get less healthy people than hopefully you get.
  I would just say that everybody in this country and everybody in the 
Congress knows more about health care than most people did 5 years ago. 
I think it would be a good time for us to take all of that new 
knowledge about health care and see if we can look at this again and do 
a better job.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for about 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am back now for the 55th time that 
the Senate has been in session, each week, to urge my colleagues to 
wake up to the toll that carbon pollution is taking on our atmosphere, 
on our oceans, and on our people.
  While climate change deniers continue to gin up phony doubt to 
mislead the public, top American businesses and corporations recognize 
the risks posed by climate change. They are preparing for the economic 
fallout. Members of Congress bury their heads in the sand like the 
proverbial ostrich, hoping the issue will go away, wondering in some 
cases recently whether the recent cold front disproved decades of 
research and an overwhelming scientific consensus.
  Business leaders in the real world, not the political world, not the 
polluter-paid, phony-doubt world, business leaders in the real world 
are doing what they do best; that is, taking steps to protect their 
bottom line and maintain their relationships with their customers.
  Major corporations, even those with large carbon footprints, are 
taking voluntary action to lower their own carbon output. Some are 
joining broader efforts to support policies that reduce carbon 
emissions. Some of our largest and most sophisticated companies are 
even factoring the economic burden of climate change in their own 
accounting and their own long-term planning by--guess what--assigning 
an internal price to carbon.
  The Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change, which I lead with 
Congressman Waxman, wrote to over 300 businesses and organizations 
seeking their views on actions the Federal Government could take to 
reduce carbon pollution and to strengthen our resiliency to climate 
change. The response from the business community was very encouraging. 
Some examples: Coca-Cola, headquartered in Georgia, wrote this:

       We recognize climate change is a critical challenge facing 
     our planet with potential impacts on biodiversity, water 
     resources, public health and agriculture. Beyond the effects 
     on the communities we serve, we view climate change as a 
     potential business risk, understanding that it could likely 
     have direct and indirect effects on our business.

  That is Coca-Cola. Texas- and Maryland-based Lockheed Martin told the 
task force of the major headway it has made in reducing its greenhouse 
gas emissions. I will quote from Lockheed Martin:

       From 2007 through 2011, Lockheed Martin reduced its 
     absolute carbon emissions by 30 percent, and continues to 
     focus on carbon emission reductions by championing energy 
     conservation and efficiency measures in our facilities.

  Lockheed Martin. Let's look at Walmart, founded and headquartered in 
Arkansas. Walmart wrote:

       We are committed to reducing our carbon footprint and we 
     are working with our suppliers to do the same.

  Indeed, I met yesterday with the general counsel from Apple, doing 
exactly the same thing, working to reduce their carbon footprint, 
working with their suppliers to push for reductions on the part of 
their suppliers.
  Walmart's 2009 sustainability report shows its longstanding 
commitment to fighting climate change. Here is what Walmart said:

       Climate change may not cause hurricanes, but warmer ocean 
     water can make them more powerful. Climate change may not 
     cause rainfall, but it can increase the frequency and 
     severity of heavy flooding. Climate change may not cause 
     droughts, but it

[[Page 660]]

     can make droughts longer. Every company has a responsibility 
     to reduce greenhouse gases as quickly as it can.

  That is Walmart.

       That is why we are working in a number of areas to reduce 
     our company's carbon footprint, and also working with our 
     suppliers and customers to help them do the same. Currently 
     we are investing in renewable energy, increasing energy 
     efficiency in our buildings and trucks, working with 
     suppliers to take carbon out of products, and supporting 
     legislation in the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

  That is Walmart. I also wish to commend the Walmart family foundation 
for the work they are doing on oceans as well as on the atmospheric 
aspects of carbon. Let's look at Mars, the Virginia-based candy 
company. Mars states:

       We are committed to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions 
     in absolute terms because this is the right thing to do. As 
     climate change has implications for the production of 
     agricultural ingredients, addressing it requires changes to 
     the way we source materials and manufacture our products.

  Mars, maker of the famous Mars bars and M&Ms. North Carolina's VF 
Corporation, which makes major apparel brands such as Lee and Wrangler, 
Nautica, and North Face says this:

       We seek to conduct our business with the highest levels of 
     honesty, integrity and respect. These values are embedded in 
     our approach to sustainability, which reflects our commitment 
     to operating our business so future generations can live with 
     cleaner water and air, healthier forests and oceans and a 
     stable climate.

  Toy maker Hasbro, from my home State of Rhode Island, has issued its 
energy pledge:

       Climate change mitigation is a pressing global issue and we 
     aim to reduce our corporate carbon footprint by improving 
     energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions at 
     our sites.

