[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 28, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S495-S505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOMEOWNER FLOOD INSURANCE AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1926, which the
clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 294,
S. 1926, a bill to delay the implementation of certain
provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act
of 2012 and to reform the National Association of Registered
Agents and Brokers, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to speak for up to 10 minutes. I
think we are in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is moving to proceed to consider S.
1926.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Wonderful. I thank the Presiding Officer. I will then
speak on the bill that is before us.
I appreciate the cooperation of so many Members who voted last night
to move forward on the debate of the fix to Biggert-Waters. We had a
very strong and very impressive vote. I think 83 Members, Republicans
and Democrats, came together from all parts of the country, from all
different areas and districts and backgrounds to vote to move forward
on the debate on flood insurance. I am grateful.
We have been working on this for about a year and a half. It has been
a tough slog because 2 years ago a bill called Biggert-Waters was
passed, named after the two cosponsors in the House, Congresswoman
Biggert and Congresswoman Waters. They passed a bill with very good
intentions. They were thinking they were going to strengthen the flood
insurance program. The bill had wonderful intentions, but
unfortunately, the way it was drafted in the conference committee has
resulted in disastrous results.
Some of us knew that 2 years ago and started working literally the
moment the conference bill was passed to begin changing it. So we have
worked diligently and together and built a great coalition. I thank the
200 organizations that quickly came together over the last year and a
half--as quickly as any of these things can happen in a practical
sense--to understand what went wrong in the first bill and how we could
fix it so we could accomplish two important goals for the National
Flood Insurance Program: first, that the program could be self-
sustaining. In other words, it could pay for itself with limited or
minimal taxpayer burden.
The other equally important goal--and the Presiding Officer, who
represents New Jersey, knows, as I do, how important this is--is that
the program would be affordable to middle-class families. If it is not
affordable to middle-class families, they will not participate in it
and the program will go bankrupt due to lack of participation.
The idea of insurance is to have a large pool to spread the risk, and
that is how an insurance system works. If we don't fix it, it is going
to make that pool get smaller and smaller and smaller. Because people
will not be able to afford it, the program will collapse and the
taxpayers will be saddled with debt.
The goal of our coalition--led by Senator Menendez, the senior
Senator from New Jersey who is on the Banking Committee and has been
one of the great spokesmen and leaders for this bill, and Senator
Isakson from Georgia, who is literally the most respected Member in
this whole body on issues related to real estate because he had one of
the largest real estate companies in Atlanta and knows the issue well.
He is very respected on both sides of the aisle. These two gentlemen
have led this effort and have built a bipartisan coalition.
So we are now ready this week, of all weeks. It is the State of the
Union week. We would have probably preferred another week, but that is
how this worked out. We are ready to debate the bill on the floor of
the Senate. At last count, when we left, there were about six or seven
relevant amendments. We are only going to accept relevant amendments to
this bill. We are not going to accept amendments on other subjects by
Members who are attempting to derail the Senate, get us off topic, et
cetera, et cetera. We will only accept relevant amendments to this
bill.
The happy thing is we think we only have about seven or eight
amendments. Some amendments are Republican, some amendments are
Democratic.
We just received an amendment from one of the opponents of our bill,
the good Senator from Pennsylvania, who has not been supportive of our
bill and
[[Page S496]]
has not worked with the coalition and has not cooperated in any way. We
got his amendment an hour ago. We have been actually waiting for a year
and a half.
Last May he opposed the bill, and we couldn't even get to the debate
because he wasn't happy with the direction we were going. So that
happened in May. What is this month? It is January. We are now in the
month of January, and he opposed the bill in May. It set us back 7
months. We tried to explain to the Senator from Pennsylvania that
74,000 people in his State have these policies and they too need help.
Whether he has been able to reconcile that with his constituents I
don't know, but we literally asked him to please let us know what we
could do. We told him we would be happy to meet with him. The
homebuilders and the realtors were willing to sit down and speak to
him. We finally got a draft of his amendment in the last hour. We are
literally reading it for the first time. I don't think that is
cooperation, but he may have a different definition of it. We are
reading that amendment now. I don't believe this amendment is going to
help our cause. I think it is going to undermine what we are trying to
do.
I will have more comments about the specifics of it, but the Senator
from Pennsylvania, for whatever reason, has not been cooperative the
whole time. We will be happy to vote on his amendment. I think the
amendment is going to do great harm to the bill, and I think I would
urge our coalition at this point to vote no, but I am going to look at
it.
Senator Isakson has just received a copy of it in the last hour, and
all I can do is ask our colleagues to be patient while we review his
13-page amendment. We have 200 organizations that have been working on
this. We are trying to be fair and get their input, and then we will
know how to proceed.
The bottom line is this: This week we are going to pass a flood
insurance relief bill off the floor of the Senate. I wish to put
everybody on notice that we have run out of patience. We have been
working on this for a year and a half. We were told before Christmas we
could have a vote, and then we were told we could have a vote when we
got back. Then we were told we could have a vote before we left.
This is it. There is no more time. We are voting on this legislation
this week. We are either going to do it the easy way or the hard way.
We are either going to have a few amendments the Republicans put up,
the Democrats put up, and we get back to legislating as we should or
the leader is going to file cloture on this bill and we are going to
pass it without an amendment. If one single Republican comes to this
floor and says they did not have time to discuss their amendment, we
will debate until the cows come home because I am not leaving this
floor until every single person in America knows the games that can be
played here.
I have been more than transparent. I have been more than honest. I
have come here more than any Senator. I don't know if this is good or
bad; it is the only way I know how to lead, which is to be forthright
and honest with myself, with my constituents, and with people who need
to know what in the heck is going on. I don't know how else to do it. I
am not going to apologize. I am not going to read about how to do this
in a book. There are no books on this. This is about leadership from
the inside, and the only people who taught me this were my parents.
I am just saying, if anyone in this Chamber thinks they are going to
get away with trying to give some flimsy-limsy excuse about how they
didn't get their amendment considered, how they are upset with the
leader, they will have to go through me, and I am not moving because I
have people all over this country who are desperate. We passed the
wrong bill. We should not have passed it. We must fix it, and we are
going to fix it this week in the Senate.
What the House does, what Speaker Boehner does--he made some negative
comments about the bill last week. My comments back were the Speaker
has his hands full. He has been busy. I understand it. I wouldn't want
his job. He has a tough job with a lot of issues to juggle. But I said,
and I will say again, when this bill goes to the House, which it will
after it passes the Senate this week, he will hear from millions and
millions of Americans who paid their mortgage every month, who went to
work every day, who honor their family by building homes in places they
have been for generations, and they are about ready to take those
front-door keys and turn them in to the local bank and walk away from
their house. Speaker Boehner is going to hear that. I hope those words,
those expressions, those pictures, those letters will hit his heart the
way they have hit mine and that he will have a softened heart and an
open mind and he will consider what we are trying to do.
I realize our way may not be the most perfect way, but it is a good
way, and if somebody wants to improve it, fine. But don't scuttle it,
pretending to be helping. Don't scuttle it by pretending to be for some
kind of better approach. If there was a better approach, we would have
found it in the last year and a half we have been searching. We are not
going to find it in the last 3 minutes of this debate.
We are reviewing the Toomey amendment. He has been the lead opponent
of our effort. I don't believe his amendment is helpful, but until I
read it, I will not be able to give a definitive assessment. Senator
Isakson will have to give his views on it, as will Senator Menendez,
and we will figure it out. But we are going to bring relief to the 5
million people who have done nothing wrong--middle-class families, some
of them very poor families--who have been living in these places for
generations, and because FEMA can't get its flood maps right, because
FEMA can't get the affordability study done, they are going to be
kicked out of their homes.
Talk about misguided regulation. I hope Mitch McConnell, our
Republican leader, talking about misguided regulation, will put a
little muscle into helping us. He has been cooperative, and I thank
him. Senator Reid has been putting a lot of muscle into this, and I
thank him.
I hope people will come to the floor and speak about the importance
of this bill. We will figure out this amendment process--all germane
amendments--and get the final vote this week. This is going to get done
this week, the easy way or the hard way, and we are done. The vote is
going to happen this week. We are going to move this bill from the
floor to the President, who put out a statement--and his
administration--they didn't have many positive things to say about
this. Let me just say I think their statement is misinformed. It is
misguided. I am hoping the White House will reconsider. The President
is coming here tonight to speak about the importance of strengthening
the middle class. I would think that allowing middle-class people to
stay in their homes would be a good place to start. So I hope the
administration will take a second look and join us and help us to let
middle-class families stay in their homes.
