[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 80 (Thursday, May 19, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3004-S3019]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

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

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

  Pending:

       Collins amendment No. 3896, in the nature of a substitute.
       McConnell (for Lee) amendment No. 3897 (to amendment No. 
     3896), to prohibit the use of funds to carry out a rule and 
     notice of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
       McConnell (for Nelson/Rubio) amendment No. 3898 (to 
     amendment No. 3896), making supplemental appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2016 to respond to Zika virus.
       McConnell (for Cornyn) modified amendment No. 3899 (to 
     amendment No. 3896), making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016.
       McConnell (for Blunt) modified amendment No. 3900 (to 
     amendment No. 3896), Zika response and preparedness.
       Collins (for Blunt) amendment No. 3946 (to amendment No. 
     3900), to require the periodic submission of spending plan 
     updates to the Committee on Appropriations.
       McCain/Blumenthal amendment No. 4039 (to amendment No. 
     3896), 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:15 
a.m. will be equally divided between the managers or their designees.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. BOOKER. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. BOOKER. Mr. President, I appreciate seeing the Presiding Officer 
in the chair and having a ``Corey'' represented and presiding over the 
U.S. Senate.
  I rise today to speak against an amendment now pending to this bill 
that would block a rule that seeks to fulfill the promise of the Fair 
Housing Act. This issue is very deeply personal to me and one that 
really has defined my own personal history. I would like to start by 
telling a story.
  In 1969, just 1 year after the passage of the Fair Housing Act, a 
couple here in Washington, DC, married with two boys, decided to move 
to New Jersey. In New Jersey, they encountered a lot of a practice 
called real estate steering, where Black couples were steered away from 
certain neighborhoods.
  Realizing they were being steered away from White neighborhoods, they 
grew frustrated, and they sought the help of the fair housing council. 
They set up an elaborate sting operation where my parents would go look 
at a home--or this couple would go look at a home--and they would then 
be followed by a White couple. The couple was told the house was sold 
or it was not for sale. The White couple would then appear and find out 
if that was, indeed, true. Most often for this couple from Washington, 
DC, yes, they would find out the house was still for sale.
  Eventually this couple found a house they loved in a small town 
called Harrington Park, NJ, but they were told that the house was not 
for sale. They were told the house had been pulled off the market or 
sold. They left. Then the White couple came behind them. Lo and behold, 
the house had not been sold or was not pulled off the market. The White 
couple pretended that they loved the house as the Black couple did and 
put a bid on the house. The bid was accepted.
  On the day of the closing, instead of the White couple showing up, 
the African-American gentleman from the Black couple and a volunteer 
lawyer came to confront the real estate agent. The real estate agent 
was so upset that he stood up and punched the lawyer representing the 
Black couple and sicced his dog on the African-American man. Yet the 
law was on their side. The fair housing law of the United States of 
America, the law of the Federal Government, was on their side.
  Eventually, that Black couple and their two kids moved into that home 
in Harrington Park, NJ. That was 1969. It was the year I was born, and 
that couple was my parents, Cary and Carolyn Booker. That is my origin 
story. Legislation that this body passed empowered my family to move 
into the home of their dreams in an all-White neighborhood with 
incredibly good schools that I went through from K-12. I am the 
beneficiary of work this body did to ensure that our American values 
are preserved, our values of inclusion and integration, to make sure 
fair housing is the law of the land. That work gave me my start in 
life. The activism of local activists, combined with the law of the 
land as passed by us, defined my path.
  After decades of struggle in communities across the country, we have 
largely been successful in banning overt housing discrimination. We

[[Page S3005]]

should be proud of our work. But legislation that we passed should not 
become a relic of history. It is not something for us to turn and 
admire. We all know on many issues the cause of freedom and the cause 
of justice necessitate constant vigilance.
  So I rise today with the knowledge that while major pieces of civil 
rights legislation like the Fair Housing Act have had a significant 
impact on millions of Americans--White, Black, Latino, Asian, 
disabled--this has had a full impact. We still have work to do to 
continue that vigilance to make sure that those values, those ideals, 
and the law of the land are made real for families.
  Unfortunately, for nearly 50 years there has not been real guidance, 
direction, or tools to help local officials achieve the goals of the 
Fair Housing Act, which are integrated housing, fair housing, equal 
access. In 2010, in fact, the Government Accountability Office found 
that the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, failed to 
properly administer oversight obligations under the Fair Housing Act 
and failed to monitor its guarantees for compliance with the law.
  In 2013, HUD proposed affirmatively furthering fair housing, a new 
rule that would seek to fulfill the promise of the Fair Housing Act and 
eliminate a lot of the historic patterns of segregation that still go 
on in America today. The vision for the rule is to institute a data-
driven analysis of localities and to develop Federal grant programs for 
housing and economic inclusion.
  When I was mayor, people came to me with passions and accusations and 
the like. I used to always say: In God we trust, but, everybody else, 
bring me data. It is important to look at the numbers to know what 
really is going on.
  So HUD brought about this idea of making sure we have that data--not 
in a rushed process. The administration engaged in a diligent 2-year 
rulemaking process with public inclusion, participation from others, 
and lots of public comment periods. They finalized that rule in July 
2015.
  It is unfortunate that one of my dear colleagues--somebody whom I 
value very much because we do a lot of work across the aisle--has 
introduced an amendment that would block this rule's implementation, 
and I must respectfully disagree with the intent of this amendment. The 
Fair Housing Act and, really, the entirety of the Civil Rights Act were 
meant, again, to be real today, not just relics of yesterday. They were 
meant to be guideposts and standards by which we hold ourselves 
accountable for the values we put forth.
  The affirmatively further fair housing rule is a measure of 
accountability for HUD and for ourselves. You cannot change what you 
cannot measure. Let me say that again. I learned this as a manager: If 
you can't measure it, you can't change it or affect it.
  The rule will arm communities most in need with knowledge and numbers 
so they can make intelligent local decisions and best apply their 
resources. It is what everyone who has to manage something needs: 
accurate data. It will improve the access to quality data on local 
demographics and streamline the process for analyzing local fair 
housing impediments, helping grantees establish their own local fair 
housing priorities. This rule does not interfere with local zoning or 
housing laws, and it prevents further taxpayer dollars from being used 
to discriminate.
  Every stakeholder--every one of us--is afforded an opportunity to 
comment on the rule that HUD made, and, as a former local leader, it 
empowers people at the localities to do justice by their communities. 
This is a balanced and a measured rule, and it takes up the cause of 
the work to make our country more and more just.
  I know personally that so much of the character of our country comes 
from the values we have as a whole. There are rare times in our history 
where this body is called upon to affirm those values. This body's 
history--the noble history of this body--is something I have benefited 
from personally around fair housing. Now we have more tools necessary, 
with big data and analysis, to more effectively and affirmatively 
assert our values and ensure injustice is not being done.
  I want to make sure that we defeat this amendment for those reasons. 
I believe and know the values of my colleague who proposed this. I do 
not think it achieves the end that we want to see by disempowering 
people to try to help families like mine. I was a child in DC moving to 
New Jersey and found justice--found a pathway toward integration. 
Indeed, I doubt I would be here right now if it weren't for the laws of 
our land.
  I hope we can defeat this amendment and ensure that our Nation 
becomes more fair and more just and that more families like mine can 
find the America we hail when we pledge allegiance to the flag and say 
we are a Nation of liberty and justice for all.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the 
quorum calls be charged equally, fairly--like fair housing--fairly, to 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                       The Appropriations Process

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senators have been working diligently 
this week, continuing our efforts to advance American priorities and 
responsibly fund important programs through the appropriations process. 
We have made good progress so far. The Senate already passed one 
funding bill by a broad majority at a record early time. Another 
Appropriations subcommittee approved its own funding bill just the 
other day, and it is my hope that we will be able to move two more 
funding measures across the finish line very shortly. With continued 
work and cooperation, we can do just that.
  The two measures before us are the result of hard work, negotiation, 
and compromise. They are the product of strong leadership by Senators 
Collins and Kirk, and they are the culmination of a good deal of input 
from both sides of the aisle.
  Here is what we know these bills can achieve: The transportation and 
housing infrastructure appropriations bill will invest in our 
transportation systems and help ensure safety and efficiency. The 
veterans and military construction funding bill will help improve care 
for veterans and increase oversight and accountability efforts at the 
VA.
  The legislation before us will also include a provision to help 
address Zika. This compromise provision will focus on immediate needs 
while also providing resources for longer term goals such as a vaccine. 
It is another reminder that keeping Americans safe and healthy is a top 
priority for us all. Let's continue our work today to move these 
important funding measures closer to passage.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3897

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, a home is more than just a roof over 
someone's head; it is actually where a family builds their lives. In 
our country, we need to do everything we can to make sure families have 
options when it comes to finding a place to live, and they need access 
to affordable, safe, and fair housing. Unfortunately, today Republicans 
want to deal a significant blow to fair housing. The amendment they are 
offering would tear down the civil rights protections in the Fair 
Housing Act of 1968, and I am here today to strongly urge my colleagues 
to vote against it.
  Before the civil rights movement, African Americans faced an enormous 
amount of injustice and racism in housing. People of color were often 
relegated to substandard housing. They were denied mortgages, and rent 
in an

[[Page S3006]]

