[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 79 (Wednesday, May 18, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2922-S2933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2577, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2577) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Collins amendment No. 3896, in the nature of a substitute.
       McConnell (for Lee) amendment No. 3897 (to amendment No. 
     3896), to prohibit the use of funds to carry out a rule and 
     notice of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
       McConnell (for Nelson/Rubio) amendment No. 3898 (to 
     amendment No. 3896), making supplemental appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2016 to respond to Zika virus.
       McConnell (for Cornyn) modified amendment No. 3899 (to 
     amendment No. 3896), making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016.
       McConnell (for Blunt) modified amendment No. 3900 (to 
     amendment No. 3896), Zika response and preparedness.
       Collins (for Blunt) amendment No. 3946 (to amendment No. 
     3900), to require the periodic submission of spending plan 
     updates to the Committee on Appropriations.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thought it would be useful for our 
colleagues if I gave a brief update on where we are. First of all, I 
think it is important to know that more than 70 Senators had input into 
the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development and Related Agencies 
funding bill. I am sure if you added the number of Senators who weighed 
in on the VA-Military Construction bill, the number is even higher.
  We worked very hard in the subcommittee process and the full 
committee process to incorporate suggestions from many of our 
colleagues to produce a bipartisan bill. The ranking member, my friend 
and colleague Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, has been a tremendous 
leader in this effort. We have worked in a very transparent and 
collaborative manner to bring us where we are today.
  Since we started the debate on this bill, we have had 17 amendments 
that have been adopted by unanimous consent on the two divisions of the 
bill. That has required a great deal of work, but I think it shows the 
good faith of both of the managers of the bill and the sponsors of 
these amendments that we were able to work together, compromise, 
negotiate, and get them adopted in three separate packages.
  We are continuing that process. More and more amendments have been 
filed, and we are continuing to see how we can best accommodate the 
concerns that have been raised by our colleagues while keeping the 
essential principles of this bill and the desire to make sure we keep 
on track with the appropriations process.
  I believe it is a great credit to the Senate, to the leaders, and to 
Senator Mitch McConnell, who has made as a goal that we would report 
all of the appropriations bills, bring them to the floor, one by one, 
for full and open debate, the way it should be, and that we get our 
work done so we avoid the situation of either having a series of 
continuing resolutions--which lock in last year's priorities and lead 
to wasteful spending, which is not a good solution and ends up costing 
us more because agencies can't plan, they can't do their contracting 
activity--or having the other unfortunate outcome of bundling all 12 of 
the appropriations bills into one huge omnibus bill that is thousands 
of pages long and is very difficult for Members to know exactly what is 
in the bill.
  That is not a good way to legislate. It is not in keeping with our 
responsibilities. I am proud the Appropriations Committee in this 
Chamber is doing its job and that the Republican leader set as the goal 
that we are starting the appropriations process earlier than ever 
before. The Energy and Water appropriations bill was passed earlier 
than any appropriations bill in literally decades. I would note that 
would not be possible without the cooperation we have had from our 
Democratic colleagues on the committee. We have worked as teams. That 
is the way the process should work. I could not have a better partner 
in that regard than Senator Jack Reed.
  We also had a very vigorous debate yesterday on the funding that is 
necessary to combat the very serious threat posed by the Zika virus. We 
know this virus causes very severe birth defects, in some cases, and 
has been linked to Guillain-Barre syndrome, which can lead to paralysis 
and even death. So this is a serious public health threat.
  A couple of weeks ago, Senator Johnny Isakson and I went to the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA. We were 
briefed on the threat posed by Zika, which is carried by a mosquito 
that is known as the cockroach in the mosquito world because it is so 
difficult to get rid of. It can reproduce in water in a container that 
is size of a bottle cap. We know Zika has already become an epidemic in 
Puerto Rico and that there are confirmed cases in nearly every State in 
the Union. That is because, even if you live in a far Northern State 
where the type of mosquito that causes Zika is not present, such as the 
State represented by the Presiding Officer, Zika is still a threat. 
People travel. We know it can be transmitted through sexual contact. 
That is why we are seeing Zika showing up in virtually every State. We 
need to get ahead of this epidemic. That is why we had three different 
approaches offered yesterday on the Senate floor. Cloture was 
successfully invoked on a bipartisan proposal offered by Senators Blunt 
and Murray that provides more than $1 billion to counter effectively 
the threat of Zika.
  The last thing we want is not to have acted against this serious 
public health threat and find that pregnant women, who are especially 
at risk, are going to be infected and, in some cases, have children who 
will have a lifetime of serious disabilities as a result of the impact 
of Zika. We are hearing more and more about the dangers of the Zika 
virus every day.
  I have great confidence in the CDC, which is the major interface with 
our local and State public health agencies, to do an excellent job on 
prevention and education of providers and the public. They are also 
working on diagnostic tests so we can have a more rapid response to 
Zika. The National Institutes of Health is working on a vaccine which 
we hope will be available in another year, but in the meantime this 
truly is a public health emergency.
  I believe the Senate deserves great credit for putting the Zika 
supplemental on our bill and providing adequate funding to do the job, 
to do the job that is necessary to counter this very serious threat.
  We will have to proceed to a vote on the underlying Blunt-Murray 
amendment now that we have invoked cloture by 68 votes. I would note 
also that there is a 1 p.m. deadline today on filing first-degree 
amendments to the substitute bill. I also anticipate that this 
afternoon we will have a debate on Senator Lee's amendment, which has 
to do with a rule the Department of

[[Page S2923]]

Housing and Urban Development has issued to implement provisions of the 
landmark 1968 Fair Housing Act.
  In addition, Senator Reed and Senator Cochran and I have offered an 
alternative amendment. At some point, we will have votes related both 
to the Collins-Reed-Cochran amendment and the Lee amendment. That is 
going to be a very important debate this afternoon on a very important 
policy that I believe helps to further the goals of the 1968 civil 
rights-era Fair Housing Act. That will be an important debate on this 
bill.
  In the meantime, we are continuing to work with our colleagues on 
other amendments, as the Presiding Officer is well aware. I believe we 
are continuing to make progress. I thank my colleagues for coming to 
the floor, for working with us. That is the update I wanted to give my 
colleagues at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                         Arkansans of the Week

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I would like to honor all Arkansas law 
enforcement officers as this week's Arkansans of the Week. This week 
marks the 54th National Police Week. On Sunday, we marked National 
Peace Officers Memorial Day, a day set aside by President Kennedy in 
1962 to honor those law enforcement officers who lost their lives in 
the line of duty.
  Arkansas has over 7,000 law enforcement officers who protect our 
State every day. These men and women willingly put themselves in harm's 
way to ensure the safety of our residents, and maintain order in our 
State. National Police Week is also a time to remember and honor the 
nearly 300 Arkansans who have lost their lives in the line of duty as 
law enforcement officers. Their service and sacrifice is not forgotten, 
and Arkansas is safer because of their service.
  There are many different types of law enforcement officers, but each 
plays an important and distinct role in our safety. There are officers, 
such as Chris Bunch of the Paragould Police Department, who protect 
Arkansas' students as a school resource officer, officers such as Jeff 
Prescott and Sergeant Greg Herron, who are retiring from the Rison 
Police Department after 30 and 20 years of service, respectively, and 
Corporal Kristi Bennett of the Texarkana Police Department, who serves 
as the public information and education officer. Kristi recently 
received the Silent Wilbur Award, which is given to an officer who 
shows leadership and works to motivate and move their community 
forward.

  These are just a few of the long list of Arkansas law enforcement 
officers who serve our State, but there are many more where those names 
come from.
  I know I join all Arkansans in extending our sincere thanks and 
appreciation to all Arkansas law enforcement officers, not only this 
week but every week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we are all too familiar with the famous 
promises President Obama made to sell the American people on his 
ObamaCare proposal, and yes, I said, ``sell.''
  We now know from White House revelations made by former Members who 
work for the President that the White House has been actively engaged 
in selling their program, selling their proposals to the American 
people through some admittedly sophisticated ways in using social media 
to achieve a goal. Just recently, White House National Security Advisor 
Ben Rhodes did an interview and discussed openly how the White House 
manipulated the media and the American people to sell the 
administration's Iranian nuclear agreement.
  With all the authority given to an American President, President 
Obama made this statement to sell ObamaCare to the American people--and 
I quote: ``No matter how we reform health care,'' the President said, 
``We will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your 
doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your 
health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, 
period.''
  Why did the President add ``period'' to that statement? The 
statements are clear. If you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If 
you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. When 
you add ``period,'' it basically says: Take my word for it. Count on 
it. It is a done deal. I am telling you, the American people, I am 
making you a promise--period. You can take this one to the bank.
  I am not often a reader of the New York Times, but a recent headline 
in the paper caught my attention: ``Sorry, We Don't Take Obamacare.'' 
The article discusses the growing number of doctors and hospitals who 
are no longer accepting patients who are covered by ObamaCare insurance 
plans. So much for ``If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep 
your doctor, period.'' So much for that promise.
  It is not just medical professionals who are saying no to ObamaCare. 
The largest health insurer, UnitedHealth Group, recently announced it 
will stop selling individual ObamaCare plans in Indiana next year 
because such plans simply are not profitable. It is pretty hard to run 
a business if you are not making a profit. If you are losing money, you 
can't pay the employees. You can't produce your product. 
UnitedHealthcare has said: We have lost so much money under this 
ObamaCare mandate that we are going to stop selling individual plans.
  According to the Indianapolis Business Journal:

       In April, UnitedHealth said it would drop out of all but a 
     ``handful'' of state exchanges where it sells individual 
     Obamacare plans. It had said the exchange market was smaller 
     and riskier than it had expected.