Let me conclude. Colorado is a beautiful State. I have been there
many times. However, not everybody can live in the mountains of
Colorado. There are some of us who have to live along rivers and
streams and ports to build and to support the infrastructure that helps
to make this country grow. My people who fish every day, who harvest
the oysters, who put seafood on the table, who bring those huge and
magnificent barges up and down the river, can't live in Vail, CO. I am
sorry. They don't like the snow and they couldn't afford to live there
anyway. They live in little places such as Burris and Venice and
Plackman, and the lower ninth ward that got flooded out, every single
home destroyed. They can go back if we use our science, our
engineering, our brains, and lead with our hearts and our heads. This
can work. But if people are playing political games, if they are trying
to score political points or if they are not working hard enough to
understand the issue, then I feel sorry for them because the public
needs our help.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about
the
[[Page S497]]
Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act. This bill is a bill that
is designed to fix the damage that has been done by the Biggert-Waters
Act, and this damage is extensive. This bill would freeze dramatic rate
hikes, and these rate hikes have several impacts.
We have, of course, the impact on families who currently have flood
insurance who will be paying much higher levels than they bargained for
when they bought their home and may not be able to afford those much
higher levels, raising questions about their ability to stay in those
homes.
We have the impact on commercial enterprises and the fact that now
that they are paying higher rates, they may not feel they can add on to
their business in that location.
Then we have the impact, of course, on selling your property, whether
you are a homeowner or you are a business, because the folks who might
be buying might have to jump to a full rate that would be many times--
in some cases 10 times--the price the current owner is paying, and when
that happens the property becomes unaffordable and, therefore, the
value that one has in their home or business drops dramatically.
All of this is of great concern, and we need to reverse the features
of Biggert-Waters that are causing this economic havoc.
This bill comes out of discussions that were in my Subcommittee on
Economic Policy several months ago. This discussion is now led by
Senator Menendez, and he has been ably assisted and partnered with
Senator Mary Landrieu and Senator Isakson and Senator Vitter and I
compliment them all for being vocal advocates and instrumental in
helping to move this bill forward.
The Biggert-Waters Act, while well intentioned, is creating massive
burdens for our middle-class homeowners in Oregon and certainly across
the Nation. Flooding is something of an equal opportunity disaster. For
some, it is the coastlines. For others, it is broad flood plains along
major rivers. For others, it is narrow valleys and flash floods. But in
all of these situations, the common impact is dramatic devastation.
Something is very wrong though when families are more worried about
dramatic spikes in their flood insurance premiums than they are worried
about dramatic floods, and that is where my Oregon families are right
now. I wish to share a letter from Kelly. She lives in Tigard. She
says, in her own words, she is ``a middle class, single mother
currently working to get [her] daughter through college.''
She bought her home 13 years ago to provide stability for her
daughter. This is a goal of so many parents, to have a piece of the
American dream, to have the stability that goes with home ownership, to
have the equity that you build in your home as a financial reservoir
with which to assist your children going forward in life.
She thought about selling a few years ago but decided to stay in that
house and keep that financial foundation. But now, with Biggert-Waters
going into effect, she has been caught between two bad choices. If she
stays in her home, her flood insurance rates will go up precipitously,
making her home increasingly unaffordable and squeezing an already
tight budget. But should she try to sell, the new owner will face
annual flood insurance premiums of $15,000 or more, making her home
completely unaffordable for middle-class buyers.
Keep this in mind: For every $1,000 a buyer pays in flood insurance
per year, the value of a home drops by about $20,000. So if the flood
insurance is $15,000, we are talking about a value of a home dropping
$300,000. Many middle-class homes in Oregon are not priced at $300,000.
They might be valued at $200,000 or $220,000 or $250,000 or, in more
rural areas, $150,000 or $175,000. So we can wipe out the complete
value of a home and certainly easily wipe out the equity a homeowner
has built over a number of years. Essentially, you have to give the
home away. That makes no sense.
To read from Kelly's letter, she says:
Here is where I see a problem. There is an old saying,
``you can't get blood from a stone.''
She continues:
I know I am not alone in my predicament of barely getting
by financially.
Middle income folks like me are squeezed from all sides. .
. .
While living expenses rise every year, our income generally
does not raise enough to make up for it. . . .
We tighten our belts and wait for better times. So, the
problem here is, we can't afford to pay these, much higher
rates. We just don't have the money.
She continues in her analysis:
There are options, of course. We can come up with many 10's
of thousands of dollars to raise our houses up and make them
flood friendly. . . .
But wait--we don't have 10's of thousands of dollars. And,
we can't sell--that's the beauty here. Who will buy a small,
middle income type home that has a flood insurance bill
annually of 15-30k [a year]?
She continues:
So what will we do, the over 1 million homeowners in this
situation? To our utter frustration and humiliation, many of
us have no choice but to walk away. . . .
Whatever the attitudes about us are, most of us are good
Americans who believe in paying our debts. We have worked
hard our entire lives, and asked for little or no help along
the way.
This will crush us, and since we don't have the money to
give, there is no benefit to be had.
That is how she concludes her letter: ``This will crush us. . . . ''
She is right. It will crush her family. It will crush millions of
families across this country. It will include foreclosures. It will
include equity wiped out. It will result in families having to walk
away from their home and hope they are not pursued by their mortgage
company that will be unable to sell the home on a secondary market for
the debt owed and, therefore, could pursue the owners.
It is wrong and counterproductive to squeeze middle-class homeowners
such as Kelly when it will only result in more foreclosures or families
trapped in their homes unable to sell them.
Making flood insurance more solvent is a laudable goal, but it is one
we have to approach in a manner that involves fairness over time.
Achieving solvency by putting a huge burden, a huge financial shock on
the backs of our middle-class families is not just wrong, it is a
financial disaster that is unfolding now and will continue to unfold
across this country.
We cannot get to solvency by asking families to pay sums they simply
do not have or, as Kelly said, ``You can't get blood from a stone.''
We need to immediately stop these dramatic rate hikes for our
homeowners and our businesses while FEMA goes back to the drawing board
to figure out how to make this program affordable and effective for our
middle-class families.
That is exactly what this bill does. This bill has several important
provisions that help ensure affordability and fairness for our middle-
class families.
The first is it delays implementation of flood insurance rate
increases. It does so on primary residences and on businesses until
FEMA can complete an affordability study, propose regulations to
address the problem of affordability, and give Congress time to weigh
in.
Second, unlike Biggert-Waters, the bill ensures that FEMA will truly
have the funding they need to complete a comprehensive affordability
study.
Third, this bill takes on a catch-22 in the current system, which is
that when homeowners face unaffordable rates that they think are
inaccurate, they have to pay out of their pocket for a flood map appeal
to prove that their premiums should be lowered. So when someone else
makes a mistake, they have to pay for that mistake, and that is wrong.
The studies necessary for an appeal can cost between $500 and $2,000.
It is a prohibitive cost for many families to undertake. This bill
ensures that any homeowner who can successfully appeal a flood map
finding will be reimbursed by FEMA for their expense, making the system
fairer for the homeowner and giving FEMA an added incentive to get it
right.
Finally, this bill does something very important in creating a flood
insurance rate map advocate within FEMA, someone to educate and
advocate for homeowners. One of the complaints my office has heard is
that FEMA has not been responsive to homeowners' concerns or questions
about changes in their policy.
It creates this position. An advocate will do several things. The
advocate will educate policyholders about their flood risks and their
options in choosing a policy. The advocate will assist
[[Page S498]]
those who believe a flood map is wrong and assist them through the
appeal process. The advocate will improve outreach and coordination
with local officials, community leaders, and Congress.
My colleagues Senators Hoeven and Heitkamp have also done great work
on this bill to ensure that homeowners in certain communities are not
hit by unfair rules on how their basements impact a flood policy.
I would like to address one other issue that is not in this bill that
hopefully I will be able to offer an amendment on; that is, protection
for consumers whose policies are purchased by their mortgage servicer
or their bank rather than by themselves. This is the issue of predatory
force-placed premiums.
Let me explain. Let's say, for example, that you are notified by your
servicer that they have reviewed the records and they now consider you
to be in a flood plain they had not noticed before and you have to get
flood insurance. But that flood insurance, unsubsidized, is so
expensive you cannot afford it. So then the servicer says: Well, we are
going to put on flood insurance for you. The rate might be 5 to 10
times the market rate. In other words, the homeowner who already cannot
afford flood insurance is gouged by predatory premiums on force-placed
insurance.
Let's consider that perhaps you had a transition in your family.
