that allows both the house and the senate to consider and longer-term spending bill that would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in september. the house is voting on the measure this afternoon. if it passes, the senate likely will begin consideration of the measure later today. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, our hearts are steadfast toward you. lead us safely to the refuge of your choosing, for you desire to give us a future and a hope. today, give our senators the power to do your will, as they

realize more fully that they are servants of heaven and stewards of your mysteries. may faithfulness be the litmus test by which they evaluate each action. may they never be careless about their spiritual and moral growth. as you make them your instruments for achieving lasting peace and justice in troublesome times. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic

for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., january 15, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable edward j. markey, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 26. -- calendar number 266. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1846, a bill to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the biggert-waters flood insurance reform act of 2012 and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, on this issue, we have a bipartisan coalition that badly wants to get this done, and so we're

going to do everything we can to move afford on this. at this stage, the republicans have not cleared the proposed consent agreement. i've indicated to the republican leader that later today i would ask that, but also to stopgap, we have started the rule 14 procedure, which just in a minute i'll move to that, and we'll have the second reading. so if we can't work anything out on the -- on a consent agreement, we'll tee this up, so this will be the first vote we have back after our recess. mr. mcconnell: the majority leader is correct. there is substantial bipartisan support of the flood insurance bill. we're not in a position to clear this yet, but senator isakson, who has taken the lead on this issue on our side, is working with members and hopefully we'll be able to figure out a way afford here in the not-too-distant future. mr. reid: and on our side,

senator landrieu has been persistent o for months now, so she and senator isakson, i hope we can figure something out. following rye my remarks and those of the republican leader, the time until noon will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at noon the senate will begin consideration of h.j. res. 106, which is the short-term continuing resolution. at 12:15 there will be a roll call vote on the joint resolution. and just before coming here, i was told the vote in the house will be between 3 comploo 3:00 0 this afternoon. we expect to begin consideration on the omnibus bill when it is received from the house, as i've indicated, later today. mr. president, there are two bills at the desk due for second readings. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bill for the second time.

cleric s. 1917, a bill provide for additional enhancements of the sexual assault. s. 1926, a bill to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the billingert-waters flood insurance reform act of 2012 and to reform the national association of registered agents and brokers and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to further proceeding to either one of these matters at this time. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, last night's vote to block emergency unemployment insurance was, i'm sorry to say, what goes on and has for a number of years here. it was blocked by the republicans. it's really a tragedy for millions of americans who are relying on congress to get through these hard times. today's long-term unemployment is double what it was at any other time congress has emerged

benefits to lapse. yet republicans refuse to allow an up-or-down vote on plan to restore benefits to 1 .5 million americans and there ar their 2.n children. i thought we'd satisfied every complaint and demand my republican colleagues made throughout the week. they said they wouldn't vote on the extension which would provide an average of $3 00 a week to families struggling to get by unless the bill was paid for. so we proposed an offset. it wasn't iunique for us. it was originally proposed by congressman paul ry ryan, chairn of the budget cheat in the house, and the republican's candidate for vice president in the last election. then republicans said they couldn't vote for an extension of unemployment insurance without reforms to the programs. we also did that. what we did would prevent double dipping and reduce the number of weeks that they could receive unemployment benefits. the then republicans said they

couldn't vote to extend unemployment benefits unless they were allowed to offer amendments. so democrats agreed to vote on up to 20 amendments, 10 on each side. they again refused. so, mr. president, unless democrats agree to vote on on limited number -- on an unlimited number of unrelated amendments, the republicans wo would filibuster. this callus vote yesterday approves that the republicans wanted to seem like they wanted to vote for an extension of the unemployment. they hid behind one process argument after another. as they voted to end a prom program that has been successful for mstles americans, clurks as i indicated, half a million children. middle-class americans can see right through these flimsy

republican excuses. and they see last night's vote for what it was -- a slap in the face to almost 1.5 million americans, including tensions of thousands of veterans. a slap in the face for 18,000 nevadans who are still looking for work and 2.3 million children whose parents don't have jobs. and slap in the face for 70,000 more people who will lose their unemployment benefits each week until congress acts. the fight is not over, mr. president. we're not going to give up on americans struggling to get back on their feet. we're working on other proposa proposals. we can move afford at any time on a three-month extension, unpaid for. that's really what we should have done two weeks ago. so that during this three-month period we can continue working on a long-term solution. we must take up the short-term continuing resolution, which by the way is bipartisan.

senator heller from nevada joined with senator reed of rhode island, the two states that lead the nation in unemployment. the economy can't afford another manufactured crisis over whether the united states government will stay open for business or pay its bills. but soon republicans will be faced with the same choice: put their middle-class constituents first or keep playing political games. i received a letter this week from a nevadan. by the way, mr. president, a lifelong republican from nevada. and here's what he did and what he said. after 1 3 years on a job that he loved, this 54-year-old man was laid off through no fault of his own. he hasn't been able to find work for ten months, despite having applied to dozens and dozens of jobs. he is appalled at the way his own party has treated him.

