[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 79 (Wednesday, May 18, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2935-S2969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Wind Turbines
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in 1867, when the naturalist John Muir
first walked into the Cumberland Mountains, he wrote: ``The scenery is
far grander than any I ever before beheld. . . . Such an ocean of
wooded, waving, swelling mountain beauty and grandeur is not to be
described.'' In January, Apex Clean Energy announced that it would
spoil that mountain beauty by building twenty-three 45-story wind
turbines in Cumberland County.
I can still recall walking into Grassy Cove in Cumberland County one
spectacular day in 1978 during my campaign for Governor. I had not seen
a prettier site. Over the last few decades, pleasant weather and
natural beauty have attracted thousands of retirees from Tennessee and
across America to the Cumberland Plateau.
The proposed Crab Orchard Wind project would be built less than 10
miles from Cumberland Mountain State Park, where for half a century
Tennesseans and tourists have camped, fished, and canoed alongside
herons and belted kingfishers and around Byrd Lake. It will be less
than 5 miles from the scenic Ozone Falls State Natural Area, where the
110-foot waterfall is so picturesque, it was filmed as scenery in the
movie ``Jungle Book.''
So here are my 10 questions for the citizens of Cumberland County and
the people of Tennessee:
How big are these wind turbines?
I have a picture somewhere; maybe it will show up in the next few
minutes. Each one is over two times as tall as the skyboxes at the
University of Tennessee football stadium, three times as tall as Ozone
Falls, and taller than the Statute of Liberty. The blades on each one
are as long as a football field. Their blinking lights can be seen for
20 miles. They are not your grandma's windmills.
Question No. 2: Will they disturb the neighborhood?
Here is what a New York Times review of the documentary ``Windfall''
said about New York residents debating such turbines:
Turbines are huge . . . with blades weighing seven tons and
spinning at 150 miles an hour. They can fall over or send
parts flying; struck by lightning, say, they can catch fire .
. . and can generate a disorienting strobe effect in
sunlight. Giant flickering shadows can tarnish a sunset's
glow on a landscape.
Question No. 3: How much electricity can the project produce?
A puny amount--71 megawatts. But that is only when the wind is
blowing, which in Tennessee is only 18.4 percent of the time, according
to the Energy Information Administration.
Question No. 4: Does TVA need this electricity?
The answer is no. Last year TVA said there is ``no immediate need for
new base load plants after Watts Bar Unit 2 comes online.'' That is a
nuclear reactor. And just last week TVA put up for sale its unfinished
Bellefonte nuclear plant.
Question No. 5: Do we need wind power's carbon-free electricity to
help with climate change?
No, we don't. Nuclear power is a more reliable option. Nuclear
produces over 60 percent of our country's carbon-free electricity,
which is available 92 percent of the time. Wind produces 15 percent of
our country's carbon-free electricity, but the wind often blows at
night when electricity is not needed.
Question No. 6: How many wind turbines would it take to equal one
nuclear reactor?
To equal the production of the new Watts Bar reactor, you would have
to run three rows of these huge wind turbines along I-40 from Memphis
to Knoxville. And don't forget the transmission lines. Four reactors,
each occupying roughly 1 square mile, would equal the production of a
row of 45-story wind turbines strung the entire length of the 2,178-
mile Appalachian Trail from Georgia to Maine. Relying on wind power to
produce electricity when nuclear reactors are available is the energy
equivalent of going to war in sailboats when a nuclear navy is
available.
Question No. 7: Can you easily store large amounts of wind power and
use it later when you need it? The answer is no.
Question No. 8: So even if you build wind turbines, do you still need
nuclear, coal, or gas plants for the 80 percent of the time when the
wind isn't blowing in Tennessee? The answer is yes.
Question No. 9: Then why would anyone want to build wind power that
TVA doesn't need?
Because billions of dollars of wasteful Federal taxpayer subsidies
allow wind producers in some markets to give away wind power and still
make a profit.
The 10th question: Who is going to guarantee that these giant wind
turbines get taken down when they wear out in 20 years and after the
subsidies go away?
Good question. The picture that was just put up--and I have another
slide as well--is what Palm Springs, CA, looks like after it has been
littered with these massive wind turbines. My question for the people
of Tennessee is, Do you want Cumberland County and Tennessee to look
like that? That is the question we need to ask ourselves.
Many communities where wind projects have been proposed have tried to
stop them before they go up because once the wind turbines and new
transmission lines are built, it is hard to take them down. For
example, watch the documentary ``Windfall'' that I mentioned earlier.
In October, the residents of Irasburg, VT, voted 274 to 9 against a
plan to install a pair of 500-foot turbines on a ridgeline visible from
their neighborhood.
In New York, three counties opposed 500- to 600-foot wind turbines
next to Lake Ontario. People in the town of Yates voted unanimously to
oppose the project in order to ``preserve their rural landscape.'' Take
a look, and you can see why.
In Kent County, MD, the same company that is trying to put turbines
in Cumberland County--Apex Clean Energy--tried to put down twenty-five
to thirty-five 500-foot turbines a quarter to a half mile apart across
thousands of acres of farmland where the air serves as a route for
migratory geese.
According to the Baltimore Sun, Stephen S. Hershey, Jr., a local
State legislator, had introduced a bill that would give county
officials the right to veto any large-scale wind project in their
jurisdiction. Hershey said he put the bill in after learning that the
turbines would be nearly 500 feet tall and spread across an area of
thousands of acres. He called that a ``massive'' footprint ``in a
relatively rural and bucolic area.''
William Pickrum, president of the Board of County Commissioners,
wrote the Senate committee that the project ``will certainly have a
negative effect'' on farming, boating, and tourism in the county and
hurt property values. The legislation had the support of local
conservation groups and of Washington College in Chestertown. The
school's interim president, Jack S. Griswold, warned in a letter to
school staff and supporters that the turbines would ``despoil this
scenic landscape.''
I mentioned a little earlier how big these wind turbines are. These
are not your grandma's windmills. I happen to know, even though the
Presiding Officer is from North Carolina, he was born in Tennessee and
knows a little bit about the football stadium in Knoxville.
This is one wind turbine, when placed in Neyland Stadium in
Knoxville, which will hold 102,000 people. The turbine is over twice as
tall as the skyboxes. Its blades go the whole length of the football
field. Its blinking lights can be seen for 20 miles. These are not your
grandma's windmills.
As a U.S. Senator, I voted to save our mountaintops from destructive
mining techniques. I am just as eager to protect mountaintops from
unsightly wind turbines. I have voted for Federal clean air legislation
and supported TVA's plan to build carbon-free nuclear reactors, phase
out its older, dirtier coal plants, and put pollution control equipment
on the remaining coal plants. Already the air is cleaner and our view
of the mountains is better.
[[Page S2936]]
I hope citizens of Cumberland County--and all Tennesseans--will say a
loud ``no'' to the out-of-State wind producers that are encouraged by
billions in wasteful taxpayer subsidies to destroy our mountains and
make them look like that.
Some say tourists will come to see the giant turbines. They may--
once. But do we really think tourists or most Tennesseans want to
exchange a drive through the natural beauty of the Cumberland Mountains
for a drive along 23 towers that are more than twice as tall as Neyland
Stadium and whose flashing lights can be seen for 20 miles? If you do,
just take another look at the photograph of what has happened in Palm
Springs, CA.
If there is one thing Tennesseans agree on, it is the pride in the
natural beauty of our State. There are few places more beautiful than
Cumberland County. We should not allow anyone to destroy the
environment of our State in the name of saving.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Opiate Epidemic
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise, as I have for the past few weeks,
to bring stories of the opiate crisis that we have throughout my State,
the Presiding Officer's State of North Carolina, and all over this
country.
This epidemic is something we have to face because it affects every
person in America right now. There is not a person I know of and not
anyone, I believe, in America who doesn't know somebody in their
immediate family, extended family, or close friend who hasn't been
affected by prescription drug abuse or illicit drug abuse.
I have been dealing with this since my days as Governor of the great
State of West Virginia. As the Presiding Officer knows, it has ravaged
my State. We have been hit harder than any other State in the country.
Drug overdoses have soared by over 700 percent since 1999. Just last
year alone, we lost over 600 West Virginians to opioids. These are
legal prescription drugs that are made legally in the country by a
legal manufacturer of pharmaceuticals. They are approved by the Food
and Drug Administration, a Federal agency that is supposed to look out
for our well-being. They are being prescribed by the most trusted
person next to our family members, our doctors, and they are killing
us.
Our State is not unique in that it has hit everybody. Fifty-one
Americans are dying every day--every day. We have lost over 200,000
Americans. Two hundred thousand Americans have died since 1999. If we
think about that in epidemic proportions--we are talking about Zika. We
just put $1.1 billion toward Zika. We spent $500 million on Ebola. All
of these horrible epidemics that can cause devastation in America, we
will rise up and face. We haven't done a thing in this line. We need a
serious culture change to get through the problem, and we need to
change approval of opiate drugs. Basically, FDA does not need to be
putting out these powerful drugs. We don't need them. Think about the
United States of America. Less than 5 percent of the world's population
lives in our great country. Yet we consume over 80 percent of the
opiates produced in the world. How did we become the most addicted? How
did we become so intolerant to pain that we have to have the most
powerful drugs ever produced? We have to treat the way we look at this
drug coming to the market.