Maybe you have one partner paying the bills and another partner takes
it over while the first partner is sick and you miss the fact that your
annual premium was due on your flood insurance. So what happens? That
lapse can trigger much higher rates that you cannot afford. Then
suddenly you are in the situation of force-placed insurance.
How about if new maps are issued. The new maps now put you into a
100-year flood plain that you were not in previously. It is not that
the geography changed; it is that a different set of engineers, doing a
different study, different assumptions about where the rain will fail,
which creek will swell the quickest, puts you into this 100-year flood
plain.
So now what are you going to do? You are going to be in this
situation. You cannot afford that insurance, that newly placed
requirement for insurance, so the servicer or bank puts it on for you.
Well, they should put it in at a fair market rate, not at a rate which
is 5 to 10 times the fair market rate and which is designed to gouge.
I have an amendment that addresses this by saying the servicers or
banks cannot take fees--or, as some would say, ``kickbacks''--for
placing this insurance and therefore have an incentive to do a
nonmarket rate policy that is 5 or 10 times higher than the actual
market rate.
This is a significant problem in force-placed home insurance.
Certainly, we do not need to add to this problem by allowing predatory
premiums on force-placed policies in the realm of flood insurance. I
encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a look at
this issue, to support banning the anticompetitive features of the
market that have led to these predatory premiums on force-placed flood
insurance.
In closing, I again thank my colleagues who have worked so hard. This
is an important issue, an incredibly important issue for families
across Oregon. Let's stop these dramatic rate hikes. Let's work
together for an affordable flood insurance program that will be
effective and fair for all Americans.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Income Inequality
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the letters I will be
speaking about be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
Recently the Obama administration has been talking a lot about income
inequality and poverty. Yesterday I spoke about the issue, about the
war on poverty, its successes and its failures. As I said yesterday,
the United States has spent trillions of dollars in the last 50 years
fighting the so-called war on poverty. I said yesterday that the
results have been marginal, in some cases successful, reducing the
poverty rate from 19 percent down to the 15 percent it is now. But a
lot more needs to be done.
Now, in the fight against the war on poverty, this administration,
like a lot of administrations, wants to spend more money on more
programs. Some of that may be justified, but that does not seem to fix
the problems. If you just hand this money out with no strings and no
oversight, it gets diverted and misused. That is the purpose of my
speaking today on the subject of public housing.
Wasted money does not help the poor. There are a lot of people who
make a nice profit from the poverty of others. This administration has
been helping a number of these profiteers while the poor suffer. I want
to be clear as to some of these issues I am talking about--their
genesis goes back to previous administrations as well. Through my
oversight work, I have seen this happen over and over, that a few
people profit from trying to help the poor, but the money does not go
there. The Department of Housing and Urban Development hands out $4
billion in Federal money every year to local housing authorities. This
money is supposed to help provide clean, affordable, safe housing for
the poor. But, while no one is watching, much of the money gets spent
on high salaries and perks for the people who run the housing
authorities. These housing authorities have other sources of money. For
most of them, up to 90 percent of their total funding comes from the $4
billion contributed by the Federal taxpayers.
Housing and Urban Development argues that because housing authorities
are State and local government entities, there is no reason to
scrutinize them from here in Washington, DC. As far as I am concerned,
HUD is missing the point for 4 billion reasons. Those are dollar
reasons. Taxpayer money should come with Federal oversight. We need to
make sure that the Federal authorities who disburse it make sure they
oversee that it is spent in the legal way--to help the people who need
the help.
I have been conducting oversight of the wasteful spending at housing
authorities for almost 4 years. I have been urging the Obama
administration to look at what is happening and to take action. But
there is little if any interest in the oversight of these Federal
dollars by the folks writing the checks here in Washington, DC. They
just want to send the checks and pat themselves on the back. They do
not want to talk about what actually happens to the money once it is
disbursed.
Federal funds end up feathering the nests of local housing
bureaucrats instead of housing the poor. I will show you how that is
done. Here are some of the most egregious examples of how ineffective
the Department of Housing and Urban Development has been at policing
local housing authorities.
Bradenton, FL, is an area of the country which was hit extremely hard
during the foreclosure crisis, but employees at Bradenton Housing
Authority only have to work 4 days a week. They get 2 weeks off at
Christmas, bonuses in June and December, and the option to cash out up
to a month of sick leave twice per year. They get free use of a car
purchased by the housing authority. After 15 years of employment, they
get to keep the car when they leave or take $10,000 instead; it is
their choice.
There are generous fringe benefits, but many housing authorities also
provide very lucrative salaries. These salaries far exceed the salaries
of Federal employees right here in Washington, DC, who hand out the
taxpayers' money to the housing authorities. The biggest salary jackpot
winner I have encountered so far is the Atlanta Housing Authority. At
least 22 employees there earn between $150,000 and $303,000 per year.
The Atlanta Housing Authority benefits from a special HUD designation
called ``moving to work.'' That program exempts designated housing
authorities from certain requirements, including salary justification.
This is not just an isolated example. The executive director of the
Raleigh, NC, housing authority receives about $280,000 in salary and
benefits, plus up to 30 vacation days. He also accumulates comp time
for any hours he works over 7\1/2\ hours per day. He has used over 20
days of comp time per year since 2009. Add that to his regular vacation
time, and he is out of the office
[[Page S499]]
nearly 3 months per year. Nine months of work for $280,000 is an
annualized salary of $375,000 per year. Very few taxpayer-funded jobs
pay anything close to that amount.
So what is the justification for such high salaries, particularly
considering the fact that they are supposed to provide safe, affordable
housing for low-income people? After years of ignoring the issue, HUD
finally capped Federal funding for executive salaries at $155,500 per
employee. Of course, this was only after various local media and I
exposed deep-rooted problems and pushed the Department of Housing and
Urban Development to act. But now housing authority executives have
turned to creative accounting tricks to get around that limit of
$155,500 per employee. Since some of their money comes from other
sources, the housing authorities simply claim that any salary over the
Federal limit comes from one of those other sources, whereas the money
from those other sources ought to be used to help low-income people
have affordable, clean, and safe housing.
Because of my oversight letters on this subject, HUD recently
notified the housing authorities that they must document the original
source of the funding used to pay salaries over the Federal limit. That
is good news, but there are still larger problems. The Department is
still not making this salary data public in a reasonable timeframe. I
will give an example. This administration refused to release the 2010
set of data for almost a year. I hope we do not have to wait a year to
get the most recent data.
Like many of our Federal agencies, some housing authorities spend
large amounts of money on travel for conferences and training. Some of
that may be legitimate, but I am raising questions about the extent to
which it is done and the amount of money that is consumed. Staff and
board members often attend the same conferences throughout the United
States year after year. They often attend multiple conferences in a
single year. In addition to travel costs, housing authorities must pay
a conference fee for each attendee they send, often ranging from $400
at the low end to $1,000 per employee at the higher end.
That money could easily be used to improve conditions and make needed
repairs in public housing facilities. Instead, it is frittered away on
conferences. In other words, forget the low-income people they are
supposed to be helping and spend the money someplace else.
The Tampa Housing Authority has spent more than $860,000 since 2009
for staff and board members to attend various conferences, seminars,
and training programs--$860,000 that could have been used to provide
affordable housing for low-income people. Tampa also has been sending
20 or more employees per year to conferences sponsored by the National
Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. That alone costs
more than $177,000 per year.
The Atlanta Housing Authority spent more than $480,000 since 2009 for
the employees to attend conferences and training sessions. In fact, the
housing authority paid over $68,000 in conference fees to a software
company after giving them a multimillion-dollar contract for a new
computer system.
I wonder--I don't know, but I think it is legitimate to question--if
the housing authority executive director thought to ask for a discount.
Many of the housing authorities with questionable spending don't limit
the abuses to salaries or travel.
The Tampa Housing Authority purchased a new $7 million administrative
office that includes nearly $3 million in renovations and upgrades.
That could have helped hundreds, if not thousands, of poor people
needing the housing. They are also paying nearly $800,000 in salary and
benefits for a public relations department while at the same time
paying an employee another $170,369 as a PR consultant.
Other housing authorities are also spending exorbitant amounts for
outside consultants. Some of these consultants are former employees of
the local housing authority.
In 2013, the Pittsburgh Housing Authority retained 10 law firms for a
total of $3.5 million over 3 years. One law firm has been representing
the housing authority during inquiries by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development Office of Inspector General and the city controller.
Think about that. It is bad enough that taxpayers' money meant to
help the poor is wasted, but when the taxpayer also pays the lawyers to
defend the very organization from scrutiny about whether the taxpayers'
money was wasted is even more outrageous. Of course, that adds insult
to injury.