  Hasbro was awarded a Climate Leadership Award by the EPA in 2012 for 
excellence in greenhouse gas management.
  These companies and their products are household names in this 
country. They are major players in the American economy.
  Lockheed Martin had annual revenue in 2012 of over $47 billion. We 
trust them with some of our most important defense contracts. Coke 
topped $48 billion and may be the most recognizable corporate franchise 
in the world. Walmart is the world's second largest company, with 2012 
revenue of more than $443 billion.
  These are serious companies, they are serious about their products, 
and they are serious about their returns. In part, they earn their 
impressive returns by being serious about science, and they understand 
the harm carbon-driven climate change causes. They see the unfair 
advantage big polluters get when those big polluters don't have to 
factor the costs of their carbon pollution into the price of the coal 
or oil.
  That is why more and more leading businesses are calling on Congress 
to wake up and set new ground rules to even the energy playing field. 
Mars and VF Corporation, along with eBay, Gap, Levi's, Nike, Starbucks, 
and other name-brand American corporations, are members of the Business 
for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy coalition--BICEP--which is 
pushing for energy policies that will draw down carbon emissions and 
boost economic growth. BICEP is only one of the impressive initiatives 
organized by Ceres, a nonprofit organization that helps to mobilize 
investors and business leaders to build a sustainable global economy. 
If we in Congress are willing to take on the special interests, the 
polluting special interests that keep Congress barricaded, BICEP member 
companies and others will have our back.
  What we need to do is to price carbon properly, to get a right price 
for carbon. That means making the big carbon polluters pay a fee to the 
American people to cover the cost of dumping their waste into our 
atmosphere and oceans. That is a cost they now happily push off onto 
the rest of us.
  Because of the political control of the polluters over Congress, 
conditions do not presently allow us to price carbon. So Senator Boxer 
and those in our new Senate Climate Action Task Force are pushing to 
change those political conditions. While we are doing that--and we will 
do that because we have the public, the facts, the science, and the 
imperative, both moral and practical, on our side--while we are doing 
that, these big, name-brand American companies have begun to assess 
their own internal prices on carbon.
  A recent report by the Climate Disclosure Project, which gauges 
carbon emissions and energy usage of major corporations, has identified 
29 large companies that use internal carbon prices in their operations 
or their long-term planning. Some of those companies price carbon to 
drive energy efficiency. Others see it as a smart way to prepare their 
business practices for the likelihood of a national American carbon 
fee. Among those companies are some of the world's largest oil and gas 
companies, as well as major energy consumers. For example, ExxonMobil 
estimates that a price of $60 per metric ton of carbon dioxide will be 
assessed on carbon by 2030. BP's figure is $40, and Devon Energy's is 
$15. Some of the biggest carbon emitters in history are preparing for a 
price on carbon. Let that sink in for a second. The emitters have 
already baked into their planning a price on carbon--among other 
reasons, because they know it is the right outcome.
  Who else is using internal carbon pricing? Well, Google assesses an 
internal carbon fee of $14 per metric ton that it uses to invest in 
green initiatives.
  Likewise, Microsoft charges each of its organizational divisions a 
quarterly carbon neutral fee of $6 to $7 per metric ton. The revenue 
from those divisions from that carbon fee goes--very similar to 
Google--to a central fund to support carbon offset projects. Microsoft 
even published a carbon fee playbook as a guide for businesses looking 
to establish their own internal carbon fees.
  The Walt Disney Company--talk about a nameplate company--charges its 
subsidiary businesses a carbon fee based on their share of the 
company's overall footprint.
  According to a company statement:

       The higher the carbon footprint, the more they pay. We have 
     built this into our capital planning process as well, so 
     businesses have to take the price of carbon into account 
     while planning new projects. The additional operational cost 
     has started to incentivize businesses to seek methods to 
     reduce their impact.