"i'm shocked and dismayed and outraged at what the republicans have dealt with this matter." let me read this again. "i'm shocked and dismayed and outraged at how republicans have dealt with this matter. republican leadership has talked about people like me as if we're thieves, not worthy of help. that will cost republicans their jobs and should cost them their jobs." close quote. this nevadan is not alone. people all over america feel the same way. republicans around the country support an extension of unemployment benefits. mr. durbin: will the majority leader yield for a question? mr. reid: yes. 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's 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 averages about $300 a week to 1.4 million or 1 0e.5 million americans. is that a fact? mr. reid: that is triewvment. mr. durbin: is it not true that the initial complaint of the senate republicans it is what this payment of unemployment benefits was not paid for? mr. reid: that is true. mr. durbin: is it also true that the democrats came up with a pay-for that would have paid for the unemployment benefits, as the republicans requested? mr. reid: and i a pay-for that was originally discovered by paul ryan. mr. durbin: 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: my friend repeat the question. mr. durbin: as we came up with a pay-for, that the senate republicans insisted on, did they stop their senate republican filibuster on unemployment benefits and allow us to move afford? mr. reid: no. mr. durbin: i'd like to ask the senate leader, it is my understanding that the republicans came up with a new demand that they be allowed to offer new amendments to the unemployment insurance 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'd like to ask the majority leader this question: is it not true yesterday that in response to this republican demand, that you offered a

unanimous consent request which would have given, in fact, 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 was really the decision of the republicans to offer those amendments? did the senate majority leader offer that to the senate republicans so that 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 ten amendments on each side, so 20. mr. durbin: senate republicans insisted on a pay-for. 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 ten amendments

on each side. can the senate majority leader say after offering that unanimous consent, did the republicans agree to it and stop their filibuster of unemployment benefits? mr. reid: i already said they did not. mr. durbin: i would ask the majority leader at this point in time, what are we waiting for? what are the senate republicans now demanding to stop their filibuster 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, 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'll stop their senate republican filibuster. i would ask the senator from nevada, our majority leader, does he believe that a majority of the members of the united states 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: oh, no question about that. absolutely. mr. durbin: i thank the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, finally let me say the man from nevada is not alone. there are 1.5 million people like him in this country. sadly that number will grow every week congress fails to act. and my republican colleagues denigrate or ignore these americans to their own political peril. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, let me just say in response to

the colloquy we just heard, it used to be the assistant majority leader's view that, as he put it, if you don't want to fight fires, don't become a firefighter. and if you don't want to cast tough votes, don't come to the senate. obviously those days have changed, and what really happened over the last week is the refusal to have an open amendment process, the refusal to treat both sides the same, the final proposal we objected to yesterday required all the amendments to get 60 votes but final passage only 51; still does not restore the senate to the way it's form early -- formerly functioned. any member of the senate ought to be able to have a fair chance to have his or her amendment

adopted. that is the way it used to operate around here. what we're seeking here is fundamental fairness and on this particular bill an open amendment process, an opportunity to pay for it. i think the real concern is the majority leader was afraid some of the republican amendments might actually parks might actually enjoy bipartisan support. so we'll get back to that bill. it's a very important bill. but if anybody had any doubts that washington democrats wanted to see the unemployment bill fail, well, i think we just had those doubts erased yesterday and by the comments that were just made. it's just the latest example of senate democrats putting politics over policy. and in this case it's doubly tragic because this time they're putting politics over struggling families who deserve some certainty from congress. look, it is no secret that our democratic friends plan to spend the year exploiting folks who are still struggling in this economy, for political gain.

they have been telling reporters that for weeks. this is no secret. but that doesn't make it any less disturbing. it's still wrong. i probably want to be talking about something other than obamacare too if i voted for it. they want to talk about anything other than obamacare. but to create a conflict where the possibility of agreement was so close while more than a million people are stuck in the middle is just simply outrageous. making pawns out of these people stuck in the middle of this political game. and here's the larger issue. here we are in the sixth year of this administration, and we're still talking about emergency unemployment benefits six years into the obama administration, after all the stimulus bills and all the other big-government solutions that we were told would help the little guy; we're still looking at record

long-term unemployment. we're still looking at hundreds of thousands of able-bodied men and women basically giving up on finding work in this economy last month alone, in just one month? one report i saw even suggested about half of our nation's counties have yet to return to their pre-recession economic output. half the counties in america. the bottom line, the obama economy just isn't working for middle class americans. democrats tell us again and again and again that their policies will help people who are struggling, and yet we always seem to end up in the very same situation. debating whether or not to provide more emergency help instead of talking about how to provide a long-term solution and a stable economy that doesn't require permanent -- permanent -- life support from washington. so what's needed here is a

fundamental course correction. what's needed is for our colleagues to finally, finally acknowledge what's failed and then actually work with us on the underlying problems. that's what republicans are saying in this debate. what we're saying is how about actually trying to create jobs, for a change. that will be the president's challenge today when he speaks in north carolina. we hear he might lay out some ideas to get the private sector moving again. if that's the case, then maybe he'll be taking a step in the right direction, a step away from big government policies that have failed so many americans for so many years. because if he's truly serious about getting the economy back on track and creating jobs, he will do more than just talk about job creation or bipartisanship today. he'll actually work with us on real bipartisan solutions to get there. and there are simple ways he can show he means it.