African-American neighborhood was often higher than rent in a White 
neighborhood.
  When the Fair Housing Act went into effect in 1968, it not only 
banned discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing, it 
went a step further: A new Federal housing agency was charged with 
proactively rooting out discrimination and segregation in communities 
across the country. That is an important part of the law because today 
people across the country still face systemic and sometimes racially 
motivated barriers to housing. People with disabilities, people of 
color, families with children, and religious groups in many areas have 
limited housing choices.
  Last year the Department of Housing and Urban Development, also known 
as HUD, issued a long-overdue rule to help carry out that mission to 
proactively eliminate housing segregation and discrimination. For 
States and local governments that get HUD investments, this rule would 
improve the quality and access to data on demographics, it would help 
researchers analyze the barriers people face to access fair housing, 
and it would help set priorities and goals for carrying out the mission 
to actively fight back against discrimination and segregation.
  Based on pilot programs from around the country, we know this rule 
can help expand opportunity to more Americans. One of those pilots was 
in Seattle in my home State of Washington. After an assessment of high-
poverty areas in Puget Sound, the city saw that neighborhoods that 
historically have been disenfranchised lacked job opportunities. Armed 
with that data, the city is setting up a food distribution center and a 
job incubator in those neighborhoods. The city's work is helping to 
foster job growth in places where low-income residents live, and 
through that work, the city expanded economic security to more people. 
That would not have been possible without the data this long-overdue 
rule provided us.
  This is the kind of success this new rule will help further, but 
unfortunately we are seeing that some Republicans want to put a stop to 
those positive changes and backtrack on the gains we have made on civil 
rights in housing, and to me, that is unacceptable. Here in Congress, 
we should be clearing pathways for more Americans to access more 
housing, not blocking the away.
  I am here today to urge my colleagues to vote against that amendment, 
which we will be voting on later.
  Mr. President, while I have the floor, I wish to talk about another 
topic that is very important to me. I am very honored to come to the 
floor today with good news for thousands of military families, 
including three couples I met just last week here in the Nation's 
Capital. Each of the veterans I met with had suffered a catastrophic 
injury while fighting for our country, which changed the course of 
their lives and their families' lives forever.
  Matt Keil was shot by a sniper and paralyzed. Kevin Jaye was injured 
by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. Tyler Black was paralyzed during a 
firefight. What was the one thing each of these veterans wished for 
after he returned home and got out of the hospital? Well, like so many 
women and men in our country, they dreamed of having a family of their 
own.
  Even though each veteran suffered injuries that made it nearly 
impossible to conceive naturally, they have hope because in this day 
and age, the medical technology exists to make their dream of having a 
family come true. The most popular path is in vitro fertilization, 
known as IVF, but because of a policy enacted decades ago, the VA is 
barred from covering the costs of IVF, which forced Matt, Kevin, and 
Tyler, with their partners, to go down that road alone even though 
their injuries were caused while serving all of us overseas. 
Collectively, they have paid tens and tens of thousands of dollars out-
of-pocket. Matt said to me that when he heard the VA wouldn't cover the 
one medical procedure he and his wife wanted so badly, he felt like his 
country had abandoned him. We are talking about a man who sacrificed 
his body for our country.
  I believe this is wrong. When this country sends brave men and women 
to work, we promise to take care of them when they return home. That is 
why I have been fighting to change this policy once and for all, and 
today I am very proud to see this effort take a big step forward with 
bipartisan support here in the Senate. My provision in the underlying 
VA appropriations bill will finally allow the VA to cover those costs 
and let our veterans know their country is there for them when they 
come home. It is the right thing to do for Matt and his wife Tracy, 
Kevin and Lauren, Tyler and Crystal, and every other military family in 
this country.
  As we move to pass this bill through the Senate, I call on my 
colleagues in the House to follow suit and get this done. This is not 
about politics or partisanship, and we shouldn't be cutting corners 
when it comes to our veterans and their families. This is a chance to 
support our veterans and the dreams they have fought so hard for--to 
have a family.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and 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. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3900, as Modified

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call for regular order with respect to the 
Blunt amendment No. 3900.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. LEE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I rise not to debate the broad question of the Federal Government's 
proper role in protecting and advancing public health; instead, I am 
here to stress to my colleagues that with a growing national debt that 
will soon exceed $20 trillion, we cannot continue spending money we 
don't have.
  If this emergency supplemental measure is adopted, it will be the 
15th emergency supplemental we have passed since 2006, totaling about 
$190 billion in deficit spending. This is not how responsible 
governments budget. It is not how responsible governments behave.
  Indeed, we have the ability to provide the resources the country 
needs to fight the Zika virus without adding to our national debt. For 
starters, we can undo the $500 million President Obama took from the 
international infectious diseases account which was placed in his 
unapproved Green Climate Fund. USAID is sitting on $1.2 billion in 
unobligated Ebola funds. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Preparedness and Response currently has $347 million not being put to 
use. There is $525 million in CDC's global health security agenda that 
is unspoken for.

  To the extent that the Zika virus is truly an emergency, one that 
deserves the Federal Government's attention, we already have more than 
enough unused emergency funds to pay for the fight against this 
emerging threat.
  Yesterday, my colleague, the distinguished junior senator from 
Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford, illustrated that this administration has tens 
of billions of dollars in unobligated discretionary funds to pay for 
this as well.
  What we should not do, however, is allow the Zika virus to be yet 
another excuse to run up the national debt, just so appropriators can 
come back and use unspent emergency money on nonemergency parochial 
priorities at some later date.
  The entire emergency spending label is to some, perhaps, a little bit 
misleading. It does not mean that the money gets spent any faster. All 
it does is give Congress the ability to spend the money without having 
to pay for it, to spend the money without having to offset it somewhere 
else. That is not how we should operate.
  I urge my colleagues to uphold this budget point of order.
  Mr. President, pursuant to section 314(e) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, I raise a point of order against all of the emergency 
designations contained in amendment No. 3900, a list of which I am 
sending to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I certainly share the deep concern 
expressed by my colleague from Utah over the growing size of the 
Federal debt. It is a serious problem. I encourage him to look at the 
chart that Senator Alexander has produced, which shows where the 
problem is.

[[Page S3007]]

  The problem is on the mandatory side of the budget, not the 
discretionary side of the budget, which, due to efforts we have made, 
has been held relatively flat for several years. But the mandatory 
spending side of the budget is soaring. There is no doubt about that. 
For example, many of us, when the administration presented its budget, 
rejected the gimmicks that were included, for example, in the 
transportation budget to shift some $7 billion from discretionary to 
mandatory spending. That was unwarranted. We did not do that.
  But if ever there were an emergency, it is the threat posed to public 
health by the Zika virus. About 2 weeks ago, Senator Johnny Isakson and 
I went to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, 
GA, and heard briefings from the top experts in the world about the 
threat posed by the Zika virus.
  The fact is that the news keeps getting worse and worse. Zika has now 
been linked for certain to a severe kind of birth defect, making 
pregnant women particularly at risk. It has also been linked to a 
disease known as Guillain-Barre syndrome, which can cause paralysis and 
even death.
  Those of us who live in Northern States--this kind of mosquito, for 
example, is found only in the very southern tip of Maine--should take 
no comfort from that fact. The CDC has documented cases of the Zika 
virus in virtually every State in the Union, and that is because 
disease knows no boundaries in this world of international travel. In 
addition, the CDC has documented approximately 1,000 cases of Zika. It 
is an epidemic in Puerto Rico, where there are more than 475 documented 
cases--a true crisis for that U.S. territory.
  From my perspective, we have to act. We have to act quickly. The 
Blunt-Murray compromise bill deserves the emergency designation which 
is attached to it.
  Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget regulations, 
I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable 
budget resolutions for purposes of the Blunt-Murray amendment No. 3900, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I believe we are going to have that vote 
a little bit later.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                           Amendment No. 4039

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, last night I was off the floor when 
Senator McCain of Arizona offered an amendment regarding the Veterans 
Choice bill. Before the decision is made, I wish to memorialize my 
support for the McCain amendment.
  As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we waived 
jurisdiction so it could be offered on the VA component of this bill.
  I wish to add one further comment. The cost associated with extending 
the eligibility of Veterans Choice by 3 years, which is the McCain 
amendment, scores at a cost. But to recognize that cost, you have to 
assume we would not have treated an eligible veteran under any other 
program if Choice expired.
  We are never going to abandon our veterans. We have a commitment to 
the veterans for the health care they have signed up for.
  What Senator McCain is doing is trying to improve access to health 
care and to maintain access through the choice of a private sector 
provider or through a VA provider. There is no additional cost, unless 
you assume that you want to take away a benefit that we gave 2 years 
ago in the omnibus that we passed.
  I commend Senator McCain for extending the eligibility for Choice for 
3 more years. I will support the amendment when it comes before the 
Senate, and I encourage all other Members to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote in relation to 
H.R. 2577.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3900, as Modified

  Under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired.
  The question occurs on agreeing to the motion to waive.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 70, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Tillis
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--28

     Barrasso
     Coats
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cruz
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 70, the nays are 
28.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the point of order falls.


                           Amendment No. 3946

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 3946, offered by 
the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on this amendment, I yield back the 
remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3946) was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 3900, as Modified, as Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to a 
vote in relation to amendment No. 3900, offered by the majority leader 
for Mr. Blunt and Mrs. Murray.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, we have looked at the proposal. I think we 
have reached an agreement on the proposal that takes this issue up 
through September of next year. I think now is the time to move 
forward.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment, and at that point we 
will work with the House for a final conclusion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am disappointed that Republicans 
refused to work with us to fully fund the President's emergency 
supplemental proposal, and it shouldn't have taken us so long to get to 
this point, but I am pleased that this will move us to a down payment 
on the President's emergency funding package through the Senate.

[[Page S3008]]

  I want to commend Chairman Blunt for his work with us on this and all 
the Democrats and Republicans who are supporting it. But I want to 
remind all of us, this is only a first step, and we have to make sure 
that this agreement gets through the House and to the President's desk 
in the least amount of time.
  I hope we can separate it from this bill and move it quickly. That 
was objected to yesterday over pay-fors, which are not part of this 
amendment, but this is a critical emergency. We need to move on this 
first step, and I hope we can do it in a timely manner.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. VITTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Tillis
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--30

     Barrasso
     Coats
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cruz
     Sanders
      
  The amendment (No. 3900), as modified, as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the cloture vote on the Collins amendment No. 3896, Senator Enzi or his 
designee be recognized to make a budget point of order against McCain 
amendment No. 4039; further, that Senator McCain be recognized to make 
a motion to waive the point of order and that the Senate immediately 
vote on the motion to waive.
  I further ask that the votes in this series be 10 minutes in length, 
strictly enforced.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 3896, as Amended

  There is 2 minutes of debate prior to the cloture vote.
  Who yields time?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time on 
this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the time yielded back by the minority?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate Amendment 
     No. 3896 to Calendar No. 138, H.R. 2577, an act making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and 
     Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 
     purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Susan M. Collins, Roy Blunt, John 
           Cornyn, Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Roger F. Wicker, 
           Johnny Isakson, Marco Rubio, Mark Kirk, Lindsey Graham, 
           Chuck Grassley, Jerry Moran, Orrin G. Hatch, John 
           Hoeven, John Barrasso, John Boozman.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 3896, offered by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, as 
amended, to H.R. 2577, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 88, nays 10, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--10

     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Flake
     Lankford
     Lee
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cruz
     Sanders
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 88, the nays are 
10.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.


         Amendments Nos. 3898 and 3899, as Modified, Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendments Nos. 3898 
and 3899 are withdrawn.
  The Senator from Wyoming.