  Walmart ran the numbers assuming an economy-wide carbon fee of $18 
per ton. The company finds that ``Walmart's early action on emission 
reductions represents a competitive advantage over other retailers that 
have not performed such projects.''
  Investors, who are behind a lot of these companies, are also voicing 
concerns about the exposure of their portfolios to the effects of 
climate change, and they are pushing for climate action. The Carbon 
Asset Risk Initiative--also coordinated by Ceres--is a coalition of 70 
investors worth nearly $3 trillion. They have pressured 45 of the 
world's top fossil fuel companies to disclose the climate risks facing 
their investments in those companies. Should the oil and gas interests 
prove, shall we say, evasive in answering, well, investors may soon 
have other resources at hand to evaluate the climate risk to their 
portfolios. Bloomberg News, for example, has developed for its readers 
the Bloomberg Carbon Risk Valuation Tool--a model which can describe 
the potential effect of carbon regulations on fossil fuel company 
earnings and share price.
  Investors and corporate executives take climate change seriously 
because of how they see it will hurt the bottom line and because of how 
it will affect their relationship with their customers. They get it. 
Big nameplate American corporations get it--unlike this building, this 
institution and the one down the hall, the Senate of the United States 
and the House of Representatives, which remain under the control and 
thrall of the polluting interests and won't take action like these big 
nameplate American corporations already have.
  We can work with these big corporations. We have to work with them to 
break the campaign of polluter-paid denial that has Congress 
barricaded. That campaign of denial is as poisonous to our democracy as 
the underlying carbon pollution is to our atmosphere and

[[Page 661]]

oceans. We need to clean up both of them. We need a democracy that is 
clean of polluter-paid denial, and we need an atmosphere and oceans 
that are clean of polluter-emitted carbon.
  It is time to push back on the misleading propaganda of the 
polluters. It is time to recognize that our allies are out there to 
work with us. It is time for us to wake up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                          U.S. Energy Exports

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I had an opportunity early last week to 
give a speech at the Brookings Institution about the significant 
opportunity of the United States when it comes to energy production and 
our opportunity as a nation to expand our energy trade.
  I was able to present this speech based on a white paper I have 
recently released. It is entitled ``A Signal to the World: Renovating 
the Architecture of U.S. Energy Exports.'' This builds on a document 
that I presented to this body, to my colleagues, to folks who care 
about any aspect of what is going on within the energy industry within 
our country and our energy opportunities. It is a document that I 
entitled ``Energy 20/20.'' It is 115 pages of not legislation but 
really concepts, discussion points, areas where I think we as a nation 
have an opportunity to lead when it comes to our energy potential.
  When we talk about energy in our country, it is very easy to talk 
about kind of ``all of the above.'' I did make a very concerted effort 
to address all forms of energy we in this country are blessed to have, 
whether it is our traditional fossil fuels, our oil, our natural gas, 
our coal resources, whether it is the enormous potential we have with 
our renewable fuel sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, ocean 
energy, marine hydrokinetic, our hydropower, the opportunities that 
present themselves with our biofuels, and the importance, the great 
significance of nuclear within our energy portfolio.
  I didn't want that document to only be yet another document that 
somebody produces and other good ideas that are thrown out there to 
just founder. I have been working to present a series of these white 
papers. I had an opportunity to present one several months back on 
natural gas. This week it is a paper on the architecture of U.S. energy 
exports. In several weeks I plan on introducing yet another.
  I come to the floor this afternoon to share my thoughts on energy 
exports with the Senate--all energy exports--and to enter my 
recommendations on this important subject into the Congressional 
Record. My point, again, is not to trot out legislation in one area or 
another but as a nation to have us focus on our energy potential--all 
of our energy potential--and our opportunity to utilize this energy 
potential to share this amazing wealth we have, whether it is within 
our traditional fuels or whether it is within our renewables or our 
nontraditional, to really focus on what it means as a nation to be a 
nation that enjoys energy abundance rather than a nation that faces 
energy scarcity.
  I think it is fair to say that for far too long the conversation has 