the republican-controlled house has sent over a number of bills that would give a boost to jobs and to our economy. a good start would be for the president to lean on democrats who run the senate to take up those for immediate consideration. he could acknowledge that the real pain that obamacare is inflicting on middle-class families and then work with us to start over with real bipartisan reforms that actually lower costs and won't hurt the economy the way obamacare does. he could call for a true bipartisan tax reform. he could announce construction of the keystone pipeline. i mean, he came to a lunch with senate republicans -- i see the senator from pennsylvania on the floor. he'll remember this. came to a lunch with senate republicans last year, and the president said he would make a decision on the keystone pipeline last year, sometime during 2013. apparently that was in the same category, if you have your policy and you like it, you can keep it.

if you have your doctor and you like it, you can keep it. i'll make a decision on the keystone pipeline by the end of the 2013. well, we're still waiting. he could actually deliver on one of the brightest spots of his economic agenda: trade. that means instead of allowing the u.s. to lag behind our trading partners, the president could find a way to bring his party on board with a bipartisan bill introduced last week that would get the administration back in the game of helping american workers with increased exports. these are just a few of the many areas where we could work together to get some good things done for the american people. so i hope he'll be serious in his speech today. i hope he'll focus on actually getting the job done instead of just providing another distraction, another distraction from the pain of obamacare and the obama economy. because if this devolves into

just another political exercise that is focused on making a point instead of making a difference in the lives of people who are struggling that is not going to help middle-class families get back on their feet. tall it would do is continue a cycle of economic pain that the president needs to work with republicans to stop. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the time until 12:00 noon will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees and with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. i rise to address this situation we find ourselves in on the unemployment bill. i have to say the, this most recent episode in which the

majority leader refuses to permit an open process, refuses to allow debate, refuses to allow kinds of amendments that republicans would like to offer to improve this bill is very disturbing and part of a very well established trend now. it's actually shocking to me that over the last six months, since july of last year through today this, body has voted on a grand total of four republican amendments. four recorded votes on republican amendments in six months. under every previous majority leader, under every previous majority, the senate didn't work this way. i mean, it would be routine to have four votes in a morning before we broke for lunch. we've had four votes on our ideas that have been permitted in six months. so we are systematically being shut out of the process, and

what's particularly maddening about this is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know full well that the votes are there to pass an extension of unemployment insurance. they know it. if they would allow an open amendment process, we'd have a few amendments, we'd have a debate, we'd have some votes and in the course of maybe an afternoon, maybe two, we would have finished up last week and we would have passed an extension of unemployment benefits. but evidently that is not the goal of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, so they insisted on making sure that we could not engage in this debate, offer the amendments and do this in a way that's consistent with what the american people want us to do, which is move forward in the most sensible way possible. i've got an example this morning of the kind of very modest reform that we would like. as for myself, i think we should extend unemployment benefits for certain americans who are in the

really tough circumstances they find themselves in provided that the cost of doing so is properly offset with a legitimate offset so that we don't simply add still more to our excessive deficit and debt and that we have some modest reforms that, we begin the process of fixing a program that doesn't work. if this were working, why are there so many americans unemployed for such long periods of time? clearly this program is not working. let me give one example of an amendment that i think most pennsylvanians think is common sense. it's an amendment that senator coburn offered, and it would simply end federal unemployment benefits for people who have income of over $1 million a year. my guess is most pennsylvanians are shocked to discover that we extend unemployment benefits to millionaires. and i'm not talking about a net worth of $1 million, someone who maybe has a farm that's on paper worth $1 million but they might have no income.