                           Amendment No. 4039

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank Senator McCain for his tremendous 
effort on behalf of veterans and the different approaches he has used. 
I don't think anybody has worked harder on it or understands it better.
  I wish there were more we could do for veterans and will work with 
him to see that that happens, but this amendment isn't the right place 
to do it. This amendment proposes that we increase overspending by $7.7 
billion for a continuation of the Veterans Choice Program. It doesn't 
offer badly needed reforms to the program, it simply provides more 
funding.
  Unfortunately, the accountability measures currently in place at the 
VA do not go far enough in ensuring that the health care needs of our 
veterans are the priority. By extending the Choice Program, we would be 
extending problematic waiting periods, we would be extending a backlog 
of health care claims, and we would be giving little or no authority to 
the VA to manage its employees.
  We have been getting complaints about many of these things, and 
another veterans proposal in the Senate improves both health care 
access for veterans and expanded disciplinary

[[Page S3009]]

measures at the VA. Senator McCain has worked on that as well. At the 
same time, it provides offsets to ensure that we continue to help our 
veterans in the future.
  I have been concerned about what I thought was $6 billion of 
emergency expense every year. I had them actually total that up in the 
committee and found out that we do $26.1 billion a year in emergency 
spending. We are going to have to find that money somewhere because if 
we don't provide offsets, we will not be able to help our veterans or 
our military or our education or anything else. Continued spending 
without making responsible choices for priorities will put us in a real 
hole.
  In order to make sure we are spending on our priorities, such as 
national defense and our veterans, and that they are not crowded out, I 
raise a point of order.
  Mr. President, pursuant to section 314(e) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, I raise a point of order against the emergency designation 
found on page 3, lines 7 through 12, of amendment No. 4039 to H.R. 
2577, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I note with some interest that the Senator 
from Wyoming did not have the same zeal for the $1.1 billion that we 
just passed in emergency spending for Zika that is not paid for, but 
the important issue is, that this is a program for 1.4 million 
appointments for veterans who would otherwise wait for delayed care, 
over 2.5 million separate payments to doctors, 450,000 Choice health 
care providers--the list goes on and on.
  All I am asking for is an extension of a program that is in effect 
and helping our veterans. The fact is, the chairman of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee said last night: What Senator McCain is trying to do 
to improve access to health care is maintain the access through the 
choice of a private sector provider or VA provider. There is no 
additional cost unless you assume that you want to take away a benefit 
that was given 2 years ago in the omnibus bill we passed. He goes on to 
say he would support this amendment.
  Who is taking advantage? The majority of the people who are taking 
advantage of this Choice Card, I will tell the Senator from Wyoming, 
are the young men and women who are just returning from Iraq and 
Afghanistan. We are giving them a choice. We are giving them a choice 
to be able to get the care they need and deserve.
  In my home State of Arizona, 50 veterans died while on a nonexistent 
waiting list--50 of them. That is why we have a Choice Card, so they 
can go out and get the care they need and want and not be on a 
nonexistent waiting list.
  I don't know what the priorities are of the Senator from Wyoming, but 
I can tell him now, they are not mine, and they are not of the men and 
women who are serving this Nation who deserve the best care and the 
choice of going to the provider that they want to within certain 
parameters.
  This is simply an extension of a program that is in existence that 
cares for our men and women who served our Nation with sacrifice, and 
some of them didn't even come back to have a chance to have a Choice 
Card.
  Mr. President, I ask to waive the budget point of order.
  Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and 
the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive 
all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions 
for the purposes of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 84, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--14

     Barrasso
     Coats
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Lankford
     Lee
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cruz
     Sanders
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 84, the nays are 
14.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to, and the point of order falls.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
until 1:45 p.m. be equally divided between the two managers or their 
designees and that at 1:45 p.m. the Senate vote in relation to the 
Collins amendment No. 3970 and the Lee amendment No. 3897; further, 
that following disposition of the Lee amendment, all postcloture time 
be expired; that the substitute amendment, as amended, be adopted; that 
the cloture motion on the underlying bill be withdrawn, the bill, as 
amended, be read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the 
bill, as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I wish to speak to the issue that was 
just brought up dealing with veterans funding and specifically the 
Choice Program.
  Three years ago, Congress put into place a response to what was 
happening in VA centers all over the country. We were all appalled with 
what was happening at VA centers all over the country. But for any of 
us who are in congressional offices, we were aware, were pushing on 
this issue, and had pushed on this issue for a while.
  But the media exposed what we all saw, and that was long-secret 
waiting lists for veterans so that the VA centers could keep their 
positive numbers up and look better--months of waiting for things that 
would take days across the street.
  As I dealt with the VA center in my own city, at times it would take 
6 months to get a knee replacement surgery at the VA center, when at 
the great hospital directly across the street, they could get that same 
surgery within 2 days.
  As to hearing aids, it would take months and months to actually go 
through the process and to get them at our VA centers.
  As to cancer care, if you were diagnosed with cancer and had needs 
and treatment that was going to be required, they would literally send 
you across the country, sometimes more than 2,000 miles away, to 
actually get cancer treatment--away from your family.
  Congress responded to that by putting into place the Choice Act. It 
was an emergency. There were major problems that were happening around 
the country in multiple VA centers, and there had to be a response 
right then. Congress set aside emergency funding and an emergency 
response to make sure something came into existence that only loosely 
existed before. What was called community care was now clarified to say 
that this is Choice, and it was simple. If a veteran had to wait

[[Page S3010]]

more than 30 days to get into an appointment or get treatment or if 
they lived more than 40 miles from a VA center, they would be given the 
option to go wherever they wanted to go. VA was required to start 
working relationships in every community across the country so that 
veterans would have the option to go wherever they wanted to go.

  I would acknowledge that program is in its infancy. It is 2 years old 
at this point. It has a ways to go to be perfected. There are still 
problems with it, and there is a constant push from Congress to provide 
accountability to make sure that program is done and done well. That 
should be the first step in giving veterans real choice. The first step 
of that is 30 days or 40 miles. The second step of that is any VA-
eligible veteran would get a card and they could go to anyplace that 
accepts Medicare. If they accept Medicare anywhere in the country--any 
lab, any hospital, any doctor--they should also be able to receive 
veterans as well. So veterans can go wherever they choose to go 
regardless of the distance.
  I have veterans who drive past six great hospitals, drive 200 miles 
to get to a VA center, and their families have the burden of all of 
that travel. It should not be that way. Veterans should be able to go 
wherever they choose to go for care.
  So the Choice Program is not only a good program, it is the right 
direction to go and it is a positive first step. But here is the 
problem: The way this particular amendment has come up, it is not only 
not germane to this bill because it deals with something that started 3 
years ago and we are dealing with a new bill right now, but it is also 
an issue of, we are doing the right thing the wrong way.
  My staff has heard me say this over and over again: There is a right 
thing to do and there is a right way to do it. Three years ago, we knew 
this was an issue. Three years ago, the planning should have been put 
in place to put this into the normal appropriations process. This 
process puts it into place, so we are adding $7.5 billion onto our 
children for a program that should be in the normal appropriations 
process that was started 3 years ago and that is not an emergency 
anymore. This is not an emergency. This is now normal funding of a 
program we want to keep going and expand. So there is a big issue here 
we do have to resolve.
  I want to see us do the Choice Program and do it right, but there is 
a right thing to do and a right way to do it. This program is already 
fully funded through the next year. It is not an emergency. It is in 
place, funded, and ready to go. It doesn't go away in the next year, 
all the way through the fiscal year. Let's put it in the normal 
process, let's do it the right way, and let's not add $7 billion to our 
children for an emergency that is actually a year away. No one is going 
to convince me that in a $4 trillion budget, there are not areas we 
could cut. Earlier this week I identified $86 billion in funds that are 
available to cover the $1 billion for Zika that this Congress decided 
to do in emergency funding anyway. We have the funds available.
  We can honor our veterans. We can do this and also honor our 
children. At the same time we are honoring our veterans, let's honor 
the next generation and make sure we are not adding debt to the next 
generation.
  With that, Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the McCain 
amendment No. 4039 is not germane to the Collins amendment No. 3896, as 
amended, or H.R. 2577.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the 
amendment falls.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, 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. KIRK. 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. KIRK. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support my VA 
spending bill to final passage. It is a very bipartisan bill.
  I also would like to thank my ranking Democratic member, Senator Jon 
Tester of Montana, who has been a great partner. We have worked with 
all Senators on both sides of the aisle to include their priorities and 
have worked through dozens of amendments. We include more than two 
dozen amendments in this bill.
  The bill provides record funding for our veterans' health care, 
protects whistleblowers, includes opioid safety, and also has the RAID 
Act to clean up the VA so that cockroaches are not in the VA kitchens 
and dining facilities. This bill also adds 100 staff to the IG's office 
and combats veteran homelessness. It requires better screening of VA 
doctors so they can't switch from State to State. The bill also 
increases medical research and adds money for health care for our 
veterans.
  I thank the subcommittee staff for doing outstanding work this year, 
and that includes Tina Evans, Chad Schulken, Michael Bain, Robert 
Henke, D'Ann Lettieri, Patrick Magnuson, and Carlos Elias.
  The bottom line: This bill does right by our troops and does right by 
our veterans. I thank my Senate colleagues and urge its rapid adoption.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to voice my full support for the 
fiscal year 2017 Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and 
related agencies appropriations bill which includes the fiscal year 
2017 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies 
appropriations bill. Each of these bills was passed out of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee by a vote of 30-0 last month. I urge all my 
colleagues to support this bipartisan package of bills.
  I commend Senators Collins and Reed for their hard work on the T-HUD 
bill and their collegiality on the floor this week managing this bill. 
T-HUD is our annual jobs bill making investments at the State and local 
level, delivering on America's physical infrastructure needs and 
America's compelling human needs. The bill before us will keep our 
roads and transportation systems safe and in good repair while 
preserving housing assistance for our Nation's most in need.
  I am especially proud of Senators Collins and Reed for making renewed 
investments in lead paint poison prevention. As the Maryland Senator 
from Baltimore, this is an issue I know all too well. Senator Kit Bond 
and I worked together on the VA-HUD bill to first bring attention to 
this crippling public health problem. April 19 marked the anniversary 
of Freddie Gray's death, a young man who grew up in Baltimore's low-
income housing. Before Freddie's second birthday, his blood lead levels 
were seven times the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 
suggested level, leaving Freddie severely and permanently brain 
damaged. Today there are still half a million children under the age of 
6 with lead poisoning.
  This bill increases lead prevention funding in three programs. First, 
the Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes is funded at $135 
million, an increase of $25 million to support lead-based paint hazard 
reductions in 1,750 additional units. This program provides safer homes 
for more than 6,200 people. Second, the Mikulski-Bond Lead Hazard 
Reduction Demo Program is funded at $55 million, an increase of $10 
million. This program provides competitive funds to State and local 
governments to implement lead hazardous reduction programs in privately 
owned and owner-occupied housing. Third, the Public Housing Capital 
Fund is funded at $1.9 billion, an increase of $25 million. This will 
remediate 1,500 public housing units.
  This bill also includes a number of reforms to HUD's lead programs. 
Among these is the requirement for HUD to update its blood level 
standard to the stronger Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
standard. HUD's standard hasn't been updated since 1999. In addition, 
the bill makes studio and efficiency apartments eligible for 
remediation grants for the first time. It is estimated that 34,000 
zero-bedroom dwellings house children under 6 years old.
  The transportation portion of this bill makes significant investments 
in Maryland's highways, byways, and transit systems. It cuts the first 
check under the FAST Act passed last December. This means more formula 
funding for every State. For Maryland, that is an increase of $62 
million.
  For transit, this bill provides increased funding for the Federal 
Transit