been based from a position of energy scarcity. It is time to change 
that focus, it is time to shift that dialogue, that debate, to how do 
we perform, how do we operate, how do we take advantage of our relative 
abundance.
  Before I start my comments and kind of summarize my white paper and 
the speech I gave, I want to pause for a quick note. This is the cover 
of my white paper, which will form the basis for my remarks today. I 
chose a U.S. Navy photograph that was taken aboard the USS Carl Vinson. 
It was taken by Mass Communications Specialist 2nd Class James R. 
Evans. I want to make sure he gets the proper credit for the 
photograph, because as I look at it, it gives me the sense of optimism 
that I think we should all have about the future of our energy trade. I 
think that future is bright. I think it is promising.
  Let us start the discussion by looking exactly at the opportunity 
that we do have before us. Simply put, the United States is both 
producing and exporting more energy now than ever before. We are 
producing and we are exporting more than we ever have before. Net 
energy imports are at a 20-year low and projected to fall below 5 
percent of total consumption by the year 2025.
  To put this into perspective, when I came to the Senate, we were 
importing about 60 percent of our oil at that time. Net energy imports, 
now at a 20-year low, are projected to fall below 5 percent of total 
consumption by 2025. So this is all energy imports.
  Energy exports are reducing our trade deficit, and they are boosting 
American commerce around the world. We have been talking all this week 
and last about unemployment insurance--how we can work to improve the 
economy for those who lack jobs or are underemployed. Let me tell you, 
this is an area of opportunity when it comes to our energy production.
  So energy exports are helping us with our trade deficit and they are 
boosting commerce and jobs, but the regulatory architecture--the 
framework we are operating under--that governs energy exports is 
antiquated. It goes back to acts that were passed in the 1930s, in the 
1950s, and in the 1970s. Furthermore, they are applied unevenly across 
the sector. So my white paper proposes a series of recommendations to 
renovate our Nation's approach to energy trade and to strengthen 
America's global posture.
  I know around here when you put an idea out on the floor, you also 
put a target on your back. But I think this is an important discussion 
for us to have. Again, I am not proffering legislation, but what I am 
pushing, what I am going to edge my colleagues toward is a greater 
discussion about energy and energy exports.
  The first resource I wrote about in my white paper was coal. I think 
we have to acknowledge these are some pretty uncertain times for what 
has truly been the backbone of the U.S. energy supply. Coal is 
projected to remain the top source of electricity for the next two 
decades, but we know it faces competition from other energy sources.
  There is clearly a regulatory effort that will make the construction 
of new plants an extremely difficult endeavor, but I think we can see 
here that net exports of coal are at their highest level on record, and 
as a share of their production, they are at their highest level in 30 
years. Exports of coal are presently free of burdensome regulations. I 
think they should remain so. I think other Federal regulatory agencies 
should not require climate change studies in the course of their 
permitting process for any proposed facilities. I say this because coal 
is going to be consumed around the world regardless of U.S. trade 
policy. We know that. We see that. We can point to the countries where 
they are seeing increased coal imports. The only question here--the 
real question here--is whether the coal is produced here in North 
America. If it is produced here in North America, the environmental 
standards are going to be high--higher than they will elsewhere. So the 
real question is: Do you produce it where you have stronger 
environmental standards or are you going to get it from countries where 
their environmental standards are held to a lower level?
  The next resource we are talking about is natural gas. There has been 
a great deal of discussion of late about natural gas. North America is 
quickly emerging as one of the world's most important hubs for the 
natural gas trade. Record levels are flowing to Mexico and Canada via 
pipeline. The buildout of seaborne export capacity, which requires the 
liquefaction of gas for loading onto cargo ships, is proceeding too 
slow under the watch of the Department of Energy. Other nations are 
approving capacity, they are securing financing, they are building 
projects, and they are contracting with customers. They are making 
these long-term contracts ahead of the United States. So a little more 
in-depth on this particular resource area, building on the white paper. 
I think DOE should expedite its review process for applications to 
export LNG to non-FTA countries. The last time an application was 
approved was back in mid-

