[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 79 (Wednesday, May 18, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2935-S2969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                             Wind Turbines

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in 1867, when the naturalist John Muir 
first walked into the Cumberland Mountains, he wrote: ``The scenery is 
far grander than any I ever before beheld. . . . Such an ocean of 
wooded, waving, swelling mountain beauty and grandeur is not to be 
described.'' In January, Apex Clean Energy announced that it would 
spoil that mountain beauty by building twenty-three 45-story wind 
turbines in Cumberland County.
  I can still recall walking into Grassy Cove in Cumberland County one 
spectacular day in 1978 during my campaign for Governor. I had not seen 
a prettier site. Over the last few decades, pleasant weather and 
natural beauty have attracted thousands of retirees from Tennessee and 
across America to the Cumberland Plateau.
  The proposed Crab Orchard Wind project would be built less than 10 
miles from Cumberland Mountain State Park, where for half a century 
Tennesseans and tourists have camped, fished, and canoed alongside 
herons and belted kingfishers and around Byrd Lake. It will be less 
than 5 miles from the scenic Ozone Falls State Natural Area, where the 
110-foot waterfall is so picturesque, it was filmed as scenery in the 
movie ``Jungle Book.''
  So here are my 10 questions for the citizens of Cumberland County and 
the people of Tennessee:
  How big are these wind turbines?
  I have a picture somewhere; maybe it will show up in the next few 
minutes. Each one is over two times as tall as the skyboxes at the 
University of Tennessee football stadium, three times as tall as Ozone 
Falls, and taller than the Statute of Liberty. The blades on each one 
are as long as a football field. Their blinking lights can be seen for 
20 miles. They are not your grandma's windmills.
  Question No. 2: Will they disturb the neighborhood?
  Here is what a New York Times review of the documentary ``Windfall'' 
said about New York residents debating such turbines:

       Turbines are huge . . . with blades weighing seven tons and 
     spinning at 150 miles an hour. They can fall over or send 
     parts flying; struck by lightning, say, they can catch fire . 
     . . and can generate a disorienting strobe effect in 
     sunlight. Giant flickering shadows can tarnish a sunset's 
     glow on a landscape.

  Question No. 3: How much electricity can the project produce?
  A puny amount--71 megawatts. But that is only when the wind is 
blowing, which in Tennessee is only 18.4 percent of the time, according 
to the Energy Information Administration.
  Question No. 4: Does TVA need this electricity?
  The answer is no. Last year TVA said there is ``no immediate need for 
new base load plants after Watts Bar Unit 2 comes online.'' That is a 
nuclear reactor. And just last week TVA put up for sale its unfinished 
Bellefonte nuclear plant.
  Question No. 5: Do we need wind power's carbon-free electricity to 
help with climate change?
  No, we don't. Nuclear power is a more reliable option. Nuclear 
produces over 60 percent of our country's carbon-free electricity, 
which is available 92 percent of the time. Wind produces 15 percent of 
our country's carbon-free electricity, but the wind often blows at 
night when electricity is not needed.
  Question No. 6: How many wind turbines would it take to equal one 
nuclear reactor?
  To equal the production of the new Watts Bar reactor, you would have 
to run three rows of these huge wind turbines along I-40 from Memphis 
to Knoxville. And don't forget the transmission lines. Four reactors, 
each occupying roughly 1 square mile, would equal the production of a 
row of 45-story wind turbines strung the entire length of the 2,178-
mile Appalachian Trail from Georgia to Maine. Relying on wind power to 
produce electricity when nuclear reactors are available is the energy 
equivalent of going to war in sailboats when a nuclear navy is 
available.
  Question No. 7: Can you easily store large amounts of wind power and 
use it later when you need it? The answer is no.
  Question No. 8: So even if you build wind turbines, do you still need 
nuclear, coal, or gas plants for the 80 percent of the time when the 
wind isn't blowing in Tennessee? The answer is yes.
  Question No. 9: Then why would anyone want to build wind power that 
TVA doesn't need?
  Because billions of dollars of wasteful Federal taxpayer subsidies 
allow wind producers in some markets to give away wind power and still 
make a profit.
  The 10th question: Who is going to guarantee that these giant wind 
turbines get taken down when they wear out in 20 years and after the 
subsidies go away?
  Good question. The picture that was just put up--and I have another 
slide as well--is what Palm Springs, CA, looks like after it has been 
littered with these massive wind turbines. My question for the people 
of Tennessee is, Do you want Cumberland County and Tennessee to look 
like that? That is the question we need to ask ourselves.
  Many communities where wind projects have been proposed have tried to 
stop them before they go up because once the wind turbines and new 
transmission lines are built, it is hard to take them down. For 
example, watch the documentary ``Windfall'' that I mentioned earlier.
  In October, the residents of Irasburg, VT, voted 274 to 9 against a 
plan to install a pair of 500-foot turbines on a ridgeline visible from 
their neighborhood.
  In New York, three counties opposed 500- to 600-foot wind turbines 
next to Lake Ontario. People in the town of Yates voted unanimously to 
oppose the project in order to ``preserve their rural landscape.'' Take 
a look, and you can see why.
  In Kent County, MD, the same company that is trying to put turbines 
in Cumberland County--Apex Clean Energy--tried to put down twenty-five 
to thirty-five 500-foot turbines a quarter to a half mile apart across 
thousands of acres of farmland where the air serves as a route for 
migratory geese.
  According to the Baltimore Sun, Stephen S. Hershey, Jr., a local 
State legislator, had introduced a bill that would give county 
officials the right to veto any large-scale wind project in their 
jurisdiction. Hershey said he put the bill in after learning that the 
turbines would be nearly 500 feet tall and spread across an area of 
thousands of acres. He called that a ``massive'' footprint ``in a 
relatively rural and bucolic area.''
  William Pickrum, president of the Board of County Commissioners, 
wrote the Senate committee that the project ``will certainly have a 
negative effect'' on farming, boating, and tourism in the county and 
hurt property values. The legislation had the support of local 
conservation groups and of Washington College in Chestertown. The 
school's interim president, Jack S. Griswold, warned in a letter to 
school staff and supporters that the turbines would ``despoil this 
scenic landscape.''
  I mentioned a little earlier how big these wind turbines are. These 
are not your grandma's windmills. I happen to know, even though the 
Presiding Officer is from North Carolina, he was born in Tennessee and 
knows a little bit about the football stadium in Knoxville.
  This is one wind turbine, when placed in Neyland Stadium in 
Knoxville, which will hold 102,000 people. The turbine is over twice as 
tall as the skyboxes. Its blades go the whole length of the football 
field. Its blinking lights can be seen for 20 miles. These are not your 
grandma's windmills.
  As a U.S. Senator, I voted to save our mountaintops from destructive 
mining techniques. I am just as eager to protect mountaintops from 
unsightly wind turbines. I have voted for Federal clean air legislation 
and supported TVA's plan to build carbon-free nuclear reactors, phase 
out its older, dirtier coal plants, and put pollution control equipment 
on the remaining coal plants. Already the air is cleaner and our view 
of the mountains is better.

[[Page S2936]]

  I hope citizens of Cumberland County--and all Tennesseans--will say a 
loud ``no'' to the out-of-State wind producers that are encouraged by 
billions in wasteful taxpayer subsidies to destroy our mountains and 
make them look like that.
  Some say tourists will come to see the giant turbines. They may--
once. But do we really think tourists or most Tennesseans want to 
exchange a drive through the natural beauty of the Cumberland Mountains 
for a drive along 23 towers that are more than twice as tall as Neyland 
Stadium and whose flashing lights can be seen for 20 miles? If you do, 
just take another look at the photograph of what has happened in Palm 
Springs, CA.
  If there is one thing Tennesseans agree on, it is the pride in the 
natural beauty of our State. There are few places more beautiful than 
Cumberland County. We should not allow anyone to destroy the 
environment of our State in the name of saving.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                            Opiate Epidemic

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise, as I have for the past few weeks, 
to bring stories of the opiate crisis that we have throughout my State, 
the Presiding Officer's State of North Carolina, and all over this 
country.
  This epidemic is something we have to face because it affects every 
person in America right now. There is not a person I know of and not 
anyone, I believe, in America who doesn't know somebody in their 
immediate family, extended family, or close friend who hasn't been 
affected by prescription drug abuse or illicit drug abuse.
  I have been dealing with this since my days as Governor of the great 
State of West Virginia. As the Presiding Officer knows, it has ravaged 
my State. We have been hit harder than any other State in the country. 
Drug overdoses have soared by over 700 percent since 1999. Just last 
year alone, we lost over 600 West Virginians to opioids. These are 
legal prescription drugs that are made legally in the country by a 
legal manufacturer of pharmaceuticals. They are approved by the Food 
and Drug Administration, a Federal agency that is supposed to look out 
for our well-being. They are being prescribed by the most trusted 
person next to our family members, our doctors, and they are killing 
us.
  Our State is not unique in that it has hit everybody. Fifty-one 
Americans are dying every day--every day. We have lost over 200,000 
Americans. Two hundred thousand Americans have died since 1999. If we 
think about that in epidemic proportions--we are talking about Zika. We 
just put $1.1 billion toward Zika. We spent $500 million on Ebola. All 
of these horrible epidemics that can cause devastation in America, we 
will rise up and face. We haven't done a thing in this line. We need a 
serious culture change to get through the problem, and we need to 
change approval of opiate drugs. Basically, FDA does not need to be 
putting out these powerful drugs. We don't need them. Think about the 
United States of America. Less than 5 percent of the world's population 
lives in our great country. Yet we consume over 80 percent of the 
opiates produced in the world. How did we become the most addicted? How 
did we become so intolerant to pain that we have to have the most 
powerful drugs ever produced? We have to treat the way we look at this 
drug coming to the market.
  Also, 10, 20 years ago, anybody who did drugs, if they committed a 
crime, we put them in jail. We have spent over $500 billion in the last 
two decades incarcerating people for nonviolent crimes. They come out 
as bad as they went in. We haven't cured anything. We have to change. 
We are looking at sentencing guideline changes on nonviolent crime--
nonsexual, nonviolent crime. Most addicts commit thievery. That is a 
theft. It is larceny. That is where they get their sentencing from. So 
they get sentenced, they get a criminal record, and they can't get a 
job. They are out of the market.
  My State of West Virginia has the lowest workforce participation. 
Only three things take you out of the workforce if you are an adult: If 
you have an incarceration record, people will not hire you; if you have 
a lack of skill sets; if you are addicted, you can't pass a drug test--
or a combination of those three.
  Something is going on. We can't fill jobs. People are telling me how 
bad the economy is. Then I talk to the employers who say: We can't get 
people to pass a drug test. We can't get people into the marketplace. 
So it is something we have to do.
  My office continues to get flooded. I get letters from all over the 
country now because I invite that. I want them. Let me read your 
letter. Let's put a face and let's put a family on it. It is not just a 
hardship, it is not just poverty, it is basically every walk of life in 
America. They are writing stories.
  I want to read another story to you right now. This is Carolyn's 
story. This is the grandmother writing to me:

       Dear Senator Manchin,
       I am enclosing a copy of the letter I sent to ``The 
     Journal'' in Martinsburg concerning the death of our son's 
     step-daughter. She died of a heroin overdose.
       I consider myself Devon's grandmother, and at my age words 
     are my best weapon to fight the scourge that killed her.
       Please, Senator, read my letter and then use it in any way 
     you see fit in the fight for the passage of ``Jessie's Law.''

  We have talked about Jessie's Law. The Presiding Officer has been 
helpful, and I appreciate it very much. It basically says: If you go to 
the hospital and you know your child or a loved one in your family is 
addicted and the child is trying to overcome the addiction, then the 
hospital has the responsibility to stamp on their record ``addiction'' 
so they will be watching how they discharge them and the type of 
opiates they give them. You can't reaffirm an addiction by giving more 
pills. So this is what we are fighting against.
  She said:

       Our granddaughter, Devon, that tall exuberant redhead who 
     laughed her way into our hearts, is now a statistic. Several 
     days ago our son called us to tell us that she had died the 
     night before from a heroin over-dose.
       It wasn't her first over-dose by far, but the other times 
     someone had always managed to get her to the hospital. That 
     last time the friend shooting up with her couldn't help. He 
     died at her side. She still held the needle in her hand [that 
     killed her].
       It was that quick.
       Devon started her drug journey with prescription opiates.

  She had been injured, she had an ailment, and she had pain.

       When those pills weren't enough anymore, heroin stepped in, 
     and the downward spiral began.

  Heroin steps in every time.

       It isn't just the problem kids from poor neighborhoods who 
     get hooked, you know.

  Everybody thinks it is because of the economic downturn. That is a 
part of it but not all of it.

       Our granddaughter came from a stable, affectionate upper-
     middle class home. Even though her parents tried their best 
     to save her with countless sleepless nights, multiple trips 
     to rehab, tough love and loving persuasion, that drug won the 
     battle.
       Now, we are not even allowed to grieve. We must also 
     contend with the many forms of our anger; impatience with 
     Devon for not being stronger, rage at those who sold her the 
     drugs, frustration with the authorities for not doing more to 
     stop the trafficking or establishing more treatment centers, 
     and self-recrimination for maybe not doing enough. We also 
     are trying to cope with the guilt of feeling relief that her 
     hell has finally ended. There is nothing more we can do for 
     her now, no more treatments that we can try.

  Can you imagine living with that? You tried everything, and then, 
finally, when the end comes like that, you have a feeling of relief--
and then you feel remorse for that. Can you imagine grandparents going 
through this?
  Finally:

       She's just gone. Just . . . gone . . .

  People are now coming out. Before, people didn't want to tell me. 
They were afraid. They had a son or a daughter in rehab, and they felt 
that would be a scourge on their family. They didn't want to be 
embarrassed. So we never knew about it. It was a silent killer.
  Then we saw young people--going through the obituaries, it doesn't 
give the cause of death, but we can pretty much figure it out.
  People are now saying: If we don't come out of the closet and talk 
about it, we are not going to fix it. There is a lot that needs to be 
done.
  I am going to read another story that has a happy ending. I am going 
to read Chelsea's story, which I have read before.
  This is a young girl from Boone County, WV. This young girl had 
started using drugs when she was 12 years

[[Page S2937]]

old--12 years old. Anything and everything that could happen to a human 
being--her dad was mayor of the town. He was mayor. She had gone 
through everything, hit bottom as far as bottom could be. The person 
she went through drug court and drug rehab with died, couldn't get out. 
She made it.
  I am going to read hers now so we see a happy ending. Most of these 
stories are about the pain and heartache associated with opiate abuse, 
but Chelsea's story is a little different. In February, on the Senator 
floor, I read Chelsea Carter's powerful story on how she has overcome 
her opiate addiction, and today I am proud to say she just received her 
master's degree in social work from Concord University.
  She said:

       After being addicted to drugs since I was 12 years old [by 
     a neighborhood friend], I decided to go back to school and 
     teach others what I have been taught my whole life.
       I received my bachelor's degree from West Virginia 
     University in the Art of Psychology in May of 2013 and last 
     Saturday May 7, 2016 I graduated with my Masters in Social 
     Work from Concord University.
       I am currently working on my Alcohol and Drug Counseling 
     Licensure and also myself and seven other people are in the 
     process of opening up a Sober Living home in Danville, West 
     Virginia [her home area] called the Hero House.

  They get no funding. They don't qualify for Medicaid, Medicare--
nothing. What they are going to do is all going to be on love and 
kindness. Also, with the record she has now--because she has a felony 
record for grand larceny--it will be hard for her to get a job. We are 
taking a person now with a master's degree out of the workforce. It is 
unbelievable.
  She said:

       I currently work for Appalachian Health Services as an 
     addiction therapist--

  They went beyond that and hired her anyway. Most people will not.

     --but my dream is to one day open my own inpatient treatment 
     facility and help other people who are just like me.
       A message I would like people to know is that recovery is 
     possible, but you have to be willing to work at it.
       It is a lot easier to go out on the streets and buy drugs 
     instead of trying to change your life, but the one thing that 
     recovery gives you that the drugs will never is your life 
     back.
       I am living proof that if you want something bad enough you 
     can change.

  We have to give them hope. We have to give them reasons. We have to 
give them the ability to get back in the mainstream. This is the best 
example of what can be done if we make investments, and the investments 
we make are investments in human capital in the United States of 
America and the spirit of America. This is what we are doing.
  For the many stories I read that have such horrible endings, this has 
a happy ending, and it helps many people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. He 
has been a tiger on this issue, and I hope we will answer his call. The 
epidemic is no better in Connecticut, where most of our cities are on 
track to see a doubling of overdose deaths this year from last year, 
and last year was quadruple the number it was 3 or 4 years ago. I say 
thank you very much to my colleague from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 3897

  Mr. President, I am on the floor today to talk about an amendment to 
the pending bill. It is an issue that a lot of us thought was decided 
by this body decades ago; that is, the prohibition of discrimination in 
housing based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical or 
mental disability, and family status. It is the Fair Housing Act.
  In many ways, the Fair Housing Act was the culmination of the 
legislative fight for civil rights in the 1960s. It was the first 
effective Federal law guarding against discrimination in the sale and 
the rental of housing in the United States. For nearly 50 years, it has 
been employed to ensure that every American can choose where to live, 
free from discrimination and the immoral and unconstitutional 
consequences of residential segregation.
  We have come a long way since the 1960s, but we are by no means all 
the way there. Today, discrimination is still a reality in housing 
markets across the country. In every single State, there are cases of 
landlords misrepresenting the availability of housing or outright 
refusing to sell or rent to certain protected individuals or groups of 
people. There are others who are given different terms and conditions 
on a mortgage or on a rental contract, based on their race, their 
gender, or their physical disability. I hear these stories even in my 
State of Connecticut, which is a pretty progressive State.
  For instance, Crystal Carter was a homeless single mother living in 
Hartford, CT, with her five children, one of whom is developmentally 
disabled. This is what she said, in her own words:

       For two years, my family had jumped between homeless 
     shelters and staying with family and friends. I had searched 
     for affordable housing for several hours a day, every day, 
     and submitted dozens of applications. Then, I found out about 
     an open waiting list for rental vouchers in a suburban area. 
     I was excited at the chance to move to a safer area with 
     better schools for my children. But when I called the 
     suburban housing authority that managed the program, I was 
     told I couldn't even have an application because I didn't 
     already live in one of the approved nearby towns. I was also 
     told that it was someplace I wouldn't want to live anyway and 
     that I should be looking in Hartford or Bridgeport instead.

  Johnnie Dailey is another victim of housing discrimination. Here is 
Johnnie's story:

       In 2013, I was searching for a new home for my family, 
     including my young niece and grandson. I found a single-
     family home that would have been perfect for my family. It 
     was on a quiet street where my niece and grandson could play 
     outside, and the rent was less than my current apartment. My 
     real estate agent called the listing agent for the property 
     and told her that I was very interested in renting the 
     property and that I had a Section 8 voucher. The listing 
     agent responded that the owner of the property, a Boston-
     based company, would not rent to me because they were not 
     interested in accepting a Section 8 voucher. I was 
     discriminated against and denied the opportunity to rent the 
     property solely because I am someone who uses a Section 8 
     voucher to pay part of my rent. To this day, when I think 
     about the discrimination I experienced, I feel upset and 
     embarrassed.

  Crystal's and Johnnie's stories are two of tens of thousands of 
stories from across the country that underscore the need for the Fair 
Housing Act. We have made progress, but we aren't done. While the Fair 
Housing Act rose out of the fight for civil rights for African 
Americans, we also need to remember today that over half of all 
reported complaints of housing discrimination are initiated by people 
with disabilities. There are veterans returning from Iraq and 
Afghanistan with debilitating injuries that have altered their lives 
completely. These individuals also include a growing number of elderly 
Americans who are living with disabilities.
  As a Nation, we know we are stronger and better when we assure access 
and opportunity for all Americans, including the 57 million Americans 
who are living with disabilities today.
  Unfortunately, civil rights laws are under attack today. It is not a 
position that is endorsed wholesale by the Republican Party, but there 
is a coordinated effort on the right to use every tool possible to 
strip civil rights protections from African Americans, Hispanics, the 
disabled, and the poor. We saw this in the successful campaign to get 
the Supreme Court to invalidate portions of the Voting Rights Act.
  Now on the floor of the Senate, we are talking about an amendment 
that would gut the enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. This amendment, 
which is offered by my friend Senator Lee, would effectively stop the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development from being able to enforce 
the Fair Housing Act. The law would stay on the books, but the 
Department couldn't enforce some of the most important elements.
  One of the elements, passed in the 1960s, is an affirmative 
requirement that States and cities take steps to remedy discrimination 
that exists in their community. The Fair Housing Act, which is a 
bedrock of our civil rights laws, has held for decades that it isn't 
enough to band discrimination based on race, disability, or gender. 
Local jurisdictions have to do something to make discrimination less 
likely for renters and home buyers. This isn't new; this has been on 
the books since the 1960s. But a few years ago, GAO discovered in a 
report that most localities weren't doing this; they were ignoring that 
aspect of the law. Appropriately, HUD clarified the obligations

[[Page S2938]]

under this section of the Fair Housing Act so that cities and towns 
know exactly what they need to do to assess the scope of discrimination 
in their area and to better understand their obligations under the act 
to fix the problems.
  Senator Lee's amendment would strip from HUD the ability to enforce 
this part of the law, and that is a shame. We can close our eyes, box 
our ears, and pretend discrimination doesn't exist, but if that is what 
my Republican friends want to do, it is a grievous mistake. We aren't 
in a postracial world. We don't live in a society where the disabled 
always get a fair shake. Discrimination exists, and the Federal 
Government, since the beginning of this Republic, has taken seriously 
its moral and constitutional responsibility to ensure that everyone 
living under the protection of this government gets an equal chance at 
success--no matter their race, their gender, their ability, or their 
disability.
  I am dismayed that 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights 
Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act, the fundamental 
civil rights that have been granted to every American still need to be 
continually shielded from attempts to dismantle them. Any limitation or 
reversal on HUD's ability to enforce the Fair Housing Act would for us, 
as a Senate, be to ignore the moral compass that has guided our 
Nation's commitment to civil rights over decades and decades of 
progress.
  I am encouraged that Chairwoman Collins and Ranking Member Reed both 
intend to oppose the Lee amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to do 
the same.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. 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. NELSON. Mr. President, I am waiting on Senator Reid, who will be 
coming here to make a motion with regard to the Zika crisis. While we 
have a moment, I want to set the table.
  Can you imagine being a pregnant woman in the southern part of the 
United States this summer in a poor county that does not have the funds 
for mosquito control? That pregnant woman knows that if she gets bitten 
by the aegypti mosquito carrying the Zika virus, there is a good chance 
the virus is going to infect the baby in her womb and could have 
consequences, all of which we have seen in these very disturbing photos 
of children born with deformed heads.
  As a matter of fact, the doctors in the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention tell us that the baby can be born with no abnormalities 
but the abnormalities appear later in the child's development after 
birth. Can you imagine being a pregnant woman in the southern part of 
the United States in a poor county--a poor county such as counties in 
the State of the Presiding Officer--that doesn't have the funds for 
mosquito control? What about a rich county that has run out of funds 
budgeted for mosquito control?
  If you are going to control the Zika virus, you either have to have a 
vaccine, which they are working on, or you have to be able to stop the 
mosquito from being able to reproduce. They are working on genetic 
alterations, but both of those take time. In the meantime, there is 
only one thing to do.
  Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. NELSON. I want to finish my statement.
  In the meantime, if you don't have a vaccine and you don't have the 
ability to stop the mosquito population, the particular strain that 
carries the virus, there is only one thing to do, and that is mosquito 
control. That is what local counties, cities, and States are begging us 
now, as was indicated by the letter that I introduced from Osceola 
County, which is right next to the county of Orlando, Orange County. It 
is a relatively well-off, affluent county, but they don't have any more 
mosquito control funds. As we go into this summer with the rains, that 
raises the concern that it doesn't have to be a pond with stagnant 
water; it can be a bottle cap that is filled with water where the 
mosquito lays her larvae and they hatch.
  Yes, I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Florida 
yielding for a question.
  I wish to ask the question, Is the Senator aware that $580 million of 
unspent Ebola funds has been reprogrammed by the Obama administration 
as a down payment on dealing with this impending crisis?
  Mr. NELSON. Indeed, this Senator is aware of that. Thank goodness 
there was this pot of money so that the administration could start this 
because we haven't been doing anything in Congress to produce the 
emergency appropriations. Thank goodness there was a pot of money they 
could borrow.
  Did you know that there is Ebola that is erupting in Western Africa 
right now? Don't we have a responsibility to replenish that Ebola fund?
  Mr. President, I said I was going to talk until Leader Reid arrived. 
He is here, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have had a long, pleasant relationship 
with the senior Senator from Florida. We served in the House together. 
We have served in the Senate together. I have great admiration for him 
and his loving wife Grace, and I am happy to be on the floor with him 
today. People in Florida are so fortunate to have this good man 
representing them.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3038

  Mr. President, look at this map behind me. There are two types of 
mosquitoes that carry this disease--this condition, this virus. We see 
this map here, which covers 39 States. It goes without saying that they 
are not subtropical States. They are not Florida. They are not 
Louisiana or southern Texas. They are places like Boulder, CO, and Las 
Vegas, NV. Are those States subtropical? No, I don't think so. We get 4 
inches of rain a year. It goes up into Maine.

  This is a serious issue which will affect 39 States. As the weather 
warms, the mosquitos will multiply and people will be bitten by these 
vicious little insects.
  Mosquitos have been causing problems in the world for centuries, but 
never to anyone's knowledge has a mosquito caused the types of birth 
defects that are now happening with the Zika virus.
  The virus was discovered in 1947 or 1948 in Uganda. In fact, ``Zika'' 
is the name of a forest there and means ``overgrown.'' Over the 
decades, something has happened and these mosquitos have become so 
dangerous.
  This virus is a threat to people living in these areas, and it is as 
real as it gets. Right now, the focal point is on two places, but it is 
changing as we speak. The American citizens of Puerto Rico have been 
hammered. That poor territory of ours has had so many problems--all the 
money problems they are having, compounded by the fact that tourism is 
being damaged significantly as a result of this Zika virus.
  It is not only the birth defects this virus causes, which are so 
repugnant and scary, but this virus also has the ability to create very 
serious problems with paralysis in human beings. It has happened, and 
there are already reported cases of that.
  This is a ravaging problem. Puerto Rico now has almost 1,000 reported 
cases, which include at least 128 pregnant women and probably more. One 
citizen died in Puerto Rico as a direct result of the Zika virus. It is 
estimated that 20 percent of the Puerto Rican people--or 3\1/2\ 
million--will be infected with this virus. We are talking 700,000 
American citizens.
  As of May 11, there were 1,200 Zika cases on the mainland, and 
Senator Nelson has talked about that in detail--as well he should as a 
representative of that State. No State is on the frontlines of this 
ravaging problem more than the State of Florida. It is a nightmare, and 
who knows how long before this map becomes our national nightmare. No 
one is making this up. This is serious.
  Somehow, the Republican-controlled Congress still hasn't sent a bill 
to the President's desk to provide emergency funding so we can fight 
this devastating virus.