[[Page S3011]]

Administration totaling $575 million. It includes the Job Corridor-
Purple Line project in the Washington suburbs of Maryland. A total of 
$125 million is provided for the construction of this light rail 
project.
  For the DC Metro system, this bill provides the eighth installment of 
$150 million in Federal dedicated funding. This is the fully authorized 
level and will be matched dollar for dollar by the three jurisdictions. 
Fighting for this annual appropriation was the promise I made and have 
kept since the deadly Fort Totten crash in June 2009. This funding must 
be used on capital improvements relating to safety including buying new 
rail cars, track improvements, and signal upgrades.
  I included bill language requiring the U.S. Department of 
Transportation Secretary to do three things before this funding money 
can be spent. First, the Secretary must approve each expenditure. 
Second, the Secretary must certify Metro is making progress 
implementing FTA's safety and financial management corrective actions. 
Third, the Secretary must determine that Metro is using this money for 
top safety priorities.
  In addition to this dedicated funding, I am proud of the safety 
amendment I introduced with Senators Shelby, Cardin, Warner, Kaine, and 
Brown that was passed earlier in the week. This amendment provides 
additional funding to FTA to expand its safety oversight workforce for 
a total increase of $5.25 million over the current year funding level. 
It will enable FTA to hire six full-time employees for Metro's Rail 
Operations Control Center, four more investigators, seven additional 
inspectors, and six more contractors.
  This additional funding means FTA will now have more inspectors to 
watch as Metro crews work to complete SafeTrack, the yearlong plan to 
accelerate repairs on the system. Inspectors will be there to make sure 
the track work is fixed the right way for good. FTA also will have 
safety staff at the Rail Operations Control Center 24 hours a day and 7 
days a week making sure emergency procedures are followed to prevent 
future incidents. FTA staff will help Metro implement the National 
Transportation Safety Board's recent recommendations to overhaul the 
center's emergency operations and training. FTA staff will make sure 
these reforms remain in place and are followed. Finally, more 
investigators will help FTA tackle approximately 100 Metro 
investigations conducted each year.
  I also want to say a few words about the Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. This is another bipartisan bill 
funding vital programs for the health and well-being of our Nation's 
veterans, troops, and their families developed by Senators Kirk and 
Tester. Overall, this bill provides $83 billion in discretionary 
funding which is an increase of $3.2 billion above the current year 
funding level.
  This bill fully funds VA Medical Services at the President's request 
of $52.8 billion. This is $1 billion over what we advanced last year to 
address increased demand for VA medical care both within and outside 
the VA health care system.
  The bill provides additional funding for disability claims 
processing. Significant progress has been made to eliminate the backlog 
in processing initial claims, but unfortunately, the backlog in appeals 
is rapidly building. This bill includes $2.9 billion for claims 
processing, $30 million above the request, to hire 300 new claims 
processors and 240 additional employees for the Board of Veterans 
Appeals. Also included is an increase of $46 million for the Board of 
Veterans Appeals, bringing their total funding to $156 million. This 
will provide for hiring an additional 240 new employees focused on 
appeals processing.
  For our women veterans, this bill makes significant strides bring 
parity between male and female veterans. This bill mandates that the VA 
research and acquire prosthetic devices specifically designed for 
women. It includes $5.3 billion overall to treat more than 500,000 
female veterans who get care through the VA. This bill targets $535 
million for gender-specific health care which is $20 million over the 
request and nearly $70 million over the current funding level. This 
includes gynecology, reproductive health, and mental health care for 
women. I also was proud to support Senator Murray's amendment in 
committee, allowing the VA to cover the cost of reproductive services 
for veterans who suffered service-related injuries that prevent them 
from starting families.
  The military construction part of this bill fully funds all seven 
Maryland projects included in the President's budget request. This 
means a total of $340 million for construction jobs at Fort Meade, Pax 
River, Joint Base Andrews, and Bethesda Medical Center.
  Finally, the bill includes $1.1 billion in emergency spending to 
combat the urgent Zika crisis. CDC, NIH, and USAID need this funding on 
the ground today. $1.1 billion is a bottom line, not a starting point 
for negotiation. I am committed to sending a Zika supplemental to the 
President as soon as possible.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this package of bills. It 
meets many compelling human needs and physical infrastructure needs of 
our nation and does not include poison pill riders. It is an example of 
how, working together, we can solve problems and put America to work.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to speak in support of the 
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs division of the substitute 
before us. I commend Chairman Kirk and Ranking Member Tester for their 
leadership in crafting the fiscal year 2017 Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs funding bill. As a member of the Military Construction 
and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, I have appreciated their steady, 
strong advocacy for our Nation's veterans, servicemembers, and their 
families.
  As the daughter of a World War II veteran, I know well the sacrifices 
of those who serve and have served on our behalf, as well as the 
sacrifices made by their families. The vital programs and benefits 
funded by this bill will help fulfill our obligations to them and honor 
their commitment to our Nation.
  While we can never fully repay these debts, we must strive to provide 
each veteran with the quality health care that they deserve. One way 
this bill helps to meet this goal is through the extension it would 
provide of the highly successful Access Received Closer to Home, or 
ARCH, program. This pilot program, which is scheduled to expire in 
August, serves rural veterans in northern Maine, Montana, Kansas, 
Virginia, and Arizona, providing them access to high quality care in 
their communities and near their families.
  Many of my constituents tell me that this program has proven to be a 
lifeline for them and has saved them the arduous burden of traveling up 
to 600 miles round trip to receive care at the Togus VA Medical Center 
in Augusta, ME.
  In Maine, the program not only reduces wait times for appointments 
and prevents veterans from going through a third-party administrator to 
receive care, but it is cost effective. According to the VA's own 
statistics, the average cost of ARCH per veteran in Maine is less than 
half the average cost for VHA direct care. More than 90 percent of ARCH 
veterans are overwhelmingly satisfied with their care, a testament to 
why ARCH should be a model for the Nation.
  Ensuring that veterans continue to receive this seamless care is 
paramount, and I thank Chairman Kirk and Ranking Member Tester for 
including an extension of this vital program in the fiscal year 2017 
funding legislation.
  I am also pleased that this legislation would fund the President's 
fiscal year 2017 request for VA medical leases, including funding to 
lease a new Community Based Outpatient Clinic--CBOC--facility in 
Portland, ME. This project would allow VA to consolidate and colocate 
the Saco and Portland CBOCs with Maine Medical Center and its 
affiliate, the Tufts University School of Medicine. This collaboration 
will provide primary care, mental health, women's health, and specialty 
care medical services for veterans.
  This legislation would also help to address the opioid epidemic by 
requiring the Department to improve appropriate pain care for veterans. 
It also includes programs to help end veteran homelessness, expand care 
services focused on our growing population of female veterans, and 
support caregivers, who shoulder the enormous responsibility of caring 
for veterans who are unable to care for themselves

[[Page S3012]]

  Finally, I want to highlight the funding included in this legislation 
for our Nation's civilian and military members--and their families--who 
serve at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME. The legislation 
includes $74.9 million for housing, the replacement of the medical and 
dental clinic, and utility nuclear improvements. These projects will 
help provide the exceptional personnel at PNSY with the facilities they 
need and deserve to carry out the mission.
  Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their excellent 
work in balancing the priorities within their bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to advance this important legislation.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, universal, safe, and consistent trucking 
regulations are vital to all aspects of the trucking industry and to 
all users of the national highway system. Ensuring highway safety must 
remain a priority of this body. It also remains critical that this body 
maintain predictable safety laws to sustain efficient outcomes for 
truckers, trucking companies, the manufacturers and growers of the 
goods that trucks transport, and the customers who buy the products.
  Congress determined years ago that a uniform system of Federal 
trucking rules would lead to safer and more productive outcomes than a 
50-State patchwork of trucking regulations, as goods are often 
transported across State lines. Despite Congress's intentions, we are 
seeing various State trucking rules being implemented across the 
country that stray from the Federal guidelines. We need to figure out 
how to address this. We need to make sure that we have commonsense 
rules that don't change every time a driver crosses a State line while 
continuing to protect truck drivers and road users from unsafe 
situations.
  I think we have got a little more work to do before we are ready for 
a solution, but I pledge to work with all who are willing and maybe we 
can figure something out in the coming months.
  Thank you.