  I think I heard a lot of the Republican Members on the floor 
basically saying what has been written and endorsed and imposed on the 
American people is something that simply doesn't make economic sense. 
There are going to be insurance companies that simply are not going to 
be able to not only survive on this basis but will not make any profit 
whatsoever. Obviously, with the case of UnitedHealthcare, they are 
dropping this because they simply cannot expose themselves to this kind 
of risk. It is said that they will lose $650 million on the plans this 
year alone, and UnitedHealthcare sold coverage in 34 States on the 
ObamaCare exchanges.
  The UnitedHealthcare situation is not unique. According to the 
Indiana Business Journal, ``Roughly half of the health insurers selling 
plans on the Obamacare exchange in Indiana lost money on the business 
last year.''
  So much for the President's promise: ``If you like your health care 
plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period.'' So much 
for the President's promise.
  Decreased access to providers is just one of many problems with 
ObamaCare. Another major problem is the rising cost of coverage for 
those who are on this plan. Oh, yes, there were other promises made by 
the President here also. You may recall the President promised that the 
annual health care costs would be cut by $2,500 per family if ObamaCare 
were enacted. As recently as 2012, we were told by the President that 
the health insurance premiums paid by small businesses and individuals 
will go down because of ObamaCare--another promise to the American 
people: Don't worry, folks. . . . Your costs are going to go down, not 
up.
  Despite that promise that ObamaCare will cut costs and make coverage 
more affordable for families and small businesses, many Americans are 
experiencing higher premiums or paying outrageous deductibles when they 
purchase coverage through the ObamaCare exchanges.
  I have been on this floor documenting literally hundreds, if not 
thousands, of inputs to my office through phone calls, emails, and so 
forth, saying: Wait a minute. I just got a notice from my insurance 
company that my deductible is skyrocketing from $1,000 to $5,000 or to 
$7,500 or $9,000. I can't afford this kind of stuff. I thought we were 
promised this wouldn't happen. It is not just the deductibles, it is 
the copays.
  All of a sudden, I walk in and a doctor's office says: Wait a second. 
You have to put down the cash copay here. My copays have just gone 
through the roof.
  Premium increases have dramatically increased. The average premium

[[Page S2924]]

for benchmark silver plans in the Federal exchange, the ObamaCare 
exchange, is rising by 7.5 percent this year.
  In Indiana, premiums for policies on the ObamaCare marketplace have 
gone up by an average of 14.4 percent per year since ObamaCare was 
implemented, a total increase. Get this. We have had a total increase 
in premiums under ObamaCare in Indiana totaling 71.5 percent.
  Tell the American people: You have my word, period. This isn't going 
to happen.
  It happens, and what do we hear? What is this rhetoric we hear coming 
out of the White House? This is one of the most wonderful things that 
has ever happened.
  In the campaign--I mean, those running for office from the 
President's party are simply saying: You have to elect us to preserve 
this wonderful ObamaCare health plan.
  Is it any wonder the American people are turning out in record 
numbers to vote against this kind of thing?
  These are just a few of the many broken promises and the many 
problems with the ObamaCare law. There are many other things I could 
get into, such as the failure of many State-run exchanges. Some States 
only have one exchange or no exchanges left. The rollout of the plan--
which cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of hard-earned tax 
dollars because this rollout was so botched nobody could get into the 
computers or even on the phone--the thing was rushed to meet a 
deadline, and they weren't prepared. It was hundreds of millions of 
dollars just to get it on board so people could begin to ask questions 
as to what they were mandated they had to do. So from increasing 
premiums and increased health care costs to failures to keep your 
doctor, to reduced access to doctors and hospitals, the bottom line is 
ObamaCare is not working for the American people.
  Rather than making health care more affordable and successful, 
ObamaCare has actually driven up health care costs and a decreased 
choice of doctors for too many Americans and too many American 
businesses. It is long past time for repeal of the President's 
disastrous health care law. We need to replace it with more effective 
and clearly patient-centered solutions.
  Despite numerous attempts by Republicans to repeal this fatally 
flawed legislation, all efforts have been rejected by the President and 
the White House, but we are approaching the time when the American 
people can express their response to these broken promises this 
administration has made in relation to ObamaCare.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak once again about the rising 
cost of health care in the United States.
  It has been a few months since I came to the floor to comment on the 
state of our health care system. Sadly, over that time period, we have 
seen little, if anything, in the way of good news. Indeed, while the 
United States has some of the best health care law in the world, recent 
headlines point to serious problems with how that system is working.
  A little over 6 years ago, the Democrats on both sides of the Capitol 
and on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue forced the so-called Affordable 
Care Act on the American people without any Republican votes or any 
serious attempt to get bipartisan consensus. The result was an attempt 
at overhaul of roughly one-sixth of the American economy crafted with 
the input and support of only one political party.
  As I have said before, given its size and scope, the passage and 
signing of ObamaCare was probably the largest exercise of pure 
partnership in our Nation's history. Quite frankly, our country hasn't 
been the same since.
  At the time the law was passed, Republicans made a number of 
predictions about the negative impact this law would have for people 
buying health insurance and for our economy overall. Six years later, 
many of those predictions have already come to pass, with many more on 
the way.
  Still, looking back on it, I think we may have undersold our case at 
the time. I don't think any of us could have predicted just how 
detrimental the law would be, not only for the United States but on our 
Nation's public discourse and our government institutions. As a result 
of ObamaCare, the divide between Republicans and Democrats has gotten 
deeper, voters have become more cynical and distrusting of our 
government and our leaders, and the government itself has expanded its 
powers well beyond the authority granted in the statute.
  At the time the law was passed, many of us issued warnings of what 
was to come, though much of that seemed to have been drowned out by the 
sounds of celebration emanating from the Capitol and the White House.
  To quote some of my friends on the other side, passage of this law 
was a ``big bleeping deal'' because once the law was passed, the 
American people would finally get a chance to see what was in it. In 
the midst of all that self-adulation, many promises were made about 
what the law would do for individuals and families throughout the 
United States of America.
  Chief among those many promises was a claim that as a result of in 
law, the cost of health care for the average American family would go 
down. That is what the American people were told in 2010. In 2016, the 
law has been implemented and in effect for 3 years. Despite those many 
promises, average health insurance premiums have gone up every single 
year. As insurers begin to make decisions about rates and availability 
for the 2017 plan year, we are looking at significantly higher 
premiums, double-digit increases in some places, for the fourth 
straight year.
  Reports about these premium increases seem to be coming in on a daily 
basis. For example, in Virginia we know that among the five largest 
carriers in the State, premiums could go up anywhere from 9 percent to 
37 percent, with a likely average of around 18 percent.
  In Iowa, tens of thousands of people who buy their insurance from one 
major carrier will likely see increases in the neighborhood of 40 
percent. In Oregon, the State's largest insurer in the individual 
market has requested a premium increase of nearly 30 percent. That 
number, 30 percent, is similar to the rate hikes requested by some of 
the largest insurers in Maryland as well.
  I could go on and on. I am not just cherry-picking States, this is a 
trend. Unfortunately, it is having a real-world impact. People are 
concerned, and they have every right to be. According to a Gallup poll 
a few weeks back, health care costs are the No. 1 financial concern for 
families in the United States. People are more concerned about health 
care costs than they are about low wages, housing, education, or even 
debt. As premiums go up, I can imagine that the number of families 
concerned about health care costs will continue to go up as well.

  In addition to higher premiums for 2017, we are also hearing many 
insurers will be opting to drop out of the exchange markets. For 
example, one of the country's largest insurers has, so far, decided to 
pull out of more than two dozen State exchanges due to mounting losses. 
This is the same company that currently offers plans in 34 different 
States but has said it will continue to do so only in a small number of 
States going forward.
  In Utah, we recently saw the closing of an ObamaCare co-op that 
covered roughly 45,000 people, all of whom had to find health insurance 
at the beginning of this year. Indeed, 12 of the 23 co-ops around the 
country have already closed, further reducing the number of health 
insurance options available to people throughout the country.
  The Obama administration is trying to downplay these reports and 
convince people that a smaller number of insurers in various markets 
will not be a problem. But the impact should be obvious: When an 
insurer--let alone many insurers--drops out of a market, the patients 
and consumers in that market are left with fewer choices. And in any 
market, for any product, when consumers have reduced options, it 
generally leads to both lower quality and higher prices. That is 
definitely true in the health insurance market.
  The question many are asking is, Why is this happening? Why are so 
many insurers raising premiums or choosing not to participate in the 
ObamaCare exchanges? The answer is relatively simple: ObamaCare is not 
working and can't work the way it was designed.