no. i'm talking about people who actually have earned income of over $1 million, and then they stop working and start collecting unemployment benefits. i think most people think that's ridiculous. it's not as isolated as you may think. in 2011 there were over 3,200 households that reported income of over $1 million, and yet they were paid $30 million in unemployment benefits. in fact, there were over 100 households that had income of over $5 million. and taxpayers are paying them unemployment benefits? this just doesn't make sense. and it doesn't make sense to members of this body. in september of -- no, april of 2011, the senate had a vote on the substance of this very amendment, ending unemployment benefits for millionaires and multimillionaires. and the vote was 100-0 in favor of making this little modest reform to this program. now if we did actually enact

this reform, it would save about $300 million over ten years, which could go to paying for the benefits for the people who actually need an extended unemployment insurance. so of all of the members of the senate that are here today and were here at the time of this vote in 2011 -- that's the vast majority -- there's no dissent on this. there are bipartisan cosponsors of this amendment, democratic and republican alirks who a-- ao recognize that this is just common sense. despite the fact that this is not controversial that it is a modest reform that makes sense and would save money and would free up resources to pay unemployment benefits for the people who really need it, despite those facts, we're blocked. we're not allowed to offer this amendment on the senate floor. now, tweemen we attempted -- we

attempted yesterday, the minority leader asked unanimous consent to offer this amendment and that consent was denied. so then he moved to table or to eliminate, if you will, the amendments that the majority leader uses to block our opportunities to offer our own, his blocking amendments, and the majority party defeated that attempt to do away with those blocking amendments. so, as we sit here this morning, the majority leader is -- continues to block our opportunity to offer any amendments, even a modest commonsense amendment with bipartisan support that passed this body 100-0. so, madam president, i'm going to make one more attempt to offer this amendment, because i can't for the life of me understand why we can't have a vote on this. i rise to offer coburn amendment

2606 to s. 18 are 45. -- s. 1845. the presiding officer: has the motion to proceed to s. 1846 is the pending question. a senator: moi move to appeal ththe ruling of the chair that e coburn amendment is not in order. the presiding officer: the appeal is debatable. mr. toomey: and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: ms. landrieu: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call, please. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you. madam president, i come to the floor this morning to talk about another very important bill. there was an hour exchange about unemployment, which is extremely important for the nation, and i

think people got to hear arguments on both sides, and they can continue to try to process that. but came to the floor this morning to talk about another very important piece of legislation that we do have very deep and very genuine bipartisan support for, and that is the flood insurance provision, the homeowner affordability act, which will correct some of the more egregious provisions of a bill that passed a year and a half ago called biggert-waters. the bill biggert-waters that was passed, named for the two members of the house that led that effort, were well-intentioned. in fact, i've had many wonderful conversations with maximum even waters, the -- with maxine waters, whose name carries that bill. and she had wonderful

intentions, because california, like louisiana, depends on a program to work that's sustainable and affordable, but she even recognized and has been so gracious in her time to come to louisiana and say, you know, we intended for this to fix the problem, but i will admit we made it worse. and the way that fema has interpreted some of the things that we've done have made it worse and the fact that the federal government continues, despite our efforts, to recognize levees that people have built. so she has agreed to help lead our effort to reform a bill that she and congresswoman judy biggert passed a year and a half ago. so i want to start by commending the leadership in the house, the leadership is being led by congresswoman waters and congressman brim, and they are chairmen of standing committees

that are working to figure out how we move afford in the house. but in the senate we have been working so well together, despite all of the commotion and adversarial positions on other issues. we've put together a very excellent coalition of about 200 organizations, and i'm going to read those names in just a minute -- 200 organizations that have been working with us to fashion a reform bill that meets these objectives. and, madam president, you have spoken on the floor of the senate now at least a half a dozen times that i have listened you to speak on the floor, so you know all this i'm going to say, because you said it even better than i can. but the provisions n.r.a. our reform bill for flood insurance meet important goals. first of all, it's affordable to the middle-class people that are required to have it. that's the most important thing

about flood insurance is that it be affordable to the people required to have it. yes, there are some very wealthy families that live in mansions on beaches that are required to have it. they will have no problem paying a stngs premium. but there are -- a substantial premium. but there are millions of middle-class families, many of them in louisiana that don't live anywhere near the water, and they most certainly do not live in mansions on the beach. they live in middle-class, blue-collar, working neighborhoods far from lakes, you know, a distance from rivers and nowhere near the ocean that have found themselves caught up in paying premiums that they can't afford. so if we don't fix this the premiums coming into the program will be less and less, people will be defaulting on homes, banks, communities will take a

downward economic spiral and the program itself will collapse. now, we can't have this program collapse. so even though our critics say -- and this has been in the newspapers -- they say that we're trying to saddle taxpayers with a huge debt, nothing could be further from the truth. we're trying to save taxpayers from a big bailout by reforming a program that needs to be reformed and fixed so that middle-class people can forwardd it, homebuilders can build homes with it, realtors can sell homes with the program, everyone can get back to work, anxiety can be reduced and give us some time to figure out how to reach those two important goals. so the taxpayers don't have to bail us out and homeowners and businesses can afford it.