                       Maritime Security Program

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I join today with my good friend, Senator 
Hirono, to address the requirement for full authorized funding of the 
Maritime Security Program. Senator Hirono and I serve together on the 
Seapower Subcommittee and firmly believe that this program is important 
to our national security.
  The United States needs a U.S.-flag merchant marine that is strong, 
active, competitive, and useful to the military. Our merchant marine 
has a long history of providing sealift support to our Armed Forces for 
global military operations. The Maritime Security Program is a unique 
public-private partnership that helps the merchant marine, enhancing 
America's commercial sealift capability while saving the American 
taxpayer billions of dollars.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Seapower 
Subcommittee, I could not agree more with the Senator from 
Mississippi's views concerning the importance of the MSP program. The 
60-ship MSP program is the most prudent and economical means to address 
the U.S. military's current and projected sealift requirements. A 2006 
report prepared for the Military Sealift Committee of the National 
Defense Transportation Association concluded that ``the likely cost to 
the government to replicate just the vessel capacity provided by the 
MSP dry cargo vessels would be $13 billion.'' In addition, the U.S. 
Transportation Command, TransCom, has estimated that it would cost the 
U.S. Government an additional $52 billion to replicate the ``global 
intermodal system'' that is made available to the Department of 
Defense, DOD, by MSP participants. In contrast, MSP participants now 
provide DOD with the same vessels and global intermodal system at a 
fraction of what it would cost our government to do the job itself.
  Mr. WICKER. The Senate version of the Transportation-HUD 
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2017 includes $275 million for the 
Maritime Security Program. This is an increase of $65 million above the 
enacted level for fiscal year 2016. Although we are pleased that the 
Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended this increase in 
funding, we hasten to point out that Congress acted last December to 
increase the authorization level for the Maritime Security Program to 
$299,997,000 for fiscal year 2017. The House Appropriations Committee 
has recommended funding for the next fiscal year that would meet this 
authorization.
  As this appropriations bill works its way through Congress, we urge 
the chairs and ranking members of the Transportation-HUD Appropriations 
Subcommittees and the full Appropriations Committee to work in a 
bipartisan, bicameral fashion to provide funding for the Maritime 
Security Program at its fully authorized level of $299,997,000 for 
fiscal year 2017.
  Ms. HIRONO. I strongly agree with Senator Wicker. Despite the clear 
benefits the MSP program provides, the MSP commercial fleet is under 
extreme economic pressure from reductions in government-impelled 
cargoes and foreign competitive factors. I completely share the 
concerns expressed by the then-TransCom commander, GEN Paul Selva, in 
his March 2015 testimony before the Armed Services Committee, where he 
stated that the ``reduction in government impelled cargoes due to the 
drawdown in Afghanistan and reductions in food aid . . .are driving 
vessel owners to reflag to non-U.S.-flag out of economic necessity . . 
.With the recent vessel reductions, the mariner base is at the point 
where future reductions in U.S.-flag capacity puts our ability to fully 
activate, deploy and sustain forces at increased risk.''
  Accordingly, to ensure that this essential U.S. commercial sealift 
capability provided by the MSP program remains available to meet 
America's national security requirements, the MSP program needs to be 
fully funded as authorized by the Congress.
  Mr. WICKER. I would like to add a comment from the current TransCom 
commander, GEN Darren McDew. In January, General McDew said, ``As a 
military professional and senior leader, I think about and plan for 
what the future may hold, and I would tell you we must prepare for the 
real possibility we will not enjoy the uncontested seas and broad 
international support experienced in 1991. If either of those 
possibilities becomes reality, and if we remain committed to responding 
to security incidents around the globe, the only way of guaranteeing we 
decisively meet our national objectives is with U.S. ships operated by 
U.S. mariners.''
  I thank Senator Hirono for joining me in this effort to ensure that 
full funding is secured for the Maritime Security Program in fiscal 
year 2017.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  U.S. Innovation and Competitiveness

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the need to drive 
innovation and competitiveness here in the United States.
  I vividly remember watching the Apollo missions on TV and the launch 
of that 36-story tall Saturn V rocket that took Neil Armstrong and Buzz 
Aldrin to the surface of the Moon.
  The space program not only inspired a generation of Americans, but it 
also led to incredible advances in science and technology that over the 
last 50 years have accounted for as much as half of all the economic 
growth in the United States. These groundbreaking advances firmly 
established our Nation as an international leader in innovation.
  During the height of the space race, America's Federal investment in 
research and development reached nearly 2 percent of the Nation's GDP. 
Today, overall Federal R&D spending--the seed corn of our future 
prosperity--has fallen to a historic low of 0.78 percent of GDP.
  With the United States investing less on science, research, and 
education, and our competitors outpacing us, we are losing our footing 
in the global marketplace. Congress must increase the Federal 
investment in R&D to 1 percent of GDP if we want to continue to be 
leading the world in innovation. This commitment should include a focus 
on increased Federal support for basic research--an essential component 
of any kind of innovation economy.

[[Page S3013]]

  In addition to increased investment, we in Congress need to implement 
policy solutions that will reassert American leadership 
internationally. We need to invest in what works. We need to listen to 
the innovators, academic leaders, and industries that are making the 
life-changing inventions of the future a reality. To that end, my 
colleague Senator Cory Gardner and I have convened a series of 
roundtable discussions on ways to improve the American innovation 
system. Just last week, our Commerce Committee leaders, Chairman Thune 
and Ranking Member Nelson, held a productive hearing on ways to 
leverage the U.S. science and technology enterprise. After receiving 
input from industry, academia, science organizations, and economic 
development organizations, Senators Thune, Nelson, Gardner, and I are 
working to develop new legislation to guide our Nation's research 
priorities in the coming years and to improve America's innovation 
system. Through these roundtables, we heard that the stakeholder 
community agrees that modest, sustained, and predictable increases in 
Federal research and development investments are absolutely critical to 
ensuring the economic competitiveness of the United States.
  We need continued Federal investment in basic research, while also 
providing opportunities to commercialize that research. There is basic 
research that our companies simply cannot afford to conduct, making 
Federal investment absolutely critical. We also need to work to reduce 
administrative burdens on researchers so that we can maximize our 
Federal research investment. We need that investment to be put into the 
lab and not filling out more paperwork. We need stronger partnerships 
between government, the private sector, and academia in order to 
capitalize on discoveries emerging from our world-class research 
universities, such as the University of Michigan, Wayne State 
University, and Michigan State University.
  We must also close the significant employment gap in the STEM 
workforce for women and underrepresented minorities. Women make up less 
than 50 percent of post-bachelor STEM degree programs and only about 
one-quarter of the STEM workforce. Underrepresented minorities, 
including Hispanics and African Americans, make up about 10 percent of 
the science and engineering workforce. Last month, I joined a number of 
my colleagues in introducing the STEM Opportunities Act, legislation 
that would improve inclusion of women, minorities, and people with 
disabilities in STEM careers. It is a top priority for me to see that a 
similar provision is included in our bipartisan legislation.
  Finally, if we want to continue to be a leader in the global economy, 
we need to be a nation that makes things. Michigan is a State that 
builds and grows things, and I will continue to fight to make sure we 
continue doing that. Investments in advanced manufacturing will support 
firms of all sizes and support good-paying jobs and help keep them here 
in the United States. That is why it is one of my top priorities for 
this legislation that we ensure American manufacturing companies can 
compete and succeed in the highly competitive global marketplace.
  Last month, I joined my colleagues, Senators Coons and Ayotte, to 
introduce the bipartisan Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
Improvement Act. The Manufacturing Extension Program, or MEP, is a 
Federal public-private partnership that helps businesses get their 
products to market through a variety of consulting services. The MEP 
Improvement Act would expand and improve the MEP Program to serve 
small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies, which are a critical 
part of our economy and our national competitiveness. Including key 
components of the MEP Improvement Act will be a top priority for me in 
the new legislation being drafted.
  Science and technology are inseparable from the American 
competitiveness ecosystem. However, we need to focus on the entire 
ecosystem--from STEM, or STEAM, to basic research, to application and 
commercialization--and the inspiration that drives ambitious endeavors 
like exploring space and the other frontiers of science. We in Congress 
must do our part by supporting and investing in our efforts to drive 
economic growth, unleash increased productivity, enhance our safety and 
security, and make the world a better place for future generations.
  We are facing big challenges as a Nation, but I am committed to 
working with everyone--Democrats, Republicans, industry, academia, 
workers, students, and employers--to increase investments and implement 
the solutions that will ensure American competitiveness and create more 
good-paying jobs here in the United States.
  Mr. President, 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. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, if there is one specialty that every 
Member of Congress has, it is air travel. We spend more time on 
airplanes, more time in airports, more time waiting for flights and 
worrying about flights than most other Americans.
  As Members of Congress, we are veterans of air travel.
  We have all seen the footage of people waiting to go through security 
screening at major airports, particularly in the city of Chicago at 
both O'Hare and Midway. The lines are so long that people have had to 
wait 2 to 3 hours--2 to 3 hours to go through a security checkpoint.
  People are angry, and I don't blame them. Thousands of people have 
missed their flights, and some were stuck sleeping in airports 
overnight. The commissioner of aviation, Ginger Evans, told me: We 
pulled out the cots that we save for snow emergencies so that people 
now, in the heat of early summer, are facing the same kinds of delays.
  Our highest priority is to protect those who travel on our airplanes. 
Poor planning and inadequate funding have led to alarming delays across 
airports in America, and in Chicago we have felt it more than most. 
More needs to be done to fix the problem. That is what I have been 
working to do.
  Earlier this week, I talked to the Department of Homeland Security 
Secretary Jeh Johnson on the phone about the next steps. Yesterday, I 
followed up with a call to TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger to hear 
his thoughts. We all agree that the real problem is the shortage of TSA 
screeners. More people need to be hired and trained so security lines 
can stay open and people can move through the checkpoints faster.
  In the meantime, there are immediate steps we need to take in 
Chicago. First, we are going to get 58 more TSA screening officers in 
the next 2 weeks and 224 by August. That is about a 15-percent increase 
in TSA staff, and it is a good start.
  O'Hare will also receive 5 K-9 teams. That will double the number of 
K-9s we have at the airport. Two teams were brought in yesterday, and 
the rest will arrive within 5 days. These bomb-sniffing dogs do 
important work. They check carry-on baggage. If there is no problem, 
the passengers can move out of the standard line and into the expedited 
line. These dogs can help us speed up the process by allowing up to 
5,000 additional passengers a day to move through the faster security 
lines.
  There will also be a shift of 100 TSA staff from part-time to full-
time status so more people can be on deck to help with the lines. And 
officers who currently work on nondirect security functions are going 
to be called to pitch in and help officers at the checkpoints.
  We are also working to get more people enrolled in TSA PreCheck. I 
can't emphasize enough how important that is. For $85, a regular 
traveler can buy--or at least apply for and be given--a TSA PreCheck 
status for 5 years. PreCheck lines can scan nearly twice as fast as the 
ordinary lines. Customers don't have to wait as long or remove their 
shoes, belts, or light jackets. We need to make sure more people are 
hearing about this option and are signing up for it as quickly as 
possible.
  TSA is now working on a mobile app to help people get enrolled while 
they are waiting in lines, and they are also looking at lowering 
PreCheck signup costs by competing out the actual function of signing 
up for PreCheck.