In Philadelphia, outside lawyers blocked the inspector general's
office from assessing spending data for months, and that cost the
taxpayers millions of dollars.
The Pittsburgh Housing Authority also paid an outside consulting firm
$1.25 million in the year 2012. The vice president at the consulting
company billed the housing authority $404,000 for 2,400 hours of work.
That is 48 hours a week for a year. It is more than double the $168,000
salary of the housing authority executive director.
Harris County, TX, is one of the most egregious examples of out-of-
control spending. In 2013, the HUD inspector general questioned the
mismanagement of over $27 million in Federal funding for Harris County.
The IG provided the following examples of fraud and abuse: over $1.7
million in excessive payroll expenses; $190,000 for statues and
monuments; $66,000 for employees' shirts embossed with logos; $27,000
for trophies, plaques, and awards; $14,500 for a helicopter, a
chartered bus, and golf cart rentals for a grand opening; and $18,000
for letters written by Abraham Lincoln.
I continue to send my oversight letters to the Senate appropriators
and the Senate banking committee. These are the letters I received
permission to put in the Record at the end of my statement.
The Senate appropriators and the Senate banking committee members
have jurisdiction over the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
They have the authority to do something about these abuses. My
colleagues need to know the extent of the problems, and that I am ready
to work with the Members of this body to address these issues.
Employment at public housing authorities should be about public
service. That is why we have a program serving the needs of low-income
people. It is supposed to be providing clean, safe, affordable housing
for those in need, not helping bureaucrats live high on the hog on the
taxpayers' dime.
As I said in my opening, this problem didn't start with this
administration. There is a culture here that had to start back a long
time ago. But now, bringing these problems to the attention of this
administration, I hope it will take them seriously. If this
administration is truly serious about income inequality--and not only
using it for political purposes--it would stop shoveling taxpayers'
money out the door with practically no oversight, no controls, no
limits, and the waste of money I have just expressed. If President
Obama is truly serious about income inequality, he would take the money
high-income public housing authorities waste and give it to the benefit
of low-income patrons of public housing to provide what the law is
meant to provide these people: safe, affordable, healthy housing.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, July 16, 2013.
Hon. Shaun Donovan,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Donovan: The Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) awarded high performer status to the Harris
County Housing Authority (HCHA) ``for eight consecutive
years'' between 2004 and 2011. In the 2009 Consolidated On-
Site Review, the HUD field office director, Dan Rodriguez,
even stated that, HCHA ``practices are some of the best
throughout our region.'' Following revelations of possible
mismanagement in 2012, Mr. Rodriguez then told the Houston
Chronicle, ``We didn't expect that anything was actually
going on here of concern.'' He further stated, ``We in the
field office here have always had the privilege of having one
of the highest-performing housing authorities in the
country.''
On June 19, 2013, the HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG)
released an audit report raising concerns about HCHA
mismanagement of over $27 million in federal funding. In
addition to over $7 million spent on an unauthorized disaster
assessment and over $8 million for the now-defunct Patriots
on the Lake development, the OIG provided numerous examples
of fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars. These include:
[[Page S500]]
Over $1.7 million in excessive payroll expenses;
$190,000 for statues and monuments;
$66,000 for employee shirts embossed with HCHA logos;
$54,000 for apartment rental for housing consultants;
$24,000 for a book writing project about disaster housing;
$27,000 for trophies, plaques and awards;
$14,500 for helicopter, chartered bus and golf cart rentals
for a grand opening;
$18,000 for letters written by Abraham Lincoln; and
Over $150,000 in missing electronic equipment including
computers and electronic tablets.
The OIG found that both HCHA management and the Board
failed to fulfill their oversight responsibilities.
Specifically, ``the Authority expended funds for many items
that were not reasonable or necessary and did not support the
Authority's mission.'' Moreover, ``they neglected their
management and oversight responsibilities; wasted Authority
funds, at times for personal gain; circumvented existing
internal controls; and manipulated accounting records. These
conditions occurred because the Authority's management and
Board failed to exercise their fiduciary responsibilities and
did not act in the best interest of the Authority.''
HUD also failed to ensure that millions in Disaster Housing
Assistance Program (DHAP) funding, awarded following
Hurricane Ike, were used properly or as intended. Instead,
HCHA awarded a lucrative consulting contract to the former
HCHA Board chairman Odysseus Lanier's firm just two months
after he resigned from the Board. The conflict-of-interest
waiting period is one year. Mr. Lanier's consulting firm
received ``$11.3 million from HCHA, according to agency
director Tom McCasland, most of it for work on some sort of
multi-state disaster response survey that nobody wanted.
Harris County tried to get $7 million in reimbursement for it
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but was denied,
according to the audit.'' Additionally, in 2008 the housing
authority purchased at least five high-end SUVs which were
subsequently donated to the Harris County Office of Emergency
Management and earmarked for five specific employees.
Purchasing $18,000 historic documents, spending $190,000 on
statues and monuments, and paying for chartered helicopter
flights is not a hallmark of ``one of the highest performing
housing authorities in the country.'' This is money that
should have been used to provide clean, safe, and affordable
housing for those in need. HUD must take greater steps to
safeguard taxpayer dollars, especially during this time of
budget cuts due to sequestration. Please provide the
following information:
1. What steps are being taken by HUD to recoup as much of
the $27 million in questionable spending outlined in the OIG
audit report?
Given the efforts that Mr. Rankin and other officials at
HCHA took to hide their questionable spending, have criminal
referrals been made to the Department of Justice? If so, for
what offenses? Who has been referred?
2. I have raised concerns about unreported conflicts-of-
interest at HCHA and other housing authorities that have cost
taxpayers millions. What steps are being taken by HUD to
tighten up conflict-of-interest reporting requirements and
increased oversight to reduce the questionable payments in
the future?
3. It is my understanding that HUD has conducted no
oversight of the billions in Disaster Housing Assistance
Program (DHAP) funding granted to HCHA and other housing
authorities along the Gulf Coast impacted by Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita and Ike. Please explain why this has not been
done and, given the recent financial problems at HCHA and
billions provided for Hurricane Sandy efforts, when we might
expect an audit to be conducted?
4. It is my understanding that neither the former HCHA
executive director, Guy Rankin IV, nor his new company,
International Housing Solutions, has been suspended or
disbarred from receiving federal funding through HUD. In
fact, Mr. Rankin may be trying to obtain or has already
received Hurricane Sandy funding even after allegedly wasting
millions in Hurricane Ike funding.
Please state whether HUD has suspended or disbarred Mr.
Rankin and/or International Housing Solutions, as well as
other bad housing authority actors, from receiving federal
funding.
Please also explain what steps HUD is taking to ensure that
Hurricane Sandy funding is used as Congress intended and not
lost to waste, fraud and abuse.
5. What specific changes have been and will be made to the
housing authority assessment program that will address the
many deficiencies in the current self-assessment program?
When will these changes be fully implemented?
6. Currently, the housing authorities' financial and
management audits are paid for by the housing authorities
themselves, which may result in conflicts of interest. What
alternatives to auditor contracting awards and payments are
being considered by in order to ensure that the auditors are
serving the taxpayers instead of housing authority
management?
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this
matter. I would appreciate receiving your response to this
matter by July 31, 2013. Should you have any questions
regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
Janet Drew of my staff.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member,
Committee on the Judiciary.
____
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, November 20, 2013
Hon. Shaun Donovan,
Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Donovan: I have been raising concerns about
questionable spending at public housing authorities (PHA)
across the United States. I have questioned excessive travel
spending at public housing authorities in the past, but the
Tampa Housing Authority (THA), a HUD high performer, appears
to have far surpassed those housing authorities in travel and
conference spending.
Recent investigative reports by Channel 10 News in Tampa
found that THA has spent in excess of $860,000 since 2009 for
staff and Board members to attend various conferences,
seminars and training programs. According to travel documents
provided by THA (see attached), staff and board members often
attend the same conferences throughout the United States,
some for the same organizations year after year, and often
attend multiple conferences in a single year. In addition to
travel costs, THA pays a conference fee for each attendee,
ranging between $400 and $1000. Every dollar that goes to
airfare, meals, lodging and conference fees, is another
dollar that cannot be used to help house homeless Tampa Bay
residents.
Additionally, these trips amount to thousands of man hours
spent away from the office and not serving the citizens of
Tampa. According to the travel documents, THA staff and board
members annually spend more than 500 work days outside the
office. While THA may argue the necessity for the conference
and training attendance, a vast majority of these trips
appear to be non-critical to housing authority business and
give the impression of being an excuse to take expensive
vacations paid for with taxpayer dollars.