is that too much to ask? i don't think so. and happily -- happily -- senator menendez and senator isakson, two really veteran leaders of the senate, have put a really good bill together and we are ready to vote. we're ready to vote, madam president. we could vote actually right now, if we could just get a few things -- a few things worked out. and i'd like to talk about with a those things are, publicly so people can start working them out. because i think the more things that are transparent around here, the better we all are. the things that are done in secret, it's usually problematic. so let me say from the many people following this that the base bill is still basically in the order that everyone understands it to be. it's printed, i.t. bee, it's be,

public for weeks now. that bill that is the basic essence of the compromises worked out by senator menendez and senator isakson and i might say with senator merkley's extraordinary leadership as the subcommittee chair, that is the base bill. there are amendments that people want to offe to offer. they're all related to flood. and to my knowledge -- and senator isakson has worked through this and senator menendez, there is a hagan provision about escrow requirements that we think we should vote on. we're happy to vote on it. there is a blunt amendment that the national homebuilders have suggested that we have an amendment on, and we could vote on that as well. there is a crapo amendment that's in the works. some of these amendments have been filed and have language p.

some of them are just in theory form. there is a crapo amendment that would adjust the rate of increases in the underlying bill. we could vote on that. there is a reed amendment from rhode island. this would require fema to conduct a study on the viability of offering community-based flood insurance policies. my notes say there's broad support for that. there is a coburn amendment which is an alternative to the narab. that amendment will probably not receive the votes required, but we're happy to talk about his amendment and have him offer it. and there is a merkley amendment that will subject nfib policyholders to place policies or let their policies lapse. it is a technical amendment. there is has rubio-nelson

amendment that's being discussed. those are the only amendments that we know about. so if there's anybody else that has an amendment on flood that would like to offer it or have it considered, the next couple hours would be the last opportunity to get those amendments in. i know everybody is busy. ive has got lots to do. i have cleared my calendar, had meetings, cleared the calendar do this today because it is very important that we not just get so busy with other things that we leave this place and not get this done. so we're working transparently, openly, so there are no games to be played by either side here. so again, i want to repeat. there is a hagan amendment pending -- not pending but at that we know of, a rubio-nelson, a reed of rhode island, a

coburn, a merkley, a blunt, and then toomey, who was just on the floor, the senator from pennsylvania, has indicated that he wants to offer a substitute to what we're proposing. as far -- i'm not the manager of of this bill, so it is not my authority to make these definitive statements. senator menendez and senator isakson will ultimately decide the strategy. but as far as i understand, because we've all been working very hard together to move this bill to final passage here, as far as and i, these are the only amendments that people would like to offer, and there doesn't seem to be any objection to offering them. in addition, if people want 51 votes or if they want 60 votes, we're very open to that as well. and we could pass the bill with 51 votes. we can pass the bill with 60 votes. so we're open. you know, that's the game that's

played here. you say we want 60. no, we want 51. we can take it in any arithmetic that anyone wants to give us. we can deliver 60 votes. because we've done the homework on this bill, working with coalitions, working with homeowners and businesses from south dakota, north dakota, to new jersey and new york, to mississippi, louisiana, and california and oregon. there is no disagreement. well, there's some disagreement, but there's not enough disagreement to overcome the great coalition that has been put together here, which was evidenced by extraordinary press conference just a couple of days ago when we had over, you know, almost 20 senators showed up or their staffs were represented saying, we're ready to go. so my message on the floor today -- and i don't know how many more minutes i have. the presiding officer: the senator has use 12-d minutes. -- has use 12-d minutes.

ms. landrieu: i would like another five, unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: what was evidenced earlier and the coalition knows this is that there's broad consensus. there are a few senators that is want to vote against this bill. there are a few senators that want to offer amendments. fine. let the record show these amendments could be offered -- these amendments, germane to this bill, and any that would come to us, you know, in the next, you know, hour or so that arthatare germane to this bill,n take these amendments and have a 51-vote, a 60 requirement vote and final passage on 51 or 60. let's just get this done. and there should be no confusion at all about this. and i'm glad that no one on the opposite side is here debating

me on this. that's a good sign for us this a, that there really is only one side to this story and this is the side. i'm trying to be as fair aches. i have named the -- i'm trying to be as fair as i can. i have named the people that have amendments. we, the democrats, have said we have no objection to you offering those amendments. if you want 51 votes, if you want 60 votes, just let us know. coalition can hold against any amendments that would try to gut this bill. and we will let people know what those amendments are and who's offered them. because we think that this is absolutely the right thing to do for the country, for our states that we're representing and for the taxpayer. and just give us a little time to work together to figure out how to strengthen the national flood insurance program without

bankrupting five million families. because if we don't stop this train that has already left the station, we have to stop it, reverse it, and put it back in the train barn. and it is going down the track pretty fast. this is not a good place to be. as i said, we probably should never have passed the bill, but it was put in a conference committee report that was unamendable, and some provisions of it were indecipherable at the time -- that is a little strong of a word but they were not well understood. as the bill got read and implemented, people started realizing oh my gosh, what have we done? this is not going to work. and they are right. so i'm going to stay on the floor this morning.