[[Page S3014]]

PreCheck has gotten a lot of traction, especially in Chicago, where 
this past month alone we have seen 5,700 new enrollments. I hope we can 
continue to quickly expand this program to help more people into the 
faster lines.
  The airlines have to be part of the solution as well. I am glad 
Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut is on the floor because both he and 
Senator Markey of Massachusetts spoke out early on this aspect that I 
am about to address.
  Airlines can help us by reducing high wait times, especially during 
the peak summer season. I have joined my colleagues Senator Blumenthal 
and Senator Markey in urging the airlines to suspend the checked bag 
fees over the summer. A lot of people are dragging their bags on the 
airplanes because they don't want to pay to have them checked. On 
Monday, I spoke with Secretary Johnson, who told me baggage fees are 
contributing to long lines because more people are carrying on luggage 
that should be carefully screened through check-in.
  Over the last year, the volume of passengers and personnel passing 
through security checkpoints has increased 7 percent while the number 
of checked bags has increased only 3 percent. That tells the story: 
More people are carrying on their luggage and causing problems as more 
travelers pack their roller bags to the brim, making the bags take even 
longer to be scanned. Waiving the checked baggage fee during the summer 
travel season can reduce the incentive for passengers to carry-on 
luggage, and it can help speed up the process.
  Let me also add that it is in this baggage that people are dragging 
onboard that TSA screeners are finding things that aren't supposed to 
be on an airplane. Last year, they found 2,653 firearms, and 83 percent 
of them were loaded. Most of them were from one State; I will not name 
it. But by and large, we have to be more mindful of the fact that this 
stops the process or at least slows it down.
  I am convening a meeting with Administrator Neffenger tomorrow, along 
with State and local officials and airlines at Chicago O'Hare, and then 
we are also going to be visiting the Midway airport. We will see 
firsthand what airlines are experiencing and what their response is. We 
have to stop this meltdown when it comes to airport security.
  Let me close by saying this: The news today about EgyptAir was a grim 
reminder that we still live in a very dangerous world. The role and 
responsibility of the Transportation Security Agency is to make sure 
that when we and our families travel, we come off those planes just as 
safely as we went on. It is an important security responsibility. Yes, 
it is an irritation and a frustration, but we need to do it in this 
dangerous world to make sure that we stop people from using their 
carry-on baggage and other sources to cause harm to innocent people.
  I stand behind TSA and its mission, but what happened in Chicago is 
unacceptable. This meltdown should have been avoided. There should have 
been better management, more screeners, and we should have been ready 
for the surge in passengers. Beginning this week, we are going to make 
that right. I hope the visit by the TSA Administrator tomorrow will be 
the beginning of a conversation that will not only help our airports in 
Chicago but also help our Nation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from 
Illinois for his leadership on this issue and his support for the 
initiative that Senator Markey and I first raised, which he has 
supported so very helpfully, and essentially that is to persuade the 
airlines to stop charging for bags that are checked onto planes as 
opposed to being carried on. Obviously, the fee for checking those bags 
adds to the number of carry-ons and provides an incentive for larger 
numbers of carry-ons. In fact, TSA itself reports that there has been 
an increase in carry-ons due to these fees.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak 
for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The elimination of the fees for checked bags is not a panacea. It is 
not going to solve this problem alone. But it will, along with other 
measures, help reduce lines that result from screening.
  I commend Admiral Neffenger for his very close and prompt attention 
to this matter and for a number of the initiatives he has taken. We 
heard about them in the Commerce Committee this morning. I also thank 
Secretary Johnson for supporting elimination of the fees for checked 
bags. I think his leadership will be important.
  There are a number of other initiatives that can and should be taken. 
There is automated equipment that can expedite the screening of those 
carry-on bags. The use of additional screeners is important. The number 
has been reduced over the last 3 years by about 5,800. The addition of 
another close to 800 will help compensate. But again, alone, none of 
these solutions will provide the answer.
  As far as the automated equipment is concerned, the cost for the 20 
busiest airports is about $30 million--a pittance compared to the $3.8 
billion in revenue the airlines make every year as a result of the fees 
for checked baggage. I will repeat that: $3.8 billion is going to 
airlines as a result of their purposefully charging for bags checked 
instead of carried on. Many of those bags that go through screening now 
wind up in the holds of those airplanes anyway because there isn't room 
for them on the plane, so they wind up being checked at the gate. That 
simply adds to the cost and inconvenience of passengers: delayed 
flights, missed flights, flights that are in effect late because of the 
boarding problems. All of these accumulating issues are reasons to 
eliminate these fees and also give passengers the benefit of lower 
costs.
  My hope is that the airlines will voluntarily eliminate these fees 
for checked bags. After the meeting we had today with Admiral 
Neffenger, I am encouraged that the TSA will take initiative and help 
to implement other measures as well.
  In the meantime, we need the airlines to show some leadership as 
well, and I am hopeful they will do the right thing. The U.S. Travel 
Association has called it a national crisis. The evidence is 
irrefutable. At checkpoints that have no fee charges for bags, the 
carry-ons are 27 percent lower, so the numbers of carry-ons definitely 
diminish as the fees are eliminated. This evidence is irrefutable and 
argues powerfully that the airlines should not keep their passengers 
waiting in line. They should make some sacrifice to their bottom line 
and should not be profiting at the expense of their passengers.
  I will conclude by saying on this point--and I am so glad to see my 
colleague and friend from Massachusetts--that we need this initiative 
now, and we need it to happen.
  I also want to advocate on behalf of the safety of our roads. 
Blumenthal amendment No. 4002 will not be called up in part because it 
had been willfully mischaracterized by an industry campaign. In effect, 
we need to make truck drivers more safely empowered on the roads to 
take steps to protect themselves. Drivers who spend too much time 
behind the wheel are tired. They can't drive as safely. This amendment 
would enable them to drive more safely, give them the rest they need, 
protect them, and enable the roads to be safer not only for them but 
for people generally.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield to Senator Markey.
  Mr. MARKEY. I just want to thank the Senator for his work. We have 
been partnering on this issue of eliminating bag fees at airports. 
Since they have been imposed, 27 percent more bags now go through 
baggage clearing with passengers. If we could just get that out of the 
way, get rid of those baggage fees, I think it would expedite 
dramatically the ability of people to get on planes in this country. So 
I am glad we are able to have this moment to be able to speak about the 
importance of this issue.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, the Senator 
from Massachusetts and I have been partners in this effort, and I hope 
we can prevail.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

[[Page S3015]]

  



                Amendment No. 3970 to Amendment No. 3896

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I call up the Collins-Reed-Cochran 
amendment No. 3970.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3970 to amendment No. 3896.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, 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 prohibit the use of funds to carry out a final rule and 
       notice of the Department of Housing and Urban Development)

       At the appropriate place in division A, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  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 changes to existing 
     zoning laws as part of carrying out the final rule entitled 
     ``Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing'' (80 Fed. Reg. 42272 
     (July 16, 2015)) or the notice entitled ``Affirmatively 
     Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Tool'' (79 Fed. Reg. 57949 
     (September 26, 2014)).

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the amendment that Senator Jack Reed, 
Senator Thad Cochran, and I are offering would make very clear that 
none of the funds made available in this appropriations bill can be 
used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to direct a 
recipient of Federal funds to undertake changes to their zoning laws. 
There has been concern that some have brought up that a new rule that 
was issued last year by the Department would somehow allow HUD to be 
the national zoning authority for every neighborhood in our country. 
While I do not believe that is a correct interpretation of the fair 
housing amendment or regulation that HUD has promulgated, the Collins-
Reed-Cochran amendment ensures that HUD cannot do that. It eliminates 
that possibility and ensures that communities will continue to make 
their own decisions to address these Federal requirements.
  By contrast, the proposal offered by my colleague from Utah, Senator 
Lee, would prohibit all funding for a rule that was issued by HUD based 
on a requirement that is included in the landmark civil rights era law 
known as the Fair Housing Act of 1968. It is important to know that 
this regulation was in direct response to a 2010 GAO report that 
criticized HUD's implementation of the requirement of the law that 
grantees, recipients of these funds, affirmatively enhance fair housing 
opportunities. It also was issued in response to requests from 
communities seeking guidance to ensure compliance because they don't 
want to be sued for inadvertently violating Fair Housing Act 
requirements. So communities asked HUD for more tools, better 
assessments, and more guidance to make sure that they were in 
compliance.
  It is important to know that the Fair Housing Act prohibits 
discrimination not only based on race, national origin, and religion 
but also against those with disabilities. Indeed, 56 percent of the 
complaints of housing discrimination have been initiated by individuals 
with disabilities. That is why Senator Lee's amendment is opposed by 
the Paralyzed Veterans of America and other disability groups, as well 
as the Urban League, the NAACP, and countless civil rights groups. On 
the first vote, we will be voting on the Collins-Reed-Cochran 
amendment.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Will Senator Collins yield briefly for a question?
  Ms. COLLINS. Yes, I will yield.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Senator Collins and every member of this body know 
that I support fair housing. It is so important for my State, where 
there is a lack of affordable housing, and the Anchorage School 
District is one of the most diverse in the Nation. However, I have 
heard concerns from people in Alaska. They worry not so much about the 
rule itself but about how HUD could implement it. Many communities in 
Alaska are overwhelmingly Alaska Native, 90 percent or more of the 
population.
  Will this affirmatively furthering fair housing rule result in 
Federal grants being withheld from communities that are currently and 
have long been populated almost entirely by Alaska Natives because 
those communities are now considered to be segregated?
  Ms. COLLINS. No community in the United States or its insular areas 
will lose Federal housing funds solely because of its racial 
demographics. There are communities throughout the United States that 
are racially homogenous for reasons that have nothing to do with 
discrimination or other historic barriers.
  The rule does not change the Fair Housing Act, which for decades has 
included the affirmative fair housing requirement. The whole purpose of 
the rule is to ensure that States and communities that receive Federal 
funds take this requirement seriously.
  This rule is a planning tool, created to help grantees identify 
barriers to fair housing and plan how to address them. The rule does 
not penalize any community for where it starts but rather assists a 
community in taking meaningful steps to address any barriers it may 
find.
  HUD would never deny Federal funds to a community simply because of 
its demographics. It has never done so in the 48 years since the 
passage of the Fair Housing Act, and it will not under this rule.
  Additionally, I know some have expressed concern about what effect 
this rule would have on Alaskan Natives and other Native Americans. 
HUD's housing programs for Native Alaskans and other Native Americana 
are authorized under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self 
Determination Act, NAHASDA. NAHASDA includes a statutory exemption from 
the Fair Housing Act, which the affirmatively furthering fair housing 
rule does not change.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the affirmatively furthering fair housing 
rule, which my amendment would defund, is equal parts condescension and 
willful blindness. The condescension of this particular rule and its 
proponents is that local governments and public housing authorities 
across America can't figure out how to provide fair and affordable 
housing to their communities without the help, without the 
paternalistic interference of Federal bureaucrats. This is the epitome 
of the paternalism that informs so much of what happens in Washington, 
DC, today.
  I don't doubt, as Senator Collins has said repeatedly, that local 
governments would like ``better guidance'' from the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development in Washington. But this is a problem that 
was created by HUD, with its onerous requirements and its vague 
mandates, not the result of local governments being unable or unwilling 
to provide adequate low-cost housing for their neighbors in need.
  This brings us to the willful blindness part of the affirmative 
furthering fair housing rule. Proponents of the rule claim that HUD 
officials consulted closely with local governments and public housing 
authorities when drafting and finalizing the AFFH rule. In their 
telling, local housing agencies across the country are welcoming the 
AFFH rule with open arms. But this ignores what local officials have 
actually said about AFFH.
  I will let these local officials speak for themselves. Roger 
Partridge, the county commissioner of Douglas County, CO, had this to 
say, in an email, about AFFH, the closed process that produced it, and 
the immense burdens it will place on local governments:

       Douglas County believes that the Assessment of Fair Housing 
     tool as it now stands is an unfunded mandate that will create 
     an administrative nightmare for jurisdictions who want to 
     further fair housing and implement community programs with 
     HUD grants.