[[Page S2939]]

  If we were here talking about a national emergency--floods, fires, 
earthquakes, all of the many issues we often come to the floor to talk 
about--my friend from Texas is on the floor. How many times have we 
come to this floor to help the State of Texas? We have helped Texas so 
many times, and we were all glad to do it, to pass emergency 
supplemental bills to help the citizens of the State of Texas. There is 
no reason that I can understand why we don't have a piece of 
legislation on the floor just like we would if there were a flood, 
fire, or some other emergency in a State. But, no, we are going through 
a process that will never end in time to take care of the problem.
  Under the present process we have, this emergency spending is part of 
the appropriations bill. Everyone knows that the House can't even get a 
budget. They can't do their appropriations bills. How are we going to 
take these issues to conference when the House can't even come up with 
a budget? I don't know how we can do it any sooner than sometime toward 
the end of this fiscal year, which is September or October. By then, 
the summer will be beginning to be gone, but the mosquitos and the 
devastation they have left will not be gone.
  Experts tell us they need this money and they need it now. Yesterday 
I met with the President's Director of Management and Budget, Sean 
Donovan, and it is clear that they desperately need this money.
  It sounds as if my friend from Texas is saying: We have the Ebola 
money; use that. They are still working on Ebola. What was the 
emergency we had here 2 years ago? It was Ebola. What did we do? We 
provided the money so they could do the research to alleviate the 
spread of this scourge, and they are doing that now. We are robbing 
Peter to pay Paul. That is actually what we are doing.
  The $1.1 billion for Zika that we invoked cloture on yesterday is a 
bandaid. It is not enough. Congress isn't moving fast enough to give 
the researchers, doctors, and public health officials what they need to 
combat this virus.
  Now the House is going to make it even worse by passing a bill for 
$622 million. What would you guess they are going to use to fund this 
money? Let's see. What could it be? Oh, maybe ObamaCare, which they 
have tried to defeat 67 times, and each time it ends up the same. 
Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over 
again and expecting a different result. That is what we have with the 
House Republicans, and I am sorry to say this, but it has spilled over 
here too. They haven't tried to eliminate it over here that many times 
but as many times as they could. They are going to come up with a bill 
to provide $622 million, which will come from a number of resources, 
but it will principally be ObamaCare money. And $622 million is a 
fraction of what is needed. It is approximately 25 percent of what is 
really needed.
  To say that the appropriations process is too slow is a gross 
understatement. We need to get this done now. I don't know when, if 
ever, these appropriations bills will be signed into law.
  Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and 
Infectious Diseases, has been at the forefront of all of these dreaded 
problems we have had in recent decades. He was a leading advocate 
scientifically during the AIDS epidemic we had. Here is what he said: 
``When you've got an emergency situation, you really need to get 
funding as quickly as possible.''
  The time to act is now. This summer, when Zika is on the news every 
day, which it will be, Senators will regret that they did not act 
quickly to address this crisis.
  I urge my colleagues to take care of this today and provide the $1.9 
billion in emergency money, just as we have done with any other 
national emergency we have taken care of on this floor numerous times, 
and do it in a procedural way that will get the money to them the 
quickest.
  Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 157, H.R. 3038; that all 
after the enacting clause be stricken; that the Nelson substitute 
amendment to enhance a Federal response and preparedness with respect 
to the Zika virus, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that there be up 
to 1 hour of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill, as 
amended, be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the 
bill, as amended, and there be no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, our 
Democratic colleagues won't take yes for an answer. Yesterday the 
Murray-Blunt language, which now the Democratic leader calls a bandaid, 
actually obtained cloture, and I expect it will pass tomorrow as part 
of the underlying appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, $1.1 billion on top of the $585 million that has 
already been reprogrammed from the Ebola fund to be used to combat the 
Zika virus is not a bandaid; it is a serious effort in a nonpartisan 
way to address a public health challenge.
  As we can see from the map, Texas is right in the crosshairs. We are 
ground zero in the United States, along with Florida, Louisiana, and 
other Southern States where this mosquito is present. Thank goodness no 
mosquito-borne transmission has occurred yet. But I agree with my 
colleague from Florida. This is a serious matter, and we need to treat 
it seriously, but that is not what is happening now.
  This is a bill that the Senate defeated cloture on yesterday, and 
this is an attempt to end run that defeat of a vote before the entire 
Senate. I am compelled to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. I don't know what my friend from Texas is going to tell the 
people from Texas this summer when there is no money available. We 
heard the Senator from Florida talk about the need for local 
governments to prepare for this virus. Some of this stuff is pretty 
straightforward.
  How do you get rid of mosquitoes? You can't wish them away. They 
don't go away that way. We get rid of mosquitoes by mosquito control, 
and that takes money. Where does that money come from? It comes from 
local governments. That is why Florida is desperate for money, and they 
will be desperate for that money in Texas and everyplace else. Using 
the logic of my friend from Texas, don't worry about it. We will get 
you some money this fall. The money we voted on yesterday at the very 
earliest will not come until we wrap up our appropriations bills.
  I remind everyone that the House is stuck. They can't do 
appropriations bills because they don't have a budget. They can't get 
people to agree to what they want to do. My friend Paul Ryan has seen 
what John Boehner had to put up with all of those years before they ran 
him away from the Speakership, and he is having the same problem. This 
man who talked about budgeting--that was his key. He was the idea man. 
Paul Ryan can't get a budget with his own Republicans in the House.
  I think that my friend is saying: We got a downpayment. We took the 
money from Ebola. We will worry about Ebola later, and maybe we will 
borrow that money from someplace else to continue our research on 
Ebola.
  Senator Schumer mentioned in a meeting we had a short time ago that 
the one thing he remembered about the last time Dr. Fauci came to our 
caucus and talked about this dread problem was that he said that the 
National Institutes of Health is very close to coming up with a vaccine 
for this. But we take this money--just like when we had sequestration, 
they were close to a flu vaccine, and that is gone. You have to do it 
when you can, and right now is an opportunity for us to do something to 
save the lives of people and especially these unborn infants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I apologize to the Democratic leader. 
Apparently I wasn't able to communicate my point, which is that there 
is already $580 million available today to combat the Zika virus. 
Finally, the administration took the advice of those on this side of 
the aisle and said: Let's take the unused Ebola funds to fight it today 
while we have an orderly process by which we appropriate the money in a 
responsible way.

[[Page S2940]]

  I think the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, and Senator Blunt, 
the chairman and ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee, 
have done a good job of winnowing down the $1.9 billion request to the 
$1.1 billion which I agree is the right figure. While we have some 
other differences, I think the Senate is acting in a responsible and 
bipartisan way, which is the only way things can actually get done 
around here.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it wasn't because of the good graces of the 
Members of the Republican Senate that President Obama took the money 
from Ebola and put it into fighting the problems we have with Zika. The 
President asked for this money 3 months ago. They took that money out 
of desperation because they had no other place to go for the money. 
That money is not sitting there waiting to be spent; it has been spent.
  They need money. They are out of money. There is no more robbing 
Peter to pay Paul. This is an emergency, and it should be handled now 
because under the process we have, the earliest there will be help for 
this will be this fall.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3038

  I have to say that I am really disappointed that Republicans once 
again rejected the administration's full emergency supplemental 
package.
  It has been more than 3 months since President Obama first put 
forward a proposal to fight this Zika virus. He laid out what he 
thought he needed to respond to a crisis in a way that protected our 
families the best. His administration was here. They testified at 
hearing after hearing after hearing about the details of this proposal 
and made it clear that there was absolutely no reason for Congress to 
wait.
  But, for months, our Republican leaders did nothing. They delayed. 
They came up with one excuse after another. They ignored the experts, 
ignored the scientists, and ignored the facts.
  Some Republicans were saying that Zika wasn't something they were 
willing to give the administration a penny more for. Others said they 
would think about more money to fight Zika but only in return for 
partisan spending cuts. And others spent more time thinking about how 
to get political cover rather than actually trying to address this 
enormous problem.
  But many of us knew how important this was, and we were not going to 
give up. We kept the pressure on. We kept pushing to get serious about 
dealing with this emergency, and we made sure that the mothers and 
fathers across the country who are scared and who wanted their 
government to fight this horrific virus had a voice in this process.
  So while it shouldn't have taken so long, I am glad that this week 
many of our Republican colleagues in the Senate did finally join us at 
the table to open up a path for an important step forward. This was a 
compromise proposal, and it certainly isn't what I would have written 
on my own.
  For example, I want to note that throughout this process, I have made 
it clear that a top priority of mine is making sure that women do have 
access to reproductive health care in light of the impacts of this 
virus. So I was disappointed that the Republicans insisted on including 
unnecessary language that simply reiterates the preexisting ban on 
Federal funding for abortions.
  But this bipartisan agreement that we voted on yesterday would 
support community health centers and other providers in making sure 
that women have access to contraception and other critical health care. 
It would help make sure that women in Zika-affected areas have the 
ability to plan their families and prevent these tragedies, like so 
many we have already seen, especially compared to the House legislation 
that includes no support for preventive health care or outreach for 
family planning. I believe these resources are extremely critical, and 
I am going to keep fighting to continue getting us to expand this to 
the full range of reproductive health care that women need.
  We also didn't get the full amount we had hoped for in this 
compromise. Democrats still believe that Congress should give the 
President the full funding this administration has asked for and needs.
  But I am glad that, with every Democrat and 23 Republicans willing to 
do the right thing, we are going to pass a $1.1 billion down payment on 
the President's proposal and do it as an emergency bill without 
offsets--the way it ought to be.
  So I want to thank Senator Blunt, who worked with me to get this 
done, as well as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who voted for 
it. Our bipartisan agreement will provide direct investments with a 
Zika response in Puerto Rico. It will ramp up prevention and support 
services for pregnant women and invest in foreign aid for Latin America 
and the Caribbean. It will help accelerate development of a vaccine and 
backfill nearly $100 million in funding the administration was forced 
to reprogram due to the Republicans' refusal to act.
  Our agreement would accelerate the administration's work and allow 
money to start flowing to address this crisis, even as we continue to 
ask for more as needed.
  Unfortunately, now we know that House Republicans have gone in a very 
different direction. They released an underfunded, partisan--and, 
frankly, in my opinion--mean-spirited bill that would provide only $622 
million, which is less than a third of what is needed for this 
emergency, without any funding for preventive health care or family 
planning or even outreach to those who are at risk of getting the Zika 
virus.
  They are still insisting that funding for this public health 
emergency be fully offset and that the administration should siphon the 
money away from the critical Ebola response and from other essential 
activities in order to fund Zika efforts.
  The choice between the Senate and the House Zika bills is a choice 
between acting to protect women and families and doing nothing at all. 
It is a choice between a bipartisan compromise that takes an important 
step forward to address this emergency and a partisan embarrassment 
that is intended to do nothing more than provide Members with political 
cover. That doesn't solve this emergency.
  The partisan House bill is a nonstarter, but we do have a path 
forward. The Senate bill has the support of Democrats and Republicans. 
It can move through the House, it can be signed into law, and it can 
get resources moving quickly to tackle this emergency quickly.
  So let's get this bill to the House as quickly as possible. Every 
Democrat and a little less than half of the Republicans supported the 
bill. Let's send it to the House right now and urge them to pass it as 
quickly as possible.
  There is no reason to keep it attached to this bill we are on and 
allow House Republicans to get it and slow-walk it into the fall, as 
our leader suggested would happen. There is no reason this funding 
cannot be approved and signed into law next week in time for the summer 
and the peak of mosquito season, which the Senator from Florida knows 
is coming very rapidly.
  It has the support of the Senate on its own. Let's send it to the 
House on its own. Women and families in this country have been looking 
to Congress for action on Zika for months, and we here in the Senate--
and House Republicans--should not make them wait any longer.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 157, H.R. 3038; that all after the 
enacting clause be stricken; that the Blunt-Murray substitute amendment 
to enhance the Federal response and preparedness with respect to the 
Zika virus be agreed to; that there be up to 1 hour of debate, equally 
divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use 
or yielding back of time, the bill, as amended, be read a third time 
and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, again, our 
colleagues won't take yes for an answer. The amendment of the Senator 
from

[[Page S2941]]

Washington, along with Senator Blunt, the chairman of the 
Appropriations subcommittee responsible for this, actually obtained 
cloture and will pass tomorrow--tomorrow--as part of this underlying 
appropriations bill, assuming that there are no other objections or 
that people want to finish that legislation. So I don't really 
understand why they continue to refuse to take yes for an answer.
  I would say to my friend from Washington: Would the Senator modify 
her request to include my language at the desk, which has the exact 
same funding levels as the Blunt-Murray amendment but includes a pay-
for using the prevention fund in the Affordable Care Act?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Washington so modify her 
request?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me 
just say that the spending bill that this has now been attached to may 
take months--into the fall or even into the winter months--before it is 
approved. The Zika virus isn't going to wait for the winter months. The 
mosquitoes are here now, and they will continue to move very rapidly 
across the country, as our leader has outlined before. So taking it out 
of this bill--it has now been approved by a number of Senators on a 
bipartisan basis--and moving it quickly to the House and getting it to 
the President's desk means they will have the resources as quickly as 
possible to deal with this and to begin to deal with this in a 
responsible way.
  Secondly, let me just say that the request that the Senator from 
Texas has just broached means that we are going to have to fight over 
cuts--cuts to women, cuts to families, cuts to critical health care 
efforts in order to fight the Zika virus. That is objectionable. This 
is an emergency supplemental, as we agreed to yesterday, and it needs 
to move forward that way. So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to respond briefly to my friend 
from Washington. The prevention fund that was created by the Affordable 
Care Act that is part of the President's signature health care bill has 
more than adequate money in it to pay for the research, the mosquito 
eradication, and the other services that are necessary. It is not 
depriving anyone of money that they otherwise would have coming.
  What it does do is it alleviates the financial burden on future 
generations to actually pay the money back that we insist on spending 
without providing for adequate offsets. So increasing deficits is why 
the national debt has almost doubled under this President because of 
the reckless spending.
  We are trying to do this in a responsible, bipartisan, and, indeed, I 
would say, nonpartisan sort of way, but apparently that is not 
acceptable to our friends on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object?
  Mr. CORNYN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I have listened attentively to the 
debate over the last 15 minutes about Zika, and it has been very 
entertaining to me. But it has also been interesting just to hear the 
numbers being thrown around. There is a series of numbers being thrown 
around as if it is an apples-to-apples comparison.
  So let me try to break down a few things with an apples-to-apples 
comparison about Zika and the funding.
  The President has asked for $1.9 billion for Zika. The Senate has now 
responded back to say: We will do the $500 million the President has 
already moved over from Ebola funding and add to it $1.1 billion to 
come up with about $1.6 billion--almost $1.7 billion--so about $200 
million short, which is being declared as grossly inadequate. That is 
0.2 short from what the President had asked for.
  There is also being thrown around the House proposal, saying the 
House proposal is grossly inadequate to be able to cover what is being 
discussed there because it is a little over $600 million. The President 
wants $1.9 billion, and the House is offering $600 million. But what is 
not being stated is that what the Senate has done and what the 
President has asked for is $1.9 billion over 2 years. The House has 
said a little over $600 million this year and added to the Ebola 
funding that was already there--meaning $1.1 billion this year and then 
in our normal appropriations process to take it up again next year. It 
may be the same amount.
  It has become very fascinating to me to hear some say: Well, they are 
cutting it in half, and it is insulting and it is all these things.
  I think to myself: It is the same numbers. They are just cutting the 
times to be able to break it down into different numbers.
  So all of these number games are very interesting, but they still 
don't drive at one essential thing. We do need to deal with Zika, but 
we also need to deal with Zika in a fiscally responsible way. The 
assumption that to deal with Zika means we have to throw the budget out 
and there is no way we can find $1 billion in a $4 trillion budget to 
cover Zika is laughable.
  So what I propose is something very simple. Right now, the Department 
of State, HHS, and USAID have $86 billion in unobligated balances--
right now. There is absolutely no reason $1 billion of that could not 
be moved to deal with Zika right now. It would be the exact same 
proposal that Senator Murray and Senator Blunt have proposed but 
actually doing it with unobligated balances. There is absolutely no 
reason that wouldn't occur.
  We know that $500 million had already been moved over from Ebola 
funding. That would be $1.6 billion moving over to help fight Zika.
  The real issue to fighting Zika is three simple things. CDC is 
actually tracking the movements so we can stay attentive to it. The 
second thing is dealing with the mosquito population, which is 
aggressive spraying. The third thing is working on a vaccine. All three 
of those things we can do, and all three of those things have already 
begun. The research has already begun on the vaccine. The mosquito 
spraying has already begun, and working through the tracking and the 
movement of the disease has already started. The implication that 
nothing can start until this body acts is not true.
  The administration, starting in January and February, came in and 
said: This is urgent. We need to be able to move funds, and we need to 
be able to have funds to do it.
  Ironically, in January and February, they came and held hearings on 
that, but in March of this year--2 months ago--this same administration 
took half a billion dollars out of the economic support fund that 
Congress had allotted to them last December, which was earmarked 
especially for--get this--infectious diseases. So in March of this 
year, the administration took half a billion dollars out of the 
infectious diseases account for international infectious diseases and 
moved that over and gave it to the U.N. for the Green Climate Fund. Now 
they come to us, high and mighty, and say we need $1 billion, when the 
one-half billion dollars we already allotted that can be used right now 
along with the one-half billion from Ebola, equaling $1 billion, was 
already allotted by Congress--was already there--and could be in 
operation right now. They chose to reallocate to a different priority. 
So it disturbs me to hear the administration saying, ``Why aren't you 
doing anything about this,'' when we did last year, and then they spent 
that money on green climate funds rather than spending it on Zika--what 
it was allotted for--infectious disease control.

  So here is my issue. We need to do both. We need to deal with Zika, 
and we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way, and we can. I 
understand the term ``emergency'' means one simple thing, spend more--
spend more and add more debt because it is an emergency.
  I don't think Americans believe that with a $4 trillion budget, we 
cannot cover $1 billion from previous accounts. In fact, if we want to 
be specific, the three accounts the Blunt-Murray amendment puts money 
into--they are putting $1.1 billion into a set of accounts. If we took 
those accounts alone, those accounts alone that they are adding $1 
billion to already have $15 billion in unobligated balances in those 
accounts right now.
  We can be efficient in what we do and still treat things seriously, 
and I think we should. I think it is fiscally responsible to not just 
say the Zika virus is

[[Page S2942]]

moving quickly so we need to add more debt to our children to respond 
to it. I think we can take care of our debt and take care of Zika.
  For anyone who would say it is unheard of to be able to move funds 
for an emergency like this, may I remind you in 2009, this same Obama 
administration facing the H1N1 virus moving around the world, asked for 
permission to move unobligated balances out of some of these same 
accounts to deal with the H1N1 virus. We are just saying, if it is OK 
for the H1N1 virus, why is it suddenly not allowable now dealing with 
Zika? This is not about Zika anymore; this is about breaking the budget 
caps.
  We need to be responsible in our spending and responsible in how we 
deal with Zika. Both things can be done.
  With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so that I may offer my amendment No. 3955 to the 
Blunt amendment No. 3900.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I like the 
Senator from Oklahoma. He is a great friend, and it pains me to reserve 
the right to object because I do consider him an excellent Senator.
  However, the issue he raises in his unanimous consent request is to 
take the emergency funding of $1.1 billion out of the appropriations 
bill and replace that emergency funding by raiding a number of funds 
that would cut medical research and public health in order to address 
the Zika virus. What I am talking about is raiding money from cancer 
research, children's immunizations, and the CDC's efforts to fight 
other infectious diseases that are already so important to the health 
and welfare of this country.
  The Senator, whom I consider a friend and a good Senator, is from 
Oklahoma in the heart of the country. Oklahoma is covered with these 
two strains of mosquitoes, both of which carry the Zika virus. This one 
is the real culprit. This is the one that gets inside your house. This 
is the one that lurks in the dark corners of the house. This is the one 
that lays larvae in a rain-filled bottle cap that is sitting upside 
down.
  I would say to the Senator from Oklahoma that this Senator has 
probably been bitten by more mosquitoes than any other Senator. There 
was a time when I was a kid that I was bitten so much that I was almost 
immune, but I do not want to be bitten by this critter carrying that 
Zika virus.
  The truth is, if you have an earthquake in the State of Oklahoma, 
that is an emergency, and we are going to respond in kind. If the 
Senator from Texas has a hurricane coming into Galveston, that is an 
emergency, and we are going to respond. Likewise, this is an emergency. 
If you don't realize it now in May, the summer months are coming.
  I want to make sure everybody understands why we need to get this 
separate from the appropriations bill that the Senator from Washington, 
Mrs. Murray, is talking about. In order to get an appropriations bill, 
we have to get an agreement with the House. The House just passed a 
bill for $622 million, and they are going to raid ObamaCare to pay for 
it. There is no way we are going to get an agreement that the President 
is going to sign going through that appropriations process. The summer 
is going to be long gone, and the aegypti is going to be biting all the 
more, sucking the blood of Americans, and therefore, while doing that, 
transmitting the virus into the bloodstream of Americans.
  This Senator has already described the disastrous consequences for a 
pregnant woman. We ought to be petrified if they are in a county where 
either it is poor and they don't have the funds for mosquito control or 
it is a well-off county and it is not budgeted and they are not ready.
  It pains me to have to clash with my friend, the Senator from 
Oklahoma. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, there is one clarification I would like 
to be able to make. This amendment I have proposed--and would still 
stand by--allows us to be able to continue what is going on with 
mosquito eradication right now. That doesn't stop. I would hate for 
anyone in this body to promise every American that if we give DC enough 
money, we will make sure they are never going to be bitten by a 
mosquito. I am not sure that is a promise we would ever want to make 
because we can't keep that promise, but the amendment I propose gives 
the administration the latitude to be able to select which accounts 
this money would come from. We are talking about $86 billion of options 
on multiple accounts from the State Department, USAID for international 
aid, and also HHS. That is not for medical research and not for 
children getting immunizations. There is enough money in those 
accounts.
  I will repeat back the same thing I said before. This administration 
transferred one-half billion dollars just 2 months ago from the 
infectious diseases account, noting, apparently, that we didn't need 
money in the infectious diseases account and moved that money to the 
Green Climate Fund. So for the administration to say it is more 
important that the U.N. get green climate funds than dealing with the 
Zika virus is a different set of priorities than where we are in this 
Congress and a different set of priorities than we put into place in 
December of last year.
  This is an issue this administration already has the authority to 
deal with. It doesn't have to come from cancer research. It can come 
from allocating accounts. But there is no reason to add debt to our 
children to also deal with mosquito eradication in the United States. 
We can do both, and we should do both.
  I yield back.
  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. ISAKSON. 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. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise to address the subject before the 
Senate with regard to the HUD proposed rule, the Lee amendment, and the 
amendment proposed by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins. I do so as 
one who has 35 years of experience in the housing business affected by 
the Civil Rights Act, affected by the 1968 Fair Housing Act, and one 
who has a good deal of working knowledge about what that accomplished. 
What that accomplished was the end of prejudice against African 
Americans in the South and ethnic minorities in the Northeast and 
around the country to ensure that everybody had an equal opportunity--
underline the word ``opportunity''--to have safe, affordable housing. 
That took place in 1968.
  It has been a long time since 1968. Prejudice in America, although 
never eradicated, is almost gone. Housing access is almost universal, 
but there is one group of people in America who had very little access 
to housing because there is none available to them. We can identify 
them not by their name, not by their region but by their ZIP Codes. 
They are the neighborhoods of America that have contributed to the 
decline of many families and much hope and opportunity for individuals. 
Show me a school system or a school that is not performing, and I will 
show you rough neighborhoods. Show me an individual community that 
doesn't have the tax base it needs, and I will show you a community 
that doesn't have neighborhoods that are employed.
  I want to bring to the attention of the Senate what I spoke on a year 
ago on this floor--a gentleman by the name of Thomas G. Cousins from 
Atlanta, GA, who founded Cousins Properties, the most successful 
developer in the history of Atlanta, GA; one of the leading developers 
in the United States of America and a man who gives back more than he 
ever takes.
  He created the Cousins Foundation and set out in the early 1990s to 
find a way to address the problems of poverty, ignorance, and crime in 
inner-city neighborhoods. He bought something called East Lake Meadows. 
Some of you have watched the Fed-Ex Championship on TV and seen $10 
million prizes won by professional golfers. That is on a golf course 
that 25 years ago

[[Page S2943]]

had trees growing up in the fairway, dilapidated houses around it, and 
was described as Little Vietnam.
  But it is an area that Tom Cousins changed by changing minds, by 
changing attitudes, and by talking about the things that could be done, 
rather than what could not be done. He knew that the best way to bring 
those people out of poverty was to provide them with a good education. 
So he came to the State Board of Education, which I chaired, and asked 
for a waiver to create the first charter school in the Atlanta, GA, 
public school system's history in East Lake.
  He leased the school for $1 a year for 25 years and then built for 
that neighborhood its own elementary school, called Drew Elementary.
  Twenty-five years ago, Drew Elementary was the poorest testing school 
in the State of Georgia. This year, it is one of the top 10 in the 
State of Georgia out of 1,400. He changed the minds and attitudes of 
people--not their race. But he changed their minds and their attitudes 
about opportunity and about hope. He went into the community of 
dilapidated houses, crack houses, and meth houses, and bought those 
houses up and raised housing prices. He fixed them up and began to 
create a market for those houses.
  The kids that formed gangs on the streets became caddies at the new 
country club named East Lake Country Club. They went to Georgia State 
University on Panther grants, granted to kids who are in need to get an 
education. Many of the kids in Atlanta, GA, who are getting MBAs today 
were educated in East Lake Meadows at Drew Elementary and had their job 
at the East Lake Country Club.
  People do not associate golf courses, golf tournaments, and country 
clubs with areas of poverty and no housing, but East Lake is such a 
place. Because they built a blend of all types of housing--section 8 
housing, rental housing, low- and moderate-income housing, midlevel 
housing, upper level housing, and shopping centers and the like--they 
took all of the things that the community did not have and then created 
a market for them to come.
  They created a movement with Warren Buffett called Purpose Built 
Communities. Now, the HUD rule, which I have read, which is the issue 
of discussion today on the floor, is a rule that portends gathering 
more information to try and find ways we can end the lack of housing 
availability for certain Americans by bringing in data and trying to 
create new ways to do that.
  Tom Cousins did it with private sector money. He did it in 
cooperation with the banking industry. He created an idea and a dream 
and an investment. He began to bring down the barriers of 
discrimination and a lack of hope and brought prosperity to a community 
that had not seen it--better educated kids, better developed 
communities, better schools, and the like.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this article from the Wall Street 
Journal about Thomas G. Cousins and Purpose Built Communities printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 13, 2013]

   Thomas Cousins: The Atlanta Model for Reviving Poor Neighborhoods

                         (By Thomas G. Cousins)

       America's greatest untapped resource isn't hidden in the 
     ground but is sitting in plain sight: the human capital 
     trapped in poor neighborhoods of concentrated poverty. The 
     people living where crime and incarceration are rampant 
     represent trillions of dollars in potential economic 
     activity. Investing in their well-being can be a social and 
     economic game-changer, but only if done in a way that 
     produces results.
       For a half-century, charities, nonprofits and local and 
     federal governments have poured billions of dollars into 
     addressing the problems plaguing these Americans. But each 
     issue tends to be treated separately--as if there is no 
     connection between a safe environment and a child's ability 
     to learn, or high-school dropout rates and crime. This 
     scattershot method hasn't worked. A better approach is to 
     invest comprehensively in small, geographically defined 
     neighborhoods.
       That's what our East Lake Foundation has discovered, 
     focusing on one corner of southeast Atlanta. Fifteen years 
     ago, East Lake Meadows, a public-housing project with 1,400 
     residents, was a terrifying place to live. Nine out of 10 
     residents had been victims of a crime. Today it is a safe 
     community of working, taxpaying families whose children excel 
     in the classroom.
       How did this happen to a place that police officers once 
     wouldn't go without backup? We targeted a single neighborhood 
     in 1993 and worked with community and city leaders on every 
     major issue at the same time: mixed-income housing, a cradle-
     to-college education program, job readiness, and health and 
     wellness opportunities.
       The results are stunning. Violent crime is down more than 
     90%. Crime overall is down 73%--a level 50% better than the 
     rest of Atlanta. Employment among families on welfare has 
     increased to 70% from 13% in 1995. (The other 30% are 
     elderly, disabled or in job training.)
       The income of these publicly assisted families has more 
     than quadrupled. In the surrounding area, home values have 
     risen at 3.8 times the city average (to over $250,000 per 
     home). A Wells Fargo bank, Publix grocery and Wal-Mart have 
     moved in, and restaurants, shops and other services have 
     returned.
       The foundation started by focusing on housing. In 1996 and 
     1997, the Atlanta Housing Authority helped us secure 
     temporary housing for the East Meadow occupants while AHA and 
     the foundation rebuilt the place as Villages of East Lake. 
     With city and federal government approval, we reserved half 
     the units for families on welfare and the rest for those able 
     to pay the market rate. This was key: A mixed-income 
     community ensures that children are around role models--
     employed adults who take care of property and spend time with 
     their children.
       After negotiating with Atlanta Public Schools to secure the 
     city's first public charter, we built Charles R. Drew School. 
     The K-8 school, which opened in 2000, offered longer school 
     days and an extended school year. It now serves 90% of the 
     children in the East Lake neighborhood. Based on measures by 
     the Georgia Department of Education, Drew is the top 
     performing elementary school in the Atlanta school system.
       The foundation also bought up surrounding residential and 
     commercial properties, including the old East Lake golf 
     course, once home to Grand Slam champion Bobby Jones. We 
     restored the golf course, which created 179 jobs. Then came a 
     smaller public course and a golf academy, where young people 
     now learn the caddy trade and golf course agronomy. Today, 
     East Lake Golf Club is the home of the annual PGA Tour 
     Championship and final playoff for the FedExCup.
       Thanks to private investors, such as Warren Buffett and 
     Julian Robertson, we created Purpose Built Communities, which 
     helps other neighborhoods adapt the East Lake model. The 
     Meadows Community in Indianapolis and the Bayou District in 
     New Orleans have achieved considerable gains by emulating the 
     method in Atlanta.
       Other organizations have slowly begun to adopt our 
     approach. Habitat for Humanity, which once focused on putting 
     up one house at a time, now partners with neighborhood 
     associations, churches, business groups and the like to help 
     lift up entire neighborhoods.
       A better house by itself doesn't make children feel safe. 
     East Lake's charter school alone doesn't make children eager 
     to learn. But a decent place to live, a secure environment 
     with adult role models, and a great school with specially 
     trained teachers together produced change. Recently, a young 
     woman whose life began in the old East Lake public housing 
     project, where less than 30% of children graduated from high 
     school, graduated summa cum laude from Georgia Tech. She's 
     one of more than 300 Drew graduates since 2008 now heading to 
     college.
       On the national level, challenges like the ones we faced in 
     southeast Atlanta are widespread and urgently need to be 
     addressed. More than 25% of American children under age 3 
     live in poverty. Three million children drop out of school 
     every year, rendering them ineligible for 90% of jobs. Only 
     59% of students graduate from high school in the 50 largest 
     U.S. cities, and dropouts commit 75% of crimes.
       These harsh realities make the way we choose to try to 
     change them all the more important. Charities, foundations 
     and government representatives are welcome to visit East Lake 
     to check out this turnaround story. They won't need to bring 
     backup.