if anyone from the republican side wants to come down -- anyone, anyone -- and disagree with what i've presented or challenge what i've presented, please do, because i want this to be a very open process. there's nothing for us to hide from. and that's what a democracy is about. there's some people that want to vote against our bill, fine. go ahead and vote against it. but we have the votes to pass it. we have 60, as i said. we may even have more than 60. and if we don't, then all i can say is we've tried our level best, and we just don't have the votes to correct it. i don't think that's the case. so i am not going to allow the smoke that's around here and the confusion and all the hot air to confuse the coalition that's worked too hard. and they need to hear my voice

very clearly, which is why i'm here. there is clarity. there is no opposition on the democratic side to this bill. we are waiting for a few clarifications from the republican side. we hope to get those. and the democrats that do have amendments, the only democrats that have amendments that i know of are senator hagan, senator reed from rhode island, and senator merkley. we have no objection on the democratic side for this bill and only three members that have amendments, and we're happy to have a vote on those amendments. they're not really controversial. somebody might find a problem with them and might vote "no." fine. but they don't gut the bill. there's no problem with the bill. it's the republican side that we're waiting for clarity. and again, i know how busy

everyone is. i know the senator from pennsylvania is working very hard on the -- he was just here speaking about it, on the unemployment insurance. and i know that's a very, very important issue to the people that he represents and to louisiana. if he could get a little time to work on this amendment that we think he wants to offer on flood, whenever he can, we're happy to have his amendment. we will vote on it, menendez, isakson and decide and when and how and what the number is, 51 or 60. but i believe -- let me just speak for myself -- that you, that it doesn't matter. we have the votes. if it is his intention to gut the bill, the bill with the -- the bill will not be gutted. if it is his intention to help us strengthen the bill, that is a definite possibility. but people are desperate, desperate, to get an answer from

congress now. we should have done this four months ago before these rate increases. escrow accounts are being collected now from people that got bills that they were paying $500 a year. now they're paying $5,000, according to the biggert-waters law, the banks have to go get that $5,000 and put it in the bank now to pay that insurance. that is a real hardship on people. we need to stop that, figure this out. and i'll finally ask -- i'm going to ask for another one minute. i think i've extended my time already. another one minute. thank you. we have delayed this fix too long and we need to go ahead and take care of this. so i'm going to stay on the floor this morning. i'll periodically bring everyone up to date. let me just close with reminding people what we are talking about. these are the new flood maps in the united states that are

either in effect -- purple -- proposed in green and new flood maps in yellow. there is not a state that is exempt from what i'm speaking about. and the amazing thing is to see this cluster in pennsylvania and in new york and ohio. everyone thinks about this as a texas, florida, louisiana issue. but when you see the inland states as well-being affected by flood maps that have never been issued before are being issued without good data because fema doesn't have the science, technology or resources to do this correctly yet. the affordability study has not been done and they didn't do it even though the last bill asked them to. so we need to put this train back in the station. it is not ready for prime time. and then bring it out in a way that, yes, rates may have to rise. no one is opposed to that. but they have to rise in a way that people can afford them, people can be notified, and then

other things can be taken into consideration like, from our standpoint, louisiana would like levees recognized. since we've spent billions of dollars of taxpayer money building them, we'd like them to be recognized. so if you're behind a levee, you don't have to pay $15,000 a year because you've already paid for the levee. you don't pay twice. taxpayers shouldn't have to pay three times. they're happy to pay their fair share. most everybody i know is happy to pay their fair share. but under biggert-waters it's not fair and it's not shared. and it's got to be pushed back. not completely repealed but delayed, which is what our bill does until we can fix it. so, madam president, i'm going to stay down here. if somebody else comes to the floor, that's fine, and i'll talk again about this because it is really important for us to get this done. and i know we have a big appropriations bill. i'm an appropriator. i'm the chair of the homeland security. it's a big, important bill for

the country. but this bill is almost as important not as the whole appropriations bill -- don't get me wrong -- but for the five million people that they're getting ready to lose their homes or their businesses, it's really important to them. and it's important for us since there doesn't seem to be any real serious objection to work hard to get it done. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. landrieu: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i want to ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: then i'd like to ask us to go back into quorum call by unanimous consent but divide the time equally between the republicans and the democrats. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. skabgs kabgs i had a conversation -- mr. isakson: i had a conversation with the

distinguished senator from louisiana about the flood control bill. i am in favor of that bill passing. senator menendez is the principal sponsor from the democratic party. senator landrieu, myself and senators over this country who have coastline and flood issues are very concerned. i want as much as anyone in the world to expedite the bill going from where it is now to the floor and have been working with some who have objections to the bill or objections with part of the bill to get an agreement on amendments with the leadership on the democratic side, so when we do that debate we have a fair number of amendments that are equally divided in terms of the time and the vote threshold is at 51 votes. i am close to getting there but i am not there yet. so if a motion for unanimous consent were propounded right now there would be an objection maybe even from me to let everybody know i am for this bill. i want this bill to pass, but i want to make sure that those that i've been working with to lift their holds are accommodated in terms of their opportunity to debate a germane amendment to the flood bill