Like other housing authorities I have been investigating,
THA has been spending limited federal funding for other
questionable expenses. The executive director, Jerome Ryans,
receives an annual salary of $214,000 plus a compensation
package which puts him well over the $155,500 salary cap.
Additional examples include: a new $7 million administrative
office with nearly $3 million in renovations and upgrades,
nearly $800,000 on salary and benefits for the public
relations department while paying $170,369 for a PR
consultant, $2.8 million in outside legal fees since 2009
while one outside lawyer is also married to a housing
authority employee.
In August, Executive Director Ryans complained that ``the
agency will also lose approximately 1 million dollars in
administrative fees that cover operational costs due to
sequestration.'' He also stated that ``it is our goal to
continually find ways or opportunities to reduce overall
departmental costs.'' I strongly suggest that Mr. Ryans and
HUD start by curtailing attendance at conferences and
training seminars, excessive salaries, consulting and legal
fees.
Please provide the following:
1. Please describe the steps being taken by HUD to rein in
excessive spending on travel, conferences and training at THA
and other housing authorities across the country and explain
why those steps have been ineffective in preventing the
abuses described above.
2. The complete annual compensation packages of all THA
employees, including salaries, bonuses and any other
compensation (health care, retirement, etc).
3. A copy of most recent employment contracts for the
executive director and all THA financial statements filed
with HUD, including any statements made about executive
director salary and all benefits.
4. Complete documentation of the remodeling expenditures
for the new headquarters building.
5. The total number of credit cards issued to THA,
including any provided to THA board members.
6. All legal bills and professional service and consulting
fees paid by the PHAs. Please also document all conflict of
interest waivers.
7. A list of all take-home vehicles provided by the housing
authorities and the names of the employees who drive them.
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this
matter. I would appreciate your response by December 6, 2013.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact Janet Drew of my staff.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member.
____
U.S. Senate,
Committe on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, January 8, 2014.
Hon. Shaun Donovan,
Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Donovan: The Dayton Daily News recently
reported questionable management decisions at the Dayton
(Ohio) Housing Authority, renamed Greater Dayton Premier
Management (GDPM). I want to ensure that HUD taxpayer dollars
are used for safe, affordable housing instead of questionable
compensation packages.
[[Page S501]]
According to the article, the GDPM Board of Commissioners
recently fired the interim CEO, Al Prude. Mr. Prude was
removed by a Board resolution which stated that the housing
authority ``is going to a `new business model' that consists
of four agency directors acting as a team that will meet
twice a day to run the agency.'' Instead of hiring a new CEO
immediately, the housing authority is paying the four
department heads each an additional $1,000 per week to cover
the CEO duties. At that rate, the housing authority is
spending $16,000 per month or $192,000 per year for the
department directors to cover the CEO duties, with no time
frame for naming a replacement. The former CEO was paid just
over $123,000 per year which now looks like a bargain.
It also appears that prior to his removal, Mr. Prude
received two very lucrative pay raises on one day last year.
The first bumped his salary ``from $98,542 to $123,157 on
Aug. 30, 2012, along with a check for back pay through June
1, when he was appointed interim CEO.'' The second was an
increase ``from $81,000 to $98,542, retroactive to the date
of his hire on Jan. 31, 2011.'' He also received a lump-sum
payment for back pay back to his hire date. The raises were
signed by himself, the board chairman and the chief financial
officer.
Although the GDPM Board decided to terminate Mr. Prude, the
decision to pay the department heads to cover his duties
indefinitely appears to be even more expensive than the
previous CEO. Therefore, I am requesting the following
information for the period of 2008 to the present:
1. Please provide an explanation for why a housing
authority is allowed to pay an additional $16,000 per month
for four individuals to act as CEO. Please also document how
HUD intends to enforce the $155,000 salary limit when the
duties are split among several individuals.
2. The complete annual compensation packages of all GDPM
employees, including salaries, bonuses, retroactive pay,
separation pay and any other compensation (health care,
retirement, etc.).
3. Provide a list of all legal bills and professional
service and consulting fees paid by GDPM.
4. Please document any Conflict of Interest waivers filed
by the GDPM and Board of Commissioners with HUD.
5. What additional oversight is being conducted by HUD
regarding payments to outside consultants and law firms by
all housing authorities across the country to ensure that all
federal funds, including stimulus and disaster funds, are
protected against waste, fraud and abuse? Please be specific.
6. Provide all travel records for all employees at GDPM as
well as the GDPM Board members.
7. Please provide the names of all nonprofit affiliates
with ties to GDPM. Please include the names of all officers
and their salary/benefit packages.
Accordingly, please provide responses by no later than
January 24, 2014. If you have any questions regarding this
letter, please have your respective staff members contact
Janet Drew.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, January 9, 2014.
Hon. Shaun Donovan,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Donovan: Recent reports in the Raleigh News
& Observer, which we have attached to this letter, have shone
a light on the situation surrounding the executive director
of the Raleigh, North Carolina Housing Authority (RHA) and
his extremely generous salary and fringe benefits.
Specifically, we are concerned that the RHA--a HUD ``high
performer''--allows its executive director, Steve Beam, to be
on paid vacation from the housing authority for nearly three
months a year to pursue his outside hobbies and interests.
According to the article, Mr. Beam is one of the most
highly paid housing authority executive directors in the
country. His compensation package, which includes ``salary,
bonuses, longevity payments and car allowance,'' totals
approximately $280,000 per year. This year, the RHA board
also increased his annual vacation time from 24 days to 30
days per year. In return for the high salary, Mr. Beam is
only required to work 7.5 hours per day.
In addition to the generous salary and vacation days he
receives through his contract, Mr. Beam also accumulates
comp-time for any hours he works over 7.5 hours. This benefit
is extremely unusual for such a highly paid manager and Mr.
Beam has used it to rack up over four months of paid vacation
from 2010 to the present. In fact, because of Mr. Beam's
unique 7.5 hour work day, over the course of one year he
accrues an additional two weeks of comp-time simply by
working a traditional eight hour day. All told, he used 22.5
comp days in 2009, 23.5 in 2010, 20 in 2011, 20.5 in 2012,
and only 14 through October 2013.
It appears however, that despite these extremely generous
benefits, Mr. Beam still uses government funded time to
indulge his interest in magic tricks, which he referred to as
his ``business/hobby'' in a statement to the News & Observer.
The newspaper spotlighted several examples of Mr. Beam's
using work time to pursue his hobby including posting to a
website called ``The Magic Cafee.'' Given that the RHA board
specifically gives Mr. Beam months of vacation unavailable to
other housing authority executives in order to pursue his
interest in magic, it is extremely concerning that Mr. Beam
was unable to confine his ``business/hobby'' to his multiple
months of vacation which suggests the RHA does not have
sufficient oversight controls over Mr. Beam's activities.
The RHA executive director and board believe that RHA
functions well while the executive director is away from the
office for nearly three months a year mainly because RHA has
a ``capable'' deputy executive director to pick up the slack.
As the RHA receives the vast majority of its funds from HUD,
it is important for HUD to hold Mr. Beam and the RHA board
accountable for their actions. To examine the extent of HUD's
oversight over Mr. Beam in the RHA, please answer the
following questions and provide the requested documents:
1. An explanation for why Mr. Beam is allowed to accumulate
up to three weeks of comp time while working less than the
standard 40 hour work week.
2. An explanation for how RHA is deemed a ``high
performer'' when the executive director is away from the
office for nearly three months per year.
3. The complete list of annual compensation packages of all
RHA employees, including salaries, bonuses, longevity pay,
car allowance and/or take-home vehicle, vacation and comp
time and any other compensation (health care, retirement,
etc).
4. Please review and document the executive director's use
of RHA office equipment to conduct non-RHA business.
5. Provide a list of all legal bills and professional
service and consulting fees paid by RHA.
6. Please provide copies of all employee financial
disclosure forms and document any Conflict of Interest
waivers filed by the RHA and RHA board with HUD.
7. Provide all travel records for all employees at RHA as
well as the RHA board members.
8. Please provide the names of all nonprofit affiliates
with ties to RHA. Please include the names of all officers
and their salary/benefit packages.
Accordingly, please provide responses by no later than
January 24, 2014. If you have any questions regarding this
letter, please have your respective staff members contact
Janet Drew with Senator Grassley or Kris Denzel with
Congressman Holding.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley,
U.S. Senator.
George Holding,
U.S. Congressman.
____
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, January 16, 2014.