  Mr. ISAKSON. Now, the current amendment before us deals with the rule 
that is being promulgated by HUD dealing with the Civil Rights Act of 
1968. But I want to caution everybody. It is not about discrimination 
because of prejudice. It is about discrimination because of lack of 
access. You read the testimony that went into a lot of the rule, and 
that is quite clear. There are a number of paralyzed veterans groups 
and handicapped groups that have sent letters against this amendment. 
Let me tell you why are they against it. They don't think anybody 
discriminates against them because they are handicapped. They just 
think they have no choice of housing because there is nothing that fits 
their wheelchairs or the walls in the bathroom are not reinforced or 
the kitchen countertops are too high.
  What has happened in East Lake Meadows and in Atlanta, GA, where 
Purpose Built Communities set standards, is that 5 percent of all 
apartment buildings are built with convertible units. So up to 5 
percent of the units can be converted to handicapped access: 36-inch 
doors, not 30-inch doors;

[[Page S2944]]

wainscoting on the side walls in the bathroom that allow reinforcement 
rods to be put in and for handles to be put on the walls; kitchen 
countertops that can be lowered by 8 inches so that somebody in a 
wheelchair can work their kitchen.
  That is the type of access they want. Through the changes in code, in 
terms of construction code, and changes in attitude like Mr. Cousins 
did, we now have handicapped people that have access to affordable 
housing in Atlanta, GA, that is built to meet their specific needs. It 
is not discrimination of prejudice. It was discrimination of lack of 
opportunity.
  The way I read the proposed rule, they are looking to take a chance 
to take advantage of things like Promise Built Communities and try and 
have private developers use Federal access to funds to create ways to 
create new housing that will have more accessibility and affordability 
for people in those type of situations.
  Now, I understand that Senator Collins and Senator Reed have an 
amendment they are going to offer, either as a side-by-side or as a 
part of the bill, which will clarify one important point: Nothing in 
here contains anything that portends to promulgate a rule or regulation 
or any zoning at a local land use authority by the Federal Government.
  None of us ever wants the Federal Government to do that. But we have 
provided a lot of programs that have passed this Congress, this Senate, 
and this U.S. Government that promotes housing, such as section 8 
housing, FHA housing, and VA housing. I can go on and on. We want to 
make sure that those finances that are available to finance purchases 
have houses to be purchased that meet the needs of all Americans, 
giving them a public accommodation and access that some of them never 
had before.
  So with the amendment adopted by Senator Collins, I think you are 
protected against any nefarious activity that could ever be taken on by 
HUD, and you are doing a good thing for the State, a good thing for the 
United States, and a good thing for the Senate. I commend Senators Reed 
and Collins on what they are doing.
  I rise in support of the Collins-Reed amendment, and I will vote for 
it on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I just want to thank my friend and 
colleague from Georgia for his extremely eloquent and persuasive 
presentation. The example he gave us of the development in Georgia, 
done by Mr. Cousins, is precisely what the HUD rule is intended to 
promote. That is why it is called affirmatively advancing fair housing, 
affirmatively furthering fair housing.
  With the amendment that Senator Jack Reed, Thad Cochran, and I are 
going to be offering, we will make absolutely clear that it is not 
HUD's role to dictate or interfere with local zoning ordinances. But 
what we should embrace in this country is the goals of the 1968 Fair 
Housing Act. The Senator from Georgia, who knows more about housing 
than any Member of this Senate, has stated very clearly and very 
eloquently in the example that he has given us what the goals are of 
the 1968 Fair Housing Act and the regulation that was issued by HUD 
last year.
  Again, I would note that the regulation issued last year came from a 
GAO report issued in 2010 that found that HUD was not doing a 
particularly good job in this area. So it was not something that was 
devised by some out-of-touch bureaucrat. It was directly the result of 
the GAO report. The kind of mixed development, which has transformed 
neighborhoods in Atlanta and throughout this country and given hope and 
opportunity to those who may feel they are in the shadows of society, 
is exactly the goal of this regulation and of that famous civil rights 
era law, the 1968 Fair Housing Act.
  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. RUBIO. 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. RUBIO. Mr. President, I wish to talk about housing issues 
contained in the bill we are debating, and I want to talk specifically 
about a project in Florida that we became aware of in October. It is 
named Eureka Gardens. It is a low-income, affordable housing project 
that uses Section 8 funds to house people of lower income, as you are 
all aware of that program. It is run and owned by an organization 
called Global Ministries Foundation. It is run by a reverend, Richard 
Hamlet. It is organized as a 501(c)(3), the organization that owns this 
building. Mr. Hamlet, Reverend Hamlet, is the head of the organization.
  If you look at the Web site for Global Ministries, there is a link 
that says: ``What We Do.'' If you go to that section of the Global 
Ministries Foundation Web site, this is what it says they do: 
``Providing affordable housing across the United States and ministering 
to the physical, spiritual and emotional needs of our residents.'' That 
is what they state as their business purpose. I imagine that is what 
they needed to state because of their 501(c)(3) not-for-profit status. 
However, we have a quote from Reverend Hamlet, who has said that his 
involvement in housing is purely business-related. He said:

       This is a business. This isn't a church mission. These are 
     business corporations that we set up, but we're no different 
     from a real estate investment trust or a private equity 
     group.

  That is how he described his 501(c)(3), not-for-profit Global 
Ministries Foundation.
  Global Ministries has over 40 properties in multiple States--Alabama, 
Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, New York, Tennessee, and 
Georgia. In all of these States, in all of these properties, they have 
over 5,000 units that qualify as assisted. In 19 locations across 
Florida, they have over 2,000 assisted units. This particular project 
in Jacksonville, FL, Eureka Gardens, has 396 assisted units.
  This is the problem we found with some of these properties. In Eureka 
Gardens, in the last year, the property was found to be in horrifying 
condition. I have spoken of it on the floor before. I am talking about 
people living in a place where there was mold on the walls, where the 
appliances were 15 years old, where the apartments hadn't been painted 
in 13 years, where windows didn't open, where staircases were literally 
falling down, and where the city had to come in, evacuate people, and 
condemn the property.
  Those were the conditions in Eureka Gardens. We got involved last 
October to get those remedied. So there was the thinking, well, maybe 
this is just one property. Maybe Global Ministries only has one 
property that is run this way but generally they are a good actor.
  This is what we found: They have two properties--Warren and Tulane 
Apartments in Memphis, TN--that have such poor living companies as well 
that HUD pulled their Federal funding from the housing.
  In Atlanta, we found that their Forest Cove property has been plagued 
by rodents and sewage. This is what news crews reported about their 
property in Atlanta. It said ``building, siding, and ceiling tiles 
peeling from many of the buildings. . . . Garbage and stagnant green 
water were feet from playing children.''
  At Forest Cove, this is what a tenant said to news reporters:

       I'm homeless right now. I moved out to be homeless.

  Because the conditions were so bad, the guy moved out of the 
property. In other words, he would rather be homeless than live in a 
Global Ministries Foundation property.
  So we have two properties in Memphis, TN, we have a property in 
Atlanta, and then there is another property in Jacksonville that they 
own. The property is called Washington Heights. It also has been noted 
for violation. HUD's most recent review resulted in the property barely 
passing Federal inspections. And I will have more to say about Federal 
inspections in a moment.
  At the Goodwill Village property in Memphis, one resident said that 
he thought the issue was snakes on the property--snakes on the 
property. He thought they were being caused because they were coming to 
``eat the rats.''
  At Goodwill Village, the same property, a resident had an issue with 
a gas leak. The resident's home had the sink torn out, her stove and 
hot water disconnected, and a hole put into her wall.

[[Page S2945]]

Two months after all of that, no one had come by to fix it.
  In Orlando, at the Windsor Cove Apartments owned by the Global 
Ministries Foundation, reporters saw holes in the walls where roaches 
and rodents came into the apartment. The same woman has a gap between 
her bathtub and the wall that lets water leak into the apartment below.
  After issues with his properties were exposed, here is what Reverend 
Hamlet said: ``No one should have to live under these conditions.''
  They are your properties. It is not just one property; there are 
multiple properties across multiple States. I want to focus 
specifically on the one I visited last week in Jacksonville. It was an 
amazing experience. Forty-eight hours before we announce we are coming, 
nothing--literally nothing--is happening at this property. When we 
announce we are coming to visit the property, suddenly a bunch of 
contractors show up. They put up a banner welcoming the residents to 
all the great stuff they do there. Suddenly work crews are walking all 
over, fixing the place up. All of a sudden, because we are coming to 
visit, all these work crews mysteriously show up.
  Eureka Gardens's problems have been going on for a long time, but 
they only became known in October of last year when a local television 
station and other local media began to highlight them.
  My Jacksonville office staff toured Eureka Gardens in early 2015 and 
in October of 2015. I want to report what they found in that one 
building. As I said, we have now had reports about other buildings with 
similar conditions run by this Global Ministries 501(c)(3), but I want 
to share what my staff found when they visited Eureka Gardens. They saw 
crumbling stairs disguised with duct tape and covered with apparent 
black mold. When I am talking about the stairs, I mean the stairs that 
connect the first floor of the building with the second floor of the 
building, these metal stairs. They would just put duct tape over the 
areas where the stairs and the wall were cracking and almost falling. 
They just put duct tape on it. There was mold on these stairs; they 
spray-painted over it. My staff found faulty electrical wiring. Do you 
know what they did with the faulty electrical wiring? They covered it 
up with a garbage bag so no one could see it. They could smell the 
natural gas odor being sucked from an outdoor piping system into the 
air-conditioning units of residents, and they found all sorts of other 
health and safety issues.

  At Eureka Gardens, when residents were asked about housing, one 
resident said, ``Dogs live better than this.'' In fact, there was a 4-
year-old living in Eureka Gardens who was suffering from lead 
poisoning, which her mother has a right to believe she got in her 
Eureka Gardens apartment--an apartment, by the way, paid for with your 
taxpayer money. Section 8 housing is Federal taxpayer money going into 
the hands of these slumlords, and a child now has lead poisoning 
because of it.
  In December of last year, HUD declared Eureka Gardens to be in 
default of the contract, and it set a February 24, 2016, deadline to 
meet requirements. In February, Eureka Gardens passed this inspection, 
but by March HUD had written to Eureka Gardens saying the Department 
``does not believe the property would currently pass another REAC 
inspection.''
  Last Friday I visited Eureka Gardens. I saw, for example, an 
apartment where the window did not open. I saw an apartment where the 
window did not open. The window had been cracked, and do you know how 
they fixed it? Somebody came and put a glob of glue where the window 
connects next to the pane, and if you tried to open the window, it 
wouldn't go up. That means if there was a fire in that house, the 
person sleeping in that room would not be able to get out of that 
window unless they break it. I saw that with my own eyes last week when 
I was there. I saw an apartment that hadn't been painted in 13 years. I 
saw a stove where the knobs were unrecognizable because they were 
covered with glue, basically, and grime. I saw a refrigerator that 
looked like it was from North Korea. It had to be 15 years old. There 
was all sorts of rust on the side and they just spray-painted over the 
rust.
  As I said earlier, 48 hours before I visited, Global Ministries 
started to fix some of these cosmetic issues. By the way, that included 
putting up a piece of wood with exposed nails and calling it a door. 
This apartment has two exits--in the front and in the back. This lady 
gets home from work and she opens her back door. They have boarded up 
the door, and there are nails sticking through the wood. She has little 
children. The nails were the kind that if you ran into that door 
because you didn't know it was there, you would get a nail to the face, 
to the heart, to the gut.
  So you would ask yourself, all right, you have these owners of all 
these units and they are getting this Federal money under this HUD 
contract. Where does all the money go? What are they doing with all 
this money they make? Well, you can look at their 990 tax forms, which 
are available for all 501(c)(3) organizations.
  Let me tell you about the 2014 tax year, which is the most recent one 
that is available. In the year 2014, the Reverend Richard Hamlet paid 
himself $495,000 plus $40,000 in nontaxable benefits. Also in 2014, the 
Reverend Hamlet's family members were paid an additional $218,000.
  By the way, he had previously failed to disclose his family members' 
compensation on tax forms, which is in violation of IRS rules that 
require CEOs to disclose the compensation of all family members who 
work for an organization.
  The IRS reports also show that between 2011 and 2013, Global 
Ministries Foundation--the landlord that owns all of these units in all 
of these buildings that your taxpayer money is paying for--shifted $9 
million away from its low-income housing not-for-profit to its 
religious affiliate. There is no one here who is a more strident 
proponent of private and public partnerships, of faith-based 
initiatives, but you have these building that are crumbling. You have 
these people living in these deplorable conditions. In addition to 
paying himself half a million dollars and his family another $218,000, 
they took $9 million, and instead of using it to fix these units, they 
transferred it to the other entity they had for religious purposes.
  They don't seem to want to spend the money--including the taxpayer 
money--on making repairs, on making sure places like Eureka Gardens are 
liveable. Let me tell what you they do spend their money on. They spend 
their money on public relations specialists, because last week when I 
visited Eureka Gardens, they had a public relations firm on the 
premises counterspinning me with the media, saying things like: Oh, 
well, where has Rubio been all this time? Well, this became available 
in October, and since October we have been involved in it.
  So they have the money to hire a law firm. They have the money to 
hire a lobbying firm. They have the money to hire a public relations 
firm. They have the money to transfer $9 million from the not-for-
profit sector into their religious uses. They have the money to pay 
themselves half a million dollars per year, plus $40,000 in nontaxable 
benefits, plus $200,000 for family members, but they don't have the 
money to fix these units--and not just in Florida but all across this 
country.
  Let me tell you what this behavior is. Let me tell you what Global 
Ministries Foundation is. It is a slumlord. They are slumlords. There 
are people who are living in these deplorable conditions while your 
taxpayer money is going into their bank account, and they are laughing 
at us.
  By the way, the other day, this minister--he has now put these 
properties up for sale. He told the press: This is such a profitable 
business. We have so many bidders who want these properties.
  Well, No. 1, if it is such a profitable business, why are you 
organized as a 501(c)(3)? And No. 2, where is all the money? Where are 
all the profits? Why aren't they being invested?
  I am all in favor of faith-based organizations being involved in the 
public and civic life of this country, but as an organization that was 
organized on the principles of caring for others, this is not caring 
for people. This, my friends, is the stealing of American taxpayer 
money, subjecting people to slum-like conditions, pocketing the money, 
living off the money, and transferring the money.

[[Page S2946]]

  For the life of me, I don't know how they passed any inspections. I 
am not a building inspector. You don't have to be one to visit this 
building and know there is no inspection that building should ever 
pass.
  I would just say that this is the most outrageous behavior I have 
seen in public housing, and now I am hearing that the same conditions 
exist in Orlando and in other buildings in Jacksonville. We know they 
exist in Memphis. In fact, they just lost their HUD contract in 
Memphis. A judge just issued a ruling against them yesterday on another 
issue in Memphis, TN.
  As a result of these conditions and other issues, I have filed four 
amendments I wish to briefly talk about. The first is amendment No. 
3918, which passed. What it does is it shortens the required response 
time for contract violations from 30 days to 15 days. Within the 30 
days that they found that gas leak at Eureka Gardens, four people at 
Eureka Gardens were hospitalized due to gas leaks. So I am glad 
shortening the timeframe will be a part of it.
  Another amendment we passed is one that basically asks HUD to 
determine the state of the assessments. Even the Secretary himself has 
told me it is time to revisit these assessments. If you look at this 
property, there is no way it should have ever passed any inspections. 
We need to fix the inspection process in HUD because there is no reason 
a property like this should pass any inspection.
  The third amendment I filed, and that I hope we can pass, would give 
State and local governments more say when HUD renews contracts for 
owners who have violated previous contracts. In essence, the amendment 
would allow the Secretary to refuse to withdraw a notice of default if 
the Governor of the requisite State petitions HUD to do that.
  Currently, the only trigger for the Secretary to withdraw a notice is 
a REAC score of 60 or above. If this amendment became law, if the 
property passed the inspection but the Governor of the State in which 
the property is located requests the Secretary to overturn the result, 
the Secretary would have the power to do so.
  This impacts Eureka Gardens and these other places because flawed 
inspections led HUD to recertify properties that are not up to 
standard. The Jacksonville City Council has been engaged and Mayor 
Curry of Jacksonville is supporting this amendment. It would grant them 
the ability to seek the Governor's support in having a say over the 
properties.
  The last amendment I filed is Rubio amendment No. 3986, and it is to 
make temporary relocation assistance available for residents in 
situations such as those I have just described. This amendment would 
make tenant protection vouchers available for tenants living in units 
where the owner has been declared in default of a HUD Housing 
Assistance Payments contract due to physical deficiencies, allowing the 
Secretary to consider granting tenant relocation vouchers sooner in the 
process.
  The lack of temporary relocation assistance has kept these tenants 
trapped in Eureka Gardens. The inability to temporarily relocate 
resulted in tenants being hospitalized because of gas leaks and other 
difficult conditions. For example, a man had to sleep in his bathtub 
for a week at Eureka Gardens, and tenants could not cook because the 
heat was shut off for days at a time.
  One of the things we hear from HUD is: Well, we can take away the 
contract, but then what happens to all these people? We don't want to 
do that, and slumlords like Reverend Hamlet and his group know they can 
get away with this as a result.
  There is probably more to be done. I said publicly that I think the 
Justice Department should look into these people. I think the Justice 
Department should look into places such as this. I think the IRS should 
examine their tax status. I think people like this should never again 
be allowed to have a single HUD contract anywhere in America. This is 
unacceptable, and it is happening right under our noses.
  Today it is Eureka Gardens, but I mentioned all those other States. 
In fact, I encourage my colleagues who live in the States of Alabama, 
Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, New York, and Georgia to look into 
the properties that Global Ministries Foundation operates in your 
States. If the trends continue, if the trends hold up, then I almost 
guarantee you are going to find slumlike conditions in your State the 
way they were found in my State and the way they were found in 
Tennessee.
  I hope I can earn my colleagues' support in bringing these reforms as 
a part of the bill before us today.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Overtime Pay

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe that real long-term economic 
growth is built from the middle out, not from the top down, and our 
government and our economy and our workplaces should work for all of 
our families, not just the wealthiest few.
  Across the country today, millions of workers are working harder than 
ever without basic overtime protection. That is why I am very proud to 
come to the floor today to express my strong support for the new 
overtime rule to help millions of workers and families in our country.
  Back in 1938, Congress recognized the need for overtime pay. Without 
overtime protection, corporations were able to exploit workers' time to 
increase their profits. So the Fair Labor Standards Act set up a 
standard 40-hour workweek. By law, when workers put in more than 40 
hours, their employers had to compensate them fairly with time-and-a-
half pay. But those protections have eroded over the past several 
decades.
  In today's economy, many Americans feel as if they are working more 
and more for less and less pay, and in many cases, they are. Right now, 
if a salaried worker earns just a little more than $23,000 a year, he 
or she is not guaranteed time-and-a-half pay. That salary threshold is 
much too low. In fact, it is less than the poverty level for a family 
of four.
  Workers should not have to earn poverty wages to get guaranteed 
overtime protection. It is clear that overtime rules in this country 
are severely out of date. Consider this: Back in the mid-1970s, 62 
percent of salaried workers had guaranteed overtime pay. Today, just 7 
percent of salaried workers have that protection. Big corporations use 
these outdated overtime rules to their advantage. They force their 
employees to work overtime without paying them the fair time-and-a-half 
pay. That might be good for a big corporation's profit, but it is a 
detriment to a working family's economic security.
  Today, the Department of Labor has issued a final rule to raise the 
salary threshold from about $23,000 to just over $47,000 a year. That 
will restore protections for millions of Americans, and it is 
especially important, by the way, for a parent. Think about what it 
would mean for a working mom, who right now works overtime and doesn't 
get paid for it. By restoring this basic worker protection, she could 
finally work a 40-hour week and spend more time with her kids or, if 
her employer asks her to work more than 40 hours a week, she would have 
more money in her pocket to boost her family's economic security.
  That is why this is so important for our struggling middle class. 
When workers put in more than 40 hours a week on the job, they should 
be paid fairly for it. That is the bottom line.
  I have heard from some of my Republican colleagues who don't want to 
update these overtime rules. If you listen closely, it sounds as though 
they are trying to argue that businesses in this country can't operate 
unless they are able to exploit workers' time and refuse them overtime 
pay.
  Well, Democrats fundamentally disagree. In fact, when workers have 
economic security, when they are able to make ends meet and succeed, 
businesses succeed, our economy succeeds. That virtuous cycle is part 
of what makes America great.
  If Republicans want to take away these basic worker protections, they 
will have to answer to millions of hardworking Americans putting in 
overtime without receiving a dime of extra pay. They can try, but I 
know that I and many others are going to be right

[[Page S2947]]

here fighting back for the workers and families we represent--families 
like Meryle's from Bellingham, WA. She said that early in her career 
she worked low-wage jobs and oftentimes her overtime hours went unpaid.
  When Meryle heard about the Obama administration updating overtime 
protections, she wrote in to comment on that new rule. She said those 
unpaid overtime hours hurt her pocketbook, but she said she lost more 
than money. She was working overtime without being paid fairly for it 
on top of missing out on important time with her daughter.
  Boosting wages and expanding economic stability and security is good 
for our families, and it is good for our economy. By the way, that is 
exactly what we should be focused on here in Congress to help build our 
economy from the middle out, not the top down.
  For workers who want fair pay for a day's work, for the parents--like 
Meryle--who have sacrificed family time for overtime and not seen a 
dime in extra pay, for families who are looking for some much needed 
economic security, I urge all of my colleagues to support restoring 
these important overtime protections.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Gillibrand and Mr. Grassley pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 2944 are printed in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to revisit my discussion with 
Senator Durbin yesterday regarding my amendment No. 3925 to the 
Department of Veterans Affairs funding bill.
  As I made clear yesterday, this is a commonsense amendment protecting 
constitutional rights. It is designed to make every effort to ensure 
that the Second Amendment rights of veterans are protected under the 
law. Yet the Democrats have objected. Because of that, our veterans 
will continue to not be protected by their Second Amendment 
constitutional rights.
  Let me make myself very clear. Senator Durbin said my amendment 
``doesn't solve the problem.'' ``Doesn't solve the problem'' are his 
words. Well, the Department of Veterans Affairs is reporting names to 
the Department of Justice which are then placed on the national gun ban 
list, and the VA is doing so merely when a veteran is appointed a 
fiduciary--which does not mean he or she is dangerous. That is the 
problem.
  As I explained yesterday, my amendment requires the VA to first 
determine that a veteran is a danger to self or others before reporting 
names. That simply solves the problem.
  Senator Durbin also said that under my amendment, ``mental health 
determinations would no longer count as prohibiting gun possession.'' 
As I stated yesterday, I do not want people who are known to be 
dangerous to own and possess firearms. My amendment makes that very 
clear.
  Further, given that plain language, it is obvious that under my 
amendment, mental health determinations do count because some mental 
health problems equate to a very dangerous condition. Again, my 
amendment is centered on forcing the Federal Government to determine 
whether a veteran is a danger to self or others before revoking his or 
her constitutional rights to own a firearm.
  Senator Durbin said that ``tens of thousands of names currently in 
the NICS system''--the gun ban list--``would likely need to be purged, 
meaning these people could go out and buy guns.'' Now, that is not so. 
If anything, my amendment would require the Federal Government to look 
over the VA records sent to the gun ban list and verify that those 
persons on it are dangerous to themselves or others.
  That doesn't have to be purging. Rather, the Federal Government would 
now have the burden of proving a veteran should not be able to exercise 
his or her fundamental Second Amendment rights. Since there is no 
purging, but rather dangerous persons will be identified via a 
constitutional process, it is not accurate to say that ``these people 
could go out and buy guns.'' Therefore, Senator Durbin has not studied 
my amendment and its outcome. Really, the government should always 
provide constitutional due process before infringing on a fundamental 
constitutional right.
  Senator Durbin mentioned 174,000 names were supplied by the VA to the 
gun ban list and about 15,000 of them had serious mental illnesses. 
Actually, as of December 2015, the VA has supplied 260,381 names out of 
the 263,492 in the mental defective category. That happens to be 98.8 
percent of the total number of people on the mental defective list that 
are there because of the VA and not because it has been determined 
their constitutional rights should be taken away.
  Assuming Senator Durbin is correct about the 15,000 who had a serious 
mental illness, that leaves about 245,000 who did not. Those are 
245,000 people whose constitutional rights are being restricted without 
due process for no good reason. Not a single individual was determined 
to be dangerous before the VA submitted their name to this list so 
their constitutional rights could be violated.
  My amendment, and my remarks last night, make clear that if a person 
is dangerous, they will not be able to possess a firearm. Therefore, 
Senator Durbin's concern that my amendment will allow dangerous people 
to buy firearms is simply inaccurate.
  Importantly, Senator Durbin even admitted that not all the names 
reported to the VA are dangerous. Senator Durbin said: ``I do not 
dispute what the Senator from Iowa suggested, that some of these 
veterans may be suffering from a mental illness not serious enough to 
disqualify them from owning a firearm, but certainly many of them do.''
  Then, Senator Durbin said: ``Let me just concede at the outset that 
reporting 174,000 names goes too far, but eliminating 174,000 names 
goes too far.'' I am glad that Senator Durbin acknowledged that many of 
the names on the gun ban list supplied by the VA do not pose a danger 
and should be removed.

