Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2013 -- Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Would the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. REID. Sure.

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the majority leader through the Chair for clarity: Is the Senate Republican filibuster holding up unemployment benefits for 1.3 million Americans?

Mr. REID. It is actually now up to about 1.5 million.

Mr. DURBIN. Again, addressing the majority leader through the Chair, so the refusal of the Senate Republicans to allow us to vote on the extension of unemployment benefits is denying, on average, about $300 a week to 1.4 million or 1.5 million Americans; is that a fact?

Mr. REID. That is true, Mr. President.

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the majority leader this question: Is it not true that the initial complaint of the Senate Republicans was that this payment of unemployment benefits was not paid for?

Mr. REID. That is true.

Mr. DURBIN. Is it also true that Democrats came up with a pay-for that would have paid for the unemployment benefits, as the Republicans requested?

Mr. REID. And the pay-for was originally discovered by Paul Ryan.

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the majority leader: After the Democrats came up with the pay-for, the first demand of the Senate Republicans to stop their filibuster, did the Senate Republicans then join us in calling this measure for passage?

Mr. REID. Would my friend repeat the question?

Mr. DURBIN. After we came up with a pay-for, which the Senate Republicans insisted on, did they stop their Senate Republican filibuster on unemployment benefits and allow us to move forward?

Mr. REID. No.

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the majority leader if this followed: It was my understanding the Senate Republicans then came up with a new demand, and the demand was they be allowed to offer amendments to the unemployment insurance benefit package before they would drop their Senate Republican filibuster that was stopping unemployment benefits for 1.4 million Americans.

Mr. REID. That is true. And the biggest advocate we had for that on this side of the aisle was the whip, the senior Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the majority leader this question: Is it not true that yesterday, in response to this Republican demand, the majority leader offered a unanimous consent that would have given up to 10 amendments on each side of the aisle--Democrats and Republicans--to this measure and that the Democrats did not specify what the amendments would be; that it would really be the decision of the Republicans to offer those amendments? Did the Senate majority leader offer that to the Senate Republicans so they would stop their filibuster of unemployment benefits?

Mr. REID. The answer is yes. And in addition to that, there would be available on each side, if they wanted, five side-by-sides, as we call them here. So that could be a total of 10 amendments on each side, so 20.

Mr. DURBIN. So the Senate Republicans insisted on a pay-for, and the Senate Democrats provided it. The Senate Republicans still refused to stop their filibuster. Then the Senate Republicans insisted on amendments. We offered up to 10 amendments on each side.

Can the Senate majority leader say, after offering that unanimous consent, whether the Republicans agreed to it and stopped their filibuster of unemployment benefits?

Mr. REID. I am sorry to say they did not.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the majority, at this point in time what are we waiting for? What are the Senate Republicans now demanding to stop their filibuster of providing unemployment benefits to 1.4 million people across America?

Mr. REID. I have no idea.

Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senate majority leader that it strikes me as unfair, if not cruel, that we are holding 1.4 million unemployed Americans hostage to this continued political negotiation where each day the Republicans come up with a new demand before they will stop their Senate Republican filibuster.

I ask the Senator from Nevada, our majority leader, does he believe that a majority of the Members of the Senate would vote for the extension of unemployment benefits to these 1.4 million Americans if the Senate Republicans would drop their filibuster?

Mr. REID. No question about that.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the majority leader.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, first, the state of play in the Senate is that we want to pass an unemployment insurance benefit bill for 1.4 million Americans who, on January 1, had their unemployment checks cut off. Unemployment checks are sent to those Americans who have lost their job through no fault of their own and who have to prove to us they are trying to find another one. So while they are looking for a job, they receive unemployment benefits.

These benefits come from a fund which employers and, in some way indirectly, employees, pay into while they are working. This insurance policy is there so that if you lose a job there will be, on average, $300 a week to keep you and your family together while you look for your next job. It turns out that on January 1, 1.4 million Americans saw those checks cut off. In my State of Illinois, that affected 83,000 people.