Also, 10, 20 years ago, anybody who did drugs, if they committed a
crime, we put them in jail. We have spent over $500 billion in the last
two decades incarcerating people for nonviolent crimes. They come out
as bad as they went in. We haven't cured anything. We have to change.
We are looking at sentencing guideline changes on nonviolent crime--
nonsexual, nonviolent crime. Most addicts commit thievery. That is a
theft. It is larceny. That is where they get their sentencing from. So
they get sentenced, they get a criminal record, and they can't get a
job. They are out of the market.
My State of West Virginia has the lowest workforce participation.
Only three things take you out of the workforce if you are an adult: If
you have an incarceration record, people will not hire you; if you have
a lack of skill sets; if you are addicted, you can't pass a drug test--
or a combination of those three.
Something is going on. We can't fill jobs. People are telling me how
bad the economy is. Then I talk to the employers who say: We can't get
people to pass a drug test. We can't get people into the marketplace.
So it is something we have to do.
My office continues to get flooded. I get letters from all over the
country now because I invite that. I want them. Let me read your
letter. Let's put a face and let's put a family on it. It is not just a
hardship, it is not just poverty, it is basically every walk of life in
America. They are writing stories.
I want to read another story to you right now. This is Carolyn's
story. This is the grandmother writing to me:
Dear Senator Manchin,
I am enclosing a copy of the letter I sent to ``The
Journal'' in Martinsburg concerning the death of our son's
step-daughter. She died of a heroin overdose.
I consider myself Devon's grandmother, and at my age words
are my best weapon to fight the scourge that killed her.
Please, Senator, read my letter and then use it in any way
you see fit in the fight for the passage of ``Jessie's Law.''
We have talked about Jessie's Law. The Presiding Officer has been
helpful, and I appreciate it very much. It basically says: If you go to
the hospital and you know your child or a loved one in your family is
addicted and the child is trying to overcome the addiction, then the
hospital has the responsibility to stamp on their record ``addiction''
so they will be watching how they discharge them and the type of
opiates they give them. You can't reaffirm an addiction by giving more
pills. So this is what we are fighting against.
She said:
Our granddaughter, Devon, that tall exuberant redhead who
laughed her way into our hearts, is now a statistic. Several
days ago our son called us to tell us that she had died the
night before from a heroin over-dose.
It wasn't her first over-dose by far, but the other times
someone had always managed to get her to the hospital. That
last time the friend shooting up with her couldn't help. He
died at her side. She still held the needle in her hand [that
killed her].
It was that quick.
Devon started her drug journey with prescription opiates.
She had been injured, she had an ailment, and she had pain.
When those pills weren't enough anymore, heroin stepped in,
and the downward spiral began.
Heroin steps in every time.
It isn't just the problem kids from poor neighborhoods who
get hooked, you know.
Everybody thinks it is because of the economic downturn. That is a
part of it but not all of it.
Our granddaughter came from a stable, affectionate upper-
middle class home. Even though her parents tried their best
to save her with countless sleepless nights, multiple trips
to rehab, tough love and loving persuasion, that drug won the
battle.
Now, we are not even allowed to grieve. We must also
contend with the many forms of our anger; impatience with
Devon for not being stronger, rage at those who sold her the
drugs, frustration with the authorities for not doing more to
stop the trafficking or establishing more treatment centers,
and self-recrimination for maybe not doing enough. We also
are trying to cope with the guilt of feeling relief that her
hell has finally ended. There is nothing more we can do for
her now, no more treatments that we can try.
Can you imagine living with that? You tried everything, and then,
finally, when the end comes like that, you have a feeling of relief--
and then you feel remorse for that. Can you imagine grandparents going
through this?
Finally:
She's just gone. Just . . . gone . . .
People are now coming out. Before, people didn't want to tell me.
They were afraid. They had a son or a daughter in rehab, and they felt
that would be a scourge on their family. They didn't want to be
embarrassed. So we never knew about it. It was a silent killer.
Then we saw young people--going through the obituaries, it doesn't
give the cause of death, but we can pretty much figure it out.
People are now saying: If we don't come out of the closet and talk
about it, we are not going to fix it. There is a lot that needs to be
done.
I am going to read another story that has a happy ending. I am going
to read Chelsea's story, which I have read before.
This is a young girl from Boone County, WV. This young girl had
started using drugs when she was 12 years
[[Page S2937]]
old--12 years old. Anything and everything that could happen to a human
being--her dad was mayor of the town. He was mayor. She had gone
through everything, hit bottom as far as bottom could be. The person
she went through drug court and drug rehab with died, couldn't get out.
She made it.
I am going to read hers now so we see a happy ending. Most of these
stories are about the pain and heartache associated with opiate abuse,
but Chelsea's story is a little different. In February, on the Senator
floor, I read Chelsea Carter's powerful story on how she has overcome
her opiate addiction, and today I am proud to say she just received her
master's degree in social work from Concord University.
She said:
After being addicted to drugs since I was 12 years old [by
a neighborhood friend], I decided to go back to school and
teach others what I have been taught my whole life.
I received my bachelor's degree from West Virginia
University in the Art of Psychology in May of 2013 and last
Saturday May 7, 2016 I graduated with my Masters in Social
Work from Concord University.
I am currently working on my Alcohol and Drug Counseling
Licensure and also myself and seven other people are in the
process of opening up a Sober Living home in Danville, West
Virginia [her home area] called the Hero House.
They get no funding. They don't qualify for Medicaid, Medicare--
nothing. What they are going to do is all going to be on love and
kindness. Also, with the record she has now--because she has a felony
record for grand larceny--it will be hard for her to get a job. We are
taking a person now with a master's degree out of the workforce. It is
unbelievable.
She said:
I currently work for Appalachian Health Services as an
addiction therapist--
They went beyond that and hired her anyway. Most people will not.
--but my dream is to one day open my own inpatient treatment
facility and help other people who are just like me.
A message I would like people to know is that recovery is
possible, but you have to be willing to work at it.
It is a lot easier to go out on the streets and buy drugs
instead of trying to change your life, but the one thing that
recovery gives you that the drugs will never is your life
back.
I am living proof that if you want something bad enough you
can change.
We have to give them hope. We have to give them reasons. We have to
give them the ability to get back in the mainstream. This is the best
example of what can be done if we make investments, and the investments
we make are investments in human capital in the United States of
America and the spirit of America. This is what we are doing.
For the many stories I read that have such horrible endings, this has
a happy ending, and it helps many people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. He
has been a tiger on this issue, and I hope we will answer his call. The
epidemic is no better in Connecticut, where most of our cities are on
track to see a doubling of overdose deaths this year from last year,
and last year was quadruple the number it was 3 or 4 years ago. I say
thank you very much to my colleague from West Virginia.
Amendment No. 3897
Mr. President, I am on the floor today to talk about an amendment to
the pending bill. It is an issue that a lot of us thought was decided
by this body decades ago; that is, the prohibition of discrimination in
housing based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical or
mental disability, and family status. It is the Fair Housing Act.
In many ways, the Fair Housing Act was the culmination of the
legislative fight for civil rights in the 1960s. It was the first
effective Federal law guarding against discrimination in the sale and
the rental of housing in the United States. For nearly 50 years, it has
been employed to ensure that every American can choose where to live,
free from discrimination and the immoral and unconstitutional
consequences of residential segregation.
We have come a long way since the 1960s, but we are by no means all
the way there. Today, discrimination is still a reality in housing
markets across the country. In every single State, there are cases of
landlords misrepresenting the availability of housing or outright
refusing to sell or rent to certain protected individuals or groups of
people. There are others who are given different terms and conditions
on a mortgage or on a rental contract, based on their race, their
gender, or their physical disability. I hear these stories even in my
State of Connecticut, which is a pretty progressive State.
For instance, Crystal Carter was a homeless single mother living in
Hartford, CT, with her five children, one of whom is developmentally
disabled. This is what she said, in her own words:
For two years, my family had jumped between homeless
shelters and staying with family and friends. I had searched
for affordable housing for several hours a day, every day,
and submitted dozens of applications. Then, I found out about
an open waiting list for rental vouchers in a suburban area.
I was excited at the chance to move to a safer area with
better schools for my children. But when I called the
suburban housing authority that managed the program, I was
told I couldn't even have an application because I didn't
already live in one of the approved nearby towns. I was also
told that it was someplace I wouldn't want to live anyway and
that I should be looking in Hartford or Bridgeport instead.