  But again, my amendment is not about purging names from the list. I 
would be happy to take him up on his offer to work with him on that 
problem. Surely, we can agree that, going forward, the VA should start 
affording due process to veterans before they are stripped of their 
Second Amendment rights. If you really want a solution to this problem, 
stop objecting to this amendment.
  As I stated yesterday, my amendment does three things. First, it 
makes the ``danger to self or others'' standard applicable to the VA. 
We all agree that dangerous persons must not own or possess firearms. 
Second, it shifts the burden of proof from the veteran and back to the 
Government where it belongs. Third, it fixes the constitutional due 
process issues by removing the hearing from the VA to the judicial 
system.
  The last thing I will note is something on which I wholeheartedly 
agree with Senator Durbin. Yesterday, he said: ``We need to find a 
reasonable way to identify those suffering from serious mental illness 
who would be a danger to themselves, their families or others, and to 
sort out those that don't fit in that category.''
  As I have made clear, my amendment does exactly that. Why, then, are 
the Democrats refusing to fix this problem if they admit the problem 
exists? This is an outrage. We all know that veterans are being treated 
unfairly. My amendment fixes the problem, yet Democrats object.
  What is dangerous is that Democrats are allowing veterans to be 
subjected to a process that casts their Second Amendment rights aside. 
All of this smells of hypocrisy. For months, the Democrats and their 
allies have been attacking me and the Republicans for not voting on the 
Supreme Court nominee. But the Democrats will not even allow a simple 
vote on protecting veterans' constitutional rights.
  Can you imagine the chaos that would reign over this Chamber again if 
the Democrats were to take control over the Senate? I will continue to 
stand firm in defense of our veteran population. I will continue to 
fight to protect their constitutional rights from offensive and 
oppressive government outreach.
  Our veterans are a special group. They give life and limb for our 
safety so that we can sleep in peace at night.

[[Page S2948]]

The iron fist of government must submit to the constitutional rights of 
veterans, and those constitutional rights have been taken away by the 
VA willy-nilly just because somebody needs a fiduciary--nothing to do 
with the competence of that veteran to not be able to buy a gun.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about 
amendment No. 4012. I want to thank my cosponsors--Senators Sessions, 
Vitter, Cotton, and Inhofe. This amendment addresses a very serious 
public safety threat; that is, the threat posed by sanctuary cities. 
This is a problem that is not a theoretical abstraction. It is a 
problem that some Americans know all too well--one father, in 
particular.
  On July 1, 2015, Jim Steinle was walking arm in arm with his daughter 
Kate on a pier in San Francisco. A gunman opened fire and hit Kate. 
Within moments, she died in her father's arms. Her last words were: 
``Help me, Dad.''
  What is maddening about this is that the shooter should never have 
been on the pier in the first place. He was an illegal immigrant. He 
was here illegally. He had been convicted of seven felonies, and he had 
been deported five times. But it gets worse.
  Just 3 months prior to his shooting and killing Kate Steinle, the San 
Francisco police had him in custody. Federal immigration officials knew 
that the San Francisco police had him in custody. They knew he was here 
illegally, in violation of multiple deportations--a violent criminal 
convicted on multiple occasions. They said: Hold him until we get 
somebody there to pick him up and deport him. But the police refused to 
hold him. Instead, they released the shooter into the public.
  Why did they do that? Because San Francisco is a sanctuary city. That 
means that they are a city that specifically--and by law, within the 
city--forbids their police from cooperating with Federal immigration 
officials. Even when the police wants to cooperate, it is against the 
law in the city to do so.
  The local police and President Obama's administration agree that, 
with respect to a dangerous person, the Federal and local law 
enforcement authorities ought to cooperate, but the local politicians--
in San Francisco, in this case--have overridden that judgment. Instead, 
the police, who had every opportunity to prevent this man from being on 
the pier that night, released him, and he went on to kill Kate Steinle.
  As a father of three young children, I can't even imagine the pain 
that family has gone through. Sadly, the Steinles are not alone. 
According to the Department of Homeland Security--our current 
administration's Department of Homeland Security--during an 8-month 
period that they examined last year alone, sanctuary city jurisdictions 
released over 8,000 illegal immigrants, and 1,800 of them were later 
arrested for criminal acts. It included two cities that released 
individuals who had been arrested for child sex abuse. In both cases, 
the individuals released sexually assaulted other children again.
  In the wake of these tragedies, you would think that elected 
officials across America would end this practice of having these 
dangerous sanctuary city policies. Sadly, that is not the case.
  In the biggest city in my State, Philadelphia, they have taken the 
opposite approach. In fact, they imposed one of the most extreme 
versions of sanctuary cities anywhere in America. Two weeks ago, 
President Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security visited Philadelphia 
for the specific purpose of trying to persuade the city government to 
make a tiny exception to their sanctuary city policy. He wanted to 
change the policy so that the Philadelphia police would be able to 
notify Federal immigration officials if they are about to release from 
their custody a person who has been convicted of a violent felony or 
convicted of a crime involving a gang or is a suspected terrorist. The 
mayor of Philadelphia refused.
  Even under those circumstances, the police of Philadelphia are 
forbidden from cooperating and sharing the information with Federal 
immigration officials.
  What are the kinds of consequences for this? Consider the case of 
Alberto Suarez. In 2010, Alberto Suarez kidnapped and raped a girl from 
Montgomery County, which is just outside of Philadelphia. He bragged to 
the girl that the police would never be able to catch him because he is 
here illegally. Five months later, he kidnapped a 22-year-old woman 
from a Philadelphia bus stop, and he raped her. He has been 
apprehended, he has plead guilty, and he is awaiting sentencing. But 
some day, he will be released. Under the current Philadelphia city 
policy of being a sanctuary city, the police cannot inform Federal 
immigration officials when they are releasing him. This is ridiculous.
  Imagine that the Philadelphia police have in their custody an illegal 
immigrant whom the FBI suspects of plotting a terrorist attack. The 
Department of Homeland Security might very reasonably say to the 
police: Hold on to him until we can get an agent down there to take him 
into custody and ask him some questions because we suspect that he is 
involved with a terrorist plot. The Philadelphia police's response--not 
by their choice but by virtue of Philadelphia's being a sanctuary 
city--to the Federal official is this: Could you come back again after 
he has actually committed the terrorist attack and been convicted of 
it, and then we will see if we can help you?
  This makes no sense at all. This is not partisan. This policy has 
been criticized by the former Philadelphia mayor, former Pennsylvania 
Governor, and Democrat Ed Rendell. It has been criticized by President 
Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security and Pennsylvania law enforcement 
officials across the political spectrum.
  Let me be very, very clear. This is not principally about 
immigration. It is not about immigration at all. It is about violent 
and dangerous criminals. Everybody knows--I certainly know--that the 
vast majority of immigrants are never going to commit a violent crime. 
It isn't about them. It is about the fact that if you have any 
significant population--and, certainly, 11 million people are here 
illegally--some subset of that population will be violent criminals. We 
know that.
  I have an amendment. It is modeled on a bill that the Senate voted on 
last October. It was supported by a bipartisan majority of Senators in 
that vote. It deals with this problem. First of all, there is an 
understandable reason why some communities have become sanctuary 
communities, and that is because a court decision has created a legal 
liability for the cities if they, at the request of the Department of 
Homeland Security, detain someone who later turns out to have been the 
wrong person. That legal liability has scared a number of communities. 
It is understandable.
  This amendment changes that. It makes it clear that when the local 
police are in compliance with a Department of Homeland Security 
detainer request, the local police have the same authority as the 
Department of Homeland Security. If that person has been identified 
wrongly, then the liability still exists. If the person's civil rights 
have been violated, they can sue. But the liability is with the 
Department of Homeland Security, as it should be, and not against local 
law enforcement officials who are temporarily acting on behalf of the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  Having corrected that problem, if this amendment passes, what we say 
is this: If you want to, nevertheless, be a sanctuary city and refuse 
to allow the local police to cooperate with Federal immigration 
officials, then we are going to withhold community development block 
grant funds from such a community. As you know, these are the funds 
that have great discretion in the hands of local elected officials to 
spend on various projects.
  The fact is that sanctuary cities impose a very real cost--a real 
cost for the Federal Government. The most important cost, by far, is 
the danger to society that it imposes. It is entirely reasonable for 
the Federal Government to withhold some of these grants in the event 
that a city chooses to inflict that cost on the rest of us.
  This legislation is endorsed by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
Association, the National Sherriffs' Association, the National 
Association of Police Organizations, and the International Union of 
Police Associations,

[[Page S2949]]

which is a division of the AFL-CIO. It is a simple, commonsense 
amendment, and it stands for the simple principle that the safety of 
the American people matters, and the life of Kate Steinle matters.
  Right up front, I want to debunk some of the misinformation that is 
occasionally promulgated about this amendment. One is the idea that it 
would discourage people from coming forward and reporting crimes or 
reporting that they witnessed a crime or that they were a victim of 
crime, and that, therefore, it is a bad idea. The fact is that our 
legislation has been drafted in such a way that if a local community 
has a law that says that local law enforcement shall not inquire about 
the immigration status of a crime victim or witness, according to our 
legislation, that doesn't make you a sanctuary city. Any city would 
still be free to offer that protection to people so that they would not 
have to fear deportation for disclosing a crime.
  The fact is that this amendment is germane, and it was timely filed. 
It satisfies all of the relevant rules. This is the right time, and 
this is the legislation to consider this. It is time to stop with this 
politically correct nonsense and being so worried that we can't offend 
anyone that we are going to risk the safety of our communities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside so I may offer my amendment No. 4012.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I reserve my right to object. The Senator 
from Pennsylvania has very thoughtfully pointed to significant issues 
with respect to immigration law and public safety, but I believe the 
remedy of cutting off CDBG funding is not the appropriate response to 
these very serious problems. Indeed, CDBG funding is available 
throughout the Nation to large communities and small communities, and 
in many cases it provides support for public safety projects, such as 
infrastructure that protects people, and on and on and on.
  With all due respect to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I object to 
making the amendment pending at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, with all due respect to my friend and 
colleague from Rhode Island, I just have to say that this is exactly 
what Americans are so fed up with. There is a real problem out there 
with public safety, and they know it. This is a ridiculous and 
indefensible policy, but I am willing to have a debate about it. I did 
not ask for unanimous consent to have my amendment adopted. I asked 
unanimous consent to have it debated and have a vote. If a majority of 
Senators disagrees with me, then I don't know why they can't come down 
here and cast a vote and let us know. It is germane, it is in order, 
and it complies with all the rules.
  The status quo means dangerous criminals are being released onto our 
streets. That is a fact.
  I will tell you what is going on here. We have colleagues who are 
afraid to cast a vote. They are afraid of having to make a choice. They 
are afraid that if they vote with me to put pressure on cities to end 
sanctuary cities, it will offend some people, and they don't want to do 
that. If they vote against it, they know they are endangering their own 
constituents, and they don't want their constituents to know that. 
Rather than standing up and making a decision, what do they do? They 
say: Let's not allow the debate; let's not allow the amendment. This is 
exactly what the American people are so fed up with.
  I am not giving up on this. This is a very important issue. We have a 
responsibility to be stewards of the money that we give these cities. I 
think the vast majority of Pennsylvanians, the people whom I represent, 
want me to be a steward who is looking after their safety, and the 
status quo doesn't do that. This amendment would solve a very important 
problem. It is outrageous that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are afraid to have this debate, afraid to go on record, and 
afraid to let their constituents know whether they support sanctuary 
cities or not. We are not finished with this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on Tuesday, Senator Grassley came to the 
floor advocating for an amendment. His amendment dealt with access to 
guns for those who have been determined by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs to be mentally incompetent due to injury or disease.
  Senator Grassley's amendment was 10 lines long. It would simply cut 
off funds for the VA to ``treat'' any person who the VA has determined 
to be mentally incompetent under its current administrative process as 
a prohibited gun purchaser under Federal firearms laws.
  On behalf of myself and other Senators, I objected to this amendment. 
I pointed out that Senator Grassley's amendment would likely require 
purging the NICS background check database of thousands of records of 
people who have already been diagnosed with serious mental illness and 
referred to NICS by the VA.
  As Senator Grassley no doubt knows, current law requires a Federal 
agency that submits a record to NICS to notify the Attorney General if 
the basis upon which the record was submitted to NICS no longer 
applies. The Attorney General is then obligated to remove the record 
from NICS within thirty days.
  If the Grassley amendment were to pass and prohibit the VA from 
continuing to ``treat'' a mentally incompetent person as a prohibited 
gun purchaser, then it casts into doubt the basis upon which tens of 
thousands of NICS mental health records were submitted.
  So Senator Grassley's amendment would likely purge those records from 
NICS. Tens of thousands of people with serious mental illnesses would 
become able to buy guns.
  Senator Grassley came to the floor earlier this afternoon to 
criticize my objection. He made two main points that I want to respond 
to.
  First, he said that Democrats were being hypocritical for not 
allowing a vote on this issue.
  Senator Grassley must have only started paying attention to this 
issue recently. I can remember at least three votes we have had on the 
Senate floor on this issue.
  In April 2013, when the Senate was under Democratic control, an 
amendment offered by Senator Burr that was very similar to Senator 
Grassley's amendment was voted upon and failed to pass.
  An alternative and more sensible proposal for addressing the issue of 
VA referrals to the NICS database was included in the Manchin-Toomey 
legislation which the Senate voted upon in April 2013 and again last 
December.
  In contrast to the Burr and Grassley amendments, which specified no 
process for reviewing the thousands of VA mental health referrals that 
have already been made to NICS, the Manchin-Toomey amendment set up a 
notification, review, and appeal process. It wasn't perfect, but it was 
very credible process, and I voted for it.
  That is how we should be approaching this issue, with thoughtful 
authorizing legislation, not 10-line appropriations riders that are 
airdropped in on the Senate floor.
  Second, Senator Grassley said that the VA has been depriving veterans 
of their constitutional rights willy-nilly.
  I would urge Senator Grassley to look at the actual process the VA 
undertakes.
  In connection with an award of veterans benefits, the VA formally may 
determine as ``mentally incompetent'' a person who ``because of injury 
or disease lacks the mental capacity to contract or to manage his or 
her own affairs, including disbursement of funds without limitation.''
  The types of mental disorders that qualify as ``injury or disease `` 
for this purpose are set forth in 38 C.F.R. 4.130 and include diseases 
such as schizophrenia, dementia, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress 
disorder, and bipolar disorders, among others. Such illness or disease 
must be responsible for a person's inability to manage his or her own 
affairs for a VA determination of incompetency.
  Like all VA benefit determinations, incompetency determinations are 
governed by clearly defined procedures to ensure due process.
  Where the VA becomes aware that a veteran may be unable to manage his

[[Page S2950]]

or her affairs, an incompetency rating is proposed and the individual 
in question is provided with notice and the opportunity to submit 
evidence and appear before a VA hearing officer. Determinations are 
based on all evidence of record. Unless the medical evidence is clear, 
convincing, and leaves no doubt as to the person's incompetency, no 
determination is made. Reasonable doubt is resolved in favor of 
competency.
  All VA determinations of incompetency may be appealed within the VA's 
administrative appeals process, which includes the opportunity to seek 
review by the Board of Veterans' Appeals. Final BVA decisions may be 
appealed to the independent United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 
Claims.
  Here is the bottom line: All of us respect our veterans, but we know 
that gun access by those with serious mental illness increases the risk 
of suicide and violence, and the VA has identified tens of thousands of 
people with serious mental illness.
  We can work on a reasonable process, like the Manchin-Toomey 
legislation proposed, to make sure that the VA is not submitting mental 
health records inappropriately, but simply invalidating all the records 
that the VA has supplied to the background check database is 
irresponsible and dangerous.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the 
heroin and prescription drug epidemic that is gripping my State and the 
country. I come to talk about the 200,000 people in Ohio who are 
addicted. I come to talk about the police officers during National 
Police Week who are doing their jobs to address this issue and why they 
need more help from us and how we should provide that to them.
  This is the sixth time I have come to the floor since the Senate 
passed on March 10 the legislation called the Comprehensive Addiction 
and Recovery Act. It was voted on by a 94-to-1 vote in this Chamber, 
which is highly unusual. That never happens around here. It happened 
because in every single State people are seeing this addiction 
epidemic, overdose issue. We need to address it.
  The House has been working on its own legislation. I have come here 
every single week we have been in session since we passed our 
legislation to urge the House to act. I come this week to thank the 
House for acting because on Friday of last week the House of 
Representatives passed legislation--again, a large bipartisan vote--18 
different bills that were combined into one bill to deal with this 
opioid epidemic.
  In some respects, it is very similar to the legislation we passed in 
the Senate. In other respects, it has additional provisions that I 
think are very helpful. In other respects, it doesn't pick up 
everything that is in the Senate legislation.
  Our focus in the Senate would be to have a comprehensive approach, 
and I believe, by including some of the provisions in the House-passed 
version, we will come up with a more comprehensive approach, and that 
is what is needed. In fact, in the Senate we spent 3 months working 
with the House on companion legislation. We had a number of conferences 
here in Washington, DC--five different conferences to deal with this 
issue--and we came up with legislation that took best practices around 
the country and included them in the legislation to deal with a very 
real problem in our communities.
  It has to be comprehensive. Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak 
with the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, 
Michael Botticelli, as well as Dr. Kana Enomoto, who is the Acting 
Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration. It was a hearing of the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee. We were talking about how to come up 
with the right response to this issue in so many different respects. 
The bottom line is, both of them strongly agree it has to be a 
comprehensive approach if we are going to make a difference, if we are 
going to begin to turn the tide and begin to save lives and get people 
back on track to deal with this level of drug addiction and overdose 
that is happening in our communities. We have to provide the resources, 
but we also have to ensure that the resources are wisely spent. In 
other words, we have to be sure we are spending the money on things 
that are going to be effective. I was grateful that both Director 
Botticelli and Dr. Enomoto said they would work with us to try to get 
this conference between the House and Senate done as quickly as 
possible. The House and Senate bills coming together is important so we 
can get it to the President and, more importantly, so we can get it to 
the communities to begin to help. They offered to continue to work with 
us going forward, and I appreciate that, and we will need them. 
Everybody needs to pull together on this.
  It has been 67 days since the Senate acted. In those 67 days, if we 
assume that about 120 Americans are lost every day to drug overdoses, 
about 8,000 Americans have lost their lives through drug overdoses 
since the Senate passed this legislation on March 10. Think about that. 
That is what I call an epidemic.
  Unfortunately, my State of Ohio has been particularly hard hit. The 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that Ohio had the 
second most overdoses of any State in the Union, and the fifth highest 
overdose death rate. On average, we are losing about five Ohioans every 
day to overdoses. We lost 330 since the Senate passed the CARA 
legislation on March 10.
  Unfortunately, since March 10 the headlines have continued to show 
that families are being torn apart, communities devastated. These 
headlines make it clear this is not slowing down. I talked to some 
experts on this in Ohio last week, and I asked: Tell me, are things 
getting better? Are we beginning to change the attitudes to turn the 
tide? The answer was, no, the hotline is lighting up more than ever, 
more people are coming for treatment, and there is more crime than ever 
related to this. Sadly, I do not believe, at least in my home State of 
Ohio, that we have begun to make the progress we have to make.
  It is happening everywhere--in the cities, suburbs, and rural areas. 
Addiction is affecting everybody of every age no matter where you are 
from, no matter what neighborhood you live in. It knows no ZIP Code.
  Just in the time since I spoke on the floor this last week, in the 
past week in Ohio, here are some things that have happened. In 
Northeast Ohio, in the city of Lorraine, police searched three 
different drug houses. This happened last Thursday. They arrested seven 
people possessing more than 120 grams of heroin. In Southwest Ohio, in 
a rural area in Brown County, a couple was arrested for possession of 
heroin. They have four children between the ages of 3 and 6. This 
happened last week. In the suburbs of Dayton, OH, this time in the 
suburbs, Harrison Township, police say a man was driving under the 
influence of heroin, veered into the wrong lane and struck a vehicle 
head-on, killing an innocent woman and injuring her husband. More and 
more traffic accidents are being linked to addiction.
  In Central Ohio, in the Columbus area, the city has now spent 
$144,000 last year alone on Narcan, which is a miracle drug that will 
be able to deal with overdoses and save people's lives. Paramedics in 
Columbus spent 10 percent of their entire budget just on Narcan last 
year, reversing over 100 overdoses. Paramedic Pete Bolen says that 
sometimes he takes up to four overdose calls per day. I have been to 
police stations and firehouses around Ohio, and they tell me they are 
responding to more overdoses than they are fires.
  Dr. Eric Adkins of Ohio State's Wexner Medical Center says that their 
emergency room sees two to four overdose patients every day. Last year, 
Wexner spent $1.2 million treating overdose patients. That is one 
medical center in one city.
  In Chillicothe, Assistant Fire Chief Jeffrey Creed says that overdose 
calls are on pace to double this year compared to last year. Again, 
they will tell you there are more overdoses than fires.
  Rita Gunning of Grove City, OH, lost her daughter Sara, who was just 
30

[[Page S2951]]

years old, to a heroin overdose. Last year, Sara was trying to fight an 
opioid addiction and managed to stay clean for 50 days, but she 
relapsed, and 3 days later she died of an overdose. Rita is now raising 
Sara's three children and trying to increase the availability of 
naloxone across Ohio. She is on a mission because she believes this 
miracle drug naloxone could have saved her daughter. She said: ``Maybe 
if they had it that night, they could have saved Sara's life.'' She 
shouldn't have to say that. By the way, making naloxone more available 
is one thing the legislation does that was passed in the Senate. We 
have to be sure the House and Senate legislation does that and also 
provides the training that goes along with it.
  Our legislation also says that when they provide naloxone, or Narcan, 
they provide not only training with it but also information about where 
to get treatment because it is not enough to apply Narcan, we need to 
get these people into treatment so we don't have to apply Narcan again 
and again and again.
  Karen Young of Columbus lost her daughter Kayla when she was just 22. 
She had surgery when she was 20, and she was prescribed pain pills, as 
many of us have after surgery. She became addicted to those pain pills, 
and like so many others, when the pills ran out, she switched to a less 
expensive and more accessible alternative--heroin. She went to rehab 
for about 7 weeks, but she relapsed, overdosed, and died--just like 
that. In the span of 2 years, she developed an addiction because she 
went in for surgery and she died from it. As Karen put it, ``her Dad 
will never get to walk down the aisle with Kayla.''

  Unfortunately, that is true with so many thousands of people whose 
lives are cut short across Ohio and across the country. The stories are 
heart-wrenching. You hear about kids who go in to have their wisdom 
teeth pulled. They are given prescription pain pills. They get addicted 
to the pain pills. They then turn to heroin--or maybe not. Maybe they 
even die of an overdose from the pain pills themselves, which has 
happened.
  This should not be happening. Overprescribing of pain medication is 
obviously one of the huge issues. Four out of five of the heroin 
addicts in Ohio started with prescription drugs. People need to know 
that. By the way, our legislation would allow people to know that 
through an awareness campaign about that very issue.
  Unfortunately, these overdoses are just the tip of the iceberg in the 
sense that in addition to the 8,000 we have lost since March 10 in this 
country, there are hundreds of thousands more who are among the 
wounded. What do I mean by that? They have lost their jobs. They have 
been driven to theft or fraud to pay for their habit. They have gone to 
jail. They have broken relationships with loved ones because of an 
addiction.
  I hear this time and again from recovering addicts saying: When I had 
this addiction, the drug was everything. It was everything. That is how 
my family broke up. That is how I lost my job. That is how I lost my 
self-respect.
  I have seen the consequences firsthand. In Ohio on Monday, I visited 
a treatment center that was for women only. It is an extraordinary 
place, the only place in my hometown of Cincinnati where women can take 
their kids and get treatment, which has been very effective. I got the 
chance to meet with a number of women who are in recovery. Each had a 
heart-wrenching story to tell about how they got there. Each was 
absolutely committed to dealing with their addiction not only for their 
sakes but also for their baby's sake because these women were pregnant.
  In the last 12 years in Ohio, there has been a 750-percent increase 
of babies born with addiction. This syndrome, babies born with 
addiction, requires babies to be taken through the same kind of rehab 
that adults are taken through, of course at different levels of 
treatment. It is a very sad situation. Many doctors and nurses, who are 
incredibly compassionate, tell me they don't know what the long-term 
consequences are.
  At this treatment center called First Step Home, which is in my home 
town, they are doing impressive work. They are teaching women how to be 
better moms in addition to providing the treatment they need. They 
don't just get medication, they get a sense of home and security. 
Talking to these women and listening to their stories inspires me to 
make the Federal Government a better partner with First Step and other 
nonprofits around the country to ensure that we are, indeed, beginning 
to turn this tide.
  Today and tomorrow, the Addiction Policy Forum, which is a coalition 
of advocacy groups, is leading a CARA Family Day on Capitol Hill here 
in Washington, DC. I will be joining them in that effort. I thank them 
for calling attention to this pressing issue and for their strong 
support of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, CARA.
  With this being National Police Week, I would also like to thank our 
police officers who are confronting this epidemic on the frontlines 
every single day. Police, other first responders, and medical personnel 
confront this epidemic more than anyone else. I have been told by 
prosecutors back home that in some counties in Ohio, more than 80 
percent of the crime is directly related to this issue of heroin and 
prescription drug addiction. I am told that in some areas, nearly all 
of the thefts that are committed are done by those struggling with 
addiction to pay for their habit.
  The Fraternal Order of Police has been incredibly helpful to us in 
this legislation. They contributed valuable advice and feedback during 
the 3 years we were crafting CARA. I am grateful for their help and for 
their endorsement of CARA, which was very important to getting such a 
strong vote on the floor of the House and Senate.
  Police officers across Ohio have told me about the extent of the 
epidemic. They have told me about the need for the Federal Government 
to take action that is comprehensive.
  Major Jay McDonald, who is the president of Ohio's Fraternal Order of 
Police has told me that ``heroin mixed with fentanyl is the most deadly 
drug cocktail I've witnessed in my entire career.'' I visited a place 
called Jody's House with him. It is a residential house for women in 
recovery in Marion, OH. Major McDonald told me that our response should 
include enforcement, prevention, and treatment. In other words, it has 
to be comprehensive. He is absolutely right.
  Our police want CARA for a lot of reasons. For example, CARA would 
authorize new law enforcement task forces around the country to 
investigate trafficking in heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamines, and 
prescription drugs. Police know that these extra resources will help 
them to do their job. By the way, these task forces are not included in 
the House-passed legislation. We have to get that in conference to 
ensure that we are helping our police officers who are out there on the 
frontlines.
  Another reason I think the law enforcement community wants CARA 
passed is that they are using naloxone more and more every day. First 
responders used it 16,000 times in Ohio last year--16,000 times. CARA 
would increase access to naloxone. It would improve the training so 
that they could be more effective in administering this miracle drug in 
time to save a life.
  It would also insist, again, as it is being administered, that the 
drug treatment programs in the community locally are made available--
information available to people--so that we are not just seeing this 
revolving door. If we give our police the tools they need, they will be 
able to save even more lives and get more people into treatment.
  Our police are also helping to take drugs off the street. Since 2014, 
DEA agents in Ohio, working with local police departments, have seized 
more than 171 kilograms of heroin. Federal agents have now arrested 
more than 70 drug traffickers or drug dealers in Ohio in the last year 
alone.
  Sometimes the intervention of a police officer is exactly what it 
takes to get somebody into treatment. I have found that again and 
again. Two weeks ago, there was a heartbreaking story of a woman in the 
Miami Valley area--Dayton area--named Cheri, who said she was glad her 
son was in jail because ``I would rather have him sitting behind bars 
in jail than have to carry him out in a body bag.''
  Two weeks ago in Wellington, OH, there was a town meeting held about

[[Page S2952]]

the crisis. Nicole Walmsley told the story of how, after postpartum 
surgery at age 19, she was prescribed a prescription pain killer. She 
became addicted. She ended up being arrested 18 times and convicted of 
two felonies. ``I sold my morals; I sold my soul. Drugs became 
everything.''
  After an overdose in Youngstown, she begged her probation officer to 
send her to jail. That is how bad it is. That is how difficult it is 
sometimes to find treatment. She asked the police officer and the judge 
to send her to prison because that is the best way to get good 
treatment, to be convicted of a felony. Even then, sometimes the best 
treatment is not available.
  That is the status quo today. Unless and until we get a more 
comprehensive bill to the President and signed into law, this 
continues. Too many are going without treatment. Too many are afraid to 
come forward. Too many are treating this not as a disease that needs to 
be treated, which it is, but instead are concerned about the stigma.
  We need to get people to come forward and come into treatment. But 
thanks to help from police, in the case of Nicole, as I mentioned, she 
did get treatment. For 3 years now, she has been living a clean and 
productive life and helping others do so too. Police across Ohio have 
been offering treatment to those struggling with addiction.
  I am impressed with what is going on in Lucas County, Ohio, which is 
in the Toledo area. Sheriff Tharp has started a drug abuse response 
team that offers addiction counseling, free rides to treatment for 
those who need it, and followup visits for those who have overdosed. In 
talking to Sheriff Tharp and some of his deputies about this, they have 
made an incredible difference in people's lives.
  In Lodi, OH, anyone can simply turn themselves in to the police, and 
they will get treatment with no questions asked. This is done using 
private donations entirely. This year they have already placed in 
rehabilitation 28 people who had no insurance and no income. The police 
there report that since they started the program, overdoses and 
property crimes have decreased considerably.
  In Wellington and in Auglaize County, police make the same offer: 
Turn yourself in and get treatment. We will not ask any questions. We 
will get you the help you need. I am told this is also the case in 
Creston, OH, and Newark, OH. So locally, police departments are taking 
up this issue and dealing with it effectively. I salute them for that.
  I also salute them for putting their lives on the line every day for 
all of us and for their compassionate care of those they run across who 
need this treatment. I know the statistics about drug abuse are 
heartbreaking. They can certainly be discouraging, including the 
relapse rates. But thanks in part to our police officers and good 
treatment providers around the country, such as those I visited on 
Monday, there are a lot of stories of hope, too, that encourage and 
inspire us. Many of those who are struggling have inspirational stories 
too.
  In Colerain Township, near my hometown, police have started what is 
called a quick response team of police, paramedics, and addiction 
counselors. When they arrest someone or save them from an overdose, 
they get them into treatment--again, not just applying Narcan but 
getting them into treatment. Last summer, they found Damon Carroll, who 
was just 22 years old, on his bedroom floor after an overdose. They got 
him counseling and treatment. Damon is now living a clean and 
productive life working at a restaurant. You know who stops by his 
house and stops by the restaurant and makes sure he is okay? The police 
officers who found him. Thanks to our police, he is beating this. There 
is hope. They saved a life. They are helping this young man to live out 
his God-given potential.
  I hope we can send comprehensive legislation to the White House as 
soon as possible because it is needed. It is urgent. It is an 
emergency. We have lost nearly 8,000 Americans since the Senate passed 
this Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act. That is the status quo 
today. Again, that does not begin to tell the story of those who have 
not died because of an overdose but struggle with addiction every day.
  Our police officers and those nonprofits I talked about, those 
treatment centers, those who are struggling with addiction--all of them 
deserve better. They deserve us to act. Again, we are not going to 
solve the problem here in Washington, DC, but we can be better partners 
with State and local governments, with these nonprofits, with these law 
enforcement officials around the country who are dealing with this 
issue every day. They deserve a better partner.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I was pleased to come over here early 
before I spoke and listen to my colleague from Ohio. We have the same 
issues in Indiana. I think probably the Presiding Officer's State and 
every State has serious opioid addiction issues, particularly with our 
young people. We cannot solve all of the problems here. We have passed 
a piece of legislation. Hopefully we can reconcile with the House 
shortly and put it on the President's desk. In a number of ways, that 
will provide the support for dealing with this problem.
  It is a national issue, it is a State issue, it is a city issue, it 
is a smalltown issue, and it is a rural America issue. It is all hands 
on deck here. We are losing precious lives through this scourge of 
addiction that is sweeping through our country.