[[Page S2925]]

  I think it would be helpful at this point to briefly review its 
timeline. From the time the law was first drafted, the Affordable Care 
Act included a number of insurance coverage mandates designed to 
dictate what insurance companies had to offer and what coverage 
patients would have to buy. Of course, imposing those kinds of 
requirements was bound to increase the cost of insurance across the 
board.
  However, if you will recall, during the congressional debate over the 
law, the President and his supporters repeatedly claimed that because 
the law was going to require everyone to have health insurance, more 
young and healthy patients would be coerced into the insurance risk 
pools. According to their arguments, this shift in the market would 
more than compensate for the costs associated with the new insurance 
coverage mandates. In short, they claimed they could expand coverage 
requirements and keep premiums from going up.
  Now, fast forward to 2013, which is when the exchanges went online. 
At that time, insurers entered the exchanges and set premium rates, 
presumably assuming the law would work as promised. As it turns out, 
that assumption was ill informed in many cases, and insurance companies 
across the board found they had priced their premiums too low. The 
expansion of younger, healthier, less risky market participants never 
came and, as a result, the industry suffered huge losses.
  According to a report released last month by the Mercatus Center, in 
2014 alone, insurers nationwide suffered more than $2 billion in losses 
for plans sold on the exchanges. This happened despite subsidies they 
received from the government to mitigate the risk of covering a mostly 
unknown population.
  As we fast forward once again to the present day, we see that this 
situation has not corrected itself over the first 3 plan years under 
ObamaCare. In fact, it has only gotten worse. Premiums are going up, 
enrollment is lagging far behind the initial rosy estimates, and 
millions of the younger, healthier population of insured people the 
system needs to properly function are either opting to pay the fines 
for going without insurance, going undetected because they do not file 
tax returns, or staying on their parents insurance for as long as 
legally possible.
  A recent Blue Cross Blue Shield report compared three separate groups 
among the carrier's membership. These groups were, No. 1, individual 
members newly enrolled in the ObamaCare exchanges; No. 2, members who 
had individual plans prior to the passage of ObamaCare; and No. 3, 
members currently enrolled in Blue Cross employer plans. According to 
the study, the people newly enrolled in insurance under ObamaCare are 
significantly less healthy and require significantly more services than 
the other two groups. The cost of care among that group is, not 
surprisingly, significantly more expensive.
  That is remarkable. If we assume what is happening in this study is 
in any way reflective of what is happening nationwide, not only did the 
Affordable Care Act fail to create more favorable risk pools for 
insurers and patients sharing the costs, but the risk pools are, 
overall, more risky now than they were before.
  While a number of complicated factors have likely contributed to this 
outcome, the major reason we are seeing this result is relatively 
simple: ObamaCare did little, if anything, to address health care 
costs. As a result, young and healthy people who are less in need of 
health insurance are making the calculation that it would be less 
costly for them to go uninsured and pay a fine than purchase insurance 
through an exchange. Indeed, in countless polls and surveys of still 
uninsured Americans, we have seen the biggest reason people refuse to 
buy health insurance is that it costs too much.
  Under this status quo, insurers can stay afloat only in one of two 
ways: They can raise premiums, which makes their coverage even more 
costly, driving more young and healthy people out of the market, 
further depleting the risk pools, or they can exit unprofitable 
markets. Currently, we are seeing insurers do both, ensuring that the 
exchanges--and with them the entire system created by the Affordable 
Care Act--are becoming more unstable all the time.
  Let's be clear: There is no solution to this problem that keeps the 
current system in place. There is no way to reset or rearrange the 
incentives under the current system. There is no minor tinkering that 
can fix these problems. It is not simply going to correct itself over 
time. Quite frankly, the system is damaged beyond repair. The only 
thing we can do to give options to patients and bring down costs is 
create a different system.
  Some of us have put forward plans to do just that. I have a plan that 
I put forward with Senator Burr and Chairman Upton over in the House. 
It is called the Patient CARE Act, which I have mentioned a number of 
times here on the floor. However, ours isn't the only solution out 
there. There are a number of ideas. We just need to get serious about 
addressing these issues. But that will not happen--that will not 
happen--so long as people refuse to acknowledge there is even a 
problem.
  The supporters and authors of the Affordable Care Act have gotten 
pretty good over the years at mining the available data for favorable 
citations and moving the goalposts for what qualifies as ``success'' 
for this law in order to fool the American people. Fortunately, the 
people are not buying it.
  Since the day the law passed, 90 percent of national polls show that 
more people oppose ObamaCare than support it. I don't see that changing 
as long as premiums keep going up and people are left with fewer and 
fewer options.
  However, as always, I am an optimist. I believe we can make some 
progress here. I currently chair the Senate committee with jurisdiction 
over many of the most consequential elements of ObamaCare. Over the 
next few months, I plan to do something that the authors of ObamaCare 
never did--listen. I am going to take the time to engage with 
stakeholders from across the spectrum to get a clear sense of what 
needs to be done to bring down health care costs for American families 
and get skyrocketing premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket limits 
under control.
  I plan to hear from experts, industry leaders, and advocacy groups to 
get their ideas in order to arrive at a workable solution. Then I am 
going to solicit the help of anyone in Congress--from either side of 
the aisle--who is willing to put in the necessary work to right this 
ship and craft meaningful legislation to address these problems.
  As I said, the cost of health care is the No. 1 financial concern for 
American families. It is an issue that deserves the attention of 
everyone in this Chamber. Finding a solution will require not only that 
we acknowledge the failings of the system created by the Affordable 
Care Act but that we also work together to address these failings in a 
productive, less political way--in a bipartisan way, if you will.
  Now, that is my focus when it comes to health care, Mr. President. I 
hope all of my colleagues will be willing to work with me on this 
effort.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 3897

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on Lee amendment No. 3897 
that deals with the Federal Fair Housing Act, and I want to describe 
why many of my colleagues and I are opposed to the amendment. The 
amendment would eliminate the current affirmative furthering fair 
housing enforcement regulations promulgated by the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development. I want to go into that.
  I will start with a personal story. Before I was in partisan elected 
politics, I was a civil rights lawyer in Richmond for 17 years. About 
two-thirds of my legal practice was fair housing cases. I will just 
tell you the story about my first client and two lessons I learned from 
my first client that bear upon this amendment.
  I had barely hung my diploma on the wall in my office, where I was 
the junior person among 12 lawyers, when a client was referred to our 
firm. They

[[Page S2926]]

did what is often the case; they sent it to the newest person. Somebody 
needed some help--pro bono assistance. This young woman's name was 
Loraine.
  Loraine was almost exactly my age. I think I was 25 at the time, and 
she was the same age. I had just moved to a new city and had just gone 
out to find my apartment in that new city and started my first real job 
after school. She was kind of in the same place--just out of college, 
just starting a new job, just looking for an apartment.
  Loraine had been at work one day and had read in the newspaper an ad 
for an apartment in a neighborhood she liked. So she called the 
landlord and said: Hey, I am really interested in your apartment. Is it 
still available? Yes, it is available. Could I come over on my lunch 
hour to take a look? Sure, come on over.
  Well, about an hour later she went over to the apartment, and when 
she met the owner, the owner looked at her and said: Oh, I'm sorry, 
this place has just been rented.
  This was in the fall of 1984.
  Loraine drove back to her office and had this sinking suspicion that 
when the person saw she was African American, maybe that was why 
suddenly the available apartment turned into one that wasn't available. 
When she got back to the office, she asked a Caucasian colleague to 
make a call to the same owner and ask about the apartment. Within 20 
minutes the colleague had made the call and asked: Hey, I'm calling 
about this apartment. Is it still available? The owner, who had just 
turned Loraine away, said: Sure, it's still available. When do you want 
to come over and see it?
  That was the first lawsuit I drafted. I know I am speaking to a 
Presiding Officer who is an attorney and who has done the same thing. 
For the first client who was truly mine, the first pleading I drafted 
was a Federal fair housing action. With the testimony of the coworker, 
it was a slam-dunk case. We settled it shortly after we filed it. So in 
that sense, I don't have a big momentous trial story or anything to 
tell. Nevertheless, it made a huge impression on me as a brand-new 
attorney for two reasons. First, in hearing my client tell me the 
story, I understood more deeply than I ever had how important your home 
is, how important housing is. I think most of us feel that what is 
important in life is relationships--not things, not physical objects. 
But where you live is more like a part of your person than it is a 
physical thing.