[[Page 662]]

November, over 2 months ago now. I don't see the reason for continued 
delay here.
  I do think we have to monitor the role of the other agencies that are 
involved. We have the FERC, we have the Maritime Administration, and we 
have the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. I 
think it is important to understand whether this process is as 
streamlined and as functional as it should be.
  There are some who are suggesting there needs to be a pause button 
pushed here, whether it is at DOE, the FERC, or at any other agency. No 
new study should be commissioned as the NERA study from 2012 is more 
than adequate and DOE has access to all the latest EIA and the other 
market data when it issues its orders. Our allies overseas and American 
workers here at home have waited long enough. We can do more and we can 
do it in an expedited manner.
  The third area is natural gas liquids. A variety of fuels is produced 
alongside oil and gas as part of the energy renaissance underway here 
in this country. There is butane, propane, and pentanes plus. These are 
known as natural gas liquids, and they have various uses. They have not 
typically represented a major source of either revenue or volume to 
American exporters. Since the energy renaissance has begun, we have 
seen exports of more of these products on the uptake. We have seen them 
surge.
  The regulatory structures that surround NGL exports are working 
pretty well. They are working smoothly. I don't think they require 
modification. Trade in these products plays a valuable role in reducing 
volatility and creating additional demand to stimulate production.
  Next is the issue of crude oil and condensates. Obviously, this 
generates a little more interest and discussion, and that is OK, 
because again, I want to have this discussion.
  We are producing more oil in this country today than at any point in 
the past 20 years. What has happened is this increase has resulted in a 
plethora of what is known as light tight oil, and this is coming from 
the Bakken, from Eagle Ford, and from other places around the country. 
This crude is lighter and sweeter than the U.S. refinery system was 
built to accommodate. Existing capacity upgrades to existing refineries 
and logistical feats to transport that light crude to appropriate 
refiners on the east coast--instead of over on the gulf coast, where 
you have the heavy refining capacity that dominates--have allowed for 
new volumes of light crude to be refined and brought to global markets 
as product.
  So you have a situation where under existing regulations the 
Department of Commerce may license the export of crude oil under 
certain conditions, most notably if that oil is destined for Canada. 
But in addition, you have large amounts of condensates, another 
hydrocarbon, that cannot be exported, and these are also being produced 
along with the record levels of crude and natural gas.
  Many producers fear that rising light crude production will soon 
exceed not only our light refining capacity but also the ability of our 
refiners to adapt to the new production slate. When this point is 
reached, when this mismatch occurs, the U.S. oil resurgence will 
collide with the de facto ban that we have on crude oil exports.
  You are going to hear people say--the opponents will argue--that 
lifting the ban is somehow or other going to increase the price of 
gasoline. Well, coming from a State where we have probably some of the 
highest gas prices at the pump anywhere, that is not my interest. That 
is clearly not my interest. But I think there are a number of sound 
economic reasons why this is not going to be the case.
  First, gasoline is a petroleum product and petroleum products are 
subject to global pricing, just as crude oil is. So to the extent that 
greater U.S. production of crude oil puts downward pressure on the 
international oil prices, then production increases have benefited U.S. 
consumers by marginally lowering the gasoline and the crude oil prices. 
American consumers are already generally paying a global price for 
petroleum products, including gasoline, and would also benefit to the 
extent that lifting the ban on crude oil exports would send a positive 
signal to oil producers to then increase production.
  The second point here is the cost of inaction. Prohibition on the 
free trade of any product, with all things being equal, increases 
prices, it creates market distortions, it leads to misallocation of 
capital, and it has a deleterious impact on job creation. So to the 
extent the crude oil export ban contributes to supply disruptions and 
decelerating oil production, which affects unemployment, then the 
American consumer suffers these consequences. I have taken the position 
the status quo does not benefit the American consumer. In fact, not 
acting could actually negatively impact the Nation.
  All sectors of the U.S. oil industry are global leaders. Upstream, 
American technology and expertise enables the growth in production. 
Midstream, a complex network of pipelines transports that oil across 
the country safely every day. And then, of course, downstream we have 
American refiners who are among the most advanced in the world. So 
lifting the de facto ban will strengthen this system by protecting 
jobs, boosting production, and enhancing efficiency and specialization.
  I mentioned the Commerce Department earlier. They may retain 
sufficient statutory authority to lift the ban on its own as part of a 
larger swap. Some have suggested trading U.S. light crude for Mexican 
heavy, which sounds interesting, but it is a little more complicated 
than that. The President may also make a national interest 
determination that the present regulatory structure, which generally 
prohibits crude oil exports, is unnecessary and counterproductive. 
White House action on this matter is of course the shortest way from 
point A to point B, and if the President is so inclined, he can call 
me. He can count on my full support on this.
  If the White House disagrees with this interpretation of its 
authority or it chooses to maintain the prohibition on exports, then I 
think it would be appropriate for the Senate to update the laws to 
reflect 21st century conditions.
  After crude oil and condensates is the growing success story of our 
petroleum products and their exports. An enormous expansion of the 
American export profile in global petroleum product markets has 
accompanied the crude oil resurgence. Exports of petroleum products 
must continue without burdensome regulations. The U.S. refining 
industry is the global leader and delivers gasoline, diesel, and other 
fuel to American friends and allies around the world. These fuels will 
be consumed whether or not they are imported from the United States, 
which, again, uses the strictest environmental standards.
  Of course, when we are talking about energy production and our 
opportunities for exports, there is our renewable energy resource. 
There is renewable technology. Producers of wind turbines, solar 
panels, and other renewable technologies also help reduce the U.S. 
trade deficit through our exports. Again, it is very important to make 
sure, when we are talking about energy exports, to truly talk about all 
of them, including our renewable technologies. I think the general lack 
of trade restrictions on renewable energy technology products doesn't 
need to be modified. If renewable technology is the future, then it 
needs to be competitive.
  Finally, the last area is nuclear technology. The United States has 
been the undisputed leader of nuclear technology throughout the world. 
We have produced more nuclear power than any other nation. As the 
global nuclear trade has developed, what we have seen is that the U.S. 
market share has declined. I think the Federal Government must continue 
its efforts to help develop small modular reactors, and I think we can 
do this without putting international security at risk or violating 
nonproliferation controls.
  The energy resurgence has fueled a beneficial expansion of U.S. 
energy