                           Wasteful Spending

  Mr. President, today I am back, as I have been every week for now 43 
weeks for the waste of the week. The ``Waste of the Week'' is where I 
highlight waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government system that 
is using hard-earned taxpayer dollars that ought to be able to be used 
by the taxpayer to pay the mortgage, pay the bills at the end of the 
week, to put aside some money hopefully for the children's education as 
they grow, or for any number of needs out there.
  We have the responsibility and the duty to be carefully managing the 
tax money that is assessed to our public. ``Waste of the Week'' has 
pointed out some significant examples, yet drop-in-the-bucket of 
expenditures that have not been successful, have not been used for the 
purpose they are supposed to be used, part of the waste, fraud, and 
abuse category of now nearly--well, nearing $200 billion. That is not 
small change.
  This week, I am highlighting a Federal program that has a lousy track 
record and over $7 billion in leftover money--funds Congress has 
appropriated for this program. Let me explain the program. In 2008, 
shortly after the economic recession began, Congress created something 
called the Home Affordable Modification Program; in short, HAMP. This 
is a new emergency program established to help homeowners facing 
financial distress to avoid foreclosure by reducing their monthly 
mortgage payments.
  All this occurred at a time when our country truly was in distress--a 
serious recession. People were working less hours or no hours. Those 
who owned homes were finding it difficult if not impossible to pay the 
monthly mortgage payments.
  So the HAMP program, which is a voluntary program for homeowners and 
mortgage lenders--if the two of them get together and agree to 
restructure their home loan payments, they can stay in their home, and 
it doesn't have to go through foreclosure. It is a sensible program at 
a time of real need. Lenders work through the Treasury Department to 
reduce those monthly mortgage payments to no higher than about one-
third of the homeowners' income.
  Historically, if you are telling your kids about buying a home or you 
are graduating from school and you want to buy a home, the solid advice 
has always been, don't commit yourself to more than 25 percent of the 
income you are earning to pay on your mortgage. You are going to need 
the rest of that money to pay the rest of your bills--all the 
utilities, food, transportation, buying a car, and so forth and so on. 
Well, this program said all the way up to a third. If you qualified on 
that, we would use 33 percent instead of 25 percent and restructure 
your mortgage so that you had a lower payment you had to make each 
month on that mortgage.
  The Department of Treasury put this program in place. It was 
scheduled to expire at the end of 2012. In 2013, after the program had 
technically expired,

[[Page S2953]]

an inspector general found that the number of participants who ended up 
redefaulting on their new modified mortgage was ``increasing at an 
alarming rate.''
  What is this word ``redefaulting''? Look, if you don't pay your 
mortgage payments, you are in default. If you are in default long 
enough, the bank or the mortgage company that is holding your mortgage 
says: We are going to foreclosure and take your house back because you 
are not making payments. This program was designed to help people avoid 
that catastrophe.
  Redefaulting is the process by which the person, having already 
agreed to--with the mortgage company and with the support of the 
Federal Government, the person agreed to a program to lower the 
payments so they could keep their house. They defaulted again, so the 
technical term is redefaulting, but it is two defaults. So if Joe Smith 
has problems and he gets with his lender, he gets a new program, but 
then down the line, he defaults again.
  According to the inspector general, this became something that needed 
to be addressed because we simply cannot continue to proceed with this 
program with the taxpayers' dollars if the participants aren't doing 
their share.
  Despite the poor performance, the administration unilaterally--and 
how many times have we seen this happen during the Obama 
administration?--bypassing Congress, they unilaterally extended the 
program beyond its December 2012 expiration date. Interestingly enough, 
even with this extension, the number of applicants steadily declined. 
People either couldn't meet the measures or they didn't need it. The 
economy was improving, and they didn't need to do this. According to 
the Treasury Department, the number of HAMP participants declined 
because there was a shrinking number of eligible mortgagees.
  Given that the outcomes of those receiving help were largely subpar 
and the number of applicants was declining, you would think we would 
come to the conclusion that the program needed to be terminated. It was 
already extended past the deadline, but on the basis of what was 
happening with the program, essentially we should terminate that.
  When HAMP was created, the goal was to help about 4 million 
homeowners. Unfortunately, as it turned out, the program ended with 
only 1.3 million homeowners making it through the trial phase and 
ultimately being accepted into the program. Of those people, about one-
third ultimately redefaulted, costing taxpayers an additional $1.5 
billion.
  We had a broken program. What was left in the fund with the Treasury 
was $7 billion. Some people call these slush funds. This is money that 
has been appropriated, put into a program--not expended in the program 
but sits there. How many times have we heard about government agencies 
with excess taxpayer money saying: Don't give it back.
  Now, of course, this is the Treasury. Sometimes we say: Give it back 
to the Treasury. This is the Treasury itself. Well, don't terminate 
this and give it back; we might want to use it for something else.
  That is a classic way of describing how Washington often works. Spend 
all the money that is appropriated to you, or they will reduce the 
money they give you next year. I previously sat on the Appropriations 
Committee, and this is not a one-off proposition. Every year, we have 
to scrub through these agencies' expenditures, and we find that there 
is excessive spending at the end of the fiscal year so that they don't 
get a reduced amount of funds sent to them for the next fiscal year.
  Think of the ways this money could be used if it was put back into 
the Treasury. No. 1, it could be used for essential Federal functions. 
Wouldn't NIH like to have $7 billion to be able to hopefully break 
through on a wonder drug that would address Alzheimer's or diabetes or 
something else? Wouldn't the Department of Defense want to have this 
money for the shortcomings they have had because of the drastic 
reduction in expenditures for our national defense and security? 
Wouldn't any number of Federal agencies that produce essential programs 
that have to be addressed financially want to use that money for the 
right purposes? Most important of all, wouldn't the taxpayer want to 
get that money back or not have it spent at all or use it? Wouldn't the 
Treasury want to use it to reduce our ever-deepening national defense? 
So there are a lot of uses for this money that is sloshing around in a 
trust fund--not a trust fund, but sloshing around in the fund held by 
the Treasury Department.
  This is a waste because it is sitting there. It is going to be spent 
on something that it was not intended to be spent on. For that reason, 
it becomes the waste of the week. As the waste of the week, we add $7 
billion to our ever-growing total of waste, fraud, and abuse, taking 
our total overall to $170 billion. This is not small change. We have 
people struggling in America to make ends meet. They live paycheck to 
paycheck. They want their hard-earned dollars that are taken from their 
paycheck used for the right purposes. If the money is not used for the 
right purposes, they don't want to send it; they want it back.
  We have an accountability to the American people, the people we 
represent, to do the best we can to provide the most efficient, 
effective use of their tax dollars. If we can't provide that--this is 
just, as I said, a drop in the bucket. I could be standing here every 
day with a waste of the day. I could be standing here every hour with a 
waste of the hour. We have a responsibility to be accountable to the 
people whose money is taken by the Federal Government and used. They 
don't mind using it for the right things. Maybe a veterans program 
needs that $7 billion to treat more veterans better than the way they 
are treated now.
  In any event, we add this, and we have $170-plus billion in 
documented waste, fraud, and abuse.
  I will be back next week with the next version, and we will continue 
to expose funding that is unnecessary and is putting a real burden on 
our hard-earned tax dollars being paid to the Federal Government.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                   Iran's Influence on Iraq and Syria

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to the 
pernicious and malign impact that the Iranian Government and its 
intrusion into Iraq and Syria are having on regional security, on the 
condition of people in those two countries, and on the stability and 
future of that whole region.
  Today, Iraq is riven by sectarian divides, confronted with the 
presence of barbaric ISIS terrorists in its north and west, and led by 
a tragically fragile government. Meanwhile, the oppression of the 
murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria has helped create a 
humanitarian crisis on the scale of nothing we have seen since the 
Second World War.
  Iran claims that it wants to be a legitimate, contributing member of 
the international community, but despite those claims, Iran has played 
and continues to play a major role in fomenting instability in Iraq and 
Syria and in exacerbating security, political, and military crises in 
both countries.
  Today, I wish to give just a brief overview of the tragedies of Iraq 
and Syria, explain Iran's destabilizing role in each country, and 
highlight a number of the steps I think the United States can take to 
counter Iran's dangerous influence.
  Let's begin with where we are today in Iraq. In recent months, Iraqi 
and coalition forces have reduced the territorial presence of ISIS in 
Iraq by roughly 40 percent. Since taking office in 2014, Prime Minister 
Haydar al-Abadi has taken concrete steps to reduce corruption, to share 
power with Kurdish and Sunni leaders, and to form a competent, 
technocratic government that can deliver real results for the Iraqi 
people and reduce the many grievances that have forced Iraqis into the 
arms of extremists. Yet dangerous divides continue to paralyze the 
Abadi government, hindering Iraq's ability to fight ISIS and to defend 
against the terrorist attacks that have killed hundreds of people, 200 
in the last week alone.
  As coalition forces retake land previously captured by ISIS, ISIS 
appears to be bringing its savage and barbaric tactics to the capital 
city of Baghdad in brutal attacks in recent days and in other attempts 
to stoke sectarianism and to distract the Abadi government

[[Page S2954]]

from its efforts to retake the major city of Mosul. Sectarian divisions 
among the Iraqi people and within the government itself make political 
reconciliation and a coherent national military campaign against ISIS 
even more difficult.
  Syria, meanwhile, faces a nearly unimaginable humanitarian crisis. 
Since March of 2011, more than 400,000 Syrians have been killed and 
more than 1 million injured because the Assad regime has engaged in a 
murderous campaign against its own people in order to cling to power. 
Some estimates put the number of dead as high as half a million 
Syrians. Nearly 5 million Syrians have been forced out of their own 
country, with 6.5 million displaced internally and 13.5 million in need 
of humanitarian assistance. Even more tragically, a huge number of 
those Syrians have been unable to receive international aid or relief 
because the Assad regime blocks access to international aid 
organizations.
  Rather than playing a constructive role in this tortured, difficult 
region, such as by contributing more meaningfully to the anti-ISIS 
fight or by moderating conflicting factions, Iran continues to prop up 
the Assad regime. In fact, without Iran's help, I believe Assad would 
have likely fallen or come to the table to negotiate peace by now. 
Instead, Iran continues to foment instability, sectarian violence, and 
support terrorism.
  In Iraq, Iran continues to fund Shia militias who seek to capitalize 
upon and exacerbate tensions between Iraq's Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish 
populations. Iranian-backed Shia militias have pushed ISIS out of some 
areas, but rather than allowing Sunni civilians to peaceably return and 
rebuild, they have engaged in killings and human rights violations 
against the very Sunni communities they have just liberated from ISIS.
  According to Human Rights Watch, in response to ISIS bombings in the 
Iraqi town of Muqdadiyah in January of 2016, Shia militias ``demolished 
Sunni homes, stores, and mosques'' and abducted and killed dozens of 
Sunni civilians. This is just one of many examples of atrocities 
committed by Iranian-backed Shia militias in recent months. These 
killings further raise tensions and drive more recruits to ISIS and 
other extremist groups.
  In Syria, Iran has joined Russia in providing the aid that has kept 
the Assad regime in power, despite hundreds of thousands willing to 
fight against Assad and despite the coordinated effort of many 
countries.
  Although Iran's Government denies the presence of its military forces 
in Syria, it is clear that in addition to financial support and 
weapons, Iran has sent thousands of its own troops to reinforce the 
murderous regime of Assad. One estimate puts the number of Iranian 
forces in Syria at 3,000, including 2,000 of the elite Quds Force, a 
select group of fighters from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, 
the hard-line group dedicated to preserving the reactionary Iranian 
Government. In total, more than 700 Iranians are believed to have been 
killed in Syria, directly contradicting Iran's claims that it is not 
involved in the conflict. In fact, Iraq recently doubled down on its 
support for Assad by sending soldiers from the regular Iranian army to 
join the IRGC troops on the ground in Syria. There are rumors that they 
are even mobilizing and deploying Afghans and others from the region to 
join militias in support of Assad.
  Although it remains clear that a lasting resolution to the Syrian 
conflict will be impossible until Assad leaves power, Ali Akbar 
Velayati, a senior adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei, said in 
a recent televised interview that ``the removal of Assad . . . is a 
redline for us.''
  As long as Iran continues to increase its support--its military 
support, its financial support--for Assad, it will bear direct 
responsibility for the carnage in Syria, rising extremism on all sides 
of the conflict, and the humanitarian exodus from Syria that is causing 
massive suffering and destabilizing countries on three continents.
  This behavior from Iran is a clear sign that the regime is not to be 
trusted, does not intend to comply with international norms, and 
deserves close scrutiny and constant pushback from the United States 
and our allies.
  Briefly--noting another colleague who stands to speak soon--there are 
a number of steps the United States and our allies have to take in 
response. At the very least, to prevent Iran from obtaining the 
material necessary to advance its nuclear program, we must work with 
our allies to tightly enforce all four corners of the Joint 
Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear agreement between Iran, the 
United States, and other world powers.
  We must continue to work with our allies and their navies to 
interdict Iran's ongoing illegal weapons shipments to support the 
Houthis and other of their terrorist proxies in the region, not just in 
Yemen, but in Gaza, Bahrain, and Lebanon. Since February, U.S. forces 
and allied navies have, on at least three occasions, interdicted in 
international waters shipments of thousands of AK-47s, anti-tank 
missiles, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, and other weapons destined 
from Iran to the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

  The United States must continue to maintain sanctions on Iran for its 
support for terrorism, its human rights violations, and its continued 
illegal ballistic missile tests. We must be willing to sanction both 
individuals and entities linked to the IRGC and Iran's continued and 
illegal ballistic missile program. In addition to punishing Iran for 
its dangerous and provocative behavior, these actions send a signal to 
Iran that the international national community will not tolerate its 
ongoing bad behavior.
  We have to use diplomatic channels to urge countries such as Russia 
to not sell more dangerous arms to the Iranian regime--allegedly 
defensive arms that will simply further destabilize the regime--and to 
press Russia to allow U.N. Security Council action in response to 
Iran's recent ballistic missile tests.
  Finally, we have to continue to make smart investments in training, 
technology, and innovation, on which our military depends. America's 
ability to push back on Iran critically depends on maintaining a 
credible conventional military deterrent.
  The United States must do everything we can to support our allies in 
the Middle East, in particular by strengthening our partnership with 
the State of Israel, by concluding a new 10-year memorandum of 
understanding that provides a reliable long-term and significantly 
enhanced pathway toward support. Senator Graham and I, along with 81 of 
our colleagues, recently wrote a letter to the President urging the 
administration to support a stronger MOU to ensure Israel has the 
resources it needs to defend itself in this chaotic region.
  In closing, in the years to come, I hope this body will be just as 
dedicated to enforcing the terms of the nuclear agreement with Iran and 
pushing back on Iran's continued dangerous behavior outside the 
parameters of the deal as we were in the months leading up to its 
consideration in this body. Iran continues to exercise a malign 
influence on Iraq, on Syria, and the region. It is our responsibility 
to use every tool we have to make it clear to Iran that we will contain 
its bad behavior and we will not tolerate its ongoing actions.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment with 
Senator Blumenthal that would extend the Veterans Choice Card Program 
for 3 years and restore funding that was moved out of the program last 
year.
  Our amendment is critically important. It extends the Veterans Choice 
Card Program so it does not expire prematurely next year. It restores 
funding removed from the program last year to pay for other VA 
programs, provides additional funding to stabilize the VA Choice Card 
Program for the next 3 years while Congress works on a long-term 
solution to reform veterans health care, and allows the Secretary of 
the VA to standardize and modernize the way it pays all the doctors, 
hospitals, and clinics participating in the many programs the VA offers 
to veterans to get the care they need in their communities.
  I was very proud 2 years ago that Congress acted quickly to pass 
major VA reform legislation following the scandal in care that resulted 
in the deaths of hundreds of veterans waiting endlessly for care. We 
now know that

[[Page S2955]]

what was originally uncovered in Phoenix, AZ, had been occurring 
throughout the country. Fortunately, we acted decisively, and in a 
bipartisan manner, by passing the Veterans Access, Choice, and 
Accountability Act in near-record time. That law provided extra 
emergency funding for the VA to hire doctors and nurses and to build 
more hospitals and clinics.
  Perhaps the most important and the most promising piece of the 
legislation was the $10 billion emergency fund for the Veterans Choice 
Card Program. This program allows any veteran who has to wait more than 
30 days for an appointment or lives more than 40 miles from a VA 
facility to visit a participating doctor in their community instead of 
continuing to wait for care with no options. After an extremely 
difficult start, the Veterans Choice Card Program is now authorizing 
more than 150,000 appointments for veterans care per month--over 6,000 
per workday.
  According to the VA, as of the end of March, nearly 1 million 
appointments for veterans had been scheduled under the Veterans Choice 
Card Program. Each of these appointments represents a veteran's 
appointment that would have otherwise been delayed potentially for 
months in the VA's scheduling system.
  An extra advantage of the Choice Card is it also helps veterans who 
don't use it. By enabling some veterans to receive care in their 
community, the VA is able to free up its appointment backlog and 
accommodate veteran appointments sooner.
  Over the last year, the number of participating doctors and medical 
professionals in the Veterans Choice Program in the western region has 
jumped from around 95,000 to nearly 160,000. The turnover rate is very 
low. More than 90 percent of all doctors are being paid within 30 days, 
and the great majority of doctors are choosing to stay in the Veterans 
Choice Card Program to treat our Nation's veterans.
  Unfortunately, under current law, the Veterans Choice Card Program is 
scheduled to expire in the middle of next year. The Veterans Choice 
Card Program is capped at $10 billion in emergency spending and 3 years 
of operation, whichever is reached first.
  I know Members on both sides of the aisle don't want to return to the 
status quo of never-ending wait times for appointments and poor care at 
the VA. Too many of our constituents have been harmed, too many lives 
devastated.
  I remember standing on the Senate floor in 2014 and urging passage of 
the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act. At that time, we 
acknowledged the Veterans Choice Program was a first step toward fully 
reforming the VA. That law created a blue-ribbon Commission on Care 
that is still meeting and owes Congress recommendations this summer on 
long-term reform, but we need time for hearings, investigations, 
oversight and analysis of the Commission's report to get long-term 
reform right.
  As the chairman and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee 
will attest, this is the dictionary definition of an emergency. While 
we cannot rush the reforms the VA health care system needs, we also 
cannot bring the Veterans Choice Program to a full stop. Too many 
veterans and VA hospitals depend on the Veterans Choice Program to 
provide care in a timely fashion.
  I have heard from multiple Administrators and VA officials who have 
told me and my staff that they do not know what they will do if the 
Veterans Choice Card Program ends. I urge my colleagues to adopt this 
amendment and commit to continuing the hard work of enacting long-term 
reform to the VA health care system.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment in order to call up amendment No. 4039 with the changes that 
are at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, John 
McCain is my good friend for whom I have ultimate respect. I was just 
informed of this amendment and was informed it would not enable--we 
have a real problem in Rochester, where they do not have enough VA 
services. They have to drive very far away to go to a big metropolitan 
area.
  I am going to object, hoping I can talk to my friend from Arizona to 
see if we can work this out. So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I don't know what the credentials are of 
the Senator from New York as far as veterans are concerned, but I know 
this. I know that what the Senator from New York is stopping is 160,000 
veterans--160,000 veterans--from participating in this program in the 
western part of the United States.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If my colleague will yield. What I am simply asking for 
is not to block it but to sit and talk with him to see what exactly his 
amendment does and the effect it will have on Rochester.
  I was just told of it. That is all I want to do. I don't know the 
details. I have great respect for my friend, but I have an obligation 
to the veterans in Rochester who have come to me about their problem, 
and so I want to talk to my colleague about it.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I hope very strongly that my colleague 
and friend the Senator from New York and Senator McCain will succeed in 
resolving this potential roadblock to amendment No. 4039, because I 
very fervently support it.
  The amendment would extend the temporary Veterans Choice Program for 
an additional 3 years and provide funding to do so. The extension of 
this program is vital, and the current authorization is coming to an 
end. At this point, we lack a path forward on any of the proposals to 
overhaul the VA's care in the community program.
  While the Veterans Choice Program has been far from perfect, 
requiring multiple legislative and administrative changes to make it 
function for veterans, extending it for an additional 3 years will 
allow us to address these necessary changes that Senators Tester and 
Burr have provided in a bipartisan way in the committee earlier this 
year. I remain committed to working with them and with Chairman Isakson 
to make further changes to the program as well as continuing to improve 
access to care within the VA, which is the preferred choice for many 
veterans.
  In addition to extending Choice, this amendment also would allow the 
VA to move closer to consolidating existing programs for care in the 
community, eliminating some of the bureaucratic hurdles to smooth 
contracting for the VA. I thank my colleague from Arizona Senator 
McCain for championing this cause because this amendment will ensure 
that all veterans currently using Project ARCH to access care through 
the VA will be grandfathered into the Veterans Choice Program. This is 
important for some veterans in rural areas to maintain continuity in 
care. It is of great interest to our colleagues from Maine and Kansas 
and other States where these veterans live, primarily, but to all of us 
who care about veterans health care.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as well as to support 
The Veterans First Act, another bipartisan bill I was pleased to work 
on with Chairman Isakson to achieve--that bill makes additional changes 
to veterans health care to improve opioid therapy, access to 
chiropractic care, as well as ensuring strong accountability within the 
Department.
  Again, I express my appreciation to my colleague and friend Senator 
McCain and say that I look forward to working with him closely on this 
amendment, which would be helpful, in my view, to the Veterans Choice 
Program. Without this extension, the Veterans Choice Program would 
expire next year before Congress enacts long-term reform for veterans 
health. The stability provided by this extension and funding will help 
ensure maximum participation by doctors, hospitals, and clinics in the 
community who wish to treat our veterans.