  As she described this experience, obviously, that was what made it so 
painful. But the thing that really stuck with me about this was this: 
She and I were so similar in many ways--about the same age, excited to 
be coming out to find a house, having a new job. But my experience--I 
found an apartment with no problem for my wife and me--was a positive 
one. But Loraine's experience of being turned away--and then having the 
sinking suspicion that she was turned away because of her skin color 
and then finding out that was the case--was a very negative and painful 
one. What really struck me, as I talked to her, was that the pain was 
not just the pain of something in the past tense. The pain was also the 
anticipation: What about the next time I look for a house? What about 
the next time? Am I going to be faced with this same differential 
treatment because of the color of my skin?
  That first case I had suddenly made me the expert in Virginia on fair 
housing law--doing one case that was settled within a matter of weeks. 
So for the next 17 years, this was the heart of my legal practice--
representing people who had been turned away from housing because of 
their race, disabilities--apartments, houses, mortgages, homeowner's 
insurance policies. I learned an awful lot when I did it.
  One of the things I learned was what a superb piece of legislation 
the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 is. It was the last of the major 
pieces of civil rights legislation done in the 1960s. There was the 
1964 act of public accommodations, employment discriminations, and the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1968, the Federal Fair Housing Act was 
really the last of those big pieces of Federal legislation. I am proud 
to say that even over the course of my legal career, from 1984 until I 
stopped practicing in early 2002, in Virginia and elsewhere there was 
significant improvement. The Federal Fair Housing Act really did open 
the doors so that people could live where they wanted to live and as 
their resources would allow them to live there. Yet, if we just looked 
at the statistics about residential segregation, in all 50 States, we 
would see that we still have more work to do. There are still barriers 
that people face, and some of them are just absolute, sharp, and clear 
barriers, and some of them are more subtle.
  HUD was directed by GAO in 2010 to do a study because they had been 
encouraged as part of the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 to encourage 
affirmatively to advance the fair housing mission through agencies that 
are funded by HUD. The case that I described with Loraine was a private 
landlord, and that is not necessarily relevant to this topic except to 
underline how important the law is and how critical housing is. But 
there are circumstances in which HUD is giving funding to 
organizations.
  I was a mayor, and my city had a housing authority. HUD funding went 
into the housing authority in my city, just like it goes into housing 
authorities all around the United States. I was a Governor, and 
Governors got CDBG funds that came from HUD. So whether it is to a 
city, county, State, or to a CDBG program that then gets allocated 
out--even to worthy and strong housing nonprofits--HUD was under a 
directive when it was funding organizations to make sure they were 
affirmatively advancing the commands of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. 
HUD was doing this sort of in fits and starts and in a little bit of an 
extemporaneous way. In 2010, the GAO said: You have an obligation to 
affirmatively further fair housing, but you are not exactly doing it 
the right way. Can you really look at guidance that you can give to 
your grantees?
  Now, this was really important--that Federal grantees get this 
guidance and affirmatively further fair housing because it wasn't just 
the private landlords of the world that had done bad things in the 
housing industry. In fact, there had been a lot of policies of State 
and local governments, and even the Federal Government, that had cut 
against fair housing. There were zoning laws that cut against fair 
housing. There were Federal appraisal standards to get FHA loans that 
cut against fair housing, and there were other Federal policies that 
actually cut directly against the goal of allowing people to live where 
they wanted to live.
  So that is the reason why these grantees that are receiving Federal 
money, are in a unique position to do something about it, and often are 
inheriting a history where in the past they did the wrong things, need 
to be encouraged and given clear guidance about how to affirmatively 
further fair housing.
  So to follow the GAO directive, HUD, under this administration--and I 
give Secretary Castro huge credit for getting this to the goal line--
did the work to come up with clear guidance so that organizations that 
receive HUD funding know what it means to affirmatively encourage fair 
housing and so that it is not just a vague platitude or something you 
pay lip service to but you don't actually do it.
  The rule announced by HUD is pretty straightforward. It doesn't 
mandate changes to local zoning laws. It doesn't require people to 
move. It doesn't end local control of community planning and 
development. It allows communities to determine what the best 
strategies are to comply with the Fair Housing Act. It provides local 
communities with data and tools that are needed to make fair housing 
decisions, including allowing local communities to add any relevant 
local or regional data so that people can understand the effects of 
their actions.
  It does include protected classes in the statute in the larger 
community planning process. It prevents the use of Federal resources to 
discriminate against protected classes of individuals. It simplifies 
compliance with the Fair Housing Act, and this is really important 
because a lot of small communities don't have a phalanx of lawyers to 
pour through all the laws and regs. So simplified compliance guidelines 
are helpful. It does not require grantees to collect new data and data 
they are not already collecting, and it encourages engagement with the 
local

[[Page S2927]]

community, including the real estate industry, residents, developers, 
and other organizations.
  As somebody who was sitting on the other end of this as a mayor, and 
as somebody who was appointing members to a public housing agency in 
Richmond, I think this kind of guidance is actually very, very helpful. 
So I was heartened when the GAO directed HUD to do this work. HUD did a 
significant period of study and put out guidance under Secretary 
Castro's leadership. I think it is actually something that is helpful--
not harmful--to those who are receiving HUD funds and should be using 
HUD funds to advance important goals, including the fair housing goals.
  I know the Senator who is proposing the amendment--Lee amendment No. 
3897. I know it is well-intentioned, and the intention might be to not 
put too many burdens and obligations on the shoulders of local planning 
officials or cities or counties. But as somebody who has been a mayor 
and been in that spot, guidance is helpful. I actually think this 
guidance gives clarity in an area where, before the guidance, there was 
some confusion. I think the guidance strikes the right balance.
  I don't know exactly when this is going to be called for a vote. I 
gather soon. But I just wanted to take the floor and hearken back to 
the days before I ever knew I would be in politics and I was 
representing people who desperately needed to just be treated equally 
to everybody else when it came to their housing. This HUD regulation 
really furthers that goal in a positive way, and I think we should not 
eliminate it by accepting Lee amendment No. 3897. So, for that reason, 
I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I just want to thank the Senator from the 
Commonwealth of Virginia for an excellent statement. As he has 
indicated, he comes to this issue from the perspective of an attorney 
who is an expert in the Fair Housing Act, which, as he notes, is a 
landmark civil rights law. But he also brings a very important 
perspective of having been a mayor who was the recipient of Federal 
funds and who looked to HUD for guidance on how to make sure that, when 
community development block grant monies, for example, were given to 
local communities, the communities used them in ways that carried out 
the goals of the 1968 Fair Housing Act. It is very valuable that he has 
both the technical understanding of an attorney who has practiced in 
this very field for many years and also as a municipal official who had 
to live with the Federal rules.
  The fact is, as he indicated, the Fair Housing Act regulation that 
came out last year is intended to give clarity to local officials who 
are the recipients of Federal funds.
  I am very much opposed to the amendment offered by Senator Lee that 
would prohibit any funding for carrying out HUD's affirmatively 
furthering fair housing rules.
  It is important to recognize that this rule didn't just come out of 
the blue. It is based on a specific requirement included in the Fair 
Housing Act of 1968, which mandates that HUD ensure that the recipients 
of Federal funds not only prevent outright blatant discrimination but 
also act to affirmatively further the fair housing goals of the act.
  In fact, Congress has repeatedly reinforced this concept in the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the Cranston-Gonzalez 
National Affordable Housing Act, and the Quality Housing and Work 
Responsibility Act of 1998. All of those laws require HUD program 
recipients to affirmatively further fair housing. It is probably a 
phrase that most of us are not that aware of, and it does not come 
trippingly off of one's tongue. But it is an integral part of the 1968 
civil rights law, the Fair Housing Act.
  It is also important to remember that when we are discussing fair 
housing, we are not only talking about discrimination based on race but 
also discrimination based on disabilities, national origin, and even 
against families with children.
  It is important to note that more than 50 percent of all reported 
complaints of housing discrimination are initiated by individuals with 
disabilities. That is one reason the Paralyzed Veterans of America 
organization has come out so strongly against the amendment that will 
be offered by Senator Lee.
  In a letter issued by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the 
organization notes:

       HUD's AFFH rule helps curb discrimination against people 
     with disabilities, including veterans and the elderly. Each 
     year, over 50% of all reported complaints of housing 
     discrimination are initiated by people with disabilities.

  The organization goes on to say:

       This alarming trend will continue and affects Americans 
     returning from conflicts abroad with a disability and the 
     growing percentage of elderly Americans with a disability. 
     HUD's AFFH rule will help governments identify strategies and 
     solutions to expand accessible and supportive housing choices 
     for our veterans and elders with disabilities.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the 
Paralyzed Veterans of America be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Paralyzed Veterans of America,

                                                   Washington, DC.

             Vote ``No'' on Lee Anti-Civil Rights Amendment

       Senator Mike Lee plans to introduce an amendment to the 
     FY17 T-HUD/MilCon-VA appropriations bill which would prohibit 
     HUD from implementing or enforcing its ``Affirmatively 
     Furthering Fair Housing'' (AFFH) rule (FR-5173-P-01), keeping 
     long-awaited guidance and data intended to help state and 
     local govemments connect housing and community development 
     dollars to neighborhood opportunity. Any limitation or 
     reversal of HUD's AFFH rule will stop our nation from 
     ensuring that federal investments connect every neighborhood 
     to good schools, well-paying jobs, public transportation 
     options, and safe places for children to play and grow.
       Senator Lee's amendment would halt implementation of the 
     Fair Housing Act and throw our nation back into the pre-civil 
     rights era. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was intended to 
     prohibit discrimination and dismantle historic segregation, 
     which continues to limit the housing choices and 
     opportunities of people of color, people with disabilities, 
     families with children, and religious groups. To achieve this 
     goal, the Fair Housing Act requires that recipients of 
     federal housing and community development funding 
     ``affirmatively further fair housing'' (AFFH).
       HUD's AFFH Rule closes recommendations made by the GAO. In 
     2010 the GAO issued a report recommending that HUD reform its 
     process of implementing the AFFH provision of the Fair 
     Housing Act and the guidance that it provides to grantees. 
     HUD's rule implements the GAO's recommendations by providing 
     state and local governments and PHAs with data about the 
     demographics and housing needs of their communities as well 
     as a framework that they can use to identify and address 
     issues that contribute to isolation and economic inequality.
       HUD's proposed rule emphasizes local control in the 
     development and implementation of solutions to remove 
     obstacles to opportunity. Once an analysis of the barriers to 
     fair housing is complete, governments and PHAs have the power 
     to decide for themselves which issues they and local 
     stakeholders identify are important to prioritize and 
     address. HUD leaves these choices to the discretion of local 
     governments and PHAs.
       HUD's AFFH rule helps curb discrimination against people 
     with disabilities, including veterans and the elderly. Each 
     year, over 50% of all reported complaints of housing 
     discrimination are initiated by people with disabilities. 
     This alarming trend will continue and affects Americans 
     returning from conflicts abroad with a disability and the 
     growing percentage of elderly Americans with a disability. 
     HUD's AFFH rule will help governments identify strategies and 
     solutions to expand accessible and supportive housing choices 
     for our veterans and elders with disabilities.

  Ms. COLLINS. So I think it is important, as we debate this issue 
today, that we recognize what is at stake. The Paralyzed Veterans of 
America organization was founded by a band of servicemembers who came 
home from World War II with spinal cord injuries. I think we should 
listen to their experience.