These are people who have been unemployed for a while and are still looking for work. They have to because that is what the law requires. But here is the problem: The average period when someone is out of work when they lose a job in America is 38 weeks. That is the average. We cut off benefits at 27 weeks. That means that for 11 weeks a lot of people out of work get no unemployment benefits. What do they do? They turn to their friends, to their savings, and then they are out of luck. They may find themselves unable to make rent payments or mortgage payments, put food on the table, gas in the car to go look for work or pay for that cell phone they absolutely positively need if they are going to find a job.

So we came here and said: That isn't right. We are getting better. The economy is getting stronger. But the unemployment rate is too high. The national average is about 6.7 percent. It is over 8 percent in my State of Illinois, and in some States even higher, unlike the State of North Dakota, incidentally, which the Presiding Officer lives in and so doesn't worry about this at the present time. We came in and said: Let's extend unemployment benefits to these 1.4 million unemployed people in America so they can get by while they are looking for work.

This isn't a new idea. This is an old idea. It has happened over and over. In fact, under President Bush we did it five times, and the unemployment rate was even better than the one we have today. So it used to be bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans would say: Come on, give these folks a helping hand. These are workers facing tough times. We hear from them. They tell us their stories.

I ended up getting an email from a lady. For 34 years she had worked for the same company. She must be a pretty good employee, right? But now the company has laid her off and she can't find work. Another person had 9 years with the same company and lost his job. When he applies for a job, they look at his resume and say: Wait. You are way overqualified for this job. If we gave you this job, you would leave the first chance you get to get a better job. So there he sits, unable to find a job. He is trying, but he can't.

So these people are asking us: Can you help us keep our families together while we go through this tough period? And I think we should. So we want to call this bill to the floor of the Senate and pass it and extend unemployment benefits for 3 months. I would like to see it for 1 year, but even for 3 months we should extend these unemployment benefits so folks in this circumstance can get a helping hand.

The Republicans come in and say: No. We object to that. You cannot extend unemployment benefits unless you pay for them.

Well, that is new. Five times under President Bush they voted for their President's extension of unemployment benefits and didn't pay for it. Now they insist we pay for it. I don't like that. I think this is an emergency expenditure. But we live in a divided Congress, Democrats and Republicans. We have to find some common ground. So we came up with a pay-for. We came up with a way to pay for the benefits for this unemployment.

Then they said: No. We are still going to filibuster. We are still going to stop it unless you allow us to offer amendments. We have some ideas we want to bring to the floor and get them to a vote. Yesterday, the majority leader came to the floor and said: OK. We will give you amendments, up to 10 amendments on each side, to this unemployment issue. You pick the amendments. We are not going to pick them. They said: No. We still object.

So today we sit in the middle of a Republican filibuster stopping unemployment benefits for 1.4 million Americans. What used to be a bipartisan effort has now turned into an extremely partisan effort. That happens too much in this town. It happens too much on Capitol Hill. But it shouldn't happen at the expense of 1.4 million unemployed Americans.

That is why this floor is empty today. That is why we are giving speeches on a lot of different subjects. We are stuck in another Republican filibuster stopping unemployment benefits. I don't think that is right or fair. A lot of us believe we ought to extend these benefits and move on to deal with our economy and putting people to work, trying to find ways to make sure those who are working get a decent wage.

These are some of the things we ought to be taking up. But again, we are stuck in this filibuster, and so that is why I come to the floor to give a speech on two unrelated issues.

TOBACCO

Madam President, there is an issue that is very important to me personally, but it turns out it is important to a lot of people: Tobacco. I lost my father to lung cancer. He died when I was 14 years old. He smoked two packs of Camels a day and developed lung cancer at the age of 53 and died. I have to tell you it is one of the most profound events of my life, to be a high school student and to live through a parent dying slowly of lung cancer. My attitude toward tobacco and smoking, I am sure, is a product of that.