[[Page S2956]]

  This amendment is one I support, having worked with my colleague 
Senator McCain on it, and I am very hopeful we can move forward with 
the support of this body.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would tell Senator Schumer's staff that 
he may want to come back.
  What Senator Schumer is asking for is a 25-year lease on a clinic in 
Rochester, NY, according to his staff.
  I have been privy to examples of blocking the greater good because of 
a specific geographic area, but I have to say that I haven't seen 
anything quite like this one.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I will talk one 
more time with the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. 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. BLUNT. Mr. President, this is an important issue that is being 
discussed on the floor. I join Senator Blumenthal certainly in my 
commitment to do whatever we can to extend more choice to veterans.
  I believe there are less than a handful of issues in which the VA is, 
in all likelihood, the best provider. They should be better at post-
traumatic stress than anything else. The VA should be better at IED-
attack injuries. They should be better at prosthetics. There is no 
reason they should be the better place to have your heart valve 
replaced or your kidney cancer dealt with.
  More choice for veterans is better for veterans, and will make the VA 
a better provider than the VA is today. So I am certainly supportive of 
that discussion.
  Mr. President, Senator Warner and I today have filed an amendment to 
the transportation bill, which is the part of this debate that deals 
with transportation. The BRIDGE Act creates new ways to help us fund 
our Nation's infrastructure.
  Last year, Congress was finally able to come together to pass a 
bipartisan highway bill, the FAST Act. It took a while to get to the 
FAST Act. We had 37 short-term extensions of the highway bill from 2009 
on, but we finally have a 5-year highway bill that provides certainty 
for the next 5 years. This is a chance when, at every level of 
government, we can now put extra tools in the toolbox, and we can 
involve the private sector in ways that it has not been involved as a 
funding partner. There are many things the private sector can do in 
partnership with the public sector.
  Strengthening our overall infrastructure, especially our 
transportation network, is vital to boosting economic growth, to 
creating jobs, and to increasing competitiveness in Missouri, in 
Senator Warner's State of Virginia, and across the Nation. Current 
infrastructure fails to meet our current needs, including our drinking 
water, highways and ports, and energy transmission.
  In addition to all the things we see above ground, there are many 
things below ground that need to be dealt with. Part of the storm water 
system in the city of St. Louis was built while Abraham Lincoln was 
President. It is amazing how long wood will last if you keep it soaked 
in water for 152 years or so, but that is what a part of that system is 
all about. We are way short in infrastructure investments. Senator 
Warner and I, for three Congresses now, have been trying to find the 
best way to add more ability to do more of the things that need to be 
done. We have a transportation system that is interconnected, with an 
extensive network of highways, roads, and bridges, and of freight and 
passenger railroads, urban and rural rail transit systems, airports, 
waterways, and pipelines. All of those things make us more competitive 
than we would be otherwise, and more competitive means better jobs. It 
means that people living paycheck to paycheck have an opportunity to 
have paycheck to paycheck plus savings. They have an opportunity to 
have paycheck to paycheck plus retirement. They have an opportunity to 
see those things happen that need to happen in their lives and for 
their families.
  The transportation system links our country. It links urban and rural 
America. It serves as the backbone for interstate commerce, and it 
connects the United States to the rest of the world. Our economic 
competitiveness and our ability to export in the most competitive way 
is very dependent on our infrastructure.
  The American energy revolution is directly related to the ability to 
access unconventional oil and gas. We have more new American energy 
than we ever dreamed possible. We can access that energy, but we don't 
have a way to transport the energy that we need to use it most 
efficiently.
  The Greater Mississippi River Basin--the biggest contiguous piece of 
agricultural land in the world--is where the waterways of the country 
come together. These waterways allow us to be more competitive. They 
allow farmers to easily ship their products to domestic and foreign 
markets. A modern transportation system will be key to remaining 
competitive with other grain producers elsewhere in the world. Brazil 
is a great example of a country whose ability to grow agricultural 
products has far outgrown its infrastructure. The ability to compete--
the ability to get things to market, the ability to get things all over 
the world--is dramatically impacted by that.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers continues to give the United 
States poor marks on our infrastructure and says that we need billions 
of dollars in investment over the next several years to bring it up to 
adequate conditions.
  The BRIDGE Act is not a way for Federal taxpayers to become 
responsible for every local obligation but for States and communities, 
along with the Federal Government, to have new ways to do the things 
that need to be done. We can't continue to ignore the infrastructure 
needs of the country. We particularly can't continue to ignore the 
infrastructure needs of the country that we can't see.
  We just saw appropriate attention in Flint, MI, to a problem that 
didn't meet the eye because it is underground. The gas lines, the water 
lines, the storm sewer lines all need attention. The capital markets 
and private sector investors have growing interest in being a part of 
meeting that great infrastructure need. The BRIDGE Act will incentivize 
private sector investment by establishing an independent infrastructure 
financing authority to provide loans and loan guarantees to critical 
infrastructure projects, including transportation, water, and energy 
infrastructure. It is a proposal like the ones we need to help close 
the gap that needs to be closed.
  During this week--a week in which I am not sure how the planning 
worked here--we have the transportation bill on the floor during 
infrastructure week. I think we ought to give serious consideration not 
just to the infrastructure that we appropriate money for but the 
process and the tools we put in place so that the infrastructure needs 
of the country can be met.
  I am certainly pleased to get to work with Senator Warner on this 
project. We have had lots of input from people who understand the 
infrastructure needs of the country. I hope the Congress will look at 
this as one of the things that can be done to help meet those needs.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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 to speak as in 
morning business.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Warner from Virginia and 
Senator Schumer from New York. They are committed to the veterans in 
their States and in this country.
  I believe we have worked out an agreement to try to get the veterans 
the services they have earned and are not receiving at this time.


                Amendment No. 4039 to Amendment No. 3896

  Mr. President, the usual calm and quiet conversation has led to a 
conclusion that now I can ask unanimous

[[Page S2957]]

consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up 
amendment No. 4039.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4039 to amendment No. 3896.

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To extend and expand eligibility for the Veterans Choice 
    Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs and to establish 
consistent criteria and standards relating to the use of amounts under 
   the Medical Community Care account of the Department of Veterans 
                                Affairs)

       At the end of title II of division B, add the following:


           extension and expansion of veterans choice program

       Sec. 251.  (a) Extension.--The Veterans Access, Choice, and 
     Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-146; 38 U.S.C. 
     1701 note) is amended--
       (1) in section 101(p)(2), by striking ``3 years'' and 
     inserting ``6 years''; and
       (2) in section 802(d)(1), by striking ``$10,000,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$17,500,000,000''.
       (b) Expansion of Eligibility.--Subsection (b)(2) of section 
     101 of such Act is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``; or'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (D)(ii)(II)(dd), by striking the period 
     at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) has received health services under the pilot program 
     under section 403 of the Veterans' Mental Health and Other 
     Care Improvements Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-387; 38 U.S.C. 
     1703 note) and resides in a location described in section 
     (b)(2) of such section.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Subsection (g)(3) of such 
     section is amended by striking ``or (D)'' and inserting 
     ``(D), or (E)''.
       (2) Subsection (q)(2)(A) of such section is amended--
       (A) in clause (iii), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (B) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(v) eligible veterans described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(E).''.
       (d) Emergency Requirement.--The amounts made available 
     under the amendments made by subsection (a) are designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)(i)).
       (e) Quarterly Report.--Not less frequently than quarterly 
     until all amounts deposited in the Veterans Choice Fund under 
     section 802 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and 
     Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-146; 38 U.S.C. 
     1701 note) are exhausted, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Veterans' 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and 
     the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives an update on the expenditures made from such 
     Fund to carry out section 101 of such Act during the quarter 
     covered by the report.


   establishment of criteria for provision of services under medical 
                         community care account

       Sec. 252. In using amounts made available in this title for 
     the Medical Community Care account of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     establish consistent criteria and standards--
       (1) for purposes of determining eligibility of non-
     Department health care providers to provide health care under 
     the laws administered by the Secretary, including standards 
     relating to education, certification, licensure, training, 
     and employment history; and
       (2) for the reimbursement of such health care providers for 
     care or services provided under the laws administered by the 
     Secretary, which to the extent practicable shall--
       (A) use rates for reimbursement that are not more than the 
     rates paid by the United States to a provider of services (as 
     defined in section 1861(u) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395x(u))) under the Medicare program under title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) for 
     the same care or services;
       (B) incorporate the use of value-based reimbursement models 
     to promote the provision of high-quality care to improve 
     health outcomes and the experience of care for veterans; and
       (C) be consistent with prompt payment standards required of 
     Federal agencies under chapter 39 of title 31, United States 
     Code.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for 
working with us on this very important issue of making sure that 
veterans in a number of our States are able to get quality care in a 
location that is convenient to them, and I appreciate his partnering 
with me and Senator Schumer and others on this issue.
  Mr. President, I was going to rise earlier when the Senator from 
Missouri spoke to talk about the question around infrastructure 
investment. This is infrastructure investment week, and stakeholders 
from across the country are here to continue to raise the question that 
we need to do more to rebuild our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. We 
all know that recently we passed a 5-year highway bill, and I supported 
it. The FAST Act--as it was called--was a good bill, but it included 
only modest increases in funding. Whether we look at our region's Metro 
or the Memorial Bridge that many of us travel on a regular basis or 
airports or water systems all over the country, it is clear that we 
need to look at additional ways to invest in our Nation's 
infrastructure.
  Senator Blunt and I have filed an amendment to the current 
Transportation appropriations bill that we had before us that would 
establish a National Infrastructure Financing Authority. The BRIDGE Act 
that is cosponsored by six Republicans and six Democrats is bringing 
about a new tool to make innovative ways to finance projects. I believe 
my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, is a supporter of this type of 
approach.
  Our bipartisan BRIDGE Act creates a $10 billion government loan 
fund--a loan fund that will repay. It doesn't add a single dime to the 
Federal deficit. All experts say this modest initial investment 
ultimately could unlock up to $300 billion in private sector capital to 
invest in our Nation's infrastructure.
  Let's be honest. We all know why we are here. The funding mechanisms 
that our transportation system relies on are simply unsustainable. We 
spend more money each year just in maintaining our highway trust fund 
and highway system than our highway trust fund brings in, yet our needs 
continue to grow.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave the United 
States a D-plus grade on infrastructure. I don't know about my friend, 
the Senator from New York, but I am sure that he often preferred grades 
better than D-plus when he was a student.
  If we look over recent times, this is not a Democrat or Republican 
issue; this is a problem that has been gnawing at this country for some 
time. There has been a 50-percent decrease in infrastructure investment 
as a percentage of our GDP since the 1970s. The United States spends 
less than 2 percent of our gross domestic product on infrastructure.
  According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, underinvestment 
in our national infrastructure will cost each American family $3,400 a 
year. That is wasted time. That is a city in gridlock. That is not 
being able to get to work and not being able to be with one's family. 
The most significant gap, of course, is not only in water but, 
obviously, in transportation, where it has been estimated that an 
additional $1 trillion is needed across the network--including roads, 
bridges, rail--during the next decade. Again, I point to many of the 
Members in this body and so many of the folks who work for us simply 
traveling across the Memorial Bridge, one of our Nation's icons, which 
is basically in a crumbling state.
  Meanwhile, if we look at nations around the world in terms of what 
they are doing--remember the United States is under 2 percent of GDP 
investment and infrastructure--Europe and India spend about 5 percent 
of their GDP on an annual basis in infrastructure. China spends nearly 
9 percent. Australia already has a national infrastructure financing 
authority. China also has a national infrastructure funding authority 
that is building out national high-speed rail networks.
  Think about it. For most of the 20th century, it was American 
infrastructure that led to America's economic dominance in the 20th 
century. Today, whether that is flying into our airports, looking at 
our rail system, or looking at our crumbling roads and systems, in many 
ways, America's infrastructure is a disgrace and actually retards 
economic growth.
  As we tighten our belts at the State level--and I say that as a 
former Governor--and at the Federal level, we

[[Page S2958]]

need to do everything we can to invest in infrastructure as a means of 
not only providing jobs but helping the flow of goods and people and 
services to stay competitive in the global economy.
  Despite the recent passage of the so-called FAST Act, only 6 percent 
of infrastructure funding in the United States is from the private 
sector. With over $2.2 trillion sitting on private ledgers looking for 
a place to invest, that meager 6-percent figure, in terms of private 
sector investment in infrastructure, could be dramatically increased.
  The BRIDGE Act, the bill I am working on with Senator Blunt, 
establishes such an authority. It complements existing Federal programs 
scattered across several ages. It allows us to consolidate the 
expertise it takes to go against Wall Street in putting together 
infrastructure financing programs.
  This new authority could provide an important new tool for State and 
local governments to partner with the private sector to invest in our 
Nation's infrastructure.
  Let me be clear. Infrastructure financing alone isn't a silver 
bullet. If you finance, you have to pay those dollars back. But when we 
are looking at interest rates at record lows, failure to take advantage 
of accessing these private markets with interest rates at these low 
levels is the equivalent of political malfeasance. In terms of the 
BRIDGE Act, this program would complement existing programs such as 
TIFIA and WIFIA, which already provide good work.
  My hope is that joining with Senator Blunt and 12 of our colleagues--
equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans--if not on this bill, we 
will act on the BRIDGE Act and provide this critically important needed 
infrastructure tool to our tool kit to make sure that our roads, 
bridges, airports, water and sewer systems are functioning and allow 
America to compete in the 21st century economy.
  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. SCHUMER. 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be very brief. A number of us have 
clinics that serve our veterans population. I have one in Rochester. 
The Senator from Virginia has one in Hampton Roads, and there are 
others on both sides of the aisle where there is a potential problem 
because of the way CBO scored it. We have agreed that, rather than 
piggyback on the McCain amendment, we would figure out a bipartisan way 
to solve this problem in the NDAA bill. I very much appreciate the 
commitment of my friend from Arizona to help us solve that problem.
  I know we will have the complete cooperation of our ranking member, 
Senator Reed, and I look forward to trying to solve the problem for the 
benefit of veterans throughout the country who don't get the services 
they need, and we can move forward at least in 17 areas where they 
will.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the VA 
Committee, I want to join my colleague from New York, and having worked 
with Senator McCain on this amendment, I am very pleased that the 
McCain-Blumenthal amendment has been made pending and that we have an 
agreement to authorize those VA leases that were requested over the 
last fiscal year when we turned to the National Defense Authorization 
Act.
  I want to stress that these leases have been requested over the last 
several fiscal years, and this agreement embodies a situation that has 
to be addressed. I thank my colleague from Arizona for working with me 
on the amendment and now being so understanding on these requests, at 
least in committing to make sure that we address this very strongly 
felt need.
  I also want to thank my colleague from Virginia for his work on this 
issue and for his work on the infrastructure spending measure that he 
has offered and that I have supported for years. I hope that we can get 
it done because the infrastructure of our Nation, as well as that of my 
State, requires that we commit the money as an investment. It is not 
funding. It is not spending. It is an investment in our future. We 
can't have a 21st century economy unless we have a 21st century 
infrastructure--roads, bridges, rail, airports. I am pleased and proud 
to join him in this effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 3897

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, in a piece of legislation of this size, this 
scope, and this magnitude, there is always much to praise. 
Unfortunately, from time to time there is much to criticize.
  Specifically, I rise today to try to correct one major mistake in 
this bill. As currently written, it permits the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development to proceed to the implementation of its radical 
new regulation, the insultingly misnamed affirmatively furthering fair 
housing rule, or AFFH.
  Proponents of AFFH, including President Obama, claim that AFFH 
fulfills the original purpose and promise of the Fair Housing Act of 
1968. The truth is, HUD's new housing rule isn't the fulfillment but a 
betrayal of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The purpose of the Fair 
Housing Act was to protect the God-given right of individuals and 
families, regardless of their skin color or their ethnicity, to buy and 
rent homes where they please. By contrast, the explicit purpose of 
HUD's new rule is to empower Federal bureaucrats to dictate where a 
community's low-income residents will live. This is not what progress 
looks like.
  AFFH not only grants unprecedented new powers to HUD--powers that 
were not contemplated and have no legitimate basis in the Fair Housing 
Act of 1968--but it will ultimately hurt the very people it purports to 
help--public housing residents, especially African-American public 
housing residents who too often find themselves trapped in 
dysfunctional, broken neighborhoods.
  To make matters worse, this new rule will end America's unique and 
uniquely successful commitment to localism and diversity and make 
neighborhood-level construction decisions subject to the whims of 
future Presidents. If this past year has not yet done enough to give 
you pause about handing over such power to the executive branch, then 
you are not paying close enough attention.
  I am offering an amendment today, No. 3897, that would prohibit HUD 
from using Federal taxpayer money to carry out the affirmatively 
furthering fair housing rule. The House of Representatives has already 
passed this amendment twice and will likely do so again in the near 
future. We should follow the lead of the House of Representatives in 
this regard.
  Here is how the rule works. AFFH requires cities and towns across the 
country to audit their own local housing policies under close 
supervision by HUD regulators who may have never lived anywhere near 
the city, town, or municipality in question. If any aspect of a 
community's housing and demographic patterns fails to meet HUD 
bureaucrats' expansive definition of ``fair housing,'' the local 
government must submit a plan to reorganize the community's housing 
practices according to the preferences and priorities set not by the 
community in question but by the bureaucrats--the bureaucrats in 
Washington, possibly hundreds or even thousands of miles away.
  Critics of AFFH often say and I have said myself that this rule turns 
HUD into a sort of national zoning board with the power to unilaterally 
rewrite local zoning laws and land use regulations in every city and 
town in America. But that is not quite how the rule works, and that is 
why Senator Collins' amendment would not do anything to prevent the 
implementation of the very things we worry about with AFFH. In the 10 
months since the rule was finalized, it has become clear that the 
mechanics of AFFH are much more underhanded and subversive than critics 
have often claimed. Under the new rule, HUD doesn't replace local 
housing authorities, it conscripts them into its service. This gets to 
the very heart of the difference between my amendment and the amendment 
offered by my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, 
Ms. Collins.

[[Page S2959]]

  The danger of AFFH is not that HUD will direct local governments and 
public housing authorities to make specific changes to their zoning 
policies; it will just threaten them by tying obedience to Federal 
community development block grants. Obedience to the commands of 
Federal regulators will be a conditional precedent of sorts to the 
ongoing receipt of Federal funds under the CDBG Program.
  CDBG is a Federal grant program controlled by HUD, one that allocates 
some $3 billion per year to local governments to help them address a 
variety of community development needs, including providing adequate 
and affordable public housing for their community. Traditionally, local 
officials have been more or less free to use their CDBG funds according 
to their own community's unique needs and specific priorities, but 
under AFFH, HUD officials will withhold local government CDBG funds 
unless that local government adopts HUD's preferred housing policies.
  Predictably, proponents of the rule claim this will be a 
collaborative process, with local government officials in the driver's 
seat while the bureaucrats at HUD merely provide support and guidance, 
but the 10-month track record of AFFH suggests that precisely the 
opposite will be true. In fact, I have already heard from the housing 
authority of Salt Lake County, predicting that the cost of complying 
with AFFH will stretch their already thin resources, add hundreds of 
hours of bureaucratic paperwork to their workloads, and eliminate their 
autonomy to determine the best ways to provide adequate, low-cost 
housing to their community.
  The problem with HUD's new rule has nothing to do with the stated 
intentions behind it. In a press release announcing the finalization of 
AFFH, HUD Secretary Julian Castro said: ``Unfortunately, too many 
Americans find their dreams limited by where they come from, and a ZIP 
code should never determine a child's future.'' I completely agree. 
There is no disputing that the neighborhood in which a child grows up 
might affect his educational, social, and professional outcomes in the 
future. Nor is there any disagreement that far too many children today 
are raised in dysfunctional neighborhoods because it is the only place 
their parents can find affordable housing. The lack of affordable 
housing is not a new problem in America--just ask anyone who has ever 
had to pay rent in one of the major metropolitan areas controlled by 
the Democratic Party--but neither is the solution. The best way to make 
housing more affordable is to allow more housing to be built, and the 
best way to help low-income citizens find fair and affordable housing 
is to empower them to live in a neighborhood that meets their needs.
  The history of Chicago is instructive here. In the 2000s, the Chicago 
city government demolished many of its public housing facilities 
without any kind of a plan to replace them. Those with the resources 
and wherewithal to choose where to live moved to places where housing 
was cheap and economic opportunity was plentiful, but the less 
fortunate were relocated to more remote, less prosperous towns, towns 
like Dubuque, IA, at the behest of--who else?--the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development.
  In 2008 the city of Dubuque was struggling to meet the needs of its 
own public housing residents. Yet in stepped the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development declaring that the city's housing 
policies would fail to meet the agency's fair housing standards and 
that therefore the city would be ineligible to receive Federal funding 
from HUD unless the local government actively recruited Section 8 
voucher holders from Chicago. Unwilling to lose access to Federal 
funding on which the city had come to rely, the small Iowa town 
acquiesced to HUD's demands--aggressive and unacceptable as they were. 
This imposed an enormous administrative burden on the city's resource-
strapped housing agencies, but HUD's real victims were Chicago's public 
housing residents who were forcibly displaced to an unknown town 200 
miles from the city they used to call home. Unless we pass this 
amendment to defund the disastrously misguided AFFH rule, this is what 
the future of public housing in America will look like.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and 
reaffirming that low-income families are not statistics to be managed 
by distant bureaucrats; they are human beings--our neighbors in need 
who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the 
presentation made by my colleague from Utah, Senator Lee, and I wish to 
respond to the concerns he raised. Indeed, if the picture he drew were 
accurate, I might be a supporter rather than an opponent of his 
amendment.
  First, let me be clear that there is nothing in our bill that 
authorizes this rule. This rule was issued pursuant to HUD's normal 
regulatory authority in response to a report, which I will discuss in a 
moment, that was issued by the GAO, the Government Accountability 
Office.
  The amendment offered by Senator Lee would prohibit funding for HUD's 
rule that is known as the affirmatively furthering fair housing rule. 
It was finalized in July of last year, but it is based on a requirement 
from the landmark civil rights-era law, the 1968 Fair Housing Act. That 
law mandates that HUD ensure that recipients of HUD funding not only 
prevent discrimination but also act to further the goals of fair 
housing that are outlined in this landmark law. In fact, repeatedly 
over the years, Congress has reinforced this goal. As recently as 1998, 
the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act required HUD program 
recipients to affirmatively further fair housing.
  When we talk about fair housing, it is important that we remember we 
are talking about not only prohibiting discrimination based on race but 
also discrimination based on disabilities, ethnic origin, and even 
against families with children. In fact, in fiscal year 2015, 56 
percent of all reported complaints of housing discrimination were 
initiated by people with disabilities, and that is why so many 
organizations that are representing our disabled citizens are so 
strongly opposed and concerned about Senator Lee's amendment.
  For example, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, an organization that 
was founded by servicemembers who returned home after World War II with 
spinal cord injury, believes that HUD's rule will help curb 
discrimination against people with disabilities, including our veterans 
and our seniors. According to the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the 
alarming trend of more than 50 percent of complaints about housing 
discrimination being initiated by individuals with disabilities will 
affect Americans returning from conflicts abroad, as well as a growing 
percentage of our seniors who are suffering from or living with 
disabilities. The organization also believes that HUD's rule will help 
local governments identify strategies and solutions to expand 
accessible and supportive housing choices for our seniors and our 
veterans.
  I wish everyone had heard Senator Isakson's eloquent speech on the 
floor this afternoon when he talked about a wonderful, inclusive mixed-
income housing development in Atlanta that has included a charter 
school and a Y. The children's test scores have gone up and crime has 
decreased because of the model that was adopted for this particular 
development.
  Earlier I mentioned that it is important to know that HUD issued this 
new rule in response to a specific 2010 GAO report.
  Members in this Chamber are always looking to GAO for information, 
advice, and recommendations on how we can improve the effectiveness and 
the efficiency of Federal programs to make sure they are fulfilling the 
mandates we have written and to make sure they are serving the people 
they are intended to serve in the manner Congress intended.
  GAO took a look at the fair housing requirements and particularly the 
requirement in the Fair Housing Act that recipients of HUD's grants 
were to affirmatively advance fair housing. It was very critical of the 
haphazard nature of HUD's oversight and the fact that communities 
didn't know whether they were in compliance. There was

[[Page S2960]]

also a lack of tools, of community involvement, and of assessments to 
make sure those goals were being met.

  Once HUD issued its final rule, the GAO was satisfied and closed out 
its recommendations. As the Presiding Officer is well aware, there are 
times when Federal agencies never implement GAO's recommendations, or 
take years to do so, and we in the Senate have to hammer the agencies 
over and over again on why they didn't implement GAO's recommendations. 
Well, in this case, HUD did so.
  So not only was the origin of the rule the GAO report but also 
communities were seeking better tools and more guidance. Senator Kaine, 
a former mayor of Richmond and a former Governor of the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, was eloquent in describing the fact that he welcomed these 
rules because it was so hard when he was the mayor to know exactly how 
to accomplish the goal of affirmatively advancing fair housing. What 
exactly did that mean to HUD?
  Indeed, there is an excellent article that appeared in The Hill today 
by the director of the PolicyLink Center for Infrastructure Equity and 
the codirector of the Promise Neighborhoods Institute that talked about 
the history of this rule. In particular--and I want to quote--the 
authors say:

       The opposition ignores the fact that the rule was developed 
     in response to city- and state-level requests for better 
     tools and improved guidance; that it involved significant 
     input from local-level innovators and experimenters; and that 
     it was piloted in 74 regions nationwide over five years in 
     the Sustainable Communities Initiative through a tool called 
     the fair housing and equity assessment.

  It lists cities across the country, including Salt Lake City, 
ironically; Denver, St. Paul, and Dallas, which have all invested in 
affordable housing, in transit-oriented developments to ensure that 
residents would have access to affordable transit and housing choices, 
just as examples.
  So the idea that this rule came out of thin air is just not accurate. 
It is based on a law that has been on the books for decades--a law that 
is a landmark civil rights-era law--the 1968 Fair Housing Act. It is 
based on a GAO report in 2010 which said HUD wasn't doing a good job. 
It is based on requests from States and communities for more tools and 
more guidance from HUD.
  So this rule was not developed by our committee. It was not 
authorized by our committee. It comes from the 1968 law which, as I 
said, has been reaffirmed in at least three subsequent laws that this 
body has passed. It comes from a GAO report, and it involved a lot of 
input.
  Now, according to Senator Lee, and we heard him speak about it today, 
he fears HUD is going to be turned into--I believe he called it a 
national zoning authority for every neighborhood, and Federal 
bureaucrats thousands of miles away in Washington will be in charge of 
our local communities.
  First, let me say I do not believe that to be the case, and I believe 
it is a misreading of the guidance. However, I would never want that 
either. That is why, along with my colleagues Senator Jack Reed and 
Senator Thad Cochran, we have introduced an amendment to ensure that 
HUD cannot do that, to prohibit HUD from being involved in local zoning 
decisions so the recipients of Federal dollars will continue to make 
their own local decisions to address the Federal requirements.
  Because there has been so much misrepresentation about our amendment, 
let me read to my colleagues exactly what it says. It couldn't be more 
clear: None--none--of the funds made available by this act may be used 
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to ``direct a 
grantee to undertake specific change to existing zoning laws as part of 
carrying out'' the final rule entitled ``affirmatively furthering fair 
housing.''
  I don't know how the amendment could be any clearer than that. We 
have made sure the worst fear, the worst scenario the sponsor of this 
amendment has conjured up, cannot occur if our amendment passes.
  On the other hand, I want to point out what Senator Lee's amendment 
would do. It would prevent HUD from providing the necessary technical 
assistance, guidance, and help that localities have continuously asked 
HUD to provide to ensure that they don't get sued, that they are not 
susceptible to costly and unnecessary fair housing litigation brought 
by individuals or outside groups. They want HUD's help, but under the 
Lee amendment no funding could be used to give them that kind of help. 
I don't see how that makes sense. That is how broadly written his 
amendment is.
  I want to correct something else that was said. Senator Lee talked 
about the enormous burden this rule will impose on the recipients of 
HUD funds. To be clear, the rule requires the recipients to complete 
the fair housing analysis only once every 5 years--once every 5 years--
similar to all other HUD requirements in their consolidated plans. So 
that argument, in my judgment, also falls.
  Let me say that we are all aware of concerns, despite the tremendous 
progress that has been made in this country, about the lack of progress 
in providing housing opportunities to all Americans. That is why in our 
bill we try to deal with homeless veterans--we do deal with homeless 
veterans. We put in $57 million for additional vouchers for homeless 
veterans, even though the administration wanted to eliminate that 
important program. We are continuing to work on that.
  Finally, let me respond to a specific case that Senator Lee mentioned 
involving Chicago and Dubuque. To begin with, it is simply a mistake in 
a statement to say that Chicago residents were ``forced to relocate to 
Dubuque.'' That is just not accurate. It is true that this is a Federal 
voucher program and, as Republicans, we usually like vouchers because 
we want Americans to have choices about where they live. So the section 
8 program, for example, which is a voucher-based program, doesn't say 
that you can only use it in Portland, ME, or Providence, RI, or Salt 
Lake City, UT, or Chicago, IL. It is a program that allows people to 
live where they want to live, but it is a program with a long waiting 
list in most cities. Nothing--also, despite what has been written--
nothing in the rule requires that Dubuque be considered part of 
Chicago. That is not a statement that the sponsor of the amendment made 
today, but it is a statement that has been circulated by some outside 
groups and it is simply ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd.
  The concerns raised with Dubuque are related to a settlement that the 
city reached with HUD in 2013, which was well before this rule was 
finalized. The agreement was the result of a compliance review under 
the Civil Rights Act--title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--which 
prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in 
programs receiving assistance. Sadly, the city of Dubuque was found to 
not be in compliance with the Civil Rights Act because the city was 
purging and closing wait lists for the section 8 voucher program and 
creating residency requirements that are not allowed. Indeed, it is sad 
to say, in the letter of finding, HUD wrote: ``The City of Dubuque knew 
its actions would limit or deny the participation of African Americans 
in its Section 8 program.'' I would hope we could all agree--I am sure 
we could all agree--that is just wrong.
  So the Dubuque case, rather than being an example of the bizarre 
consequences of this rule, as has been portrayed, is in fact yet 
another reminder that even in this day and age there continue to be 
some clear violations of the Fair Housing Act.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in voting against Senator Lee's 
amendment. I am sure he is well-intentioned, but the effects of this 
amendment would be very harmful to the goals we all share of fair 
housing in America.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to support my colleague, the chairman 
of the subcommittee, Senator Collins of Maine, in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Utah. This amendment would 
prohibit HUD from implementing or enforcing its Affirmatively 
Furthering Fair Housing regulations.
  I think it is important to remind everyone of the reasoning for and 
history behind these regulations. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was 
enacted because banks, landlords, and developers were excluding people 
from buying or renting in certain neighborhoods based on race. Under 
the Fair Housing Act, communities are required to take steps to further 
fair housing in order to prevent discrimination and segregation.