Hon. Shaun Donovan,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Donovan: A recent series of articles in the
Bradenton Herald describe very serious financial
mismanagement issues at the Bradenton (Florida) Housing
Authority (BHA). Specifically BHA--a HUD ``high performer''--
has provided lucrative employee compensation packages that
helped put the housing authority $400,000 in debt. HUD has
already removed both employees for attendance and vacation
time infractions, but there appear to be other financial and
management problems as well.
The BHA employee manual contains very questionable
provisions for take-home vehicles, lucrative bonus and leave
policies, and retirement benefits. According to an October 6,
2013 Bradenton Herald article, at least half of the ten
person staff have take-home vehicles. According to page 49 of
the BHA employee handbook, the take-home vehicles are
``available for both business and personal use,'' and ``BHA
issues a fuel credit card for each vehicle user.''
Additionally, the employee is required to ``arrange for
routine vehicle servicing . . . through the Development
Director'' and the vehicle must be ``cleaned every other week
inside and out at a designated car wash.''
If employees with fifteen or more years of service like
their take-home vehicles, they have the option of keeping
them when they retire or voluntarily leave. According to the
employee handbook, the employee ``will be entitled to either
the vehicle that they are driving at the time of the
separation or $10,000.'' Moreover, the policy provides that
``if said vehicle is leased, the Housing Authority will
immediately pay the lease in full.'' Interestingly, the
policy places no limit on the value of the vehicle or the
lease to be paid off.
Most BHA employees are given two bonuses every year, one in
June and one in December. According to the employee handbook,
employees who have been with BHA for at least a year are
eligible for a bonus of up to ten percent which is determined
by the executive director. The bonus is paid in June and even
employees who retire or voluntarily leave during the year
receive a prorated bonus. According to an October 20, 2013,
Bradenton Herald article, BHA instituted a new bonus policy
in February 2013, without Board approval, that gave every
employee a ten percent raise in March 2013. The second bonus,
a longevity award, is paid in December of each year (see
Table below). Even employees who voluntarily left BHA after
five or more years of employment are paid a prorated amount.
[[Page S502]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For service of at least: But less than: The Amount is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 years......................... 3 years........... $100
3 years......................... 4 years........... $200
4 years......................... 5 years........... $300
5 years......................... 10 years.......... 1 Weeks Pay
10 years........................ 15 years.......... Two Weeks Pay
15 years........................ 20 years.......... Three Weeks Pay
20 years........................ .................. 4 Weeks Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BHA has very liberal leave policies including 15 hours
of vacation and 15 hours of sick leave per month and bonus
vacation hours after five years of service. Although the
employee handbook allows for two days off for Christmas and
one for New Year's Day, BHA had been closing between December
20th and January 2nd for the Christmas and New Year's
holidays. Plus, an employee can, according to the employee
handbook, cash out between 40 and 160 sick leave hours twice
per year and may convert vacation hours to sick leave hours
in order to cash them out. In fact, the Bradenton Herald
estimates that the former executive could cash out ``between
$7127.50 and $28,510 at a time'' so he could have pocketed an
extra $14,225 to $57,020 per year.
Meanwhile, BHA board members failed due diligence and
oversight responsibilities. The board consistently passed
``resolutions without seeing the language'' and the chairman
now wants to review employee policies only after the
executive director was fired. Another board member stated
``HUD is the official agency.'' And, ``They didn't call me
and say, `Did you know your budget is in deficit.' ''
To examine the extent of HUD's oversight over BHA
management, please answer the following questions and provide
the requested documents from years 2008 to present:
1. A copy of the former BHA executive director's most
recent employment contract.
2. The total amount of salary and compensation paid to the
former executive director.
3. The complete annual compensation payments to all BHA
employees, including salaries, bonuses, longevity awards and
cashed out sick time any other compensation (health care,
retirement, take-home vehicle).
4. The total number and description of BHA take-home
vehicles. The number of BHA vehicles or $10,000 payments
given as a retirement/separation benefit, as well as whether
or not the housing authority paid off the vehicle lease.
5. The total number of fuel and other credit cards
authorized by BHA. Please include the names of each employee
provided with a fuel or other credit card, and the monthly
fuel charges paid by BHA.
6. In addition to every Friday, please document every week
day (both full and half) per year that the BHA has been
closed and for what reason.
7. A list of all legal bills and professional service and
consulting fees paid by BHA, including all vehicle service
bills.
8. Please provide all financial disclosure forms completed
by BHA employees and document any Conflict of Interest
waivers filed by the BHA and Board of Commissioners with HUD.
9. Provide all travel records for employees at BHA as well
as the BHA Board members.
Accordingly, please provide responses by no later than
January 31, 2014. If you have any questions regarding this
letter, please have your respective staff members contact
Janet Drew.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Women's Health Protection Act
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, this month we recognize the 41st
anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, a ruling that
assured every woman her constitutional right to make her own decision
about whether and when to have a child based on her fundamental right
to have her privacy protected.
I had the honor to clerk for the author of Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry
Blackmun, shortly after that decision in 1974. Few of us expected we
would be here 41 years later facing the kind of attacks--in fact, the
onslaught on women's health care and on their right to privacy--that we
see again and again and again on the part of States, and even in this
Congress.
Today the House of Representatives will debate and probably vote on a
bill that would severely restrict--very practically constrict--a
women's right to choose. H.R. 7 is a threat to that right of privacy.
Instead of moving forward in protecting women's health, all too often
we have seen ongoing attacks. After four decades, this judgment is
threatened by onerous and ongoing limitations repeatedly passed by
State legislators and this body.
I am very proud to be joined today by two of my most distinguished
colleagues, Senator Murray of the State of Washington and Senator
Baldwin of Wisconsin, who have been tireless champions for women's
rights--for our constitutional rights--and for women's health care. I
am humbled and admiring of the work they have already done and the work
we have ahead of us.
With their support, I have introduced--particularly with the active
work of Senator Baldwin--a measure that will proactively and
preventively protect women's rights against this onslaught at the State
level.
The Women's Health Protection Act is designed to stop restrictions
that purportedly protect women's health but really use that cause as a
ruse and a ploy to impose physical layouts on clinics, admitting
privileges on doctors, and other kinds of severely burdensome
restrictions--such as ultrasound requirements when there is no real
medical reason for them--and basically apply to abortion health care
the same kinds of restrictions with no more limitations than are
required for medically comparable procedures. That is the basic
principle.
The goal is to push back the offensive onslaught on women's health
care. We want to be on the offense rather than the defense because
undoubtedly most of these restrictions, if not all, will eventually be
struck down by the courts. The resources which are required are
burdensome on the organizations and groups and individuals who are
forced to carry on that fight.
I know about that fight because I helped to wage it as an attorney
general in the State of Connecticut for 20 years. I am very proud that
I enforced many of the laws that are designed to protect a woman's
right to choose, including the FACE statute. I was the first attorney
general to enforce the FACE statute.
We have many issues that are now before the Supreme Court, such as
the McCullen v. Coakley case--which I hope will be decided--to uphold
the buffer zone that makes women's rights real against the intimidation
and deterrents that anti-choice groups try to bring.
Making these rights real--the right of privacy, the right to be left
alone--is the fundamental reason that we have introduced the Women's
Health Protection Act.
The President tonight will talk about many of the most important
issues that matter to this country, including economic opportunity, job
creation, recovery from the deepest recession in recent history; giving
people a greater sense of confidence and trust in their ability to gain
the skills they need to move forward in their lives. Economic mobility
in this country is one of the greatest challenges we face for our
children and our grandchildren. Those issues of job creation and
economic growth are what we should be debating, not H.R. 7, not the
restrictions at the State level that seek to inhibit and impede the
ability of a woman to exercise her fundamental right to privacy. Let's
keep in mind what is important to the American people who sense deeply,
because it is part of our cultural DNA, part of our fundamental reason
for being as a nation, that we have a right to privacy over a personal
decision that should be made by a woman in consultation with her
doctor, her health care provider, and her family, without interference
from government bureaucrats or politicians. That is what is important.
Ending the chilling effect of those State restrictions is also one of
the goals--the chilling effect that deters women from exercising those
rights, making those rights real, protecting a woman's right to decide
whether and when to have a child. Every pregnant woman faces her own
unique circumstances and challenges, and she has a right to make her
own decision based on her own values, guidance from a physician she
trusts, a family member she loves and her personal goals and what is
right for her family.
In the 40 years since Roe v. Wade, the attacks on this right have not
been slowed; they have merely evolved, and they have taken new forms. I
stand with my colleagues today and ask that we recognize together these
pervasive threats, that we counter them and stand together in fighting
back.
I am very proud to stand with Senator Baldwin and Senator Murray,
[[Page S503]]
and I am proud to yield for Senator Baldwin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut.