that's relevant to flood control. so i come to the floor for only the purpose of education, to let everybody know that i am the republican sponsor and deeply involved and engaged in the passage of this bill. i also have respect and rartd for those -- regard for those who have differences of opinion or have technical corrections they want to make and i want to work with those before we get the u.c. so when we have the u.c. we know what the amendments are, we know where we're going to and can expedite the handling of this legislation and deal with a problem affecting many homeowners across this nation in flood and map areas and i yield back the balance of my time. ms. landrieu: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: may i just say before the senator from georgia leaves how appreciative this coalition is of his leadership. he has been literally -- i'm not just making this up -- extraordinary in his time and effort to walk through the final amendment process here. because this process has been going on for over a year. we just didn't start talking

about this last week. he's given over a year of his time. and as the chief cosponsor, has been phenomenal. what i think he would agree with me -- and if he doesn't, we could respectfully disagree -- is that it's time now for the members that have been hearing about this and have been told about this for weeks, weeks and months to get their amendments to senator isakson so that we can make some decisions about how many amendments we can have. we could have four, we could have six, we could have ten. we could have 51 votes. we are ready. the democratic side has for the most side cleared the amendments we know about we have. so the senator is terrific. i thank him for coming. i do not intend to ask unanimous consent at this point. the leaders are still working together. senator mcconnell and senator reid. and i know the senator from georgia is trying to work through this. would that be a generally good description of where we are,

senator? mr. isakson: the senator is correct. in fact to be precise, there were seven concerns about the legislation when the first u.c. was propounded on our side, five of which involved potential amendments that would be made, or need to be made to the bill, or in their opinion needed to be made. in the case of two of those and working with the leadership on the democratic side they are acceptable and would be included in the base bill. there are three that would be allowed to be debated with time equally divided on the floor and they've asked for a 51-vote threshold. and there is the potential, as we all know, always for a point of order but only three amendments in a point of order would be the only things that i am aware of in all those conversations. and i continue to work at this very moment to get a final agreement so we can get a u.c.. but we're just not there quite yet, and i'm going to try to continue to work towards that goal. ms. landrieu: so let me just ask for a quorum call and to say i'm aware that we're not quite there yet. but i'm also aware that the

clock is ticking, that it is wednesday, that we may be out of here on saturday, and we need to pass an appropriations bill. and this is something that also deserves a tremendous amount of attention. so i thank the senator. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: madam president, i ask the quorum call be dispensed with and then ask for us to go into a quorum call with time equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection.

ms. landrieu: you'd think i get this by now, madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: i ask consent at that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: and i ask consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, first, the state of play in the united states senate: what we want to pass is an unemployment insurance benefit bill. 1.4 million americans on january 1 had their unemployment checks

cut off. unemployment checks are sent to those americans who've lost their job through no fault of their own and have to prove to us that they're trying to find another one. so while they're 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're working. the insurance policy is there. 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 on january 1, 1.4 million americans saw those checks cut off. in illinois, 83,000 people. these are people who have been unemployed for awhile and are still looking for work. they have to. that's what the law requires. here's the problem. the average period when you're out of work when you lose a job in america is 38 weeks. that's the average. we cut off benefits at 27 weeks. it means that for 11 weeks a lot

of people out of work get no unemployment benefits. what do they do? well, they turn to their friends, turn to their savings and then they're out of luck. and they may find themselves unable to make rent payments or mortgage payments, food on the table, gas in the car to go look for work or pay for that cell phone that you absolutely, positively need if you're going to find a job. so we came here and said it isn't right. we're getting better. the economy is getting stronger but the unemployment rate is too high. the national average is about 6.7%. it's over 8% 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 doesn't worry about this at the present time. so we came in and said let's extend unemployment benefits to this 1.4 million unemployed people in america so they can get by, while they're looking for work. this isn't a new idea. this is an old idea.

it's been done over and over again. 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 the story. i ended up getting an e-mail from a lady. 34 years she worked for the same company. must be a pretty good employer; right? and then the company laid her off. and now she can't find work. another person, nine years with the same company, loses a job. when he applies for a job, they look at his resume and say wait, you're way overqualified for this job. if we gave you this job, you'd leave the first chance you get to get a better job. so there he sits untaoeubl find a job. -- unable to find a job. he's trying but he can't. they're asking us can you help

us keep our family together while we go through this tough period and i think we should. we want to call this bill on the floor of the senate, pass it, extend unemployment benefits for three months. i'd thraoeubg see it for a -- i'd like to see it for a year but even for three months extend these unemployment benefits so folks in this circumstance 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's 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 pay to pay for the benefits for this unemployment. and then they said no, we're still going to filibuster. we're still going to stop it unless you allow us to offer amendments. we've got some ideas.