[[Page S2961]]

  I think we have come a long way since 1968, and I don't think anyone 
is arguing the premise, purpose, or beneficial aspects of the Fair 
Housing Act. The law is based on trying to ensure that Americans have 
fair access to housing, no matter their race, physical ability, family 
status, or religion.
  People should be able to live according to their own choice and 
resources. I hope that we can all agree that people should not be 
turned away from a home or neighborhood because of their religion, 
family status, disability, or race. Frankly, that was the aspiration in 
1968 and still, too often, remains an aspiration. HUD is trying to give 
local communities the tools and resources needed to live up to the 
legislative mandate that we imposed and continue to impose.
  As the chairman said so well, these regulations don't emanate from 
some person in a room thinking a great thought. In 2010, the Government 
Accountability Office did an audit to assess compliance with the Fair 
Housing Act. That is the GAO's job. That office checks whether Federal 
agencies are doing what we--the Congress--tell them to do. GAO found 
that many HUD grantees did not analyze impediments to fair housing--
that we were giving money to organizations throughout this country and 
that they were not even making attempts to analyze the impediments that 
existed to fair housing.
  GAO also found that those organizations that did analyze impediments 
to fair housing often failed to establish any goals or objectives to 
address them. The organizations just found them and did not act. That 
is not what the Fair Housing Act requires.
  GAO also found that HUD was unable to determine if a community was 
actually meeting its obligations under the Fair Housing Act. HUD simply 
did not know whether the requirements of the Fair Housing Act were 
being implemented at the local level.
  HUD is often criticized for not effectively responding to GAO, but 
here they responded. HUD developed regulations that insist that 
grantees conduct a fair housing analysis and submit that assessment to 
HUD for review.
  As a result of this proposed regulation, HUD went through a 2-year 
rulemaking process. This was not some whimsical spur-of-the-moment 
decision or press release to say: Let's do this.
  The process was 2 years long, fully open to public hearing, comment 
and review, and susceptible to challenge in court if it did not measure 
up to the Administrative Procedure Act or the Fair Housing Act. This 
process has resulted in regulations that will actually carry out the 
intent of the Congress.
  To reinforce and clarify what the chairman has said, these 
regulations do not change existing law and do not in any way dictate 
local zoning decisions. In fact, these regulations simplify the 
responsibility of grantees to comply with the Fair Housing Act because 
they give grantees the data and tools to help communities comply with 
the law.
  These regulations do not require grantees to gather new data because 
HUD provides the data to them. To help communities comply with the Fair 
Housing Act, HUD is working closely with grantees, providing technical 
assistance, and holding training sessions across the country. This is a 
collaborative effort. It is an effort that does not dictate a national 
outcome. HUD is helping localities, working with their particular 
situation, to develop a response to the legislative requirements that 
we have been emphatically insisting upon since 1968.
  We are also working, as we should, to ensure that this process is 
continually evaluated by HUD, and streamlined and simplified--
particularly, when it comes to dealing with small communities that 
cannot bear the administrative overhead that some larger cities might 
be able to bear. HUD is providing assistance to ensure that these 
grantees are complying with the Fair Housing Act.
  We all understand--and this principle applies not just to HUD 
programs, but every program--that grantees have an obligation to use 
Federal resources responsibly and consistently with legal requirements. 
The Fair Housing Act requires that access to housing not be denied 
because of race, disability, or other protected category. This is what 
we should expect for all recipients of Federal support--that they 
follow the law.
  This improved process, in my view, protects communities and ensures 
that they still have a choice of how they meet their obligations under 
the Fair Housing Act. There is nothing in these regulations that 
undermines the ability of a local community to determine these 
solutions, but these communities must recognize their responsibilities. 
Their solutions are ones that will be organic to the community--what 
works for them, given the objective of ensuring that there are no 
artificial impediments to access housing.
  It is also important to note that, if HUD is prevented from 
implementing these regulations, there is no change to the obligations 
that these communities have under the Fair Housing Act. This law has 
been in place for 48 years. Those requirements will still remain in 
place and will not only be opportunities, but also obligations to take 
action in certain cases.
  Senator Kaine was on the floor this morning stating that, as a young 
lawyer in Richmond, VA, he became an advocate for fair housing because 
people came to him with complaints, and he took those complaints to 
court. What we are trying to do, interestingly enough, is to avoid all 
of that by having a process where the impediments have been removed by 
a local solution.
  The amendment that Senator Lee proposes would prevent HUD from 
satisfying these GAO recommendations to provide guidance, clarity, and 
support for these grantees. This amendment makes grantees liable for 
compliance without the tools and data needed to comply. Ironically, it 
probably puts grantees in a worse position.
  So I join the chairman and urge all of my colleagues to reject this 
amendment.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for 
the 2017 Transportation and Housing and Urban Development 
appropriations bill. Senator Collins and Senator Reed deserve 
tremendous credit for their leadership on this bipartisan bill.
  Congress has the basic responsibility to determine how we spend hard-
earned taxpayer dollars. It is a responsibility that my colleagues and 
I on the Appropriations Committee take very seriously. Debating and 
passing these annual bills provides accountability. It is an important 
part of setting priorities, making choices, and reducing waste.
  Last week, the Senate passed an energy and water appropriations bill 
crafted by Senators Alexander and Feinstein. While I don't serve on 
their subcommittee, I was very proud to support their bill, and I 
congratulate them on moving forward and making the process work.
  The 2017 Transportation and HUD appropriations bill is the latest 
example of the Senate's return to regular order. This process enables 
all Senators to play an active role in the legislative process and to 
address concerns that are important to their States. This bill is 
crafted with bipartisan support, and it helps to drive the growth of 
our Nation. Senators Collins and Reed have put in a lot of work to 
prepare this bill for consideration, as have both of their staffs. The 
discretionary spending in this bill is within the budget caps, and it 
reflects a responsible approach. The bill strengthens our country's 
infrastructure and transportation system.
  This week is recognized as Infrastructure Week, and I have heard from 
several Arkansans that this must remain a priority. Our citizens have 
opportunities, and our Nation is a powerful economic force, thanks in 
part to our roads and bridges, airports, waterways, and related 
structures. We need to maintain our roads because they provide a 
reliable way to move goods and services around the country and, with 
the rest of our infrastructure, to countries around the world. These 
investments lead to job creation and greatly benefit our economy.
  The bill provides critical funding to modernize air traffic control. 
While our current system is second to none in safety, the FAA must 
accelerate its progress toward operating a more efficient system. A 
modern air traffic control system will be more convenient for 
travelers, it will save money, and it will clean the environment by 
reducing the amount of fuel used by aircraft.

[[Page S2962]]

The bill provides critical funding to improve air traffic certification 
services. These improvements can help aircraft manufacturers, including 
those in Arkansas, that are fighting to win in a competitive global 
market.
  The bill provides critical highway funding that is consistent with 
the long-term highway bill we passed last year under the leadership of 
Senators Inhofe and Boxer. I am pleased that this bill includes a 
provision I offered to empower the State to designate a portion of 
Highway 67 in Arkansas, from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge, as 
``Future I-57.'' Arkansas has invested hundreds of millions of dollars 
to build an interstate-quality road, and we are now calling it what it 
is. The presence of an official interstate highway is one of the 
initial key factors that developers consider when determining where to 
make major investments such as building new factories.
  Community leaders along this stretch of road shared their excitement 
about the future designation. Buck Layne, executive director for the 
Searcy Regional Chamber of Commerce, says this will improve the 
transportation network and expand economic development opportunities.
  Jon Chadwell, executive director for the Newport Economic Development 
Commission, says this will open up opportunities to Arkansas business 
and give companies an even greater access to national and global 
markets.
  Walnut Ridge mayor Charles Snapp says this designation will open a 
lot of doors, and Walnut Ridge aldermen voted this week to support this 
designation.
  Resolutions of support for the I-57 designation have been passed by 
the Newport Economic Development Commission, as well as the chambers of 
commerce in Bald Knob, Cabot, Jacksonville, Lawrence County, Newport, 
Sherwood, and Searcy. Other expressions of support will be received in 
communities throughout the central Arkansas and northeast Arkansas 
regions.
  This designation is an important step to make Arkansas a better 
connected State that is open for business. This bill also sets high 
priorities and provides critical funding through programs like 
community development block grants. These programs work because they 
allow decisions to be made at the local community level.
  I appreciate the efforts to make sure rural States like Arkansas are 
not left behind by housing and development programs.
  I compliment the chair and ranking member on working to address 
Member priorities under these programs.
  We are also jointly considering the Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs bill. Senators Kirk and Tester have worked very hard 
to put together a good package for the Senate to debate. Their bill 
funds the VA at record levels and invests in priorities such as 
veterans health care, benefit claims processing, the Board of Veterans' 
Appeals, and the VA inspector general, as well as prosthetic research. 
It includes funding for projects to ensure military readiness and 
improve the quality of life for our military families.
  I grew up in a military family, and I have been honored to serve on 
the Veterans' Affairs Committee since my first day in the House of 
Representatives. The needs of veterans are very important to me, and I 
am proud to support the work that Senator Kirk and Senator Tester have 
done to provide funding for 2017. These are funding and policy 
priorities for both sides of the aisle.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation because it 
creates an environment that helps grow our economy, reins in spending, 
and takes care of our veterans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the work of 
the chairman and ranking member on the Transportation, Housing and 
Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee for their good work on 
this very important appropriations bill.
  I recognize that, while we haven't had a multiple series of votes on 
amendments on this bill, I know the floor managers have been working 
aggressively to process amendments and make this appropriations bill--
not only the T-HUD bill but also the MILCON bill--a good appropriations 
measure. So I thank my colleagues for their respective efforts, and I 
am pleased to see us processing appropriations bills here on the Senate 
floor.


                          Affordable Care Act

  Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this evening to talk 
about the Affordable Care Act and some of the impacts that we are 
seeing in my State of Alaska. We referred to this as the ACA, the 
Affordable Care Act, but most of the folks, when I talk to them back 
home, call it the ``un-Affordable Care Act'' because we are not seeing 
how it is making health care insurance--any kind of care--more 
affordable.
  Last year, nationally, we saw a dozen co-ops fail that were created 
by the ACA, which literally threw people into turmoil, leaving in 
question if they had any insurance at all.
  UnitedHealth, one of the largest providers in the country, has been 
forced off the exchanges in numerous States.
  Just last week we had the news back home that Moda Health was going 
to be withdrawing from the Alaska market in 2017. What that means is 
that we will be a State with only one option in the individual market 
next year. So what that means for the some 14,000 Alaskans who are 
currently on a Moda plan is that they are going to be forced to change 
insurers next year. But I guess it is an easy choice when you only have 
a choice of one on the individual market there.
  Then, of course, just last week we saw signs that the 
administration's payments of the cost-share reduction were 
unconstitutional. So we can only assume that is going to further 
exacerbate problems.
  This week in the Wall Street Journal, there was an article about the 
ever-shrinking market for rural areas. The article mentioned a small 
business owner in Kodiak, AK, a bookkeeper, who is worrying about what 
the price of premiums will be when you are left with only one option. 
She made this statement:

       It's going to be a monopoly, basically; ``here's the price, 
     take it or leave it.''

  That is what happens when you have just one.
  As the market continues to fail in other States, we are seeing other 
States lose their options as well. Alabama and Wyoming are also now 
left with only one choice. More States may be facing this in the near 
future.
  The Wall Street Journal article goes on to point out that the 
``patchwork of coverage reflects continued instability in the 
individual market as companies shift their geographic footprints to 
avoid areas that have turned out to generate steep losses and focus on 
places that they believe that they can get their ACA business into the 
black.''
  So what that means for States like Alaska that are very rural and 
that have some of the highest health care costs in the Nation: We are 
just not attractive enough to foster competition. At the end of the 
day, who suffers? It is the Alaskans. It is those who are seeking the 
care.
  The administration says the market just needs to ``stabilize and 
evolve,'' but what about this bookkeeper in Kodiak? What about the 
educators out there? What about parents who are left wondering: What do 
we do in the meantime?
  It used to be that the Federal Government broke up monopolies and 
worked to foster competition in order to benefit consumers, but now 
what we are seeing at least playing out in my State is, through bad law 
and failed policies, we see that same government creating de facto 
monopolies in the individual marketplace.
  I find it deeply troubling that as these health insurance options 
continue to shrink, any hope of curbing the rapid increase of premium 
rates also disappears. We are constantly asked by our constituents: Are 
my premiums going to continue to increase? We are talking about monthly 
premiums in the State of Alaska amounting to $3,000 a month for a 
family. Think about that. That is not affordable in anybody's book. It 
is not beyond the realm of possibility given what we have already seen. 
Last year in Alaska, between Moda and Premera, the two that are 
covering on the individual market, the increases were over 30 percent, 
somewhere between 32 and 35 percent increases over the previous year.

[[Page S2963]]

  I have been on the floor, and I have shared stories of hard-working 
Alaskans who are paying a couple of thousand dollars a month for the 
cheapest bronze plan that is available on the exchange. I have spoken 
about how the ACA has been called the single greatest threat to quality 
public education. The reason for that is our school districts are being 
faced with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines under the Cadillac 
test when it is imposed. I have relayed stories from employers who are 
saying: I can't afford to expand my business. I won't expand my 
business because of the employer mandate--harming not only the 
businesses but the workers themselves.
  The bottom line, and I hear it from all corners of the State, is that 
the ACA is not working for us in Alaska.
  I had a group of Realtors from around the State visit me in my office 
here last week. One woman in the group said that she was paying $2,500 
a month. She has a family of four. She has a $6,000 deductible for her 
coverage. She said: You know, it is really hard for us to keep making 
these payments every month. They don't qualify for the subsidy.
  I talked to another young family from Eagle River who was forced to 
switch from Premera to Moda after the ACA passed because the premium 
increases were not sustainable, and even then, when they switched, they 
were paying $1,200 a month with a $10,000 deductible. So what happens 
when you have a deductible like that? You put off that health care.
  But think about it. It just makes it so hard to run a business. It 
makes it so hard to pay for your day-to-day experiences.
  Worse yet, for that family from Eagle River, they went from Premera 
to Moda because their premiums were too high. Now Moda is leaving, so 
they have to go back to the insurer that was too high before. This 
family is scrambling. What are they going do? How are they going to be 
able to afford insurance in the future?
  As the costs continue to rise, these small businesses are wondering: 
How long do we keep our doors open if these costs continue at these 
rates?
  In Anchorage, a couple who has Moda has been paying $2,500 a month, 
with a $10,000 deductible--an increase of $1,000 a month over their 
premiums for last year. Now they are going to be switching to the only 
company on the individual market in 2017. They are going to see yet 
another increase.
  A woman in Anchorage whom we talked to has watched year after year as 
her rates increased from $500 a month to nearly $2,000 a month. She is 
basically holding her breath for what the 2017 premiums rates will 
hold. We don't know yet in Alaska. Because of the announcement from 
Moda, we are not sure what the increase will be coming from the other 
insurer.
  More and more, I am hearing from folks who say that they feel it is 
just cheaper to simply not buy insurance, to pay the tax penalty and 
then hope and pray that nobody in the family gets sick. Hoping to not 
get sick is not a health plan. As more and more Alaskans are dropping 
out, costs for those who stay in go up, driving more to drop out, and 
you have this death spiral within the system.
  The deeper we get into life under the ACA, the deeper Alaskans fall 
into a hole. The ACA has failed the people of our State. This one-size-
fits-all approach rarely works for a State as diverse as Alaska. It 
certainly has not worked in the realm of health insurance.
  This is not the only place where we are seeing the law failing. There 
is more that needs to be done to make the Affordable Care Act work for 
rural parts of the country that have specialized needs thanks to higher 
medical costs, lack of access, and now fewer insurance options.
  We in Congress need to take a serious look at the trends we have seen 
and work on solutions that will provide the flexibility that is needed 
for the States to make a difference when it comes to access to 
affordable care.
  I have consistently supported full repeal of the ACA. I voted to do 
so on several occasions now. But I have also recognized that it was 
going to be difficult, if not impossible, in this administration to do 
so. But I have supported steps that will reduce the burdens of the ACA 
and I think work to address some of the most harmful provisions in the 
law. One example is full repeal of the Cadillac tax I just mentioned. 
The Cadillac tax will only worsen conditions in Alaska, with nearly 62 
percent of customers who will be facing that tax if the Cadillac tax 
were to be implemented. Again, I repeat, in our State, not only are our 
health care costs so high, but our insurance costs are so high.
  Whether you are in what would be considered a Cadillac plan because 
of the benefits or it is just because you are paying so much for it, it 
is assumed that those benefits are good. Sixty-two percent of the folks 
in Alaska would be impacted by this tax. It is a prime example of the 
ACA hurting small, rural States, because so many of us have more 
expensive health care due to the remoteness and due to our lower 
population size. Then those States are forced to take money away from 
things, like our school districts, where they are trying to put the 
money into public education, into other services, to pay for the cost. 
So our State suffers, boroughs suffer, our schools suffer, and our 
Alaskan families suffer.
  As we look to the end of this administration and looking to next 
year, I would hope that we can seriously address the problem that the 
ACA has created for so many areas of our country.
  For rural States like Alaska, the approach to health care needs to 
focus on more than forcing people to just buy insurance and, 
unfortunately, buy expensive insurance. We need to work to find 
solutions to these issues, whether it be through the creation of a 
nationwide insurance pool so that policies are not limited to one 
State, as they are currently. Right now, as I say, Alaska is not a very 
attractive market. We have small numbers. We have high costs. Who is 
going to come? How are we going to get a greater pool?
  We need to look more critically at how we improve the cost of 
transparency of medical procedures. We need to look critically at these 
special enrollment periods and see if people are finding loopholes that 
allow them to game the system.
  Expanding both health savings and flexible spending accounts will 
allow people to save what they think they should and make the choices 
for themselves instead of the government forcing things on individuals.
  When we think about those areas where we can save money through not 
spending it in the first place--an ounce of prevention is worth a pound 
of cure--we should be incentivizing people to live healthier lifestyles 
in order to prevent and bring down the incidence of chronic disease. 
Type 2 diabetes--largely preventible through lifestyle changes--costs 
an estimated $176 billion a year. Obesity-related illnesses cost an 
estimated $190 billion a year. A recent study found that a 10-percent 
drop in smokers could save $63 billion in health care costs per year. 
It makes zero sense to be paying providers to treat these problems 
after they have arisen rather than trying to focus on the front end, 
paying for lifestyle changes and case management that would 
significantly reduce the cost of treating these diseases.
  I have been working to find solutions that will help support Alaska's 
rural needs, especially those related to access and workforce 
development because if we can improve the overall access to treatment 
and options to medical providers, we then take steps to reduce the cost 
of medical procedures.
  I have supported the Family Health Care Accessibility Act that will 
improve the care provided by community health centers by enabling them 
to utilize volunteer primary care providers. Community health centers--
I think so many of us recognize the benefits and the crucial role they 
serve in meeting the needs of rural and underserved communities, 
allowing patients to receive local treatment instead of being forced to 
travel far from home for treatment.
  Steps like these that help to improve access are just some of the 
ways I think we should be rethinking our approach to health care in the 
broader sense as we seek to alleviate the burdens that have been 
imposed by the ACA.
  I have continued over several Congresses now to introduce the 
Medicare Patient Empowerment Act. This is legislation that would give 
patients the

[[Page S2964]]

option to negotiate with their provider. Medicare would pay the typical 
fee the patient negotiates for the difference there, but we face a very 
unique situation in our State. Again, a one-size-fits-all prescription 
doesn't work for us. We have incredibly low reimbursement rates for 
Medicare in Alaska, so you have very few providers that will accept 
Medicare. When you are newly Medicare eligible or you come into the 
State, it is tough to find anybody who will see you.
  If there is some flexibility to negotiate prices, what we are trying 
to do with this bill is cut through the redtape, allow Medicare 
beneficiaries to benefit from increased access, and enable patients to 
have the relationships they have built with their physicians. We have a 
very fast-rising senior population in the State, and it is going to be 
increasingly important to make sure they have the option to seek the 
care they need.
  I do not support compulsory health insurance but do believe 
individuals with preexisting conditions should receive care. As we 
discuss these important issues in the Senate, I continue to work to 
address--again--these issues that have presented themselves with 
implementation of the ACA. So working to a place where we fully repeal 
and replace the ACA is where we need to be.
  There have been several Republican proposals that would not only 
replace this unworkable law but replace it with consumer-based reforms. 
Senator Burr of North Carolina, Senator Hatch of Utah, and Senator 
Cassidy of Louisiana all have been working on important measures that 
take steps to get us to a place where what we are talking about is 
affordable health care, a reality that works for all Americans, whether 
you are in Alaska or you are in North Carolina.
  Obviously, there is much work in front of us. Again, it is important 
to recognize the frustration so many are feeling as they are seeing 
their costs increase, their access going nowhere, and let them know we 
continue to work on these very difficult issues. Alaskans deserve it. 
Americans deserve it.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                     Memorial for Fallen Educators

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak for just a few moments 
about the Memorial for Fallen Educators in conjunction with the 
National Teachers Hall of Fame located on the campus of Emporia State 
University in Emporia, KS.
  When someone asks the question, ``Other than your family, name a 
person who has made a difference in your life,'' the answer has never 
been my Senator, my Congressman. More often the response is a teacher. 
That answer speaks volumes about the influence of an educator on the 
lives of young people. Teachers fulfill a variety of roles by 
encouraging our children, instilling values, and challenging them. Too 
often we take this profession for granted, and the people who make 
education possible are teachers.
  Each one of us remembers a teacher. We remember in the first grade or 
second grade when they helped us sound out the big words or guided our 
hands as we struggled to make out the shapes of letters.
  We remember the middle school teacher or the gym teacher who taught 
us how to spike the volleyball or sink the winning hoop while playing 
in the playoffs. We remember the high school science teacher who helped 
us dissect frogs or build a box made of toothpicks that would protect 
the egg as it dropped from a two-story building.
  Our teachers are our friends, our mentors, and our role models. The 
lessons they teach us stick with us for a long time after we have left 
their classrooms. Their jobs are never done, and educators know that 
often the last ringing bell of the afternoon, rather than signaling the 
end of their workday, begins the beginning of a new kind of work--
grading homework, tutoring individual students, or prepping for the 
next day's lesson plan.
  Educators work round-the-clock on behalf of the kids they instruct. 
They take on a job that requires more hours than there are in the day 
because they believe in their students and because they know how 
crucial their efforts are in seeing these students succeed. I believe 
we change the world one person at a time, and it happens in classrooms 
across Kansas and around the country every day.
  Teachers often forfeit material gain for the thrill of seeing a 
student's eyes light up when they discover a new concept or grasp a new 
idea. Teachers have long understood they truly shape the world by their 
work, and their greatest product is an educated society.
  Unfortunately, each day teachers walk into their classrooms they are 
also subject to threats of bullying or violence. Far too many educators 
have lost their lives in the line of their professional duty. Teachers 
have been killed at the hands of students, and many have been killed 
protecting their students from adults perpetrating violent acts.
  To honor these slain teachers, the National Teachers Hall of Fame, 
under the leadership of the director, Carol Strickland, created the 
Memorial for Fallen Educators. The memorial, which was dedicated 2 
years ago at Emporia State University, stands alongside the National 
Teachers Hall of Fame. I had the honor of visiting the site last 
September.
  Already built and paid for, the memorial lists the names of educators 
across the country since 1764 who have lost their lives while working 
with students. It is owned and cared for by the National Teachers Hall 
of Fame and Emporia State University.
  I introduced legislation last year that would designate the Memorial 
for Fallen Educators as a national memorial. The more than 100 fallen 
teachers whose names are etched in marble taught in schools across the 
country. As a nation, together we should recognize the incredible 
sacrifices they each made because of their dedication to educating 
young people--their dedication to caring, loving, and protecting young 
people.
  This legislation has no cost to the taxpayer and private funds will 
be used to maintain the memorial. It simply brings the site--the only 
one in the United States dedicated to fallen educators--the national 
prestige it merits.
  As the Senate considers the national memorials proposed for 
designation, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
worthy tribute to our fallen teachers. Anyone who has ever been 
inspired by an educator should visit the memorial and recognize and 
remember those honorable lives which have been lost.
  Mr. President, 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.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


 Amendments Nos. 3967, 3992, 4011, 4024, and 4042 to Amendment No. 3896

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: 
amendment No. 3967, submitted by Senator Paul; amendment No. 3992, 
submitted by Senator Johnson; amendment No. 4011, submitted by Senator 
Nelson; amendment No. 4024, submitted by Senator Isakson; and amendment 
No. 4042, submitted by Senator Warner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments en bloc by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for others, proposes 
     amendments numbered 3967, 3992, 4011, 4024, and 4042 to 
     amendment No. 3896.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 3967

 (Purpose: To provide for the identification of certain high priority 
 corridors on the National Highway System and to include and designate 
            certain route segments on the Interstate System)

       On page 41, strike lines 12 through 25 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(89) United States Route 67 from Interstate 40 in North 
     Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412.
       ``(90) The Edward T. Breathitt Parkway from Interstate 24 
     to Interstate 69.''.
       (b) Inclusion of Certain Route Segments on Interstate 
     System.--Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is

[[Page S2965]]

     amended in the first sentence by striking ``and subsection 
     (c)(83)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)(83), subsection 
     (c)(89), and subsection (c)(90)''.
       (c) Designation.--Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``The route 
     referred to in subsection (c)(89) is designated as Interstate 
     Route I-57. The route referred to in subsection (c)(90) is 
     designated as Interstate Route I-169.''.


                           amendment no. 3992

 (Purpose: To ensure timely access for Inspectors General to records, 
                    documents, and other materials)

       At the appropriate place in division A, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to deny an Inspector General funded under this 
     Act timely access to any records, documents, or other 
     materials available to the department or agency over which 
     that Inspector General has responsibilities under the 
     Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), or to prevent 
     or impede that Inspector General's access to such records, 
     documents, or other materials, under any provision of law, 
     except a provision of law that expressly refers to the 
     Inspector General and expressly limits the Inspector 
     General's right of access.
       (b) A department or agency covered by this section shall 
     provide its Inspector General with access to all such 
     records, documents, and other materials in a timely manner.
       (c) Each Inspector General shall ensure compliance with 
     statutory limitations on disclosure relevant to the 
     information provided by the establishment over which that 
     Inspector General has responsibilities under the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (d) Each Inspector General covered by this section shall 
     report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate within 5 calendar days any 
     failures to comply with this requirement.