  There are many other groups that have come out in opposition to 
Senator Lee's amendment. They include the Urban League. Those are big 
cities that receive a lot of Federal funds, but they are opposed to 
Senator Lee's amendment. The NAACP is opposed to the amendment. 
Disability groups have come out in opposition to the amendment.
  There is another extremely important point that the Senator from 
Virginia made; that is, this rule, which has been criticized by some, 
is in direct

[[Page S2928]]

response to GAO criticizing HUD for not doing a good job in carrying 
out this part of the 1968 Fair Housing Act. That is so important.
  How many of us in this Chamber have repeatedly looked to GAO for 
advice on how we can improve how Federal programs work? Look to GAO. 
Look to its 2010 report, which is very critical of HUD. Surely, it is 
significant that when HUD issued the new regulations last year, the GAO 
said ``Fine'' and closed out its recommendations as being completed. 
That is significant.
  This wasn't some wild scheme that was dreamed up by bureaucrats at 
HUD, as some have claimed. This was in response to a report from the 
Government Accountability Office. We talk about how we want more 
efficiency, better accountability. That is why we have the GAO. This 
rule that was directly adopted in response to the GAO's report surely 
is significant.
  I see the Senator from Texas has arrived and wants to speak. I will 
be speaking more on this issue later today. Let me make one final 
point.
  There are those who have claimed that somehow HUD is going to get 
involved in dictating the zoning rules and ordinances of local 
communities. I don't believe that is the case, but we are going to 
offer an amendment and have filed an amendment to make sure that is not 
the case.
  The amendment that Senator Reed, Senator Cochran, and I am offering 
specifically prohibits HUD from dictating in any way to any community 
what its zoning ordinances should be. If that is a possibility, we will 
foreclose it with our amendment.
  I will be speaking further about this important issue later this 
afternoon, but I know there are many of my colleagues who are eager to 
speak, and I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to congratulate our friend, the 
Senator from Maine, for doing a tremendous job of managing this bill. 
It is never easy, given the fact that an individual Senator can slow 
down the process or insist on their rights, which I am not disparaging 
at all. There comes a time in every piece of legislation where it is 
important for us to make sure that we invoke our rights as Senators on 
behalf of the people we represent. I know it takes some patience and 
diligence, and I admire the diligence, patience, and professionalism of 
our colleague from Maine on what is always a challenging piece of work, 
which is trying to get an appropriations bill passed.


                  National Police Week and Police Act

  I wish to speak on a different topic. This is National Police Week. 
Earlier this week I had the chance to visit with a police officer by 
the name of Gregory Stevens of the Garland Police Department. For 
people who are not aware, Garland is a city northeast of Dallas, TX. 
Around this time last year, it was a site of an attempted terrorist 
attack. There was a display of some artwork of the prophet Muhammad 
that provoked a terrorist attack. Fortunately, Officer Stevens was the 
man in the right place at the right time when it happened.
  Many of us remember that fateful day last May when two armed gunmen 
from Phoenix, AZ--clad in body armor with automatic weapons--pulled up 
to the conference center and opened fire. According to media reports, 
the attackers were inspired by ISIS, the Islamic State. This is a real 
problem because these folks, like the shooters in San Bernardino, 
hadn't actually traveled to Syria, although the San Bernardino couple 
had been in Saudi Arabia and had traveled overseas--if I am not 
mistaken. But these people were radicalized in place by the ideology of 
the Islamic State.
  This is a big problem for the United States because, as the FBI 
director has commented, in every FBI field office in America, there are 
FBI investigations open on potential radicalization of people in place 
here in the United States. It doesn't take people traveling from the 
Middle East over here. It doesn't take people traveling from here, over 
there, and coming back. This is the third leg of the stool or the third 
prong of the threat, of people being radicalized in place.
  Getting back to my story, Officer Stevens responded decisively. He 
was able to stop the two terrorists from hurting or killing hundreds of 
people inside the conference center and, thankfully, he left unscathed.
  I asked him: What sort of weapon did you have to protect yourself 
against these two terrorists in body armor with automatic weapons?
  He said: I had a .45-caliber Glock with a 14-shot clip. He said he 
had to do a tactical reload, but he never fired an additional shot 
after he reloaded his weapon. For those of us familiar with such 
things, that is the mark of a real professional--somebody who is very 
well trained and responds as well as you could hope for.
  I know the people of the city of Garland and the folks in Texas are 
grateful to Officer Stevens for his quick response and his bravery. As 
I said, he saved potentially hundreds of lives and prevented injuries. 
I think it is appropriate during National Police Week for us to honor 
people like Officer Stevens by telling their stories.
  On Monday, President Obama presented Officer Stevens the Medal of 
Valor, the highest honor given to a police officer. It is a fitting 
tribute to the heroic actions he exhibited that day.
  During National Police Week, we should note that there are more than 
900,000 law enforcement officers serving our country. After 9/11, we 
have come to talk about them as being first responders, but I am 
talking specifically about the law enforcement officers, not the 
broader category here during National Police Week. They are folks who 
get up every morning, kiss their families good-bye, go to work, put on 
a uniform, and put themselves in harm's way to protect our communities 
and our families.
  Tragically, we know that not all of them make it home at the end of 
the day. Last year, the United States lost 124 law enforcement 
officials; 12 of those officers were from the State of Texas. All of 
them had their individual stories, but some left behind spouses and 
children. I have no doubt that all of them left behind loved ones and 
people who care deeply about them and a community that, in their 
absence, misses them terribly.
  I am particularly proud of the men and women in my State who serve in 
law enforcement--not just in Texas but across the country, including 
here at the Nation's Capitol. Our Capitol Police do a terrific job of 
keeping all of us safe and not just Members of Congress but, obviously, 
the hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit the Capitol on an 
annual basis.
  All of the professional law enforcement officials have dedicated 
their lives to public safety, and we should honor them for it. There is 
no doubt that our Nation is a better place because of their hard work 
and dedication, and we all owe them a debt of gratitude.
  In the Senate, we need to do everything we can do to help 
professional law enforcement officials learn how to do their jobs as 
effectively and as safely possible. One simple way we could do that is 
by making sure they have access to the very best and latest training 
techniques--active shooter training, for example.
  I recall the situation at Fort Hood when MAJ Nidal Hasan killed 13 
people and wounded many more. Two police officers in active shooter 
mode crashed the site, exposing themselves to danger and ultimately 
paralyzing Nidal Hasan. More importantly, they took him out of action 
and saved a lot of lives.
  This training they had and they exhibited with such great effect on 
that day is what we need to give more of our law enforcement officials 
access to. That is why I am glad to join my colleague, the senior 
Senator from Vermont, in sponsoring a piece of legislation called the 
Police Act--a bill that passed out of the Judiciary Committee last 
week.
  This is pretty straightforward and it is bipartisan, so it doesn't 
make a lot of news, but I do think it serves a useful purpose. It will 
allow the use of existing grant money for police training to be used 
for this active shooter training. I know some of that training occurs 
at Texas State University in San Marcos. I have been to that site and 
walked through some of the buildings they use for the training. It is a 
heart-thumping exercise to realize what law enforcement deals with when 
confronting an active shooter. It is really important training.
  We have seen terrorist attacks and sudden acts of violence in 
communities

[[Page S2929]]

across the country and, thankfully, we have people like Officer Stevens 
who helped avoid tragedy in Garland. But we should do everything we can 
to help equip our law enforcement officials with the training and tools 
they need in order to do their jobs as effectively as possible.
  The Police Act would help in this effort, and it would help protect 
those who put their lives on the line on our behalf every day and 
support their efforts to guard the communities they serve. I look 
forward to passing this legislation soon. I can think of no better way 
to honor those who serve our country so well during National Police 
Week than to pass the Police Act, which will in some small way provide 
them access to the training they need in order to do their jobs better 
and help keep our communities safer.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. 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. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I have been coming to the Senate floor 
and talking about a very important issue for our country that we should 
be spending much more time focusing on, and that is the importance of 
growing our economy. With the exception of national defense, I believe 
there is no more important moral imperative for this body and the 
Federal Government to focus on than this issue, but unfortunately, as 
we have seen, the administration doesn't focus on it. They don't want 
to talk about the importance of growing the economy because the record 
they have of economic growth for Americans, particularly middle-class 
Americans, has been dismal.
  I have been trying to get my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
focus on this chart over the last several weeks because this chart says 
a lot. If you look at the different records of different 
administrations, both Democratic and Republican, the Obama years have 
been a lost decade of economic growth. This red line shows 3 percent 
GDP growth. That is decent growth but not great. We can see that 
Reagan, Clinton, and Kennedy all had better numbers. This is the worst 
recovery over a 7-year period. That is a fact. They don't want to talk 
about it. We should talk about it a lot more.
  I clearly think it is one of the most important things we should be 
doing in this body, and one way we can reignite the American dream and 
our economic growth, especially for the next generation--like for our 
pages--is to reduce burdensome and unnecessary regulations. Everybody 
agrees with that, including the Presiding Officer and all of my 
colleagues here. We need to reduce burdensome and unnecessary Federal 
regulations and build infrastructure for America. That is exactly what 
my amendment No. 3912 to the Transportation appropriations bill--which 
is so ably managed by my colleagues from Maine and Rhode Island--would 
do, and that is what I will talk about for a minute.
  My amendment would give States and communities throughout this Nation 
the ability to expedite permitting for the maintenance, reconstruction, 
or construction of structurally deficient bridges. It is pretty simple. 
The amendment is very narrowly tailored. It says: If you are going to 
do maintenance, construction, or reconstruction on a bridge that is 
structurally deficient and the Federal Government won't be burdened, we 
will expedite the permitting by waiving many of the permitting 
requirements. That is it. It is very simple. As a matter of fact, this 
amendment only has two paragraphs.
  It is a win-win for the country. Investing in our infrastructure will 
help boost our economy and economic growth, and importantly, it will 
keep American families safe. It is a commonsense approach that I am 
hoping my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support.
  Recently, President Obama was asked about the economy and our 
crumbling infrastructure. He talked about the need for infrastructure 
investment, which I completely agree with; however, he laid the blame 
for a lack of investment in infrastructure on Republicans, who he said 
were unwilling to spend on our infrastructure. Well, I think with the 
highway bill, the WRDA bill, and this appropriations bill, we are doing 
it. Again, it is very bipartisan. I don't think what the President said 
is true. We are certainly willing to invest in infrastructure, which is 
so important to our economy, but we need to do it wisely, and we need 
to make sure our taxpayer money does not go to unintended uses. In 
fact, I believe, as do many of my colleagues, that there is perhaps 
nothing more central to growing our economy and competing globally than 
sound infrastructure for America, but throwing money at projects that 
aren't ready for development because of the burdensome permitting and 
regulatory requirements that we often see from the Federal Government 
is not a sound use of taxpayer dollars.
  A recent column in the Wall Street Journal points out that of the 
$800 billion of taxpayer money that was passed several years ago as 
part of the President's stimulus package, only $30 billion was spent on 
transportation infrastructure. That is remarkable. Out of the $800 
billion, only $30 billion was spent on infrastructure. Why? One of the 
big reasons is because these infrastructure projects were not shovel-
ready because of the onerous permitting requirements and environmental 
reviews.
  Consider this: The average time for an environmental review for a 
major transportation project in the United States has increased to a 
staggering 8 years. In 2011, it took 8 years to get a transportation 
project approved in terms of Federal permitting, and that is up from 
3\1/2\ years in the year 2000. We have more than doubled the time in 
less than 7 years because of the Federal permitting requirements.
  The average environmental impact statement was about 22 pages when 
NEPA, which requires EIS's--and that is important. When that bill 
initially passed, the average EIS was 22 pages. Today's highway 
projects often have EIS's that are well above 1,000 pages. On average, 
it takes over 5 years to permit a bridge in the United States. Nobody 
wants this.