we want to bring them to the floor and get them to a vote. yesterday the majority leader came to the floor and said okay, we'll give you amendments, up to ten amendments on each side to this unemployment issue. you pick the amendments. we're 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. and it shouldn't happen at the expense of 1.4 million unemployed americans. that's why this floor is empty today. that's why we're giving speeches on a lot of different subjects. we're stuck in another republican filibuster stopping unemployment benefits. i don't think that's right or fair. a lot of us believe that we ought to extend these benefits and move on to deal with our economy and putting people to

work, try to find ways to make sure that those who are working get a decent wage. these are some things we ought to be taking up but again we're stuck in this filibuster. and that's why i come to the floor to give a speech on two unrelated issues. i ask consent that each of these comments that i'm about to make be placed in a separate part of the "congressional record." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, there's an issue that is very important to me personally, but it turns out it's 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. and i'll have to tell you it's one of the most profound events in my life, to be a high school student and to live through a parent dying slowly of lung cancer. well, my attitude toward tobacco and smoking i'm sure is a product of that.

i came to congress and decided in a small way i'm 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 u.s. house of representatives to ban smoking on airplanes. 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. and we were successful. we passed the bill in the house of representatives on a bipartisan vote and it came over here to the senate before i was here. frank lautenberg, the late senator from new jersey took it up, 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. 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. well, if it's 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 every place 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're going to smoke in front of me? that used to be normal. thank goodness it isn't any longer. what's happened is that 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 number-one 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% of american adults smoked. it was hard to imagine, but until a few months before the report was released, the surgeon general himself was a smoker. we've 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 like 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've still got a long way to go. approximately 44 million americans -- nearly one out of every five -- still smoke. and more than 440,000 americans die each year from tobacco-related causes. last week the journal of american medical association published a studied that showed over the last 50 years about eight 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 die 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 number-one 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 a 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 ages before they have the maturity to understand the seriousness of that addiction, they become addicted. nicotine is an addictive drug and it is in tobacco. so they're picking up news customers by recruiting kids. i have yet to meet the first parent anywhere, any time, anyplace who has said to me i've got great news for you, senator. my daughter came home from school and she started smoking. i never heard that. i don't think i ever will because we know intuitively it's 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 the 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. 90% 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 like ecigarettes. they just had the golden globe awards, and some of these red hot actors and actresses who we all love to watch in movies, leonard dicaprio were puffing away on their ecigarettes and i thought you're killing the next generation of fans in your

movies. ecigarettes available in shopping malls that release appealing fruit and candy flavored vapors so it's more of a candy experience than a tobacco experience. that is one of the new tactics. it is working. earlier this year the center for disease control released data showing smoking is rising. report concerns that for young people ecigarettes could be a gateway for young kids. 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 we have here shows how far we've come to reduce the use of cigarettes but also we've got a lot to do. between 2000 and 2011 consumption of cigarettes in the u.s. decreased 33%, by a third. during the same time the use of

loose tobacco in cigars increased 123%. cigar manufacturers are attracting new young smokers. you think why would a kid want to smoke a cigar? it is like smoking a candy bar. they flavor them with cherry flavoring, sweet, chocolate, grapes and they're trying to get kids to start smoking. over the past 50 years we've seen a growing popularity of these candy flavored tobacco products, smokeless tobacco, ecigarettes, nicotine candies that look like breath mints. all these products are geared to luring the young into this addiction. i've called on the u.s. food and drug administration to expand its authority over taeb 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 don't know that most

e-cigarettes -- although we do know that most e-cigarettes contain nicotine, we don't know what else is in them. without f.d.a. regulation we won't. this congress, senator blumenthal of connecticut joined me in introducing the tobacco tax parity act, a bill that closes the loophole on how tobacco's products are defined and tax. it will end the exploitation of these loopholes by tobacco companies. it means taxing, roll your own tobacco, this loose tobacco we've 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 a dollar, the same as a pack of cigarettes. i'd 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, and she said it seemed like 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 4 throat cancer. thankfully radiation and surgery saved her life but she had to have her voice box removed and now speaks there an electrolarynx. last year, sharon was courageous enough to allow her story to be used as part of the center for disease control's 12-week antismoking campaign, a federal-fundedded antitobacco campaign with hard-hitting ads. it sounds like a good plan for the federal government but compared to the $10 billion a year spent on marketing, the c.d.c. spent only $50 million. the tobacco industry, $10 billion. c.d.c. expects the campaign to help up to 50,000 people quit. one of those who called in to the quit line at c.d.c. was a woman named kim in