                           amendment no. 4011

 (Purpose: To ensure the safety of properties covered under a housing 
                      assistance payment contract)

       In division A, strike section 225 and insert the following:
       Sec. 225. (a) Any entity receiving housing assistance 
     payments shall maintain decent, safe, and sanitary 
     conditions, as determined by the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Secretary''), and comply with any standards under 
     applicable State or local laws, rules, ordinances, or 
     regulations relating to the physical condition of any 
     property covered under a housing assistance payment contract.
       (b) The Secretary shall take action under subsection (c) 
     when a multifamily housing project with a section 8 contract 
     or contract for similar project-based assistance--
       (1) receives a Uniform Physical Condition Standards (UPCS) 
     score of 30 or less;
       (2) fails to certify in writing to the Secretary within 3 
     days that all Exigent Health and Safety deficiencies 
     identified by the inspector at the project have been 
     corrected; or
       (3) receives a UPCS score between 31 and 59 and has 
     received consecutive scores of less than 60 on UPCS 
     inspections.
       Such requirements shall apply to insured and noninsured 
     projects with assistance attached to the units under section 
     8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f), 
     but do not apply to such units assisted under section 
     8(o)(13) (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) or to public housing units 
     assisted with capital or operating funds under section 9 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g).
       (c)(1) The Secretary shall notify the owner and provide an 
     opportunity for response within 15 days after the results of 
     the UPCS inspection are issued. If the violations remain, the 
     Secretary shall develop a plan to bring the property into 
     compliance within 30 days after the results of the UPCS 
     inspection are issued and must provide the owner with a 
     Notice of Default with a specified timetable, determined by 
     the Secretary, for correcting all deficiencies. The Secretary 
     must also provide a copy of the Notice of Default to the 
     tenants, the local government, any mortgagees, and any 
     contract administrator. If the owner's appeal results in a 
     UPCS score of 60 or above, the Secretary may withdraw the 
     Notice of Default.
       (2) At the end of the time period for correcting all 
     deficiencies specified in the Notice of Default, if the owner 
     fails to fully correct such deficiencies, the Secretary may--
       (A) require immediate replacement of project management 
     with a management agent approved by the Secretary;
       (B) impose civil money penalties, which shall be used 
     solely for the purpose of supporting safe and sanitary 
     conditions at applicable properties, as designated by the 
     Secretary, with priority given to the tenants of the property 
     affected by the penalty;
       (C) abate the section 8 contract, including partial 
     abatement, as determined by the Secretary, until all 
     deficiencies have been corrected;
       (D) pursue transfer of the project to an owner, approved by 
     the Secretary under established procedures, which will be 
     obligated to promptly make all required repairs and to accept 
     renewal of the assistance contract as long as such renewal is 
     offered;
       (E) transfer the existing section 8 contract to another 
     project or projects and owner or owners;
       (F) pursue exclusionary sanctions, including suspensions or 
     debarments from Federal programs;
       (G) seek judicial appointment of a receiver to manage the 
     property and cure all project deficiencies or seek a judicial 
     order of specific performance requiring the owner to cure all 
     project deficiencies;
       (H) work with the owner, lender, or other related party to 
     stabilize the property in an attempt to preserve the property 
     through compliance, transfer of ownership, or an infusion of 
     capital provided by a third-party that requires time to 
     effectuate; or
       (I) take any other regulatory or contractual remedies 
     available as deemed necessary and appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       (d) The Secretary shall also take appropriate steps to 
     ensure that project-based contracts remain in effect, subject 
     to the exercise of contractual abatement remedies to assist 
     relocation of tenants for major threats to health and safety 
     after written notice to and informed consent of the affected 
     tenants and use of other remedies set forth above. To the 
     extent the Secretary determines, in consultation with the 
     tenants and the local government, that the property is not 
     feasible for continued rental assistance payments under such 
     section 8 or other programs, based on consideration of (1) 
     the costs of rehabilitating and operating the property and 
     all available Federal, State, and local resources, including 
     rent adjustments under section 524 of the Multifamily 
     Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 
     (``MAHRAA'') and (2) environmental conditions that cannot be 
     remedied in a cost-effective fashion, the Secretary may, in 
     consultation with the tenants of that property, contract for 
     project-based rental assistance payments with an owner or 
     owners of other existing housing properties, or provide other 
     rental assistance.
       (e) The Secretary shall report quarterly on all properties 
     covered by this section that are assessed through the Real 
     Estate Assessment Center and have UPCS physical inspection 
     scores of less than 60 or have received an unsatisfactory 
     management and occupancy review within the past 36 months. 
     The report shall include--
       (1) the enforcement actions being taken to address such 
     conditions, including imposition of civil money penalties and 
     termination of subsidies, and identify properties that have 
     such conditions multiple times;
       (2) actions that the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development is taking to protect tenants of such identified 
     properties; and
       (3) any administrative or legislative recommendations to 
     further improve the living conditions at properties covered 
     under a housing assistance payment contract.


                           amendment no. 4024

 (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final 
 rule requiring the use of speed limiting devices on heavy trucks not 
    later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act)

       In division A, on page 49, between lines 6 and 7, insert 
     the following:
       Sec. 142.  Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     issue a final rule requiring the use of speed limiting 
     devices on trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating in 
     excess of 26,000 pounds.


                           amendment no. 4042

(Purpose: To provide additional funds for the National Park Service for 
                           certain projects)

       On page 37, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Sec. 122. (a) Transfer of Amounts.--
       (1) State of virginia.--
       (A) In general.--Of the total amount apportioned to the 
     State of Virginia under section 104 of title 23, United 
     States Code, for fiscal year 2017, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall, by the later of November 30, 2016, or 
     30 days after the enactment of this Act, transfer to the 
     National Park Service--
       (i) an amount equal to--

       (I) $30,000,000; multiplied by
       (II) the ratio that--

       (aa) the amount apportioned to the State of Virginia under 
     such section 104; bears to
       (bb) the combined amount apportioned to the State of 
     Virginia and the District of Columbia under such section 104; 
     and
       (ii) an amount of obligation limitation equal to the amount 
     calculated under clause (i).
       (B) Source and amount.--For purpose of the transfer under 
     subparagraph (A), the State of Virginia shall select at the 
     discretion of the State--
       (i) the programs (among those for which funding is 
     apportioned as described in that subparagraph) from which to 
     transfer the amount specified in that subparagraph; and
       (ii) the amount to transfer from each of those programs 
     (equal in aggregate to the amount calculated under 
     subparagraph (A)(i)).
       (2) District of columbia.--
       (A) In general.--Of the total amount apportioned to the 
     District of Columbia under section 104 of title 23, United 
     States Code, for fiscal year 2017, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall, by the later of November 30, 2016, or 
     30 days after the enactment of this Act, transfer to the 
     National Park Service--
       (i) an amount equal to--

       (I) $30,000,000; multiplied by
       (II) the ratio that--

[[Page S2966]]

       (aa) the amount apportioned to the District of Columbia 
     under such section 104; bears to
       (bb) the combined amount apportioned to the State of 
     Virginia and the District of Columbia under such section 104; 
     and
       (ii) an amount of obligation limitation equal to the amount 
     calculated under clause (i).
       (B) Source and amount.--For purpose of the transfer under 
     subparagraph (A), the District of Columbia shall select at 
     the discretion of the District--
       (i) the programs (among those for which funding is 
     apportioned as described in that subparagraph) from which to 
     transfer the amount specified in that subparagraph; and
       (ii) the amount to transfer from each of those programs 
     (equal in aggregate to the amount calculated under 
     subparagraph (A)(i)).
       (3) Federal lands transportation program.--Of the amounts 
     otherwise made available to the National Park Service under 
     section 203 of title 23, United States Code, not less than 10 
     percent shall be set aside for purposes of this section.
       (b) Eligibility and Federal Share.--The amounts under 
     subsection (a) shall be--
       (1) available to the National Park Service only for 
     projects that--
       (A) are eligible under section 203 of title 23, United 
     States Code;
       (B) are located on bridges on the National Highway System 
     that were originally constructed before 1945 and are in poor 
     condition; and
       (C) each have an estimated total project cost of not less 
     than $150,000,000; and
       (2) subject to the Federal share described in section 
     201(b)(7)(A) of title 23, United States Code.
       (c) Other Funds and Obligation Limitation.--Any funds and 
     obligation limitation transferred under subsection (a) shall 
     be in addition to funds or obligation limitation otherwise 
     made available to the National Park Service under sections 
     203 and 204 of title 23, United States Code.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now vote on these amendments en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on these 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question occurs on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3967, 3992, 4011, 4024, and 4042) were agreed to 
en bloc.
  Ms. COLLINS. 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.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


  Amendments Nos. 3997; 3998; 3933; 4030; 4008; 3920; 3969; 3935, as 
 Modified; 4038; 4043; 3980; 3944; 3993; 3910; 4005; 4029; and 4023 to 
                           Amendment No. 3896

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: Kirk 
No. 3997; Tester No. 3998; Perdue No. 3933; Mikulski No. 4030; Daines 
No. 4008; Brown No. 3920; Inhofe No. 3969; Boxer No. 3935, as modified; 
Flake No. 4038; Manchin No. 4043; Flake No. 3980; Feinstein No. 3944; 
Johnson No. 3993; Klobuchar No. 3910; Heller No. 4005; Durbin No. 4029; 
and Sasse No. 4023.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for others, proposes 
     amendments numbered 3997; 3998; 3933; 4030; 4008; 3920; 3969; 
     3935, as modified; 4038; 4043; 3980; 3944; 3993; 3910; 4005; 
     4029; and 4023 en bloc to amendment No. 3896.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 3997

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide for 
  the inspection of medical facilities of the Department of Veterans 
                                Affairs)

       At the end of title II of division B, add the following:

     SEC. 251. INSPECTION OF KITCHENS AND FOOD SERVICE AREAS AT 
                   MEDICAL FACILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and not less frequently than 
     annually thereafter, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     provide for the conduct of inspections of kitchens and food 
     service areas at each medical facility of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs to ensure that the same standards for 
     kitchens and food service areas at hospitals in the private 
     sector are being met at kitchens and food service areas at 
     medical facilities of the Department.
       (b) Agreement.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall seek to enter into an 
     agreement with the Joint Commission on Accreditation of 
     Hospital Organizations under which the Joint Commission on 
     Accreditation of Hospital Organizations conducts the 
     inspections required under subsection (a).
       (2) Alternate organization.--If the Secretary is unable to 
     enter into an agreement described in paragraph (1) with the 
     Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations 
     on terms acceptable to the Secretary, the Secretary shall 
     seek to enter into such an agreement with another appropriate 
     organization that--
       (A) is not part of the Federal Government;
       (B) operates as a not-for-profit entity; and
       (C) has expertise and objectivity comparable to that of the 
     Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations.
       (c) Remediation Plan.--
       (1) Initial failure.--If a kitchen or food service area of 
     a medical facility of the Department is determined pursuant 
     to an inspection conducted under subsection (a) not to meet 
     the standards for kitchens and food service areas in 
     hospitals in the private sector, that medical facility fails 
     the inspection and the Secretary shall--
       (A) implement a remediation plan for that medical facility 
     within 48 hours; and
       (B) Conduct a second inspection under subsection (a) at 
     that medical facility within 7 days of the failed inspection.
       (2) Second failure.--If a medical facility of the 
     Department fails the second inspection conducted under 
     paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall close the kitchen or 
     food service area at that medical facility that did not meet 
     the standards for kitchens and food service areas in 
     hospitals in the private sector until remediation is 
     completed and all kitchens and food service areas at that 
     medical facility meet such standards.
       (3) Provision of food.--If a kitchen or food service area 
     is closed at a medical facility of the Department pursuant to 
     paragraph (2), the Director of the Veterans Integrated 
     Service Network in which the medical facility is located 
     shall enter into a contract with a vendor approved by the 
     General Services Administration to provide food at the 
     medical facility.
       (d) Reports.--
       (1) Quarterly.--Not less frequently than quarterly, the 
     Director of each Veterans Integrated Service Network shall 
     submit to Congress a report on inspections conducted under 
     this section during that quarter at medical facilities of the 
     Department under the jurisdiction of that Director.
       (2) Subsequent period.--A Director of a Veterans Integrated 
     Service Network may submit to Congress the report described 
     in paragraph (1) not less frequently than semiannually if the 
     Director does not report any failed inspections for the one-
     year period preceding the submittal of the report.

     SEC. 252. INSPECTION OF MOLD ISSUES AT MEDICAL FACILITIES OF 
                   THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and not less frequently than 
     annually thereafter, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     provide for the inspection of mold issues at medical 
     facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (b) Agreement.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall seek to enter into an 
     agreement with the Joint Commission on Accreditation of 
     Hospital Organizations under which the Joint Commission on 
     Accreditation of Hospital Organizations conducts the 
     inspections required under subsection (a).
       (2) Alternate organization.--If the Secretary is unable to 
     enter into an agreement described in paragraph (1) with the 
     Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations 
     on terms acceptable to the Secretary, the Secretary shall 
     seek to enter into such an agreement with another appropriate 
     organization that--
       (A) is not part of the Federal Government;
       (B) operates as a not-for-profit entity; and
       (C) has expertise and objectivity comparable to that of the 
     Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations.
       (c) Remediation Plan.--If a medical facility of the 
     Department is determined pursuant to an inspection conducted 
     under subsection (a) to have a mold issue, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) implement a remediation plan for that medical facility 
     within 48 hours; and
       (2) Conduct a second inspection under subsection (a) at 
     that medical facility within 90 days of the initial 
     inspection.
       (d) Reports.--
       (1) Quarterly.--Not less frequently than quarterly, the 
     Director of each Veterans Integrated Service Network shall 
     submit to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Congress a 
     report on inspections conducted under this section during 
     that quarter at medical facilities of the Department under 
     the jurisdiction of that Director.
       (2) Subsequent period.--A Director of a Veterans Integrated 
     Service Network may submit to Congress the report described 
     in paragraph (1) not less frequently than semiannually if the 
     Director does not report any mold issues for the one-year 
     period preceding the submittal of the report.

[[Page S2967]]

  



                           amendment no. 3998

(Purpose: To provide for coverage under the beneficiary travel program 
of the Department of Veterans Affairs of certain disabled veterans for 
 travel in connection with certain special disabilities rehabilitation)

       At the end of title II of division B, add the following:

     SEC. 251. COVERAGE UNDER DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
                   BENEFICIARY TRAVEL PROGRAM OF TRAVEL IN 
                   CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN SPECIAL DISABILITIES 
                   REHABILITATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 111(b)(1) of title 38, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(G) A veteran with vision impairment, a veteran with a 
     spinal cord injury or disorder, or a veteran with double or 
     multiple amputations whose travel is in connection with care 
     provided through a special disabilities rehabilitation 
     program of the Department (including programs provided by 
     spinal cord injury centers, blind rehabilitation centers, and 
     prosthetics rehabilitation centers) if such care is 
     provided--
       ``(i) on an in-patient basis; or
       ``(ii) during a period in which the Secretary provides the 
     veteran with temporary lodging at a facility of the 
     Department to make such care more accessible to the 
     veteran.''.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the beneficiary travel program 
     under section 111 of title 38, United States Code, as amended 
     by subsection (a), that includes the following:
       (1) The cost of the program.
       (2) The number of veterans served by the program.
       (3) Such other matters as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the first day of the first fiscal year 
     that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act.


                           amendment no. 3933

 (Purpose: To require a report on modernizing and replacing hangers of 
                  the Army's Combat Aviation Brigade)

       At the appropriate place in division B, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit 
     to Congress a report that includes--
       (1) a detailed description of the age and condition of the 
     aircraft maintenance hangars of the Army's Combat Aviation 
     Brigade;
       (2) an identification of the most deficient such hangers;
       (3) a plan to modernize or replace such hangars; and
       (4) a description of the resources required to modernize or 
     replace such hangers.


                           amendment no. 4030

   (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide 
  access to therapeutic listening devices to veterans struggling with 
  mental health related problems, substance abuse, or traumatic brain 
                                injury)

       On page 217, line 4 of Title 2 in Division B, strike the 
     period and insert ``: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs shall provide access to therapeutic 
     listening devices to veterans struggling with mental health 
     related problems, substance abuse, or traumatic brain 
     injury.''


                           amendment no. 4008

(Purpose: To require a report on the use of defense access road funding 
 to build alternate routes for military equipment traveling to missile 
                           launch facilities)

       At the appropriate place in title I of division B, insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall conduct 
     a study and submit to Congress a report on the use of defense 
     access road funding to build alternate routes for military 
     equipment traveling to missile launch facilities, taking into 
     consideration the location of local populations, security 
     risks, safety, and impacts of weather.


                           amendment no. 3920

   (Purpose: To extend the requirement of the Secretary of Veterans 
    Affairs to submit a report on the capacity of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs to provide for the specialized treatment and 
               rehabilitative needs of disabled veterans)

       At the end of title II of division B, add the following:


   extension of requirement for report on capacity of department of 
       veterans affairs to provide for specialized treatment and 
               rehabilitative needs of disabled veterans

       Sec. 251. Section 1706(b)(5)(A) of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended, in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``through 2008''.


                           amendment no. 3969

  (Purpose: To require that amounts be made available to Directors of 
 Veterans Integrated Service Networks to assess, evaluate, and improve 
the health care delivery by and business operations of medical centers 
                 of the Department of Veterans Affairs)

       At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
       Sec. 251.  From the amount made available in this title 
     under the heading ``Medical Support and Compliance'', up to 
     $18,000,000 shall be made available for Directors of Veterans 
     Integrated Service Networks to contract with appropriate non-
     Department of Veterans Affairs entities to assess, evaluate, 
     and improve the health care delivery by and business 
     operations of medical centers of the Department under the 
     jurisdiction of each such Director.


                    amendment no. 3935, as modified

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to treat certain 
 marriage and family therapists as qualified to serve as marriage and 
        family therapists in the Department of Veterans Affairs)

       At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
       (a) Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall begin an 
     assessment of whether the hiring of marriage and family 
     therapists trained at Commission on Accreditation for 
     Marriage and Family Therapy Education accredited institutions 
     is adversely impacting the ability of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs to hire marriage and family therapists.
       (b) The assessment should also include what steps the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs is taking to increase hiring 
     of marriage and family therapists.
       (c) Not later than one year after the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit the 
     report to the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees.


                           amendment no. 4038

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide for 
  the conduct by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of 
  Veterans Affairs of an inspection or audit of the use of a grant to 
                 renovate a veteran's cemetery in Guam)

       At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
       Sec. 251.  Not later than September 30, 2017, the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs shall--
       (1) provide for the conduct by the Office of Inspector 
     General of the Department of Veterans Affairs of an 
     inspection or audit of the use of Federal award GU1103 in the 
     amount of $3,265,487 that was awarded in 2013 to renovate a 
     veteran's cemetery in Guam under the Veterans Cemetery Grants 
     Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, including--
       (A) an itemized accounting of the use of such award; or
       (B) if no such itemized accounting is possible, an 
     explanation of why any amounts in connection with such award 
     are unaccounted for;
       (2) submit to the Committee on Appropriations and the 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Veterans' 
     Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on the 
     results on the inspection or audit conducted under paragraph 
     (1); and
       (3) publish the results on the inspection or audit 
     conducted under paragraph (1) on a publicly available 
     Internet website of the Department.


                           amendment no. 4043

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to use amounts 
 appropriated under this Act for the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
 improve the veteran-to-staff ratio for each program of rehabilitation 
      conducted under chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code)

       At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
       Sec. 251. (a) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may use 
     amounts appropriated or otherwise made available in this 
     title to ensure that the ratio of veterans to full-time 
     employment equivalents within any program of rehabilitation 
     conducted under chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code, 
     does not exceed 125 veterans to one full-time employment 
     equivalent.
       (b) Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report 
     on the programs of rehabilitation conducted under chapter 31 
     of title 38, United States Code, including--
       (1) an assessment of the veteran-to-staff ratio for each 
     such program; and
       (2) recommendations for such action as the Secretary 
     considers necessary to reduce the veteran-to-staff ratio for 
     each such program.


                           amendment no. 3980

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to 
   Congress a plan on modernizing the system of the Veterans Health 
  Administration for processing claims by non-Department of Veterans 
    Affairs health care providers for reimbursement for health care 
   provided to veterans under the laws administered by the Secretary)

       At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
       Sec. 251.  Not later than September 30, 2017, the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs shall submit to Congress a plan on 
     modernizing the

[[Page S2968]]

     system of the Veterans Health Administration for processing 
     claims by non-Department of Veterans Affairs health care 
     providers for reimbursement for health care provided to 
     veterans under the laws administered by the Secretary.


                           amendment no. 3944

 (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out 
 certain major medical facility projects for which appropriations are 
                    being made for fiscal year 2016)

       At the end of title II of division B, add the following:

     SEC. 251. AUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY 
                   PROJECTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, which was passed 
     by the Senate on November 10, 2015, without a single vote 
     cast against the bill, and the Consolidated Appropriations 
     Act, 2016 include the following amounts to be appropriated to 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs:
       (A) $35,000,000 to make seismic corrections to Building 208 
     at the West Los Angeles Medical Center of the Department in 
     Los Angeles, California, which, according to the Department, 
     is a building that is designated as having an exceptionally 
     high risk of sustaining substantial damage or collapsing 
     during an earthquake.
       (B) $158,000,000 to provide for the construction of a new 
     research building, site work, and demolition at the San 
     Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
       (C) $161,000,000 to replace Building 133 with a new 
     community living center at the Long Beach Veterans Affairs 
     Medical Center, which, according to the Department, is a 
     building that is designated as having an extremely high risk 
     of sustaining major damage during an earthquake.
       (D) $468,800,000 for construction projects that are 
     critical to the Department for ensuring health care access 
     and safety at medical facilities in Louisville, Kentucky, 
     Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis, Missouri, Perry Point, 
     Maryland, American Lake, Washington, Alameda, California, and 
     Livermore, California.
       (2) The Department is unable to obligate or expend the 
     amounts described in paragraph (1), other than for 
     construction design, because the Department lacks an explicit 
     authorization by an Act of Congress pursuant to section 
     8104(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, to carry out the 
     major medical facility projects described in such paragraph.
       (3) Among the major medical facility projects described in 
     paragraph (1), three are critical seismic safety projects in 
     California.
       (4) Every day that the critical seismic safety projects 
     described in paragraph (3) are delayed increases the risk of 
     a life-threatening building failure in the case of a major 
     seismic event.
       (5) According to the United States Geological Survey--
       (A) California has more than a 99 percent chance of 
     experiencing an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or greater in the 
     next 30 years;
       (B) even earthquakes of less severity than magnitude 6.7 
     can cause life threatening damage to seismically unsafe 
     buildings; and
       (C) in California, earthquakes of magnitude 6.0 or greater 
     occur on average once every 1.2 years.
       (6) On January 20, 2016, the Senate passed this legislation 
     by unanimous consent as S. 2422, 114th Congress.
       (b) Authorization.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may 
     carry out the following major medical facility projects, with 
     each project to be carried out in an amount not to exceed the 
     amount specified for that project:
       (1) Seismic corrections to buildings, including 
     retrofitting and replacement of high-risk buildings, in San 
     Francisco, California, in an amount not to exceed 
     $180,480,000.
       (2) Seismic corrections to facilities, including facilities 
     to support homeless veterans, at the medical center in West 
     Los Angeles, California, in an amount not to exceed 
     $105,500,000.
       (3) Seismic corrections to the mental health and community 
     living center in Long Beach, California, in an amount not to 
     exceed $287,100,000.
       (4) Construction of an outpatient clinic, administrative 
     space, cemetery, and columbarium in Alameda, California, in 
     an amount not to exceed $87,332,000.
       (5) Realignment of medical facilities in Livermore, 
     California, in an amount not to exceed $194,430,000.
       (6) Construction of a medical center in Louisville, 
     Kentucky, in an amount not to exceed $150,000,000.
       (7) Construction of a replacement community living center 
     in Perry Point, Maryland, in an amount not to exceed 
     $92,700,000.
       (8) Seismic corrections and other renovations to several 
     buildings and construction of a specialty care building in 
     American Lake, Washington, in an amount not to exceed 
     $16,260,000.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations for Construction.--
     There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2016 or the year in which 
     funds are appropriated for the Construction, Major Projects, 
     account, $1,113,802,000 for the projects authorized in 
     subsection (b).
       (d) Limitation.--The projects authorized in subsection (b) 
     may only be carried out using--
       (1) funds appropriated for fiscal year 2016 pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations in subsection (c);
       (2) funds available for Construction, Major Projects, for a 
     fiscal year before fiscal year 2016 that remain available for 
     obligation;
       (3) funds available for Construction, Major Projects, for a 
     fiscal year after fiscal year 2016 that remain available for 
     obligation;
       (4) funds appropriated for Construction, Major Projects, 
     for fiscal year 2016 for a category of activity not specific 
     to a project;
       (5) funds appropriated for Construction, Major Projects, 
     for a fiscal year before fiscal year 2016 for a category of 
     activity not specific to a project; and
       (6) funds appropriated for Construction, Major Projects, 
     for a fiscal year after fiscal year 2016 for a category of 
     activity not specific to a project.


                           amendment no. 3993

 (Purpose: To ensure timely access for Inspectors General to records, 
                    documents, and other materials)

       At the appropriate place in division B, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to deny an Inspector General funded under this 
     Act timely access to any records, documents, or other 
     materials available to the department or agency over which 
     that Inspector General has responsibilities under the 
     Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), or to prevent 
     or impede that Inspector General's access to such records, 
     documents, or other materials, under any provision of law, 
     except a provision of law that expressly refers to the 
     Inspector General and expressly limits the Inspector 
     General's right of access.
       (b) A department or agency covered by this section shall 
     provide its Inspector General with access to all such 
     records, documents, and other materials in a timely manner.
       (c) Each Inspector General shall ensure compliance with 
     statutory limitations on disclosure relevant to the 
     information provided by the establishment over which that 
     Inspector General has responsibilities under the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (d) Each Inspector General covered by this section shall 
     report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate within 5 calendar days any 
     failures to comply with this requirement.


                           amendment no. 3910

 (Purpose: To authorize the use of amounts for Medical Services to be 
used to furnish rehabilitative equipment and human-powered vehicles to 
                       certain disabled veterans)

       On page 238, line 22, insert after ``equipment'' the 
     following: ``(including rehabilitative equipment for veterans 
     entitled to a prosthetic appliance under chapter 17 of title 
     38, United States Code, which may include recreational sports 
     equipment that provides an adaption or accommodation for the 
     veteran, regardless of whether such equipment is 
     intentionally designed to be adaptive equipment, such as hand 
     cycles, recumbent bicycles, medically adapted upright 
     bicycles, and upright bicycles)''.


                           amendment no. 4005

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to 
Congress a report on the progress of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
          in completing the Rural Veterans Burial Initiative)

       At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
       Sec. 251.  Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives a report that contains an update on the 
     progress of the Department of Veterans Affairs in completing 
     the Rural Veterans Burial Initiative and the expected 
     timeline for completion of such initiative.


                           amendment no. 4029

(Purpose: To make funds available to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
to hire Medical Center Directors and employees for other management and 
                   clinical positions with vacancies)

       At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
       Sec. 251.  Of the funds made available in this title for 
     fiscal year 2017 for medical support and compliance, not less 
     than $21,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs to hire Medical Center Directors and 
     employees for other management and clinical positions that 
     are critical to the Department of Veterans Affairs in order 
     to fill vacancies in such positions.


                           amendment no. 4023

(Purpose: To protect congressional oversight of the executive branch by 
             ensuring individuals may speak with Congress)

       At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
       Sec. 251.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this title may be used by the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs to enter into an agreement related to 
     resolving a dispute or claim with an individual that would 
     restrict in any way the individual from speaking to members 
     of Congress or their staff on any topic not otherwise 
     prohibited from disclosure by Federal law.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now vote on these amendments en bloc.

[[Page S2969]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. I know of no further debate on these amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3997; 3998; 3933; 4030; 4008; 3920; 3969; 3935, 
as modified; 4038; 4043; 3980; 3944; 3993; 3910; 4005; 4029; and 4023) 
were agreed to en bloc.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, at 11:15 a.m. on Thursday, May 19, all 
postcloture time be considered expired on the Blunt-Murray amendment 
No. 3900; further, that if cloture is invoked on the Collins substitute 
amendment No. 3896, the Cornyn amendment No. 3899 and the Nelson 
amendment No. 3898 be withdrawn; that it be in order for Senator 
Collins or her designee to call up amendment No. 3970, and that there 
be no second degrees in order to the Collins amendment No. 3970 or the 
Lee amendment No. 3897.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. For the information of all Senators, at 11:15 a.m. 
tomorrow, the Senate is expected to proceed to three rollcall votes: a 
motion to waive the budget with respect to the Blunt-Murray Zika 
amendment, adoption of the Blunt amendment, and cloture on the pending 
substitute. Senators should expect additional votes to complete action 
on the bill and any pending amendments during tomorrow's session of the 
Senate.

                          ____________________