Johnnie Dailey is another victim of housing discrimination. Here is
Johnnie's story:
In 2013, I was searching for a new home for my family,
including my young niece and grandson. I found a single-
family home that would have been perfect for my family. It
was on a quiet street where my niece and grandson could play
outside, and the rent was less than my current apartment. My
real estate agent called the listing agent for the property
and told her that I was very interested in renting the
property and that I had a Section 8 voucher. The listing
agent responded that the owner of the property, a Boston-
based company, would not rent to me because they were not
interested in accepting a Section 8 voucher. I was
discriminated against and denied the opportunity to rent the
property solely because I am someone who uses a Section 8
voucher to pay part of my rent. To this day, when I think
about the discrimination I experienced, I feel upset and
embarrassed.
Crystal's and Johnnie's stories are two of tens of thousands of
stories from across the country that underscore the need for the Fair
Housing Act. We have made progress, but we aren't done. While the Fair
Housing Act rose out of the fight for civil rights for African
Americans, we also need to remember today that over half of all
reported complaints of housing discrimination are initiated by people
with disabilities. There are veterans returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan with debilitating injuries that have altered their lives
completely. These individuals also include a growing number of elderly
Americans who are living with disabilities.
As a Nation, we know we are stronger and better when we assure access
and opportunity for all Americans, including the 57 million Americans
who are living with disabilities today.
Unfortunately, civil rights laws are under attack today. It is not a
position that is endorsed wholesale by the Republican Party, but there
is a coordinated effort on the right to use every tool possible to
strip civil rights protections from African Americans, Hispanics, the
disabled, and the poor. We saw this in the successful campaign to get
the Supreme Court to invalidate portions of the Voting Rights Act.
Now on the floor of the Senate, we are talking about an amendment
that would gut the enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. This amendment,
which is offered by my friend Senator Lee, would effectively stop the
Department of Housing and Urban Development from being able to enforce
the Fair Housing Act. The law would stay on the books, but the
Department couldn't enforce some of the most important elements.
One of the elements, passed in the 1960s, is an affirmative
requirement that States and cities take steps to remedy discrimination
that exists in their community. The Fair Housing Act, which is a
bedrock of our civil rights laws, has held for decades that it isn't
enough to band discrimination based on race, disability, or gender.
Local jurisdictions have to do something to make discrimination less
likely for renters and home buyers. This isn't new; this has been on
the books since the 1960s. But a few years ago, GAO discovered in a
report that most localities weren't doing this; they were ignoring that
aspect of the law. Appropriately, HUD clarified the obligations
[[Page S2938]]
under this section of the Fair Housing Act so that cities and towns
know exactly what they need to do to assess the scope of discrimination
in their area and to better understand their obligations under the act
to fix the problems.
Senator Lee's amendment would strip from HUD the ability to enforce
this part of the law, and that is a shame. We can close our eyes, box
our ears, and pretend discrimination doesn't exist, but if that is what
my Republican friends want to do, it is a grievous mistake. We aren't
in a postracial world. We don't live in a society where the disabled
always get a fair shake. Discrimination exists, and the Federal
Government, since the beginning of this Republic, has taken seriously
its moral and constitutional responsibility to ensure that everyone
living under the protection of this government gets an equal chance at
success--no matter their race, their gender, their ability, or their
disability.
I am dismayed that 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights
Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act, the fundamental
civil rights that have been granted to every American still need to be
continually shielded from attempts to dismantle them. Any limitation or
reversal on HUD's ability to enforce the Fair Housing Act would for us,
as a Senate, be to ignore the moral compass that has guided our
Nation's commitment to civil rights over decades and decades of
progress.
I am encouraged that Chairwoman Collins and Ranking Member Reed both
intend to oppose the Lee amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to do
the same.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I am waiting on Senator Reid, who will be
coming here to make a motion with regard to the Zika crisis. While we
have a moment, I want to set the table.
Can you imagine being a pregnant woman in the southern part of the
United States this summer in a poor county that does not have the funds
for mosquito control? That pregnant woman knows that if she gets bitten
by the aegypti mosquito carrying the Zika virus, there is a good chance
the virus is going to infect the baby in her womb and could have
consequences, all of which we have seen in these very disturbing photos
of children born with deformed heads.
As a matter of fact, the doctors in the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention tell us that the baby can be born with no abnormalities
but the abnormalities appear later in the child's development after
birth. Can you imagine being a pregnant woman in the southern part of
the United States in a poor county--a poor county such as counties in
the State of the Presiding Officer--that doesn't have the funds for
mosquito control? What about a rich county that has run out of funds
budgeted for mosquito control?
If you are going to control the Zika virus, you either have to have a
vaccine, which they are working on, or you have to be able to stop the
mosquito from being able to reproduce. They are working on genetic
alterations, but both of those take time. In the meantime, there is
only one thing to do.
Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. NELSON. I want to finish my statement.
In the meantime, if you don't have a vaccine and you don't have the
ability to stop the mosquito population, the particular strain that
carries the virus, there is only one thing to do, and that is mosquito
control. That is what local counties, cities, and States are begging us
now, as was indicated by the letter that I introduced from Osceola
County, which is right next to the county of Orlando, Orange County. It
is a relatively well-off, affluent county, but they don't have any more
mosquito control funds. As we go into this summer with the rains, that
raises the concern that it doesn't have to be a pond with stagnant
water; it can be a bottle cap that is filled with water where the
mosquito lays her larvae and they hatch.
Yes, I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Florida
yielding for a question.
I wish to ask the question, Is the Senator aware that $580 million of
unspent Ebola funds has been reprogrammed by the Obama administration
as a down payment on dealing with this impending crisis?
Mr. NELSON. Indeed, this Senator is aware of that. Thank goodness
there was this pot of money so that the administration could start this
because we haven't been doing anything in Congress to produce the
emergency appropriations. Thank goodness there was a pot of money they
could borrow.
Did you know that there is Ebola that is erupting in Western Africa
right now? Don't we have a responsibility to replenish that Ebola fund?
Mr. President, I said I was going to talk until Leader Reid arrived.
He is here, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have had a long, pleasant relationship
with the senior Senator from Florida. We served in the House together.
We have served in the Senate together. I have great admiration for him
and his loving wife Grace, and I am happy to be on the floor with him
today. People in Florida are so fortunate to have this good man
representing them.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3038
Mr. President, look at this map behind me. There are two types of
mosquitoes that carry this disease--this condition, this virus. We see
this map here, which covers 39 States. It goes without saying that they
are not subtropical States. They are not Florida. They are not
Louisiana or southern Texas. They are places like Boulder, CO, and Las
Vegas, NV. Are those States subtropical? No, I don't think so. We get 4
inches of rain a year. It goes up into Maine.
This is a serious issue which will affect 39 States. As the weather
warms, the mosquitos will multiply and people will be bitten by these
vicious little insects.
Mosquitos have been causing problems in the world for centuries, but
never to anyone's knowledge has a mosquito caused the types of birth
defects that are now happening with the Zika virus.
The virus was discovered in 1947 or 1948 in Uganda. In fact, ``Zika''
is the name of a forest there and means ``overgrown.'' Over the
decades, something has happened and these mosquitos have become so
dangerous.
This virus is a threat to people living in these areas, and it is as
real as it gets. Right now, the focal point is on two places, but it is
changing as we speak. The American citizens of Puerto Rico have been
hammered. That poor territory of ours has had so many problems--all the
money problems they are having, compounded by the fact that tourism is
being damaged significantly as a result of this Zika virus.
It is not only the birth defects this virus causes, which are so
repugnant and scary, but this virus also has the ability to create very
serious problems with paralysis in human beings. It has happened, and
there are already reported cases of that.
This is a ravaging problem. Puerto Rico now has almost 1,000 reported
cases, which include at least 128 pregnant women and probably more. One
citizen died in Puerto Rico as a direct result of the Zika virus. It is
estimated that 20 percent of the Puerto Rican people--or 3\1/2\
million--will be infected with this virus. We are talking 700,000
American citizens.
As of May 11, there were 1,200 Zika cases on the mainland, and
Senator Nelson has talked about that in detail--as well he should as a
representative of that State. No State is on the frontlines of this
ravaging problem more than the State of Florida. It is a nightmare, and
who knows how long before this map becomes our national nightmare. No
one is making this up. This is serious.
Somehow, the Republican-controlled Congress still hasn't sent a bill
to the President's desk to provide emergency funding so we can fight
this devastating virus.
[[Page S2939]]
If we were here talking about a national emergency--floods, fires,
earthquakes, all of the many issues we often come to the floor to talk
about--my friend from Texas is on the floor. How many times have we
come to this floor to help the State of Texas? We have helped Texas so
many times, and we were all glad to do it, to pass emergency
supplemental bills to help the citizens of the State of Texas. There is
no reason that I can understand why we don't have a piece of
legislation on the floor just like we would if there were a flood,
fire, or some other emergency in a State. But, no, we are going through
a process that will never end in time to take care of the problem.