  As a matter of fact, former President Bill Clinton highlighted the 
need for reform in this area in a well-known Newsweek article. In 2011 
he was on the front cover of Newsweek. His article talked about how to 
get Americans back to work. One of his top recommendations was to make 
sure that when we have infrastructure projects, the permitting 
requirements don't take forever. He said that we need to ``keep the 
full review process when there are real environmental concerns, but 
when there aren't, the federal government should be able to give a 
waiver to the states to speed up start times on construction 
projects.'' That was former President Bill Clinton's recommendation. 
Well, that is exactly what my amendment does. Again, if you are going 
to repair or build a bridge and keep it in the same capacity--a two-
lane bridge stays a two-lane bridge, not a four-lane bridge--and in the 
same place and the same size, then the permitting process should be 
expedited.
  Let me spend a few minutes on why this is so important for our 
economy and the safety of our citizens. I think most people in this 
body know our bridges are in poor condition. About 1 in 10 of America's 
roughly 607,000 bridges is termed and classified as ``structurally 
deficient.'' Let me repeat that in a different way. In the United 
States, there are more than 61,000 bridges in need of repair. The 
average age of our bridges is 42 years old. Americans cross these 
structurally deficient bridges 215 million times a day.
  Here is a chart that shows where they are located. If you look here, 
this classifies different bridges. The red category shows the most 
bridges--over 25 percent--that are structurally deficient. The lighter 
red represents 20 to 25 percent, and the lightest shade of red 
represents 15 to 20 percent. As we can see, every State has 
structurally deficient bridges that Americans are crossing 215 million 
times a day.
  Let me be clear. It is not just about the economy, where truckers and 
commerce are crossing these bridges every day; it is about the safety 
of our children when they ride on schoolbuses and parents when they 
come home from work. Every State in the Union is impacted by this.

[[Page S2930]]

  Let me give a few quick examples of some structurally deficient 
bridges across the country.
  This is the Magnolia Bridge in Seattle, WA. It was built in 1929. 
This bridge carries over 18,000 cars per day and has been declared 
structurally deficient.
  The Greenfield Bridge in Pittsburgh, PA--Pennsylvania has the most 
structurally deficient bridges in the country, and this chart shows one 
of them. It was built in 1921. It carries almost 8,000 cars per day. In 
2003 a 10-inch chunk of concrete went through a car windshield, 
injuring the driver. This structurally deficient bridge has been 
crumbling for decades.
  I have one more example, which the Presiding Officer will find of 
significant interest. This is the Russell Street Bridge in Missoula, 
MN. Transportation for America rates the deck of the Russell Street 
Bridge a 4 out of 10 in terms of structural soundness. It was built in 
1957 and carries over 22,000 cars a day.
  I think we would all agree that we need to fix these 61,000 
structurally deficient bridges. There is no doubt about it. I don't 
think there is any Member of this body or anyone in the Federal 
Government who would disagree about that, but what happens when we try 
to do that? In fact, the efforts, especially in the local communities, 
are strangled by bureaucratic redtape.
  The Wall Street Journal recently had an article titled ``The Highway 
to Bureaucratic Hell,'' and it talked about this very issue of what 
happens when communities try to fix their structurally deficient 
bridges. They gave a number of examples, but I wanted to read one that 
impacts Americans in the New Jersey-New York area of the country. The 
Wall Street Journal article stated: Another illustration of what 
happens is the Bayonne Bridge that connects New Jersey to Staten Island 
and at 150 feet tall blocks large cargo ships. The Port Authority of 
New York and New Jersey plans to raise the bridge from 150 feet to 215 
feet. They wanted to do that to allow cargo ships to go under it. They 
planned to keep the bridge the same size; they just wanted to raise it 
so they wouldn't have to spend over $3 billion to build a tunnel.
  The article goes on to say that their reward for thinking rationally 
was that it took 6 months to have the lead agency identified for an 
environmental review--an environmental review that dragged on for more 
than 5 years and spanned 20,000 pages. That is not good for New Jersey, 
that is not good for New York, and that is not good for America.
  Again, what my amendment would do would fix this issue. It is very 
narrowly tailored, and it would simply make sure that when we are 
trying to fix the 61,000 structurally deficient bridges in the United 
States, we can do it in an expedited manner, not in the way in which 
this Wall Street Journal article described--5 years and 20,000 pages.
  This amendment is a win-win-win. It will help spur economic growth, 
help us with the safety of our citizens, and help our workers get back 
to work so we can do the maintenance and reconstruction on these 
bridges. Everybody here talks about regulatory reform and how we need 
it. Even the President, in his State of the Union speech, talked about 
the need to cut redtape in order to grow this economy. But we rarely 
act on it. We talk about it, but we don't act on it.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--my colleagues 
particularly from older States, where this amendment will help them 
more than the rest of the country--to vote on this amendment which will 
keep our families and kids safe, help grow our economy, and put workers 
back to work. It is a commonsense thing to do for our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, it has now been 62 days since Judge 
Garland's nomination--62 days. As we all know, our Founding Fathers 
entrusted all of us in the Senate with the role of providing advice and 
consent to the President of the United States in relation to his 
appointments to the Supreme Court. We have the option--in fact, I 
believe the responsibility--to meet with the nominee in person. We are 
responsible for holding hearings through the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. Based on his responses to questions, we then have the 
opportunity to vote yes or no on the nomination. But we don't have the 
responsibility of doing nothing. We have to proceed to consider the 
nomination.
  Unfortunately, Senators in the majority are refusing to do that. They 
have said they will not hold hearings--no hearings, zero--on a nominee 
for the U.S. Supreme Court. And too many have refused to even meet with 
the nominee, and I believe it is a matter of respect to meet with the 
nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. This is our job in the Senate. This is 
their job--the job established for them--for us--by America's Founding 
Fathers. Unfortunately, the majority is refusing to do it.
  I have talked with a lot of hard-working people in Michigan and, 
frankly, people around the country about what would happen if they 
decided to not do one of the most basic parts of their job; if they 
said: For the next year, I think I am just not going to do this major 
part of my job description. Usually, when I ask people about that, they 
laugh and say: Well, that is simple; I would be fired. That is the 
response of the majority of Americans.
  If we go back in history and look at how long it usually takes for 
the Senate to process a President's Supreme Court nomination, we see 
how unprecedented these delays really are. If this Republican-
controlled Senate did its job as previous Senates have, then there 
would have been a hearing of the Judiciary Committee by April 27, which 
was 3 weeks ago--3 weeks ago--but that hasn't happened. The Judiciary 
Committee would have held a vote on May 12, but that vote never came, 
and there is no sign it is coming anytime soon, if at all, this year. 
Based on historical precedent, the Supreme Court nominee would then 
come to the floor for a vote on confirmation, up or down, yes or no, by 
Memorial Day. That is not going to happen either.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to schedule a hearing so that the 
American people can hear directly from Judge Merrick Garland in a 
transparent and open way. Ask the tough questions. Talk about his 
almost 20 years on the circuit court bench and his role as chief judge. 
We should also talk about the fact that he was confirmed for that 
position overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan basis, by the U.S. Senate.
  Because there is not a willingness to hold hearings, to debate, to 
discuss, to have a vote, I think that is why polls show that the 
majority of Americans support holding the hearings and a vote for Judge 
Garland and don't understand what is going on.
  Meanwhile, the eight Justices of the Supreme Court have been unable 
to reach a final decision on two important cases, and I am sure there 
will be more. Those cases are Zubik v. Burwell and Spokeo v. Robbins. 
As a result, the law remains unsettled and is likely to remain 
unsettled for a year or more as to whether women who work for certain 
nonprofits will continue to have seamless access to contraceptive 
health care coverage. Given the gravity of the decision the Supreme 
Court must make, we can't afford to let it continue with less than the 
nine Justices who make up the Supreme Court.
  This is supposed to be a separate branch of government that will 
place a check on the administration and on Congress, the third branch 
of government.
  It is time that we get about the business of doing our job and for 
our Republican colleagues to say they are going to do their job and 
provide advice and consent on the nomination. Again, if there is not 
support for this nomination after rigorous debate, after hearings, 
after questions, after hearing from Judge Garland, then so be it. Then 
the President of the United States will have to come back with another 
nomination. But right now nothing is happening to reflect the fact that 
the third branch of government will be left ineffective, unable to 
fully function for probably a year, and it could be longer. That makes 
no sense.
  It is time to do your job. It is time to do your job so that the U.S. 
Supreme Court can do its job on behalf of the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss important 
legislation

[[Page S2931]]

before the U.S. Senate this week--the combined Transportation, Housing 
and Urban Development, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
appropriations bill.
  As chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee and an active 
member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I am pleased 
that this appropriations bill includes a number of critical 
transportation and infrastructure initiatives that I have advocated for 
during my time in the Senate. A safe, efficient, and reliable 
transportation system is crucial to the economic growth of our country.
  Last year Congress passed a much needed 5-year highway bill known as 
the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, or the FAST Act. I was 
proud to work with my colleagues on this bipartisan legislation and 
usher in the first multiyear Transportation bill in over a decade.