When I came to Congress, I decided that in some small way I was going to try to do something about it. I didn't believe I could solve the problem, but I thought I could help. So over 25 years ago I introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to ban smoking on airplanes. It is hard to believe--young people still don't believe it today--there was a time when half the airplane was smoking and half wasn't smoking. In fact, everybody was breathing secondhand smoke. We were successful. We passed the bill in the House of Representatives on a bipartisan vote. It came over to the Senate, before I was here, and Frank Lautenberg, the late Senator from New Jersey, took it up and did a great job, and the two of us together made it the law of the land.

We didn't know what we had done, other than to make airplane flight a little more convenient, safe, and comfortable. But it turns out it was a tipping point. It turns out that when we banned smoking on airplanes, people started asking questions 25 years ago: If it is not a good idea to smoke on airplanes, why is it a good idea to smoke on trains and buses and offices and hospitals and schools and restaurants and taverns and everyplace we go? So today, if you walked into a room and did what people did normally 25 years ago--pulled out a pack of cigarettes and lit one up--people would say: Stop. What are you doing? You didn't say a word to me. You are going to smoke in front of me?

That used to be normal. Thank goodness it isn't any longer. What happens is Americans have a different attitude toward tobacco. The actual debate on this issue began 50 years ago--serious debate--because it was 50 years ago the Surgeon General of the United States of America issued a landmark report that for the first time conclusively linked tobacco to lung cancer and heart disease. Remember this: Tobacco is the No. 1 preventable cause of death in America today, and it has been for more than half a century.

When this report came out, it was at a time when people smoked in offices, airplanes, elevators, even in congressional hearings. In 1964, 42 percent of American adults smoked. It is hard to imagine, but until a few months before the report was released the Surgeon General himself was a smoker. We have certainly come a long way since that time, and the Surgeon General's report played a big role in changing America.

Today we expect measures such as warning labels on cigarettes, keeping cigarette commercials off television, taxes on cigarettes, and now ``no smoking'' signs almost everywhere. Thanks to these commonsense tobacco control measures, smoking among U.S. adults in 50 years has been cut in half. The report released by Surgeon General Luther Terry in 1964 was a turning point.

We still have a long way to go. Approximately 44 million Americans, nearly one out of every five, still smokes, and more than 440,000 Americans die each year from tobacco-related causes. Last week the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study that showed over the last 50 years about 8 million premature smoking-induced deaths were avoided thanks to tobacco control measures. However, the study also noted that despite this progress, more than 17 million Americans died prematurely from tobacco over the last 50 years.

According to the Surgeon General's report, released in March 2012, tobacco use among kids is a pediatric epidemic and is the No. 1 cause of preventable and premature death in America. The report also found that every day 700 young people become new regular smokers, and of these new smokers one-third will eventually die from it.

We have young people who come and visit us in our offices, in the Senate galleries, and other places. These young people are the targets of tobacco companies. If they can get a kid to start smoking at an early age, before they have the maturity to understand the seriousness of that decision, they become addicted. Nicotine is an addictive drug and it is in tobacco and so they are picking up new customers by recruiting kids.

I have yet to meet the first parent anywhere, any time, anyplace who has said to me: I have great news for you, Senator. My daughter came home from school and she started smoking. I have never heard that. I don't think I ever will because we know intuitively it is a terrible thing and it could affect that young person's great young life.

The tobacco industry gets it. Our Nation pays the financial burden of tobacco use through $96 billion in annual medical costs, $97 billion in lost productivity of workers and, at the same time, these tobacco companies invent new ways to lure in these young customers and to entice people to buy their products.

Ninety percent of adult smokers began smoking before they graduated from high school--they were just teenage kids--which is why the tobacco companies continue to prey on children. They push products such as e-cigarettes. They just had the Golden Globe Awards, and some of these red-hot actors and actresses, whom we all love to watch in movies--Leonardo DiCaprio and others--were sitting there puffing away on their e-cigarettes. I looked at that and thought: You are killing the next generation of fans of your movies.