Under the present process we have, this emergency spending is part of
the appropriations bill. Everyone knows that the House can't even get a
budget. They can't do their appropriations bills. How are we going to
take these issues to conference when the House can't even come up with
a budget? I don't know how we can do it any sooner than sometime toward
the end of this fiscal year, which is September or October. By then,
the summer will be beginning to be gone, but the mosquitos and the
devastation they have left will not be gone.
Experts tell us they need this money and they need it now. Yesterday
I met with the President's Director of Management and Budget, Sean
Donovan, and it is clear that they desperately need this money.
It sounds as if my friend from Texas is saying: We have the Ebola
money; use that. They are still working on Ebola. What was the
emergency we had here 2 years ago? It was Ebola. What did we do? We
provided the money so they could do the research to alleviate the
spread of this scourge, and they are doing that now. We are robbing
Peter to pay Paul. That is actually what we are doing.
The $1.1 billion for Zika that we invoked cloture on yesterday is a
bandaid. It is not enough. Congress isn't moving fast enough to give
the researchers, doctors, and public health officials what they need to
combat this virus.
Now the House is going to make it even worse by passing a bill for
$622 million. What would you guess they are going to use to fund this
money? Let's see. What could it be? Oh, maybe ObamaCare, which they
have tried to defeat 67 times, and each time it ends up the same.
Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting a different result. That is what we have with the
House Republicans, and I am sorry to say this, but it has spilled over
here too. They haven't tried to eliminate it over here that many times
but as many times as they could. They are going to come up with a bill
to provide $622 million, which will come from a number of resources,
but it will principally be ObamaCare money. And $622 million is a
fraction of what is needed. It is approximately 25 percent of what is
really needed.
To say that the appropriations process is too slow is a gross
understatement. We need to get this done now. I don't know when, if
ever, these appropriations bills will be signed into law.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases, has been at the forefront of all of these dreaded
problems we have had in recent decades. He was a leading advocate
scientifically during the AIDS epidemic we had. Here is what he said:
``When you've got an emergency situation, you really need to get
funding as quickly as possible.''
The time to act is now. This summer, when Zika is on the news every
day, which it will be, Senators will regret that they did not act
quickly to address this crisis.
I urge my colleagues to take care of this today and provide the $1.9
billion in emergency money, just as we have done with any other
national emergency we have taken care of on this floor numerous times,
and do it in a procedural way that will get the money to them the
quickest.
Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 157, H.R. 3038; that all
after the enacting clause be stricken; that the Nelson substitute
amendment to enhance a Federal response and preparedness with respect
to the Zika virus, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that there be up
to 1 hour of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill, as
amended, be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the
bill, as amended, and there be no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, our
Democratic colleagues won't take yes for an answer. Yesterday the
Murray-Blunt language, which now the Democratic leader calls a bandaid,
actually obtained cloture, and I expect it will pass tomorrow as part
of the underlying appropriations bill.
Mr. President, $1.1 billion on top of the $585 million that has
already been reprogrammed from the Ebola fund to be used to combat the
Zika virus is not a bandaid; it is a serious effort in a nonpartisan
way to address a public health challenge.
As we can see from the map, Texas is right in the crosshairs. We are
ground zero in the United States, along with Florida, Louisiana, and
other Southern States where this mosquito is present. Thank goodness no
mosquito-borne transmission has occurred yet. But I agree with my
colleague from Florida. This is a serious matter, and we need to treat
it seriously, but that is not what is happening now.
This is a bill that the Senate defeated cloture on yesterday, and
this is an attempt to end run that defeat of a vote before the entire
Senate. I am compelled to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. I don't know what my friend from Texas is going to tell the
people from Texas this summer when there is no money available. We
heard the Senator from Florida talk about the need for local
governments to prepare for this virus. Some of this stuff is pretty
straightforward.
How do you get rid of mosquitoes? You can't wish them away. They
don't go away that way. We get rid of mosquitoes by mosquito control,
and that takes money. Where does that money come from? It comes from
local governments. That is why Florida is desperate for money, and they
will be desperate for that money in Texas and everyplace else. Using
the logic of my friend from Texas, don't worry about it. We will get
you some money this fall. The money we voted on yesterday at the very
earliest will not come until we wrap up our appropriations bills.
I remind everyone that the House is stuck. They can't do
appropriations bills because they don't have a budget. They can't get
people to agree to what they want to do. My friend Paul Ryan has seen
what John Boehner had to put up with all of those years before they ran
him away from the Speakership, and he is having the same problem. This
man who talked about budgeting--that was his key. He was the idea man.
Paul Ryan can't get a budget with his own Republicans in the House.
I think that my friend is saying: We got a downpayment. We took the
money from Ebola. We will worry about Ebola later, and maybe we will
borrow that money from someplace else to continue our research on
Ebola.
Senator Schumer mentioned in a meeting we had a short time ago that
the one thing he remembered about the last time Dr. Fauci came to our
caucus and talked about this dread problem was that he said that the
National Institutes of Health is very close to coming up with a vaccine
for this. But we take this money--just like when we had sequestration,
they were close to a flu vaccine, and that is gone. You have to do it
when you can, and right now is an opportunity for us to do something to
save the lives of people and especially these unborn infants.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I apologize to the Democratic leader.
Apparently I wasn't able to communicate my point, which is that there
is already $580 million available today to combat the Zika virus.
Finally, the administration took the advice of those on this side of
the aisle and said: Let's take the unused Ebola funds to fight it today
while we have an orderly process by which we appropriate the money in a
responsible way.
[[Page S2940]]
I think the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, and Senator Blunt,
the chairman and ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee,
have done a good job of winnowing down the $1.9 billion request to the
$1.1 billion which I agree is the right figure. While we have some
other differences, I think the Senate is acting in a responsible and
bipartisan way, which is the only way things can actually get done
around here.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it wasn't because of the good graces of the
Members of the Republican Senate that President Obama took the money
from Ebola and put it into fighting the problems we have with Zika. The
President asked for this money 3 months ago. They took that money out
of desperation because they had no other place to go for the money.
That money is not sitting there waiting to be spent; it has been spent.
They need money. They are out of money. There is no more robbing
Peter to pay Paul. This is an emergency, and it should be handled now
because under the process we have, the earliest there will be help for
this will be this fall.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3038
I have to say that I am really disappointed that Republicans once
again rejected the administration's full emergency supplemental
package.
It has been more than 3 months since President Obama first put
forward a proposal to fight this Zika virus. He laid out what he
thought he needed to respond to a crisis in a way that protected our
families the best. His administration was here. They testified at
hearing after hearing after hearing about the details of this proposal
and made it clear that there was absolutely no reason for Congress to
wait.
But, for months, our Republican leaders did nothing. They delayed.
They came up with one excuse after another. They ignored the experts,
ignored the scientists, and ignored the facts.
Some Republicans were saying that Zika wasn't something they were
willing to give the administration a penny more for. Others said they
would think about more money to fight Zika but only in return for
partisan spending cuts. And others spent more time thinking about how
to get political cover rather than actually trying to address this
enormous problem.
But many of us knew how important this was, and we were not going to
give up. We kept the pressure on. We kept pushing to get serious about
dealing with this emergency, and we made sure that the mothers and
fathers across the country who are scared and who wanted their
government to fight this horrific virus had a voice in this process.
So while it shouldn't have taken so long, I am glad that this week
many of our Republican colleagues in the Senate did finally join us at
the table to open up a path for an important step forward. This was a
compromise proposal, and it certainly isn't what I would have written
on my own.
For example, I want to note that throughout this process, I have made
it clear that a top priority of mine is making sure that women do have
access to reproductive health care in light of the impacts of this
virus. So I was disappointed that the Republicans insisted on including
unnecessary language that simply reiterates the preexisting ban on
Federal funding for abortions.
But this bipartisan agreement that we voted on yesterday would
support community health centers and other providers in making sure
that women have access to contraception and other critical health care.
It would help make sure that women in Zika-affected areas have the
ability to plan their families and prevent these tragedies, like so
many we have already seen, especially compared to the House legislation
that includes no support for preventive health care or outreach for
family planning. I believe these resources are extremely critical, and
I am going to keep fighting to continue getting us to expand this to
the full range of reproductive health care that women need.
We also didn't get the full amount we had hoped for in this
compromise. Democrats still believe that Congress should give the
President the full funding this administration has asked for and needs.
But I am glad that, with every Democrat and 23 Republicans willing to
do the right thing, we are going to pass a $1.1 billion down payment on
the President's proposal and do it as an emergency bill without
offsets--the way it ought to be.
So I want to thank Senator Blunt, who worked with me to get this
done, as well as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who voted for
it. Our bipartisan agreement will provide direct investments with a
Zika response in Puerto Rico. It will ramp up prevention and support
services for pregnant women and invest in foreign aid for Latin America
and the Caribbean. It will help accelerate development of a vaccine and
backfill nearly $100 million in funding the administration was forced
to reprogram due to the Republicans' refusal to act.