  Partridge continues:

       HUD headquarters has repeatedly ignored the local 
     practitioners responsible for AFFH and implementing the AFH 
     in our communities.

  He continues:

       In fact, HUD headquarters staff was in Denver for a Public 
     AFFH roundtable on April 21st, during [the AFH tool] comment 
     period. They ignored the opportunity to inform Region VIII 
     Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) staff or the local 
     practitioners attending the roundtable. No notice from the 
     HUD EXCHANGE to the grantee list serve was found. The local 
     governments who were asked to comment on the publication were 
     shut out of the process.

  Likewise, this is what we have heard from Salt Lake County officials:

       The administrative burden imposed by this tool is 
     excessive. Resources that could be put

[[Page S3016]]

     into housing related tasks are being funneled into completing 
     the tool and its associated administrative tasks.
       Additionally, although HUD claims that this tool can be 
     completed without the use of a consultant, the assessment is 
     complex enough to warrant considering a consultant. The rule 
     imposes a jurisdictional and regional analysis that is too 
     complex to be effectively completed by staff without specific 
     statistical and mapping knowledge. As housing providers, most 
     staff at PHAs have comparative advantages that lie in 
     providing affordable housing services, but not providing 
     complex statistical data analysis. Forcing PHA staff to do 
     this analysis is an inefficient use of their scarce time.

  Salt Lake County officials added the following:

       The AFH does not recognize the zero-sum nature of a PHA's 
     resource allocation. By allocating resources to complete this 
     process, PHAs are not allocating resources somewhere else. 
     Those resources could be used to provide additional housing 
     assistance.

  Instead of ignoring the words and the experiences of our local 
officials, and instead of condescending to them, we should listen to 
them and learn from them. We should stop this disastrous new housing 
rule from causing more problems than it has already caused.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Alabama is going 
to speak, and the Senator from Rhode Island should have an opportunity 
to speak. So I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute for each 
side prior to the votes in this series.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Lee's 
amendment that would prevent the implementation of HUD's affirmatively 
furthering fair housing regulation.
  Contrary to statements that have been made, the Senator's amendment 
does nothing to change fair housing laws or to prevent the enforcement 
thereof. What the Lee amendment does is to prevent the implementation 
of a rule that would give HUD Federal control over local planning 
decisions.
  Supporters of this program have argued that it is intended to protect 
communities from fair housing lawsuits. It is quite the contrary. This 
rule, if allowed to be implemented, will actually lay the predicate for 
endless litigation against every community in our respective States 
that are required to participate. This should be unacceptable to every 
Member of this body.
  Supporting Senator Lee's amendment is the only option before us to 
prevent centralized Federal control of local planning decisions. In my 
judgment, the Collins-Reed amendment does nothing to restrain the full 
implementation of HUD's program. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Lee amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the pending amendment is authored by my 
colleague from Maine and myself. The amendment makes very clear that 
local officials will remain in charge of zoning decisions and will 
determine how to best meet their obligations under the Fair Housing 
Act. Those obligations are fundamental to our American fabric, our 
lives, and the aspirations of this country, because they protect 
Americans' housing choices no matter their physical ability, race, 
family status, or religion. These protections are fundamental to who we 
are. But without effective information and transparency so that local 
communities can make wise decisions, these aspirations can never be 
realized, are seldom realized, or are not realized to the extent that 
we, as Americans, feel that they should be.
  Senator Collins and I have worked very hard to develop language that 
provides local communities with wide flexibility to meet their 
requirements under the Fair Housing Act. Those requirements will still 
be there regardless of our action today. If the resources made 
available under the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulations 
are not provided, however, those communities will still be required to 
ensure that housing is available within their communities, regardless 
of race, physical ability, or the other protected classes under the 
law.
  The Lee amendment would make grantees liable for compliance without 
providing the data and tools needed to comply. The thrust--the heart 
and soul--of this HUD proposal, based on GAO analysis, is to give local 
communities the tools, so that they can determine the local answer that 
makes sense.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 4 minutes 
equally divided on the Collins amendment.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Let me just 
reiterate what I have been saying repeatedly. What the amendment 
Senator Reed, Senator Cochran, and I have introduced does is make very 
clear that HUD is prohibited from intervening in local decisions 
regarding zoning ordinances. That is in direct response to what some 
people have been claiming, incorrectly in my view; that the rule on 
affirmatively furthering fair housing would somehow allow HUD to be a 
national zoning commissar. That is not the case, but to make absolutely 
sure that could never happen, we have teamed up on this amendment to 
prohibit HUD from intervening in local zoning matters. It is very 
different from the Lee amendment, which we will discuss shortly.
  This is an important clarification that should take away any fear 
that there is any possibility of HUD using funds authorized by this 
bill to interfere in local zoning decisions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the amendment offered by my friend and 
colleague from Maine in and of itself is unobjectionable and does no 
harm, and on that basis I intend to vote for it. Unfortunately, it also 
doesn't do anything. It does nothing to help the many housing agencies 
that have told the Federal Government that President Obama's AFFH rule 
imposes far too many reporting costs and their already stretched staffs 
are going to suffer as a result. It does nothing to shield local 
housing authorities from the very many real lawsuits they will face as 
a result of the data collected from this regulation, and it does 
nothing to stop HUD from blackmailing local housing agencies with 
Community Development Block Grant Program funds.
  At this time, I wish to cede the remainder of my time to my friend, 
the senior Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we should all be aware that the Collins-
Reed amendment provides no protections to local communities on their 
local planning rules because it merely prohibits an activity that the 
rule does not contemplate. Even the sponsor of this amendment 
acknowledged earlier today that the amendment prohibited an activity 
that she believed would not occur.
  Make no mistake that the so-called affirmatively furthering fair 
housing rule will likely heavily influence local zoning decisions. 
However, it does so indirectly, not through direct action as in the 
Collins-Reed amendment. HUD advertises this fact on its own Web site, 
where it details how communities will have to submit for approval an 
assessment of fair housing and that these communities will ``use the 
fair housing goals and priorities established in their [assessment] to 
inform the investments and other decisions made in their local planning 
processes.''
  In other words, HUD does not intend to direct any specific zoning 
requirements. It does, however, intend to significantly influence local 
zoning decisions by withholding approval of local plans until they meet 
HUD's central planning goals.
  This amendment is not sufficient on its own. I believe the only way 
to prevent HUD from intruding into local community planning exactly as 
they openly state they intend to do is to support the Lee amendment. I 
believe the Collins-Reed amendment is not alternative to Senator Lee's 
amendment, it is, at best, complementary to the Lee amendment, and that 
is something we will have to vote on in just a few minutes.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of time on our 
side, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S3017]]

  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Mr. DURBIN: I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), and the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--9

     Booker
     Brown
     Cardin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Reid
     Schatz
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Boxer
     Cruz
     Heinrich
     Sanders
  The amendment (No. 3970) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3897

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). There is now 4 minutes of debate 
prior to a vote in relation to the Lee amendment No. 3897.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
subsequent votes in this series be 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, unlike the Collins amendment that just passed 
with broad support, my amendment would actually do something with 
respect to affirmatively furthering the fair housing rule. 
Specifically, it would defund this rule and ultimately force the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development to respond to the GAO in a 
way that does not undermine local control or increase costs on already 
stretched thin local housing agencies.
  My colleagues who oppose this amendment have given a number of 
examples of local governments being newly connected to make better 
governing decisions, but my amendment in no way stops local governments 
from continuing to do that. All my amendment does--the only thing it 
does--is to prevent the Federal Government from forcing local 
governments to comply with a costly and unnecessary new data collection 
program, and it does so in order to protect local autonomy. I therefore 
encourage each of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the amendment offered by my colleague 
Senator Lee would prohibit all funding for a fair housing regulation 
issued by HUD based on a requirement of a landmark civil rights law, 
the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Not only was this not a regulation that 
appeared out of thin air, the GAO did a report criticizing HUD, and 
once the regulation was implemented, closed the recommendation.
  In addition, communities asked HUD to issue better guidance on this 
part of the law so that they could avoid being sued under the Fair 
Housing Act of 1968.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I move to table the Lee amendment, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Tillis
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Boxer
     Cruz
     Sanders
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


   Amendments Nos. 4050 and 4026, as Modified, 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. 4050, offered by Senator Rubio; and amendment No. 4026, 
as modified, offered by Senator Baldwin.
  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 4050 and 4026, as modified, en bloc to 
     amendment No. 3896.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 4050

(Purpose: To make temporary relocation assistance available for tenants 
 in project-based section 8 properties with imminent health and safety 
                                 risks)

       On page 85, line 6, insert ``Provided further, That the 
     Secretary may provide section 8 rental assistance from 
     amounts made available under this paragraph for units 
     assisted under a project-based subsidy contract funded under 
     the `Project-Based Rental Assistance' heading under this 
     title where the owner has received a Notice of Default and 
     the units pose an imminent health and safety risk to 
     residents: Provided further, That to the extent that the 
     Secretary determines that such units are not feasible for 
     continued rental assistance payments or transfer of the 
     subsidy contract associated with such units to another 
     project or projects and owner or owners, any remaining 
     amounts associated with such units under such contract shall 
     be recaptured and used to reimburse amounts used under this 
     paragraph for rental assistance under the preceding 
     proviso:'' before ``Provided further,''.


                    amendment no. 4026, as modified

(Purpose: To prohibit certain health care providers from providing non-
              Department health care services to veterans)

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

     SEC. 251. PREVENTION OF CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS FROM 
                   PROVIDING NON-DEPARTMENT HEALTH CARE SERVICES 
                   TO VETERANS.