  The Transportation appropriations bill before the Senate fully funds 
the highway bill. Because of the FAST Act, Americans will benefit from 
increased investment in our Nation's transportation system. Rural and 
urban communities across Nebraska and our country will have new 
opportunities to secure funding for essential freight infrastructure 
projects. Meanwhile, a new national strategic freight program within 
the FAST Act will help our States and local communities prioritize 
freight traffic and increase safety. Through this program, States will 
be provided with the discretion to direct new funds to rural and urban 
freight corridors with higher commercial traffic.
  As States work to develop their freight plans and designate 
corridors, stakeholders across all modes will have the opportunity to 
participate and provide valued feedback. First and last mile connectors 
for freight at airports, trucking facilities, and rail yards will also 
be eligible for increased investment under this national freight 
program.
  Railroad infrastructure is also a pivotal component of our national 
transportation network. According to the Nebraska Department of Roads, 
my State hosts more than 3,000 at-grade rail crossings that will be 
eligible for Federal dollars. Additional funding is provided for 
railroad safety and research programs, including positive train control 
installation and resources to address highway-rail grade crossing 
safety.
  I am also pleased that T-HUD advances key pipeline safety efforts, 
which I worked with my Commerce Committee colleagues, including the 
Presiding Officer, to include in the bipartisan SAFE PIPES Act. 
America's pipeline infrastructure transports vital energy resources to 
homes, businesses, schools, and commercial centers across our country. 
According to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration, or PHMSA, more than 2.5 million miles of pipelines 
traverse the United States. Pipelines are often renowned as the safest 
way to transport crude oil and natural gas. Nevertheless, Congress must 
continue to increase safety on America's vast pipeline network. Our 
Nation's hazardous materials emergency responders and our firefighters 
are supported by T-HUD report language that encourages PHMSA to update 
important training curriculum programs.
  The Surface Transportation Subcommittee has also been working on 
legislation to strengthen our Nation's maritime programs. For example, 
the Maritime Security Program is responsible for ensuring a fleet of 
U.S. merchant marine vessels stands ready and available to assist our 
Nation's military in times of war or national emergency, and I 
appreciate that T-HUD bolsters this very valuable program.
  Furthermore, DOT and the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy will be 
compelled to provide more information to Congress on efforts to combat 
on-campus sexual assault. Addressing on-campus sexual assault is 
something I have been seeking to address as part of my bill, known as 
the Maritime Administration Enhancement Act of 2017. Through meaningful 
prevention and response efforts, we can provide a more secure 
experience for the Academy's men and women, many of whom will go on to 
serve our country.
  America's aviation and aerospace system will benefit from increased 
resources without raising ticket fees on our Nation's passengers. The 
bill's report tasks the Federal Aviation Administration with evaluating 
and updating commercial airline onboard emergency medical kits, 
particularly for families traveling with young infants. This is 
something I fought for in the Senate FAA bill.
  Full funding is provided for the Contract Tower Program, which allows 
smaller airports to contract with the private sector for air traffic 
control services. Airports across the country, such as the Central 
Nebraska Regional Airport in Grand Island, NE, will benefit greatly 
from this program.
  T-HUD allocates critical funding for our Nation's multimodal 
transportation network, and I am pleased the bill advances many of my 
own key initiatives.
  I would also like to address some of the important provisions 
included in the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs portion of 
the bill. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our veterans and we 
have a responsibility to help them in their time of need. These men and 
women answered the call to serve our country and to defend our freedom. 
Some have deployed around the world, often into the heart of danger, to 
fight or provide humanitarian assistance. Many of these veterans return 
from service with both the visual and the unseen scars of battle.
  These brave men and women deserve timely access to quality health 
care. Unfortunately, veterans living in rural States can be forced to 
travel great distances to receive the care they need. Through this 
legislation, the VA would be prevented from diminishing services at 
certain existing Veterans Health Administration medical facilities. It 
would also require the VA to take a more holistic approach to planning 
and executing realignment.
  Throughout Nebraska, veterans are fortunate to receive quality care 
from dedicated VA medical providers. At the same time, the lack of 
modern infrastructure and outdated facilities are hindering efforts to 
provide the latest treatments and support. The VA must continue to 
explore innovative strategies to hasten updates and the completion of 
our new facilities.
  Although this bill offers progress, we are not finished in our 
efforts to address problems at the VA. I will continue to do whatever I 
can to ensure that every veteran has access to the health care they 
need.
  As I mentioned, the appropriations bill before us moves forward a 
number of significant national transportation priorities and enhances 
programs beneficial to America's veterans. I greatly appreciate the 
hard work of Senators Collins, Kirk, and their Appropriations 
subcommittee staffs on this critical bill. It will allocate much needed 
dollars to advance our Nation's transportation system and strengthen 
veterans programs.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska, Mrs. 
Fischer, for her comments. She is such a leader on so many issues in 
the Senate. We work closely together on transportation issues, and she 
gave us very valuable input for the bill that is before us. So I 
acknowledge her help and assistance and guidance and thank her for her 
comments.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, over the last few months, we have 
witnessed ObamaCare crumbling in my home State of Arizona. Several 
Obamacare-established co-ops collapsed, including Arizona's Meritus 
Mutual Health Partners, forcing nearly 63,000 Arizonans scrambling to 
find new coverage. Last month, UnitedHealth, the Nation's largest 
health insurer, announced it

[[Page S2932]]

will exit the Arizona marketplace and leave about 45,000 Arizonans to 
find new coverage in 2017. Now, as a direct result of the President's 
failed law, health insurer Humana just announced it, too, will exit the 
marketplace in 2017 in my home State. All together, over half of 
Arizona's counties will be left with a single insurer, and another 
third will be left with just two. In turn, this will cause premiums to 
skyrocket even higher than last year. While Democrats continue to stand 
by a failed law, Arizona families are bearing the burden. This is 
unacceptable.
  More than 6 years after ObamaCare was rammed through Congress without 
a single Republican vote--and I was on the floor on Christmas Eve 
morning as it was passed on a strict party-line vote--Democrats are 
still trying to spin their overhaul of America's health care system. We 
continue to hear from advocates of ObamaCare who make their claims that 
continue to leave me speechless, such as that insurance markets are 
stable and premiums are not rising quickly. Unfortunately, as is often 
the case with advocates of the President's disastrous law, these 
statements are largely devoid of reality.