Our agreement would accelerate the administration's work and allow
money to start flowing to address this crisis, even as we continue to
ask for more as needed.
Unfortunately, now we know that House Republicans have gone in a very
different direction. They released an underfunded, partisan--and,
frankly, in my opinion--mean-spirited bill that would provide only $622
million, which is less than a third of what is needed for this
emergency, without any funding for preventive health care or family
planning or even outreach to those who are at risk of getting the Zika
virus.
They are still insisting that funding for this public health
emergency be fully offset and that the administration should siphon the
money away from the critical Ebola response and from other essential
activities in order to fund Zika efforts.
The choice between the Senate and the House Zika bills is a choice
between acting to protect women and families and doing nothing at all.
It is a choice between a bipartisan compromise that takes an important
step forward to address this emergency and a partisan embarrassment
that is intended to do nothing more than provide Members with political
cover. That doesn't solve this emergency.
The partisan House bill is a nonstarter, but we do have a path
forward. The Senate bill has the support of Democrats and Republicans.
It can move through the House, it can be signed into law, and it can
get resources moving quickly to tackle this emergency quickly.
So let's get this bill to the House as quickly as possible. Every
Democrat and a little less than half of the Republicans supported the
bill. Let's send it to the House right now and urge them to pass it as
quickly as possible.
There is no reason to keep it attached to this bill we are on and
allow House Republicans to get it and slow-walk it into the fall, as
our leader suggested would happen. There is no reason this funding
cannot be approved and signed into law next week in time for the summer
and the peak of mosquito season, which the Senator from Florida knows
is coming very rapidly.
It has the support of the Senate on its own. Let's send it to the
House on its own. Women and families in this country have been looking
to Congress for action on Zika for months, and we here in the Senate--
and House Republicans--should not make them wait any longer.
So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 157, H.R. 3038; that all after the
enacting clause be stricken; that the Blunt-Murray substitute amendment
to enhance the Federal response and preparedness with respect to the
Zika virus be agreed to; that there be up to 1 hour of debate, equally
divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use
or yielding back of time, the bill, as amended, be read a third time
and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, again, our
colleagues won't take yes for an answer. The amendment of the Senator
from
[[Page S2941]]
Washington, along with Senator Blunt, the chairman of the
Appropriations subcommittee responsible for this, actually obtained
cloture and will pass tomorrow--tomorrow--as part of this underlying
appropriations bill, assuming that there are no other objections or
that people want to finish that legislation. So I don't really
understand why they continue to refuse to take yes for an answer.
I would say to my friend from Washington: Would the Senator modify
her request to include my language at the desk, which has the exact
same funding levels as the Blunt-Murray amendment but includes a pay-
for using the prevention fund in the Affordable Care Act?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Washington so modify her
request?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me
just say that the spending bill that this has now been attached to may
take months--into the fall or even into the winter months--before it is
approved. The Zika virus isn't going to wait for the winter months. The
mosquitoes are here now, and they will continue to move very rapidly
across the country, as our leader has outlined before. So taking it out
of this bill--it has now been approved by a number of Senators on a
bipartisan basis--and moving it quickly to the House and getting it to
the President's desk means they will have the resources as quickly as
possible to deal with this and to begin to deal with this in a
responsible way.
Secondly, let me just say that the request that the Senator from
Texas has just broached means that we are going to have to fight over
cuts--cuts to women, cuts to families, cuts to critical health care
efforts in order to fight the Zika virus. That is objectionable. This
is an emergency supplemental, as we agreed to yesterday, and it needs
to move forward that way. So I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Is there objection to the original request?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to respond briefly to my friend
from Washington. The prevention fund that was created by the Affordable
Care Act that is part of the President's signature health care bill has
more than adequate money in it to pay for the research, the mosquito
eradication, and the other services that are necessary. It is not
depriving anyone of money that they otherwise would have coming.
What it does do is it alleviates the financial burden on future
generations to actually pay the money back that we insist on spending
without providing for adequate offsets. So increasing deficits is why
the national debt has almost doubled under this President because of
the reckless spending.
We are trying to do this in a responsible, bipartisan, and, indeed, I
would say, nonpartisan sort of way, but apparently that is not
acceptable to our friends on the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object?
Mr. CORNYN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I have listened attentively to the
debate over the last 15 minutes about Zika, and it has been very
entertaining to me. But it has also been interesting just to hear the
numbers being thrown around. There is a series of numbers being thrown
around as if it is an apples-to-apples comparison.
So let me try to break down a few things with an apples-to-apples
comparison about Zika and the funding.
The President has asked for $1.9 billion for Zika. The Senate has now
responded back to say: We will do the $500 million the President has
already moved over from Ebola funding and add to it $1.1 billion to
come up with about $1.6 billion--almost $1.7 billion--so about $200
million short, which is being declared as grossly inadequate. That is
0.2 short from what the President had asked for.
There is also being thrown around the House proposal, saying the
House proposal is grossly inadequate to be able to cover what is being
discussed there because it is a little over $600 million. The President
wants $1.9 billion, and the House is offering $600 million. But what is
not being stated is that what the Senate has done and what the
President has asked for is $1.9 billion over 2 years. The House has
said a little over $600 million this year and added to the Ebola
funding that was already there--meaning $1.1 billion this year and then
in our normal appropriations process to take it up again next year. It
may be the same amount.
It has become very fascinating to me to hear some say: Well, they are
cutting it in half, and it is insulting and it is all these things.
I think to myself: It is the same numbers. They are just cutting the
times to be able to break it down into different numbers.
So all of these number games are very interesting, but they still
don't drive at one essential thing. We do need to deal with Zika, but
we also need to deal with Zika in a fiscally responsible way. The
assumption that to deal with Zika means we have to throw the budget out
and there is no way we can find $1 billion in a $4 trillion budget to
cover Zika is laughable.
So what I propose is something very simple. Right now, the Department
of State, HHS, and USAID have $86 billion in unobligated balances--
right now. There is absolutely no reason $1 billion of that could not
be moved to deal with Zika right now. It would be the exact same
proposal that Senator Murray and Senator Blunt have proposed but
actually doing it with unobligated balances. There is absolutely no
reason that wouldn't occur.
We know that $500 million had already been moved over from Ebola
funding. That would be $1.6 billion moving over to help fight Zika.
The real issue to fighting Zika is three simple things. CDC is
actually tracking the movements so we can stay attentive to it. The
second thing is dealing with the mosquito population, which is
aggressive spraying. The third thing is working on a vaccine. All three
of those things we can do, and all three of those things have already
begun. The research has already begun on the vaccine. The mosquito
spraying has already begun, and working through the tracking and the
movement of the disease has already started. The implication that
nothing can start until this body acts is not true.
The administration, starting in January and February, came in and
said: This is urgent. We need to be able to move funds, and we need to
be able to have funds to do it.
Ironically, in January and February, they came and held hearings on
that, but in March of this year--2 months ago--this same administration
took half a billion dollars out of the economic support fund that
Congress had allotted to them last December, which was earmarked
especially for--get this--infectious diseases. So in March of this
year, the administration took half a billion dollars out of the
infectious diseases account for international infectious diseases and
moved that over and gave it to the U.N. for the Green Climate Fund. Now
they come to us, high and mighty, and say we need $1 billion, when the
one-half billion dollars we already allotted that can be used right now
along with the one-half billion from Ebola, equaling $1 billion, was
already allotted by Congress--was already there--and could be in
operation right now. They chose to reallocate to a different priority.
So it disturbs me to hear the administration saying, ``Why aren't you
doing anything about this,'' when we did last year, and then they spent
that money on green climate funds rather than spending it on Zika--what
it was allotted for--infectious disease control.
So here is my issue. We need to do both. We need to deal with Zika,
and we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way, and we can. I
understand the term ``emergency'' means one simple thing, spend more--
spend more and add more debt because it is an emergency.
I don't think Americans believe that with a $4 trillion budget, we
cannot cover $1 billion from previous accounts. In fact, if we want to
be specific, the three accounts the Blunt-Murray amendment puts money
into--they are putting $1.1 billion into a set of accounts. If we took
those accounts alone, those accounts alone that they are adding $1
billion to already have $15 billion in unobligated balances in those
accounts right now.
We can be efficient in what we do and still treat things seriously,
and I think we should. I think it is fiscally responsible to not just
say the Zika virus is
[[Page S2942]]
moving quickly so we need to add more debt to our children to respond
to it. I think we can take care of our debt and take care of Zika.
For anyone who would say it is unheard of to be able to move funds
for an emergency like this, may I remind you in 2009, this same Obama
administration facing the H1N1 virus moving around the world, asked for
permission to move unobligated balances out of some of these same
accounts to deal with the H1N1 virus. We are just saying, if it is OK
for the H1N1 virus, why is it suddenly not allowable now dealing with
Zika? This is not about Zika anymore; this is about breaking the budget
caps.
We need to be responsible in our spending and responsible in how we
deal with Zika. Both things can be done.