       (a) In General.--One year after enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs

[[Page S3018]]

     shall deny or revoke the eligibility of a health care 
     provider to provide non-Department health care services to 
     veterans if the Secretary determines that--
       (1) the health care provider was removed from employment 
     with the Department of Veterans Affairs due to conduct that 
     violated a policy of the Department relating to the delivery 
     of safe and appropriate patient care;
       (2) the health care provider violated the requirements of a 
     medical license of the health care provider;
       (3) the health care provider had a Department credential 
     revoked and the Secretary determines that the grounds for 
     such revocation impacts the ability of the health care 
     provider to deliver safe and appropriate care; or
       (4) the health care provider violated a law for which a 
     term of imprisonment of more than one year may be imposed.
       (b) Permissive Action.--One year after enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary may deny, revoke, or suspend the 
     eligibility of a health care provider to provide non-
     Department health care services if the Secretary has 
     reasonable belief that such action is necessary to 
     immediately protect the health, safety, or welfare of 
     veterans and--
       (1) the health care provider is under investigation by the 
     medical licensing board of a State in which the health care 
     provider is licensed or practices;
       (2) the health care provider has entered into a settlement 
     agreement for a disciplinary charge relating to the practice 
     of medicine by the health care provider; or
       (3) the Secretary otherwise determines that such action is 
     appropriate under the circumstances.
       (c) Suspension.--The Secretary shall suspend the 
     eligibility of a health care provider to provide non-
     Department health care services to veterans if the health 
     care provider is suspended from serving as a health care 
     provider of the Department.
       (d) Initial Review.--The Secretary shall review the 
     Department employment status and history of each healthcare 
     provider providing non-Department heathcare services to 
     determine instances of circumstances described in paragraphs 
     (a) through (c) and shall take action as appropriate to each 
     circumstance as described in paragraphs (a) through (c).
       (e) Report Required.--Not later than two years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of 
     the United States shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     implementation by the Secretary of this section, including 
     the following:
       (1) The aggregate number of health care providers denied or 
     suspended under this section from participation in providing 
     non-Department health care services.
       (2) An evaluation of any impact on access to care for 
     patients or staffing shortages in programs of the Department 
     providing non-Department health care services.
       (3) An explanation of the coordination of the Department 
     with the medical licensing boards of States in implementing 
     this section, the amount of involvement of such boards in 
     such implementation, and efforts by the Department to address 
     any concerns raised by such boards with respect to such 
     implementation.
       (4) Such recommendations as the Comptroller General 
     considers appropriate regarding harmonizing eligibility 
     criteria between health care providers of the Department and 
     health care providers eligible to provide non-Department 
     health care services.
       (f) Non-Department Health Care Services Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``non-Department health care services'' 
     means--
       (1) services provided under subchapter I of chapter 17 of 
     title 38, United States Code, at non-Department facilities 
     (as defined in section 1701 of such title);
       (2) services provided under section 101 of the Veterans 
     Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 
     113-146; 38 U.S.C. 1701 note);
       (3) services purchased through the Medical Community Care 
     account of the Department; or
       (4) services purchased with amounts deposited in the 
     Veterans Choice Fund under section 802 of the Veterans 
     Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014.

  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. If there is no further debate on the 
amendments, the question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 4050 and 4026, as modified) were agreed to en 
bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
has expired.
  Under the previous order, the substitute amendment No. 3896, as 
amended, is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, the cloture motion on the underlying bill 
is withdrawn.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced---yeas 89, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]

                               YEAS---89

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS---8

     Corker
     Crapo
     Flake
     Lankford
     Lee
     Paul
     Risch
     Sessions

                             NOT VOTING---3

     Boxer
     Cruz
     Sanders
  The bill (H.R. 2577), as amended, was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before I make some closing remarks, I 
would yield to Senator Reed, who has been such an extraordinary partner 
as we have worked together in a transparent and collaborative way to 
bring this bill across the finish line.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me return the compliment to the Chairman 
of the committee, Senator Collins of Maine, for her extraordinary 
insight, leadership, and ability to bring us together. This bill 
reflects the priorities of members on both sides of the aisle, it 
reflects sound policy, and it was a pleasure to work with her.
  I think that she will also commend our extraordinary staffs who 
provided support, working many times when we were not working to get 
the job done. I thank Dabney Hegg, Heideh Shahmoradi, Christina Monroe, 
Nathan Robinson, Jordan Stone, Jason Woolwine, Mike Clarke, Lydia 
Collins, and Gus Maples. These are professionals who are thoughtful, 
skillful, pleasant, and probably deserving of the real praise for work 
done on the floor.
  Let me once again thank Senator Collins for her thoughtful leadership 
and her commitment to fairness and principle. I think that she is one 
of the major reasons we are here today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senate has completed its 
consideration of this appropriations measure, which provides essential 
funding for the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, related agencies, military construction 
programs, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and to combat Zika. I 
thank all of my colleagues for working together with us in an open and 
collaborative manner.
  I would note that the legislation we just passed incorporates some 40

[[Page S3019]]

amendments. There were also recommendations from more than 75 Senators 
from both sides of the aisle included in the Transportation-HUD 
appropriations portion of this bill which were incorporated at the 
committee level. I thank all of my colleagues for giving us their 
suggestions, their requests, and their insights. It made for a better 
bill.
  As I mentioned, I am particularly grateful to Senator Jack Reed, the 
ranking member of the Transportation-HUD Subcommittee, for his work.
  I also thank the staff for their diligence and commitment throughout 
this process. As Senator Reed mentioned, we worked extremely hard, but 
our staff worked even harder. So I thank Heideh Shahmoradi, Rajat 
Mathur, Jason Woolwine, Lydia Collins, Gus Maples, Dabney Hegg, Nathan 
Robinson, Christina Monroe, Jordan Stone, and Mike Clarke on the 
subcommittee staff.
  I also give special thanks to the floor and cloakroom staffs who 
worked so hard. Without the help of Laura Dove and her team and the 
team on the Democratic side, we could not be where we are today. They 
did a lot of the vetting that needed to be done on various amendments. 
They helped us in the negotiations and compromises that ultimately were 
included in this bill.
  I would note that our Transportation-HUD portion of this bill 
recognizes the fiscal reality while making critical investments into 
our crumbling infrastructure and economic development projects. It 
meets our responsibility to vulnerable populations. I think most of our 
colleagues are unaware that 84 percent of HUD's budget goes to 
subsidized housing. When we fund that, we keep very vulnerable low-
income families, disabled individuals, and our low-income seniors from 
being at risk of homelessness.
  We also paid special attention in this bill to vulnerable homeless 
populations, such as our veterans and our young people. We continued a 
program the administration wanted to abolish that helps our homeless 
veterans, to whom we owe so much--$57 million in new vouchers, so that 
we can continue the progress we are making in housing our homeless 
veterans. Since we started this program, the number of homeless 
veterans has declined by about one-third. This program works, but we 
can't declare victory until the job is done. That is why both last year 
and this year we funded the program, even though the President's budget 
sought to eliminate it.
  We have made real investments in helping some of our most vulnerable 
young people, and those are youth who have been in the Foster Care 
Program and then age out of that program. In some cases, they are aging 
out of the program before they have even graduated from high school, 
and they have nowhere to go. So through family reunification vouchers 
and other programs, we are beefing up support so they don't fall 
through the cracks and become vulnerable to traffickers, to dropping 
out of school, to couch surfing, or ending up in shelters. In 
particular, I am very proud of the work we have done in that area.
  I am very pleased this bill funds the TIGER Grant Program at $525 
million. This program has been extraordinarily popular and effective. 
It has funded projects in each and every State--projects that have led 
to job creation and economic development. When we think about it, at 
heart, much in this bill is about creating jobs and security for our 
fellow citizens. If you don't have a place to live, it is very 
difficult to show up for work every day. If the infrastructure is 
crumbling, it is very difficult for a business to hire the employees 
who produce the products and get those products to market. The 
construction projects this bill will fund creates good-paying jobs. In 
many ways, I think of this as a jobs bill.
  Let me give another example of a very popular program, the Community 
Development Block Grant Program. If you ask of the mayors and other 
town and city officials in your State, they will point to that program 
as one that gives them the flexibility to improve their downtowns, to 
make investments that bring new employers to the region, to build 
affordable housing, whatever their needs are, and that is the beauty of 
that program. It is not dictated from Washington. It gives tremendous 
flexibility to States and communities to design the kinds of economic 
development programs that boost growth and create jobs.
  In short, our bill strikes the right balance between thoughtful 
investment and fiscal restraint and thereby sets the stage for future 
economic growth, something I know the Presiding Officer has been a real 
leader in speaking out about and reminding us that must be our focus as 
Members of the Senate.
  I am also pleased we were able to bring spending bills to the floor 
for Members to examine, debate, and vote on in a transparent manner. 
The worst situation is when we do a series of continuing resolutions 
temporarily funding the essential functions of government. They create 
such uncertainty, they lock in priorities from previous years rather 
than reflecting today's priorities, and they end up costing more money. 
Agencies are unable to enter into contracts. Businesses, because of the 
uncertainty, tend to build in a little extra into their bids. It is a 
terrible way to operate.
  Equally bad is the practice of bundling all 12 of the appropriations 
bills into one gigantic omnibus bill, thousands of pages long, that is 
rushed through at the end of the fiscal year--or, more often, at the 
expiration of one of those continuing resolutions that I just deplore. 
We are not doing that this year. This is the third appropriations bill 
that the Senate has passed earlier than ever, with great cooperation 
from both sides of the aisle. The Members of the Appropriations 
Committee and its two leaders, Senator Cochran and Senator Mikulski, 
deserve great credit for putting us on a strict schedule and keeping 
the process moving.
  In fact, in the full committee today, we approved two more 
appropriations bills that are ready to come to the Senate floor. That 
is the way the process used to work. That is the way the process should 
work, and that is the way the process is working this year. I believe 
it is a great credit to the Senate, to the leaders of the 
Appropriations Committee, and to Majority Leader McConnell, who has 
made it a goal that all 12 bills be reported by the Appropriations 
Committee and brought to the Senate floor, individually or two or three 
combined, for full and open debate.
  Again, I thank Members on both sides of the aisle. Many of your 
requests are included in this important legislation. I feel fortunate 
to have worked with Senator Jack Reed on this bill. He is not only a 
great colleague and a terrific Senator but also a good friend.

                          ____________________