  ObamaCare's upheaval and disruption to our Nation's health care 
system is a direct result of the efforts of the White House and 
Democratic leadership to write this massive bill behind closed doors, 
with no input from this side of the aisle. The process was anything but 
bipartisan, as promised on the campaign trail by the then-Presidential 
candidate, Barack Obama. Instead of crafting health care reform that 
works for the American people, the administration cut deals with drug 
companies to get their support, ensuring they would see increased 
profits and consumers would face increased costs.
  Democrats' partisan effort to write and pass ObamaCare without 
Republican participation flies in the face of how every other major 
reform in American history was enacted. I have worked with Democrats on 
many occasions to solve some of the country's most urgent problems. 
Never in my experience has one party attempted to increase the 
government's influence in one-sixth of the American economy over the 
unanimous opposition of the other party.
  Unfortunately, Americans are now facing the consequences of this 
massive overhaul of our health care system. The biggest problem in our 
health care system, and Americans' most pressing concern, is out-of-
control cost increases, but ObamaCare does nothing to address this 
issue. That is why we continue to see health care costs balloon, while 
health insurance becomes increasingly expensive and unaffordable for 
citizens and their employers.
  Sadly, as we have seen in recent weeks, the situation is only getting 
worse. Just last month, a poll by Gallup found that Americans cite 
health care costs as the most important financial burden facing their 
families. They name health care costs ahead of other financial burdens, 
such as low wages, debt, and being able to afford college or a 
mortgage.
  The American people are now experiencing firsthand exactly what 
Republicans have been warning about ever since ObamaCare was written: 
The law will ultimately do far more harm than good, and they have every 
right to question what the future holds. The fact is, the crumbling of 
ObamaCare should come as no surprise to anyone.
  UnitedHealth--which will exit from all but a handful of States in the 
individual marketplace in 2017--lost $475 million on the ObamaCare 
exchanges in 2015 and is projected to lose $650 million on the 
exchanges in 2016. Its exit from ObamaCare exchanges will send an 
estimated 45,000 citizens of my State, Arizona, scrambling to find new 
coverage with even fewer options to choose from.
  Humana's announcement that it will follow in UnitedHealth's footsteps 
by exiting Arizona's exchanges should also come as no surprise, given 
the fact that it continues to incur losses as a result of ObamaCare's 
onerous regulations. Humana and UnitedHealth's exit means fewer 
options, less competition, and most certainly higher costs for 
consumers. This is especially true after Blue Cross Blue Shield, the 
only remaining provider in several Arizona counties, increased premiums 
last year by 27 percent merely to recover the $185 million in losses it 
incurred in the ObamaCare marketplace between 2014 and 2015.
  The health insurer has noted that continuing to suffer losses in the 
marketplace is unsustainable, meaning significant premium increases are 
on the horizon for 2017. All of this news of insurance companies 
exiting the marketplace and others increasing premiums is only the tip 
of the iceberg when it comes to the consequences of this disastrous 
law. Since ObamaCare became law, prescription drug costs have continued 
to skyrocket.
  Instead of encouraging innovation and competition, ObamaCare places 
heavy taxes on manufacturers and prescription drug importers to the 
tune of $27 billion over 10 years. According to Standard & Poor's, the 
cost of drugs on the individual insurance market jumped 50 percent in 
2015. Just as some are forgoing a visit to the doctor because of higher 
out-of-pocket costs, we are starting to see more and more individuals 
with chronic conditions not getting their prescriptions filled because 
of the increasing cost of drugs.
  The fact is, ObamaCare was a failure from the start and Americans are 
paying the price. The best thing government can do to expand access to 
health insurance is to institute reforms that will rein in costs and 
make health care more affordable. I have introduced legislation to 
replace ObamaCare with real reform that would expand quality access to 
health care without compromising individual liberty, competition, or 
innovation.
  Regrettably, every Republican effort to meaningfully bring down the 
cost of health care has been met with rigid opposition by Democrats who 
are more concerned with protecting President Obama's legacy than making 
health care accessible and affordable. Every day that goes by, with my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle continuing to dig in their 
heels, leads to another day that millions of Americans face higher 
health care costs, decreased quality of care, and fewer choices.
  It is past time for the President of the United States and Democrats 
in Congress to answer to the thousands of citizens across my State and 
the Nation who have been let down time and again by this disastrous 
law.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to commend the 
leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee for accepting 
transparency language that I requested be included in the fiscal year 
2017 spending bill for the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  The good governance provision, which I championed after years of 
oversight work, will ensure greater accountability in public housing 
authorities' use of the Federal money that they receive in this annual 
appropriations bill.
  For the last 6 years, I have raised concern about HUD's failure to 
conduct proper oversight of how local housing authorities use those 
Federal dollars. Specifically, my concerns relate to HUD's practice of 
allowing local housing authorities to spend hundreds of millions of 
Federal dollars each year with virtually no Housing and Urban 
Development oversight and no transparency to the public. We all have 
reason to be concerned about this lack of transparency because some 
local housing authorities rely on the Federal Government for up to 90 
percent of their funding.
  That is why I thank Senator Collins, Senator Kirk, and other members 
of the Transportation-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee for recognizing 
that Congress must insist on HUD's paying closer attention to the use 
of taxpayer dollars by housing authorities.
  The good governance provision that the Transportation-HUD 
Appropriations Subcommittee included in this year's appropriations 
report ensures that in the future the housing money we appropriate for 
low-income families will retain its Federal designation even

[[Page S2933]]

after it is transferred to the housing authorities.
  I want to stress that this designation is no small matter. In other 
words, Federal money is going to be considered Federal money when it 
gets to the local housing authority, and no games can be played with it 
as are being played with it now.
  U.S. taxpayers spend about $4.5 billion every year to help low-income 
Americans put a roof over their heads. We can be proud that we do so 
much for people in need. We should not let any of that money 
specifically for people of need be wasted or spent to feather the nests 
of local public housing authority bureaucrats.
  I wish to take a few minutes to explain why the appropriations 
language that I championed and is in this legislation is so sorely 
needed. Some local housing authorities have devoted these limited 
funds, which are meant to help low-income people find affordable 
housing, to high salaries and even for perks for the people who run 
housing authorities around the country. I will just use three examples, 
but there are dozens of examples that can be given.
  At the Atlanta Housing Authority, at least 22 employees earned 
between $150,000 and $303,000 per year.
  The former executive director of the Raleigh Housing Authority in 
North Carolina received about $280,000 in salary and benefits plus 30 
vacation days.
  The executive director of the Tampa Housing Authority is paid over 
$214,000 per year, and the housing authority spends over $100,000 per 
year on travel and conferences.
  After I called attention to these wasteful practices a few years ago, 
HUD limited the executive salary paid by local housing authorities. 
That is good news, right? Well, it didn't work out that way, even after 
the salaries were capped at level IV of the Executive Schedule pay 
scale, which today amounts to about $160,000 a year. As I say, it 
didn't turn out to be good news. Unfortunately, as it did turn out, 
this compensation cap had little impact in limiting housing authority 
salaries.
  I will explain how this works. HUD provides over $350 million in 
operating fees annually to local housing authorities. Right now, these 
fees are considered income earned by the housing authorities for 
managing programs instead of considering them as what they are--grants 
given by the Federal Government. That is where the Federal money gets 
mixed up with local money and the Federal money isn't followed by HUD. 
That is why they get away with the waste of taxpayers' money.
  Despite their source, when these fees reach housing authorities, they 
are no longer considered Federal funds. I say that a second time for 
emphasis. Once these funds lose Federal designation, housing 
authorities then can use the tax dollars as they see fit--and they do. 
Then, when they use it as they see fit, HUD is not required to conduct 
oversight of how the money is spent. Believe me; HUD hasn't done much 
oversight.
  This means that many employees of housing authorities can continue to 
earn annual salaries well in excess of the $160,000 without technically 
violating the Federal salary cap. You can see the games that are being 
played to let these local housing people get these massive high 
salaries and fringe benefits and waste taxpayers' money that should be 
spent helping low-income people get safe housing. Sadly, these salaries 
exceed limits that were imposed by the Federal Government to ensure the 
money we appropriate goes to low-income families in the greatest need 
of our assistance.
  After I began publicly voicing my complaints about this practice, the 
Office of Management and Budget in December 2013 issued a government-
wide guidance that should have--should have--put a stop to it, but it 
didn't. But let me tell you what the guidance called for. So-called 
fees for service would then be designated as program income so the 
Federal funding would retain its Federal designation after it is 
transferred into housing authority business accounts. Making sure it 
kept its Federal designation meant it had to be subject to HUD 
oversight. HUD initially agreed to fully implement the OMB guidance, 
but they did not.
  Later, the Department quietly--very quietly--requested a waiver that, 
if that waiver was granted, would have allowed housing authorities to 
sidestep the new OMB rule and then continue to avoid commonsense 
oversight because, with that waiver, the Federal dollars would not have 
Federal designation. They would be considered local money and could be 
spent any way people wanted to spend it.
  I might never have learned of this HUD effort to get around this OMB 
rule but for the very good work of the HUD inspector general. After I 
learned from the inspector general's staff that HUD was requesting a 
waiver of the OMB guidance, I sent a letter to OMB expressing my 
concerns. But as so often happens with bureaucrats in this town, I 
didn't hear from OMB until I attempted to include amendment language 
addressing the fee designation in the Transportation-HUD appropriations 
bill before Thanksgiving of last year, when the issue was on the floor 
of the Senate. As we all know, that bill was pulled from the floor. But 
neither the inspector general nor I were ready to give up, and that is 
why we are here today.
  Just recently, I received good news that reinforces my belief that 
congressional oversight works. HUD has finally agreed to implement its 
inspector general's recommendations requiring that funding provided by 
the taxpayers to public housing authorities will keep its Federal 
designation. In other words, HUD will be responsible for making sure 
that Federal funding is used as intended, and that is very clear. It is 
why we have public housing--to provide safe, affordable housing for 
those in need and, consequently, then, not to use that Federal money to 
pay exorbitant executive salaries.
  My concern now is the timeframe for implementation and ensuring that 
HUD does not request another waiver.
  HUD expects the final rule to be completed by December 2017, more 
than 1\1/2\ years from now. That is a very long time to finalize 
regulations. I hope HUD isn't delaying the process in the hope that 
either the inspector general or this Senator will give up. I can assure 
you that will not happen. We need to ensure that this reform is 
implemented by including language in this appropriations bill to not 
just keep salaries in check but also to ensure that HUD exercises 
oversight authority over how these funds are used and that more money 
is actually used for the poor.

  I hope HUD uses that oversight authority to combat waste, such as in 
the following three examples: The Housing Authority of the City of Los 
Angeles misused over $3.9 million in operating funds for salary, 
travel, bonuses, and legal settlements. The Stark Metropolitan Housing 
Authority in Canton, OH, misused $4 million in operating and capital 
funds to build a commercial development, and an additional $2 million 
was misused for salaries and benefits. The Hickory, NC, housing 
authority paid over $500,000 in operating funds to a maintenance 
company owned by the brother of a board member--a clear conflict of 
interest.
  It is also vital that Congress be aware of any effort by HUD to once 
again avoid implementing this rule the way they tried to get around the 
OMB rule I just talked about. For that reason, the report language I 
requested requires HUD to notify both the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees quarterly during fiscal year 2017 if they 
request any waiver from implementing these provisions.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this effort to ensure that HUD 
implements these much needed changes and does its part to provide 
better oversight of our scarce Federal funding.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________