[[Page 663]]

trade. The evidence is clear that exports can help facilitate enhanced 
production by opening U.S. supply to global markets. Trade is creating 
jobs, increasing supply, and enhancing our Nation's security, without 
doubt. Competition and efficiency are the strengths of the American 
economic system. They are not defects. Trade and consumption will occur 
with or without us.
  So the question is whether we can enhance or whether we will demote 
our global position. To the extent that American-made energy can 
displace other less clean sources, then the global environment will 
benefit from enhanced U.S. trade.
  People come first, though. We recognize that. The Nation's 
opportunity to help us alleviate energy policy is one we should not 
miss.
  I believe we need to send a powerful signal to the world that the 
United States is ready to reassert its role as a leader on energy, the 
environment, and trade. To me, that is a signal worth sending.
  As I have said, this is a debate worth having in the Senate, in this 
new year, and I look forward to joining my colleagues. I know there are 
many on the other side who have differing views when it comes to our 
fossil fuels, but I think we would find alignment in other areas when 
we are talking about our energy exports and our great potential.
  So as we are trying to build our Nation's economy, as we are trying 
to strengthen jobs across the country, let us not forget the enormous 
growth potential we hold when it comes to our energy production and 
potential for energy export.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Ohio.


                                Tobacco

  Mr. BROWN. I always appreciate the comments of Senator Murkowski, who 
is always thoughtful and works across the aisle. I appreciate the work 
she does.
  Mr. President, I rise briefly, joining with Senator Blumenthal of 
Connecticut and Senator Merkley, who is now in the Presiding Officer's 
chair but who will be joining us, to mark the 50th anniversary of 
Surgeon General Dr. Terry's groundbreaking report on the dangers of 
smoking.
  The 387-page report released five decades ago concluded something 
that was almost revolutionary in its time, and was revolutionary in its 
impact, that said: ``Cigarette smoking is a health hazard of sufficient 
importance in the United States to warrant appropriate remedial 
action.''
  We know how our views in this country have changed about smoking. But 
we also know that 400,000 people every year die from smoking-related 
illnesses. That says the tobacco companies have to find 400,000 new 
customers every year, and the people they have tried to seduce into 
smoking are not people my age. They are the pages' age or even younger. 
Those are the people they aim at to teach them to start smoking.
  It is not just young people that tobacco companies are trying to get 
addicted to smoking; it is also what they are doing in the developing 
world.
  I was in Poland in 1991 working for Ohio State University right after 
the Communist government in Poland fell. The first billboards all over 
Warsaw, Krakow, Lublin, and eastern Poland were tobacco--mostly 
American tobacco companies but also British tobacco companies. Those 
were the first billboards up.
  So as the tobacco companies try to seduce young people in our country 
to smoke, they have, in some sense, attacked the developing Third World 
to get people to smoke there. One of the ways they have done this is by 
using our trade agenda to weaken public health laws in other countries. 
Some poor, developing countries have enacted public health antismoking 
laws, and U.S. tobacco companies and tobacco companies from other 
countries have tried to weaken--sometimes successfully--those laws.
  It is important we close loopholes in our trade agenda which allow 
big tobacco corporations to undermine these global health standards. 
This administration's decision not to exclude any one product, 
including tobacco, from the TransPacific partnership--the proposed 
trade agreement among the United States and 11 other countries--is a 
disappointment: It opens years of anti-tobacco public health policies 
to attacks by Big Tobacco, because under the TPP's investor state 
provisions, tobacco companies can challenge public health laws in the 
United States and abroad, all under the guise of and in the name of 
free trade. A record number of investor state cases were filed last 
year, according to the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development.
  So the public health campaign against tobacco continues in our 
country and Senator Blumenthal has been a leader in this for well over 
a decade. It extends to our international politics, our international 
trade regimen.
  We have a lot of work to do. That is why I am pleased to join Senator 
Blumenthal and Senator Merkley in their discussion today honoring the 
50th anniversary of Dr. Terry's report.
  I yield to Senator Blumenthal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am proud to be with public health 
advocates such as the Presiding Officer, my very distinguished and 
eloquent colleague Senator Brown, and Senator Durbin, who was on the 
floor earlier today on this very subject which remains one of urgency 
and profound importance to the public health of this Nation.
  Indeed, if there is a public health threat, enemy No. 1 in the United 
States of America, it continues to be tobacco use and nicotine 
addiction.
  We talk a lot in this body, throughout the Congress and throughout 
the Nation, about reducing the costs of health care. If we were to cut 
tobacco use and nicotine addiction, it would drastically reduce 
diseases such as cancer and heart disease and lung problems which 
reduce the longevity of life in this country but also create enormous 
costs in treating those medical diseases. Indeed, the cost of tobacco 
in health care for this country is about $193 billion a year, not only 
in direct medical costs but lost productivity.
  I am proud to have fought--and fought successfully--through many of 
my years as attorney general of the State of Connecticut, working in 
alliance with other attorneys general, with private health advocates 
such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the Heart and Lung 
Association, the American Cancer Society, and private advocates 
throughout the country who have achieved so much.
  When we doubt our achievements on this 50th anniversary of the annual 
Surgeon General's Report on Tobacco and Health, we should remember the 
days when 43 percent of adults smoked cigarettes and were addicted to 
nicotine. We should look at ``Mad Men,'' the very popular TV series, 
where tobacco use and smoking is ubiquitous. There is barely a scene 
without it. Those were days when doctors in their medical offices 
smoked cigarettes, the days when Big Tobacco fervently and vehemently 
denied that tobacco caused cancer or any of those other diseases.
  In alliance with attorneys general and eventually the Department of 
Justice, we fought successfully to bring out the truth and to help not 
only change the ads and pitches and promotions of Big Tobacco but also 
eventually to pass the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control 
Act of 2009.
  Yet for all the progress we have made--and, indeed, the rate of 
smoking has gone from 42 percent in 1965 to 18 percent in 2002 among 
adults--we are still lagging. We are way behind where we should be in 
preventing all those diseases that come from tobacco and protecting the 
public. The state of regulation and protection in this country is 
anemic compared to the danger and the threat.
  Between 2000 and 2012, cigarette use declined nearly 35 percent. But 
in that same period of time, cigar use rose by 124 percent, and 
especially among young people cigar use is increasing. There are new 
fronts and new frontiers in the fight against tobacco addiction, and 
the public health consequences--the disasters and catastrophic health