We have to bring an end to this. E-cigarettes--available in shopping malls--that release appealing fruit- and candy-flavored vapors so it is more of a candy experience than a tobacco experience is one of the new tactics. Unfortunately, it is working. Earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control released new data showing the use of e-cigarettes among the Nation's kids is rising.

The report raises concerns that for young people, e-cigarettes could be a gateway to traditional cigarettes. More than 3.6 million kids under the age of 18 currently are smokers, and each day more than 3,500 kids try smoking a cigar or cigarette for the first time.

This graph I have shows how far we have come in reducing the use of cigarettes but also how much we have left to do. Between 2000 and 2011, the consumption of cigarettes in the United States decreased 33 percent--by one-third. During the same time, the use of loose tobacco and cigars increased 123 percent. Cigar smokers--why in the heck would a kid want to smoke a cigar? Because it is similar to smoking a candy bar. They flavor these cigars with cherry flavoring, sweet chocolate or grapes, and they are trying to get kids to start smoking.

Over the past 50 years we have seen the growing popularity of these candy-flavored tobacco products such as smokeless tobacco, e-cigarettes, and nicotine candies that look like breath mints. All these products are geared to luring the young into this addiction.

I have called on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expand and assert its authority over tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and flavored cigars. Unlike traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes are not subject to Federal age verification laws. Kids can legally buy them in most places across America. Although we do know that most e-cigarettes contain nicotine, we don't know what else is in them. Without FDA regulation, we will not.

This Congress Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut joined me in introducing the Tobacco Tax Parity Act, a bill that closes the loopholes in how tobacco products are defined and taxed. It will end the exploitation of these loopholes by tobacco companies. It means taxing the roll-your-own loose tobacco we talked about and pipe tobacco at the same level. It means raising the tax on a container of smokeless tobacco from today's 11 cents to $1, the same as a pack of cigarettes.

I would like to show this as well. This is a story about Sharon, a 52-year-old woman from my home State of Illinois. Sharon started smoking at the age of 13. She said it seemed as though everybody was doing it. After her first puff, she quickly went from being a casual user to a full-blown addict with an expensive tobacco habit. When Sharon reached the age of 37--37--she was diagnosed with stage IV throat cancer. Thankfully, radiation and surgery saved her life, but she had to have her voice box removed and now speaks through an electrolarynx.

Last year Sharon was courageous enough to allow her story to be used as part of the Centers for Disease Control's 12-week antismoking campaign, a federally funded national antitobacco campaign with hard-hitting ads. It sounds like a pretty good effort by the government. But compared to the $10 billion a year the tobacco industry spends on marketing, the CDC campaign spent only $50 million; the tobacco industry, $10 billion.

CDC expects the campaign to help 50,000 people quit. One of those who called in to the quit line at CDC was a woman named Kim in Rockford, IL. She was watching an ad which showed the devastating effect on smoking on a North Carolina woman named Terrie. Kim said the commercial scared her, and that her son turned to her and said: Mom, you have just got to quit smoking. Kim called the Illinois tobacco quit line run by the American Lung Association and was connected to the nicotine replacement-patch program.

CDC's anti-smoking campaign is one of the many tobacco control and prevention measures that saves lives and shows we must continue investing in effective tobacco control measures.

This is a tough habit to break. One of my best friends in politics happens to be the President of the United States, who used to be a smoker. He is not now, thank goodness. His family is thankful and we are all thankful. But he still takes a little nicotine gum to chew from time to time to deal with the craving that is there. It is tough. But if people work hard, they can get it done.

This week we commemorate the importance of the first Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health and many other legal and cultural changes in this country. But as we look around at the proliferation of new and dangerous products luring kids to tobacco, we still have a lot of work to do. With the right commitment, we can spare future generations from this deadly epidemic of tobacco use.

I yield the floor.

Source