With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside so that I may offer my amendment No. 3955 to the
Blunt amendment No. 3900.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I like the
Senator from Oklahoma. He is a great friend, and it pains me to reserve
the right to object because I do consider him an excellent Senator.
However, the issue he raises in his unanimous consent request is to
take the emergency funding of $1.1 billion out of the appropriations
bill and replace that emergency funding by raiding a number of funds
that would cut medical research and public health in order to address
the Zika virus. What I am talking about is raiding money from cancer
research, children's immunizations, and the CDC's efforts to fight
other infectious diseases that are already so important to the health
and welfare of this country.
The Senator, whom I consider a friend and a good Senator, is from
Oklahoma in the heart of the country. Oklahoma is covered with these
two strains of mosquitoes, both of which carry the Zika virus. This one
is the real culprit. This is the one that gets inside your house. This
is the one that lurks in the dark corners of the house. This is the one
that lays larvae in a rain-filled bottle cap that is sitting upside
down.
I would say to the Senator from Oklahoma that this Senator has
probably been bitten by more mosquitoes than any other Senator. There
was a time when I was a kid that I was bitten so much that I was almost
immune, but I do not want to be bitten by this critter carrying that
Zika virus.
The truth is, if you have an earthquake in the State of Oklahoma,
that is an emergency, and we are going to respond in kind. If the
Senator from Texas has a hurricane coming into Galveston, that is an
emergency, and we are going to respond. Likewise, this is an emergency.
If you don't realize it now in May, the summer months are coming.
I want to make sure everybody understands why we need to get this
separate from the appropriations bill that the Senator from Washington,
Mrs. Murray, is talking about. In order to get an appropriations bill,
we have to get an agreement with the House. The House just passed a
bill for $622 million, and they are going to raid ObamaCare to pay for
it. There is no way we are going to get an agreement that the President
is going to sign going through that appropriations process. The summer
is going to be long gone, and the aegypti is going to be biting all the
more, sucking the blood of Americans, and therefore, while doing that,
transmitting the virus into the bloodstream of Americans.
This Senator has already described the disastrous consequences for a
pregnant woman. We ought to be petrified if they are in a county where
either it is poor and they don't have the funds for mosquito control or
it is a well-off county and it is not budgeted and they are not ready.
It pains me to have to clash with my friend, the Senator from
Oklahoma. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, there is one clarification I would like
to be able to make. This amendment I have proposed--and would still
stand by--allows us to be able to continue what is going on with
mosquito eradication right now. That doesn't stop. I would hate for
anyone in this body to promise every American that if we give DC enough
money, we will make sure they are never going to be bitten by a
mosquito. I am not sure that is a promise we would ever want to make
because we can't keep that promise, but the amendment I propose gives
the administration the latitude to be able to select which accounts
this money would come from. We are talking about $86 billion of options
on multiple accounts from the State Department, USAID for international
aid, and also HHS. That is not for medical research and not for
children getting immunizations. There is enough money in those
accounts.
I will repeat back the same thing I said before. This administration
transferred one-half billion dollars just 2 months ago from the
infectious diseases account, noting, apparently, that we didn't need
money in the infectious diseases account and moved that money to the
Green Climate Fund. So for the administration to say it is more
important that the U.N. get green climate funds than dealing with the
Zika virus is a different set of priorities than where we are in this
Congress and a different set of priorities than we put into place in
December of last year.
This is an issue this administration already has the authority to
deal with. It doesn't have to come from cancer research. It can come
from allocating accounts. But there is no reason to add debt to our
children to also deal with mosquito eradication in the United States.
We can do both, and we should do both.
I yield back.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise to address the subject before the
Senate with regard to the HUD proposed rule, the Lee amendment, and the
amendment proposed by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins. I do so as
one who has 35 years of experience in the housing business affected by
the Civil Rights Act, affected by the 1968 Fair Housing Act, and one
who has a good deal of working knowledge about what that accomplished.
What that accomplished was the end of prejudice against African
Americans in the South and ethnic minorities in the Northeast and
around the country to ensure that everybody had an equal opportunity--
underline the word ``opportunity''--to have safe, affordable housing.
That took place in 1968.
It has been a long time since 1968. Prejudice in America, although
never eradicated, is almost gone. Housing access is almost universal,
but there is one group of people in America who had very little access
to housing because there is none available to them. We can identify
them not by their name, not by their region but by their ZIP Codes.
They are the neighborhoods of America that have contributed to the
decline of many families and much hope and opportunity for individuals.
Show me a school system or a school that is not performing, and I will
show you rough neighborhoods. Show me an individual community that
doesn't have the tax base it needs, and I will show you a community
that doesn't have neighborhoods that are employed.
I want to bring to the attention of the Senate what I spoke on a year
ago on this floor--a gentleman by the name of Thomas G. Cousins from
Atlanta, GA, who founded Cousins Properties, the most successful
developer in the history of Atlanta, GA; one of the leading developers
in the United States of America and a man who gives back more than he
ever takes.
He created the Cousins Foundation and set out in the early 1990s to
find a way to address the problems of poverty, ignorance, and crime in
inner-city neighborhoods. He bought something called East Lake Meadows.
Some of you have watched the Fed-Ex Championship on TV and seen $10
million prizes won by professional golfers. That is on a golf course
that 25 years ago
[[Page S2943]]
had trees growing up in the fairway, dilapidated houses around it, and
was described as Little Vietnam.
But it is an area that Tom Cousins changed by changing minds, by
changing attitudes, and by talking about the things that could be done,
rather than what could not be done. He knew that the best way to bring
those people out of poverty was to provide them with a good education.
So he came to the State Board of Education, which I chaired, and asked
for a waiver to create the first charter school in the Atlanta, GA,
public school system's history in East Lake.
He leased the school for $1 a year for 25 years and then built for
that neighborhood its own elementary school, called Drew Elementary.
Twenty-five years ago, Drew Elementary was the poorest testing school
in the State of Georgia. This year, it is one of the top 10 in the
State of Georgia out of 1,400. He changed the minds and attitudes of
people--not their race. But he changed their minds and their attitudes
about opportunity and about hope. He went into the community of
dilapidated houses, crack houses, and meth houses, and bought those
houses up and raised housing prices. He fixed them up and began to
create a market for those houses.
The kids that formed gangs on the streets became caddies at the new
country club named East Lake Country Club. They went to Georgia State
University on Panther grants, granted to kids who are in need to get an
education. Many of the kids in Atlanta, GA, who are getting MBAs today
were educated in East Lake Meadows at Drew Elementary and had their job
at the East Lake Country Club.
People do not associate golf courses, golf tournaments, and country
clubs with areas of poverty and no housing, but East Lake is such a
place. Because they built a blend of all types of housing--section 8
housing, rental housing, low- and moderate-income housing, midlevel
housing, upper level housing, and shopping centers and the like--they
took all of the things that the community did not have and then created
a market for them to come.
They created a movement with Warren Buffett called Purpose Built
Communities. Now, the HUD rule, which I have read, which is the issue
of discussion today on the floor, is a rule that portends gathering
more information to try and find ways we can end the lack of housing
availability for certain Americans by bringing in data and trying to
create new ways to do that.
Tom Cousins did it with private sector money. He did it in
cooperation with the banking industry. He created an idea and a dream
and an investment. He began to bring down the barriers of
discrimination and a lack of hope and brought prosperity to a community
that had not seen it--better educated kids, better developed
communities, better schools, and the like.
I ask unanimous consent to have this article from the Wall Street
Journal about Thomas G. Cousins and Purpose Built Communities printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 13, 2013]
Thomas Cousins: The Atlanta Model for Reviving Poor Neighborhoods
(By Thomas G. Cousins)
America's greatest untapped resource isn't hidden in the
ground but is sitting in plain sight: the human capital
trapped in poor neighborhoods of concentrated poverty. The
people living where crime and incarceration are rampant
represent trillions of dollars in potential economic
activity. Investing in their well-being can be a social and
economic game-changer, but only if done in a way that
produces results.
For a half-century, charities, nonprofits and local and
federal governments have poured billions of dollars into
addressing the problems plaguing these Americans. But each
issue tends to be treated separately--as if there is no
connection between a safe environment and a child's ability
to learn, or high-school dropout rates and crime. This
scattershot method hasn't worked. A better approach is to
invest comprehensively in small, geographically defined
neighborhoods.
That's what our East Lake Foundation has discovered,
focusing on one corner of southeast Atlanta. Fifteen years
ago, East Lake Meadows, a public-housing project with 1,400
residents, was a terrifying place to live. Nine out of 10
residents had been victims of a crime. Today it is a safe
community of working, taxpaying families whose children excel
in the classroom.
How did this happen to a place that police officers once
wouldn't go without backup? We targeted a single neighborhood
in 1993 and worked with community and city leaders on every
major issue at the same time: mixed-income housing, a cradle-
to-college education program, job readiness, and health and
wellness opportunities.