[[Page 664]]

consequences that come from lifetimes of nicotine addiction and tobacco 
use.
  Big Tobacco continues many of the tactics which caused so many people 
to become addicted and die. It is the only industry which makes the 
only product that kills its customer, and so it must replenish its 
customer base by luring new people, new users, and its target continues 
to be young people--young people who are lured into cigar use and then 
cigarettes by the use of flavors and all kinds of pitches and 
promotions which make these products seem more like candy and fruit 
than they do like the killers they are.
  We must accept that a major part of the responsibility belongs to the 
FDA and to the Federal Government because there are no deeming 
regulations, which are necessary to regulate cigars in this country. 
With 3,000 new people under the age of 18 trying cigar smoking each and 
every day, the fact that we do not have deeming regulations and strong 
regulations of tobacco products is simply unacceptable.
  Deeming regulations forthcoming from the FDA would allow it to 
regulate these other forms of tobacco, whether it is cigars or spit 
tobacco--also known as chewing tobacco--all forms of tobacco and 
tobacco-like products that threaten the health of young people. I have 
been consistent, along with many of my colleagues, in calling on the 
FDA to issue these regulations and hope they will do so quickly.
  Let me mention another growing new frontier and threat in this 
country involving e-cigarettes. These new products offer, in the 
rhetoric and pitches and promotion of the industry, a way to enable 
people to quit smoking. Yet they are often pitched to young people with 
flavors and other gimmicks. For those young people, they are a gateway 
to smoking and nicotine addiction.
  Companies that make e-cigarettes, not coincidentally, are being 
purchased by Big Tobacco, the makers of tobacco cigarettes. The 
influence of these companies can be seen in the advertising, marketing 
pushes, and campaigns of these products which feature celebrities, are 
candy flavored, and purport to offer a safer alternative to smoking. 
The ability of big tobacco to market these products, just as they were 
able to market cigarettes to children, gives them the ability to create 
a new generation of people who are addicted to nicotine and susceptible 
to going to other forms of tobacco products.
  I call on the FDA to act and to reach a determination that will 
enable it to regulate e-cigarettes and protect young people and all of 
us against the dangers and the costs of these new products. They are 
unknown in their ingredients. Many of them may contain the same or 
similar carcinogens. Somebody using e-tobacco products has simply no 
way of reliably knowing because they are unlabeled. The amounts of 
nicotine are also unknown and unlabeled. Studies of e-cigarettes have 
found that products claiming not to contain nicotine actually do 
contain it and the amounts of nicotine may vary widely across products.
  What is known beyond any doubt is nicotine is highly addictive. In 
fact, it is probably one of the most addictive legal or illegal drug 
there is today. We cannot sit idly and allow this new product to addict 
a new generation of American children. I hope this year's Surgeon 
General's report will remind us of the accomplishments that have been 
made but the dangers and challenges ahead that we must confront.
  I am proud to yield to one of the great public health advocates in 
this body, my colleague and friend Senator Merkley.