Last week marked the 41st anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court
decision in Roe v. Wade, which affirmed that women have the right to
make their own personal health care decisions and to have access to
safe and legal reproductive care.
The anniversary of Roe should commemorate how far our country has
progressed in the last 40 years in safeguarding women's reproductive
freedoms and access to quality health care. But today I rise to
recognize that history has been made in another way; that is, turning
back the clock.
Americans across the country expect to have access to high-quality,
dependable health care when they and their families need it.
Unfortunately, for women across this country, this access has come
under attack.
As my colleagues and I have worked to reform our health care system,
to expand access to quality, affordable health care, too many States
have enacted record numbers of laws that restrict a woman's access to
comprehensive reproductive health services and the freedom to make her
own health care decisions. In the past 3 years, States across the
country have enacted a total of 205 provisions that restrict women's
access to safe abortion services. In 2013 alone, States enacted 70 of
these measures.
In my home State of Wisconsin, we are now ranked as one of the worst
States when it comes to a woman's reproductive rights, thanks to our
Republican Governor and legislature. Wisconsin women, families, and
their doctors are facing a slew of new and radical restrictions to
health services mandated by one-party--Republican--rule in my State.
Most recently, our Governor has enacted four new restrictions on
women's access to safe and legal abortion care in our State. For one,
he signed a law that not only forces women to undergo unnecessary
medical procedures but also imposes unreasonable requirements on
doctors who deliver care to women.
I recently heard from a mother in Middleton, WI. She found out her
baby had severe fetal anomalies and would not survive delivery. She had
to undergo an emergency termination, and a clinic in Milwaukee was the
only place that would do the procedure. But because the Governor was
set to sign this law imposing unreasonable requirements on providers,
the clinic was preparing to close its doors and wouldn't schedule her
for an appointment. She and her husband were forced to find childcare
for their two sons and leave the State and travel to Minnesota just to
get the medical care she needed. If not for a Federal court order
blocking the law shortly after the Governor signed it, the admitting
privileges provision would have reduced women's access to safe and
legal abortions in Wisconsin by 66 percent, closing several health care
clinics and leaving women out in the cold. But unfortunately for this
woman in Middleton, the court order did not come fast enough and the
Governor's law disrupted her family during a deeply personal and trying
time.
The threat in Wisconsin and in States across the country is clear.
Politicians are doing this because they think they know better than
women and their doctors. The fact is they don't. It is not the job of
politicians to play doctor and to dictate how these professionals
practice medicine, nor is it their job to intrude in the private lives
and important health decisions of American families.
That is why I am proud to stand with my colleagues, including my good
friend from Connecticut and my good friend from Washington State, and
challenge these attacks on women's freedoms. I am proud to have
introduced the Women's Health Protection Act because every American
woman deserves the freedom to exercise her constitutional rights by
making personal health decisions for herself and for her family with a
trusted doctor and without political interference.
Our bill makes it clear that States can no longer enact laws that
unduly limit access to reproductive health care and that do nothing to
further women's health or safety. The Women's Health Protection Act
creates Federal protections against State restrictions that fail to
ensure women's health and intrude upon personal decisionmaking. It
promotes and protects a woman's individual constitutional rights and
guarantees that she can make her own responsible health care decisions
no matter where she lives.
Elected officials should not put politics before women's health and
women's safety. Women are more than capable of making their own
personal medical decisions without consulting their legislator. Every
woman in America deserves the freedom to plan her own family, to make
her own health care decisions, and to have access to essential and
quality women's health care services. We need to act now to guarantee
that women will continue to have that freedom.
Today I stand with 33 of my Senate colleagues and 99 Members of the
House of Representatives to move our country forward with the Women's
Health Protection Act and to safeguard women's constitutional rights
under Roe. We need to act now to protect a woman's access to care and
her constitutional rights, no matter where she lives, by enacting the
Women's Health Protection Act.
Again, I thank my colleagues, in particular my good friend from
Connecticut, in leading us in this discussion on the Senate floor but
also with the introduction of the bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank my colleagues from Connecticut
and Wisconsin for their strong voices in support of a woman's right to
make her own health care decisions in this country. I appreciate them
being here today to talk about that and to stand with me to remind our
colleagues that 41 years ago last week, just about 400 yards from where
we are standing today, the course of history for women in the United
States was changed forever.
After over one century of struggle, a new generation of American
women had access to safe and legal abortion. With one case, American
women gained the ability to make their own decisions about their own
health care and their own bodies. At a time when some Members of this
body were far too young to remember, women stood up to the restrictive
laws of States and the Federal Government and to the men who at that
time wrote them.
I would like to think that after four decades, many of those who want
to make women's health care decisions for them have come to grips with
the fact that Roe v. Wade is settled law. But unfortunately that notion
is quickly shattered with one look at our legislatures across the
country and efforts right here in Congress. In fact, tomorrow the House
of Representatives is slated to vote on their misleadingly named ``No
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' That bill severely undermines a
woman's access to insurance coverage of comprehensive health care and
fails to allow her to get the care she needs, even when her own health
is at risk. It is nothing more than an attempt to eliminate access to
abortion services while restricting a woman's ability to make personal
decisions about her own care. I guess we shouldn't be surprised.
The truth is that the tide of these politically driven, extreme, and
unconstitutional laws continues to rise. In 2013, our Nation saw yet
another recordbreaking year of State legislatures passing restrictive
legislation barring women's access to abortion services. In fact, in
the past 3 years, the United States has enacted more of these
restrictions than in the previous 10 years combined. That means that
now, more than ever, it is our job to protect this decision for women,
to fight for women's health, and to ensure that women's health does not
become a political football.
For that reason today I will, along with 18 other Members of my
caucus, file a brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., v. Sebelius. Just as in the many
attempts before this case, there are those out there who would like the
American public to believe that this conversation is anything but an
attack on women's health care. To
[[Page S504]]
them, it is a debate about freedom--except, of course, for the freedom
of women to access their own care.
It is no different than when we are told that attacks on abortion
rights aren't an infringement on a woman's right to choose, they are
about religion or States' rights, or when we are told that restricting
emergency contraception isn't about limiting women's ability to make
their own family planning decisions, it is about protecting
pharmacists, or when last week we were told that a certain former
Republican Governor's comments about women's libido was a ``tone''
issue rather than a direct reflection of the Republican Party's
misguided and arcane policies.
The truth is this is about contraception. This is an attempt to limit
a woman's ability to access care. This is about women.
Allowing a woman's boss to call the shots about her access to birth
control should be inconceivable to all Americans in this day and age
and takes us back to a place in history when women had no voice or no
choice.
In fact, contraception was included as a required preventive service
in the Affordable Care Act on the recommendation of the independent,
nonprofit Institute of Medicine and other medical experts because it is
essential to the health of women and their families. After many years
of research, we know ensuring access for effective birth control has a
direct impact on improving the lives of women and families in America.
We have been able to directly link it to declines in maternal and
infant mortality, reduced risk of ovarian cancer, better overall health
care outcomes for women, and far fewer unintended pregnancies and
abortions, which is a goal we should all share.
But what is at stake in this case before the Supreme Court is whether
a CEO's personal belief trumps a woman's right to access free or low-
cost contraception under the Affordable Care Act. Every American
deserves to have access to high-quality health care coverage,
regardless of where they work, and each of us should have the right to
make our own medical and religious decisions without being dictated to
or limited by our employer. Contraceptive coverage is supported by the
vast majority of Americans who understand how important it is for women
and families.
In weighing this case, my hope is the Court realizes that women
working for private companies should be afforded the same access to
medical care regardless of who signs their paycheck.
We cannot allow for-profit, secular corporations or their
shareholders to deny female employees' access to comprehensive women's
health care under the guise of a religious exemption. It is as if we
are saying that because you are a CEO or a shareholder in a
corporation, your rights are more important than your employees who
happen to be women. That is a very slippery slope that could lead to
employers cutting off coverage for childhood immunizations, if they
object to it, or prenatal care for children born to unmarried parents,
if they thought that was wrong, or an employee's ability to access HIV
treatment.
I am proud to be joined in this effort by 18 other Senators who were
here when Congress enacted the religious protections through the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 and who also were here when
Congress made access to women's health available through the Affordable
Care Act in 2010. They are Senators who know that Congress never
intended for a corporation--or furthermore, its shareholders--to
restrict a woman's access to preventive health care, because we all
know that improving access to birth control is good health policy and
good economic policy. We know it will mean healthier women, healthier
children, and healthier families. And we know it will save money for
businesses and consumers.