The results are stunning. Violent crime is down more than
90%. Crime overall is down 73%--a level 50% better than the
rest of Atlanta. Employment among families on welfare has
increased to 70% from 13% in 1995. (The other 30% are
elderly, disabled or in job training.)
The income of these publicly assisted families has more
than quadrupled. In the surrounding area, home values have
risen at 3.8 times the city average (to over $250,000 per
home). A Wells Fargo bank, Publix grocery and Wal-Mart have
moved in, and restaurants, shops and other services have
returned.
The foundation started by focusing on housing. In 1996 and
1997, the Atlanta Housing Authority helped us secure
temporary housing for the East Meadow occupants while AHA and
the foundation rebuilt the place as Villages of East Lake.
With city and federal government approval, we reserved half
the units for families on welfare and the rest for those able
to pay the market rate. This was key: A mixed-income
community ensures that children are around role models--
employed adults who take care of property and spend time with
their children.
After negotiating with Atlanta Public Schools to secure the
city's first public charter, we built Charles R. Drew School.
The K-8 school, which opened in 2000, offered longer school
days and an extended school year. It now serves 90% of the
children in the East Lake neighborhood. Based on measures by
the Georgia Department of Education, Drew is the top
performing elementary school in the Atlanta school system.
The foundation also bought up surrounding residential and
commercial properties, including the old East Lake golf
course, once home to Grand Slam champion Bobby Jones. We
restored the golf course, which created 179 jobs. Then came a
smaller public course and a golf academy, where young people
now learn the caddy trade and golf course agronomy. Today,
East Lake Golf Club is the home of the annual PGA Tour
Championship and final playoff for the FedExCup.
Thanks to private investors, such as Warren Buffett and
Julian Robertson, we created Purpose Built Communities, which
helps other neighborhoods adapt the East Lake model. The
Meadows Community in Indianapolis and the Bayou District in
New Orleans have achieved considerable gains by emulating the
method in Atlanta.
Other organizations have slowly begun to adopt our
approach. Habitat for Humanity, which once focused on putting
up one house at a time, now partners with neighborhood
associations, churches, business groups and the like to help
lift up entire neighborhoods.
A better house by itself doesn't make children feel safe.
East Lake's charter school alone doesn't make children eager
to learn. But a decent place to live, a secure environment
with adult role models, and a great school with specially
trained teachers together produced change. Recently, a young
woman whose life began in the old East Lake public housing
project, where less than 30% of children graduated from high
school, graduated summa cum laude from Georgia Tech. She's
one of more than 300 Drew graduates since 2008 now heading to
college.
On the national level, challenges like the ones we faced in
southeast Atlanta are widespread and urgently need to be
addressed. More than 25% of American children under age 3
live in poverty. Three million children drop out of school
every year, rendering them ineligible for 90% of jobs. Only
59% of students graduate from high school in the 50 largest
U.S. cities, and dropouts commit 75% of crimes.
These harsh realities make the way we choose to try to
change them all the more important. Charities, foundations
and government representatives are welcome to visit East Lake
to check out this turnaround story. They won't need to bring
backup.
Mr. ISAKSON. Now, the current amendment before us deals with the rule
that is being promulgated by HUD dealing with the Civil Rights Act of
1968. But I want to caution everybody. It is not about discrimination
because of prejudice. It is about discrimination because of lack of
access. You read the testimony that went into a lot of the rule, and
that is quite clear. There are a number of paralyzed veterans groups
and handicapped groups that have sent letters against this amendment.
Let me tell you why are they against it. They don't think anybody
discriminates against them because they are handicapped. They just
think they have no choice of housing because there is nothing that fits
their wheelchairs or the walls in the bathroom are not reinforced or
the kitchen countertops are too high.
What has happened in East Lake Meadows and in Atlanta, GA, where
Purpose Built Communities set standards, is that 5 percent of all
apartment buildings are built with convertible units. So up to 5
percent of the units can be converted to handicapped access: 36-inch
doors, not 30-inch doors;
[[Page S2944]]
wainscoting on the side walls in the bathroom that allow reinforcement
rods to be put in and for handles to be put on the walls; kitchen
countertops that can be lowered by 8 inches so that somebody in a
wheelchair can work their kitchen.
That is the type of access they want. Through the changes in code, in
terms of construction code, and changes in attitude like Mr. Cousins
did, we now have handicapped people that have access to affordable
housing in Atlanta, GA, that is built to meet their specific needs. It
is not discrimination of prejudice. It was discrimination of lack of
opportunity.
The way I read the proposed rule, they are looking to take a chance
to take advantage of things like Promise Built Communities and try and
have private developers use Federal access to funds to create ways to
create new housing that will have more accessibility and affordability
for people in those type of situations.
Now, I understand that Senator Collins and Senator Reed have an
amendment they are going to offer, either as a side-by-side or as a
part of the bill, which will clarify one important point: Nothing in
here contains anything that portends to promulgate a rule or regulation
or any zoning at a local land use authority by the Federal Government.
None of us ever wants the Federal Government to do that. But we have
provided a lot of programs that have passed this Congress, this Senate,
and this U.S. Government that promotes housing, such as section 8
housing, FHA housing, and VA housing. I can go on and on. We want to
make sure that those finances that are available to finance purchases
have houses to be purchased that meet the needs of all Americans,
giving them a public accommodation and access that some of them never
had before.
So with the amendment adopted by Senator Collins, I think you are
protected against any nefarious activity that could ever be taken on by
HUD, and you are doing a good thing for the State, a good thing for the
United States, and a good thing for the Senate. I commend Senators Reed
and Collins on what they are doing.
I rise in support of the Collins-Reed amendment, and I will vote for
it on the floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I just want to thank my friend and
colleague from Georgia for his extremely eloquent and persuasive
presentation. The example he gave us of the development in Georgia,
done by Mr. Cousins, is precisely what the HUD rule is intended to
promote. That is why it is called affirmatively advancing fair housing,
affirmatively furthering fair housing.
With the amendment that Senator Jack Reed, Thad Cochran, and I are
going to be offering, we will make absolutely clear that it is not
HUD's role to dictate or interfere with local zoning ordinances. But
what we should embrace in this country is the goals of the 1968 Fair
Housing Act. The Senator from Georgia, who knows more about housing
than any Member of this Senate, has stated very clearly and very
eloquently in the example that he has given us what the goals are of
the 1968 Fair Housing Act and the regulation that was issued by HUD
last year.
Again, I would note that the regulation issued last year came from a
GAO report issued in 2010 that found that HUD was not doing a
particularly good job in this area. So it was not something that was
devised by some out-of-touch bureaucrat. It was directly the result of
the GAO report. The kind of mixed development, which has transformed
neighborhoods in Atlanta and throughout this country and given hope and
opportunity to those who may feel they are in the shadows of society,
is exactly the goal of this regulation and of that famous civil rights
era law, the 1968 Fair Housing Act.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I wish to talk about housing issues
contained in the bill we are debating, and I want to talk specifically
about a project in Florida that we became aware of in October. It is
named Eureka Gardens. It is a low-income, affordable housing project
that uses Section 8 funds to house people of lower income, as you are
all aware of that program. It is run and owned by an organization
called Global Ministries Foundation. It is run by a reverend, Richard
Hamlet. It is organized as a 501(c)(3), the organization that owns this
building. Mr. Hamlet, Reverend Hamlet, is the head of the organization.
If you look at the Web site for Global Ministries, there is a link
that says: ``What We Do.'' If you go to that section of the Global
Ministries Foundation Web site, this is what it says they do:
``Providing affordable housing across the United States and ministering
to the physical, spiritual and emotional needs of our residents.'' That
is what they state as their business purpose. I imagine that is what
they needed to state because of their 501(c)(3) not-for-profit status.
However, we have a quote from Reverend Hamlet, who has said that his
involvement in housing is purely business-related. He said:
This is a business. This isn't a church mission. These are
business corporations that we set up, but we're no different
from a real estate investment trust or a private equity
group.
That is how he described his 501(c)(3), not-for-profit Global
Ministries Foundation.
Global Ministries has over 40 properties in multiple States--Alabama,
Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, New York, Tennessee, and
Georgia. In all of these States, in all of these properties, they have
over 5,000 units that qualify as assisted. In 19 locations across
Florida, they have over 2,000 assisted units. This particular project
in Jacksonville, FL, Eureka Gardens, has 396 assisted units.
This is the problem we found with some of these properties. In Eureka
Gardens, in the last year, the property was found to be in horrifying
condition. I have spoken of it on the floor before. I am talking about
people living in a place where there was mold on the walls, where the
appliances were 15 years old, where the apartments hadn't been painted
in 13 years, where windows didn't open, where staircases were literally
falling down, and where the city had to come in, evacuate people, and
condemn the property.
Those were the conditions in Eureka Gardens. We got involved last
October to get those remedied. So there was the thinking, well, maybe
this is just one property. Maybe Global Ministries only has one
property that is run this way but generally they are a good actor.