                           Order of Procedure

  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Merkley and I be permitted to 
speak for up to 5 minutes, and that following our remarks the Senate 
stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to utilize a 
visual aid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be here with my 
colleagues, from Ohio, the Senator in the Chair, and the Senator from 
Connecticut who just spoke, to draw attention to this incredibly 
important health issue here in America: addiction to tobacco and the 
diseases that come from that addiction to tobacco. We are here to 
commemorate a report put out 50 years ago by Dr. Terry, the Surgeon 
General. His report was called ``Smoking and Health.'' The contents of 
that report shocked the world because it was issued in defiance of a 
powerful and profitable industry that had repeatedly denied there was 
any link between smoking and disease. This report made national news by 
telling the American public things that we now take for granted: that 
smoking is bad for the heart and lungs; that smoking causes cancer; and 
that the lives of Americans are routinely cut short due to the use of 
tobacco products.
  This single report created a powerful ripple throughout society, a 
ripple that has continued in the decades since, growing into a wave 
that has transformed public health in America and saved an astonishing 
number of lives. Thomas Friedan, the current Director of the Center for 
Disease Control, says no other single report has had as large an effect 
on public health. The Journal of the American Medical Association 
estimates that 8 million have been saved by the antismoking measures 
that were launched, directly or indirectly, because of this report. 
That is a reminder of how far we have come in identifying a significant 
risk, understanding it, educating the public, and reducing the 
consequences.
  There would have been millions of lives lost had a brave Surgeon 
General not acted 50 years ago, in 1964. If that Surgeon General had 
said, as others before him, that is too sensitive, that is too 
provocative, it will be too much of an irritant to a powerful industry, 
how many lives would we have lost?
  If we do not act now to address tobacco addiction from new forms of 
the product, how many more American lives will be lost? We must take 
the courage from 50 years ago and channel it into the courage of today 
to address a significant health risk and to educate the American public 
and to change the consequences.
  The best way to save lives and improve the quality of life 20 or 30 
years from now is to prevent young Americans from taking up tobacco 
products today. But big tobacco knows this is true. They know the best 
way to create lifelong reliable customers for their deadly products is 
to get kids hooked as young as possible, because in general people do 
not take up tobacco products after the age of 21. These children are 
what the industry calls ``replacement smokers.'' It is what I call 
children today who will suffer from tobacco addiction, disease, and 
death tomorrow.
  The tobacco industry is working night and day to come up with new 
strategies to create more children as replacement smokers, to keep 
their industry alive. They have come up with quite a variety of 
strategies. I thought I would share some of them with you today.
  This poster is of a product that is essentially presented as a mint. 
Here you have an Orb or a mint with a clever little dispenser, shaped 
like cell phones were shaped 6 years ago when they went in your pocket. 
The understanding is if kids have this in their pocket the teachers 
would think they have a cell phone and therefore they would not get 
busted at school.
  It seems kind of incredible that dissolvable tobacco has developed 
into mints to addict our children; that you eat them. I have one of 
these right here. These were marketed in Oregon as basically an 
experiment to see could you get young people to consume them and become 
addicts to tobacco.
  How about toothpicks made out of tobacco, called ``Sticks''? This is 
unbelievable. How about breath strips that you put under your tongue? 
How about flavors of all kinds?
  I note that our time is running out. I ask the Chair for unanimous 
consent to speak for 3 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this is an example of the cigarillos my 
colleagues were talking about. This one is

[[Page 665]]

flavored apple. This one is flavored sweet cherry. How about this one. 
That is strawberry. These products are all about addicting our 
children.
  Here is the long and short of it. In 2009, this Chamber and the House 
signed a bill that gave the FDA the power to regulate these products. 
The President signed that bill and, since then, the FDA, the Food and 
Drug Administration, has done nothing to utilize that power to regulate 
these addictive products that are going to destroy the health of our 
children in the years to come.
  Finally, from June 2009 until October of last year--so more than 4 
years--they finally sent a draft deeming regulation to GAO, the General 
Accounting Office, and there it sits.
  To summarize, let us not accept inaction by the FDA. Let us not 
accept inaction by the GAO. Let's have the courage the Surgeon General 
had 50 years ago to take on dangerous products damaging the health of 
Americans so our children will live better lives.
  I yield.

                          ____________________