So today we are taking another step forward to uphold the promise we
made to women and provide this access broadly, and I believe our Nation
will be better for it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for no
longer than 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
State of the Union Address
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, tonight the President of the United
States will come before the Congress and make his State of the Union
Address. That is an annual ritual we go through around here every year,
and I have been through State of the Union speeches through multiple
administrations. I sort of liken them to somebody making New Year's
resolutions at the beginning of the new year, filled with lots of
rhetoric and promises, most of which get left on the cutting-room floor
when the speech concludes. But that being said, it is something that
gives the President an opportunity to lay out his agenda for the coming
year.
Rumor has it that this year the President's speech is going to focus
on income inequality and economic opportunity. Well, that is good to
hear because these last 5 years of the Obama administration have been
devastating to Americans who are trying to advance economically.
Nobody can deny that the President inherited a difficult economic
situation. I think we would all concede that at the very outset. But he
has had now 5 years, going on 6, to make things better. Unfortunately,
he has not made much progress.
For the majority of Americans, things do not look much better today
than they did 5 years ago. The economy still is not working;
unemployment remains at historic recession-level highs; income
inequality is at the highest point literally in 86 years; household
income has dropped by nearly $4,000 since the President took office.
I would like to quote from a piece that was published on Sunday. It
said this:
The last five years have been cataclysmic. . . . The
average income of the top 1 percent of earners increased
about 31.4 percent from 2009 to 2012, while wages for the
other 99 percent essentially stood still. The proportion of
economic gains going to the very wealthy under the Obama
administration is greater than it was under Mr. Bush.
Those are not Republican talking points. That is from a column
published in the New York Times. The column goes on to state:
The rich-poor gap in the United States is now greater than
in any other industrialized country. Upward mobility, a
staple of the American Dream, is eroding compared with more
than a few nations.
That again is from the New York Times.
Whether the author intended it that way, it is a pretty damning
indictment of the economic policies of the past 5 years.
So I am glad to hear that the President is planning to focus on
income inequality and economic opportunity tonight. These statistics
make it very clear just how important it is we have that discussion
right now. And they also make it clear we cannot continue the economic
policies of the past 5 years because these policies have clearly
failed.
The President has tried throwing taxpayer money at the problem--
witness the failed trillion-dollar stimulus bill. He has tried economic
bandaids that attempt to alleviate some of the symptoms of economic
stagnation without doing anything to address the cause. Neither of
those strategies has been successful in doing the one thing that will
turn our economy around; that is, creating full-time, well-paying jobs
for the American people.
Extending unemployment benefits or offering food stamps may provide
short-term relief, but no government assistance is going to provide a
stable, secure, prosperous future like a good job will. Real long-term
economic security and prosperity comes when families have access to
stable well-paying jobs, with the potential for advancement.
If we really want to help Americans, if we really want to get our
economy growing, that is where our focus needs to be: creating the kind
of environment where job creation can flourish. That means making it
easier and less expensive for businesses--particularly small
businesses, which create a majority of the jobs in this country--to
expand and hire new workers.
Unfortunately, the President has spent much of his Presidency making
it more difficult. ObamaCare, for example, saddled businesses with a
host of new taxes and regulations that have
[[Page S505]]
made it difficult or in some cases impossible for businesses to hire
new employees.
CBS reported in December that--and I quote--``Nearly half of U.S.
companies said they are reluctant to hire full-time employees because
of the [ObamaCare] law.'' That is not how you want businesses to feel
if you are looking to encourage them to grow and create jobs.
So I am hoping that this evening the President will turn away from
the policies that have made nearly half of U.S. companies too worried
to hire new full-time employees and turn toward policies that will
enable real job creation in our economy.
According to his advisors, the President wants 2014 to be a year of
action. Republicans could not agree more, and there are a number of
actions we think the President can take, and I hope he will announce
them tonight.
One thing Republicans and Democrats agree on, and would like the
President to do, is grant immediate approval of the Keystone pipeline.
According to the President's own State Department, the Keystone
pipeline would support 42,000 jobs that would provide $2 billion--$2
billion--in wages and earnings without taxpayers having to spend a
dime. All that is required for the creation of these jobs is the
President's approval, which he has inexplicably delayed now for 5
years, despite numerous reports testifying to the benefits of the
project and its low environmental impact.
The President's staff has spent a lot of time over the last week
talking about the President's intention of acting without Congress when
Congress disagrees with him. Well, here is something the President can
legitimately do unilaterally. He has the authority to open the door to
these 42,000 jobs, and I hope this evening he will announce his
intention of acting on approval of the Keystone pipeline.
Another thing I hope the President will do tonight is encourage the
majority leader to take up dozens of jobs bills that have been passed
by the House of Representatives. Many of these bills passed the House
with bipartisan support and could pass the Senate the same way. There
is no good reason why the majority leader has decided to let them
languish. Surely we could take up a few of those bills. The President
ought to call on his party to pass these bills to get Americans back to
work.
In the same spirit, I hope the President will call on his party in
the Senate to approve trade promotion authority legislation, which
would help create U.S. jobs by giving farmers, ranchers, entrepreneurs,
and job creators in this country access to 1 billion new consumers
around the globe.
Republicans hope the President will use that phone of his that he
keeps talking about to call the majority leader here in the Senate and
encourage him to pass trade promotion authority as soon as possible.
Of course, no discussion of relief for middle-class Americans and job
creators is complete without discussing ObamaCare, which is putting an
intolerable burden on middle-class families and small businesses.
I am not very hopeful that the President is going to announce his
intention tonight of working with Congress to repair some of the worst
parts of his signature law, but for all Americans' sake, I hope he
does.
Around the country, families are reeling under the impact of
ObamaCare: higher insurance premiums, higher out-of-pocket costs,
reduced access to doctors and hospitals. Meanwhile, businesses are
cutting workers' hours, eliminating health care plans, or declining to
expand their businesses to protect themselves from ObamaCare's
burdensome taxes and regulations.
There is bipartisan support for more than one change to ObamaCare,
and there is particularly strong support for repealing the job-killing
medical device tax, which is forcing medical device companies to send
American jobs overseas.
In March of last year, the Senate voted 79 to 20--79 to 20--against
the tax. More than 30 Democrats voted for repeal. If the President is
really serious about putting Americans back to work, he will announce
his intention of working with Congress to repeal this job-destroying
portion of his legislation.
Last month almost 350,000 Americans gave up looking for jobs and
dropped out of the labor force altogether. That is 350,000 Americans in
1 month--1 month--who gave up looking for a job.
The labor force participation rate is at its lowest level in 36
years. More than 10 million Americans are looking for work, and nearly
4 million of them have been unemployed for more than 6 months. In fact,
if you had the labor participation rate today that we had when the
President took office, the unemployment rate today would be about 11
percent.
It is definitely--it is definitely--time for a year of action. It is
time to leave behind the economic bandaids of the past 5 years and
focus on policies that will not address just the symptoms but the cause
of our weak economic growth.
We need to remove the obstacles facing our Nation's job creators so
that struggling Americans can finally get back to work. We need to help
create a future where every American has the opportunity for a well-
paying, full-time job, with the possibility of advancement. You are not
going to see that as long as the policies coming out of Washington, DC,
and this administration make it more expensive and more difficult to
create jobs for the American people.
And you are not going to do anything about income inequality if you
drive people's cost of living higher, which is what ObamaCare's premium
increases, higher out-of-pocket increases, energy-cost increases--there
are new regulations coming out today that are going to put new
requirements and regulations on existing coal-fired powerplants that
are going to drive electricity costs through the roof for people whom I
represent in South Dakota.
Fifty percent of the electricity in South Dakota comes from coal-
fired power. We are told the administration is coming out with
regulations that are going to apply those same things that apply to new
plants to existing coal-fired power. So you are going to have not only
new plants that are going to be prevented from being constructed but
those that are existing that are going to have to modify their plants
at enormous cost, in many cases with technologies that do not exist.
All that does is put people out of work and makes it more expensive for
middle-class Americans to make ends meet.
If you want to do something about income inequality, provide good-
paying jobs for middle-class families in this country. Put policies in
place that make it less expensive, less difficult to create those jobs,
and then drive down the cost for middle-class Americans rather than
raising them--rather than having higher energy costs, higher health
care costs, higher this, higher that, all because of policies coming
out of Washington.
We can do better. The President has not always shown his eagerness to
work with Congress in the past. I am told that tonight he is going to
talk about all the things he can do unilaterally. I hope that tonight's
State of the Union Address will mark a new start. Republicans are ready
to get to work. I hope the President is too. I yield the floor.
Recess
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in
recess until 2:15 p.m.
There upon, the Senate, at 12:45 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Ms.
Baldwin).
____________________