This is what we found: They have two properties--Warren and Tulane
Apartments in Memphis, TN--that have such poor living companies as well
that HUD pulled their Federal funding from the housing.
In Atlanta, we found that their Forest Cove property has been plagued
by rodents and sewage. This is what news crews reported about their
property in Atlanta. It said ``building, siding, and ceiling tiles
peeling from many of the buildings. . . . Garbage and stagnant green
water were feet from playing children.''
At Forest Cove, this is what a tenant said to news reporters:
I'm homeless right now. I moved out to be homeless.
Because the conditions were so bad, the guy moved out of the
property. In other words, he would rather be homeless than live in a
Global Ministries Foundation property.
So we have two properties in Memphis, TN, we have a property in
Atlanta, and then there is another property in Jacksonville that they
own. The property is called Washington Heights. It also has been noted
for violation. HUD's most recent review resulted in the property barely
passing Federal inspections. And I will have more to say about Federal
inspections in a moment.
At the Goodwill Village property in Memphis, one resident said that
he thought the issue was snakes on the property--snakes on the
property. He thought they were being caused because they were coming to
``eat the rats.''
At Goodwill Village, the same property, a resident had an issue with
a gas leak. The resident's home had the sink torn out, her stove and
hot water disconnected, and a hole put into her wall.
[[Page S2945]]
Two months after all of that, no one had come by to fix it.
In Orlando, at the Windsor Cove Apartments owned by the Global
Ministries Foundation, reporters saw holes in the walls where roaches
and rodents came into the apartment. The same woman has a gap between
her bathtub and the wall that lets water leak into the apartment below.
After issues with his properties were exposed, here is what Reverend
Hamlet said: ``No one should have to live under these conditions.''
They are your properties. It is not just one property; there are
multiple properties across multiple States. I want to focus
specifically on the one I visited last week in Jacksonville. It was an
amazing experience. Forty-eight hours before we announce we are coming,
nothing--literally nothing--is happening at this property. When we
announce we are coming to visit the property, suddenly a bunch of
contractors show up. They put up a banner welcoming the residents to
all the great stuff they do there. Suddenly work crews are walking all
over, fixing the place up. All of a sudden, because we are coming to
visit, all these work crews mysteriously show up.
Eureka Gardens's problems have been going on for a long time, but
they only became known in October of last year when a local television
station and other local media began to highlight them.
My Jacksonville office staff toured Eureka Gardens in early 2015 and
in October of 2015. I want to report what they found in that one
building. As I said, we have now had reports about other buildings with
similar conditions run by this Global Ministries 501(c)(3), but I want
to share what my staff found when they visited Eureka Gardens. They saw
crumbling stairs disguised with duct tape and covered with apparent
black mold. When I am talking about the stairs, I mean the stairs that
connect the first floor of the building with the second floor of the
building, these metal stairs. They would just put duct tape over the
areas where the stairs and the wall were cracking and almost falling.
They just put duct tape on it. There was mold on these stairs; they
spray-painted over it. My staff found faulty electrical wiring. Do you
know what they did with the faulty electrical wiring? They covered it
up with a garbage bag so no one could see it. They could smell the
natural gas odor being sucked from an outdoor piping system into the
air-conditioning units of residents, and they found all sorts of other
health and safety issues.
At Eureka Gardens, when residents were asked about housing, one
resident said, ``Dogs live better than this.'' In fact, there was a 4-
year-old living in Eureka Gardens who was suffering from lead
poisoning, which her mother has a right to believe she got in her
Eureka Gardens apartment--an apartment, by the way, paid for with your
taxpayer money. Section 8 housing is Federal taxpayer money going into
the hands of these slumlords, and a child now has lead poisoning
because of it.
In December of last year, HUD declared Eureka Gardens to be in
default of the contract, and it set a February 24, 2016, deadline to
meet requirements. In February, Eureka Gardens passed this inspection,
but by March HUD had written to Eureka Gardens saying the Department
``does not believe the property would currently pass another REAC
inspection.''
Last Friday I visited Eureka Gardens. I saw, for example, an
apartment where the window did not open. I saw an apartment where the
window did not open. The window had been cracked, and do you know how
they fixed it? Somebody came and put a glob of glue where the window
connects next to the pane, and if you tried to open the window, it
wouldn't go up. That means if there was a fire in that house, the
person sleeping in that room would not be able to get out of that
window unless they break it. I saw that with my own eyes last week when
I was there. I saw an apartment that hadn't been painted in 13 years. I
saw a stove where the knobs were unrecognizable because they were
covered with glue, basically, and grime. I saw a refrigerator that
looked like it was from North Korea. It had to be 15 years old. There
was all sorts of rust on the side and they just spray-painted over the
rust.
As I said earlier, 48 hours before I visited, Global Ministries
started to fix some of these cosmetic issues. By the way, that included
putting up a piece of wood with exposed nails and calling it a door.
This apartment has two exits--in the front and in the back. This lady
gets home from work and she opens her back door. They have boarded up
the door, and there are nails sticking through the wood. She has little
children. The nails were the kind that if you ran into that door
because you didn't know it was there, you would get a nail to the face,
to the heart, to the gut.
So you would ask yourself, all right, you have these owners of all
these units and they are getting this Federal money under this HUD
contract. Where does all the money go? What are they doing with all
this money they make? Well, you can look at their 990 tax forms, which
are available for all 501(c)(3) organizations.
Let me tell you about the 2014 tax year, which is the most recent one
that is available. In the year 2014, the Reverend Richard Hamlet paid
himself $495,000 plus $40,000 in nontaxable benefits. Also in 2014, the
Reverend Hamlet's family members were paid an additional $218,000.
By the way, he had previously failed to disclose his family members'
compensation on tax forms, which is in violation of IRS rules that
require CEOs to disclose the compensation of all family members who
work for an organization.
The IRS reports also show that between 2011 and 2013, Global
Ministries Foundation--the landlord that owns all of these units in all
of these buildings that your taxpayer money is paying for--shifted $9
million away from its low-income housing not-for-profit to its
religious affiliate. There is no one here who is a more strident
proponent of private and public partnerships, of faith-based
initiatives, but you have these building that are crumbling. You have
these people living in these deplorable conditions. In addition to
paying himself half a million dollars and his family another $218,000,
they took $9 million, and instead of using it to fix these units, they
transferred it to the other entity they had for religious purposes.
They don't seem to want to spend the money--including the taxpayer
money--on making repairs, on making sure places like Eureka Gardens are
liveable. Let me tell what you they do spend their money on. They spend
their money on public relations specialists, because last week when I
visited Eureka Gardens, they had a public relations firm on the
premises counterspinning me with the media, saying things like: Oh,
well, where has Rubio been all this time? Well, this became available
in October, and since October we have been involved in it.
So they have the money to hire a law firm. They have the money to
hire a lobbying firm. They have the money to hire a public relations
firm. They have the money to transfer $9 million from the not-for-
profit sector into their religious uses. They have the money to pay
themselves half a million dollars per year, plus $40,000 in nontaxable
benefits, plus $200,000 for family members, but they don't have the
money to fix these units--and not just in Florida but all across this
country.
Let me tell you what this behavior is. Let me tell you what Global
Ministries Foundation is. It is a slumlord. They are slumlords. There
are people who are living in these deplorable conditions while your
taxpayer money is going into their bank account, and they are laughing
at us.
By the way, the other day, this minister--he has now put these
properties up for sale. He told the press: This is such a profitable
business. We have so many bidders who want these properties.
Well, No. 1, if it is such a profitable business, why are you
organized as a 501(c)(3)? And No. 2, where is all the money? Where are
all the profits? Why aren't they being invested?
I am all in favor of faith-based organizations being involved in the
public and civic life of this country, but as an organization that was
organized on the principles of caring for others, this is not caring
for people. This, my friends, is the stealing of American taxpayer
money, subjecting people to slum-like conditions, pocketing the money,
living off the money, and transferring the money.
[[Page S2946]]
For the life of me, I don't know how they passed any inspections. I
am not a building inspector. You don't have to be one to visit this
building and know there is no inspection that building should ever
pass.
I would just say that this is the most outrageous behavior I have
seen in public housing, and now I am hearing that the same conditions
exist in Orlando and in other buildings in Jacksonville. We know they
exist in Memphis. In fact, they just lost their HUD contract in
Memphis. A judge just issued a ruling against them yesterday on another
issue in Memphis, TN.
As a result of these conditions and other issues, I have filed four
amendments I wish to briefly talk about. The first is amendment No.
3918, which passed. What it does is it shortens the required response
time for contract violations from 30 days to 15 days. Within the 30
days that they found that gas leak at Eureka Gardens, four people at
Eureka Gardens were hospitalized due to gas leaks. So I am glad
shortening the timeframe will be a part of it.
Another amendment we passed is one that basically asks HUD to
determine the state of the assessments. Even the Secretary himself has
told me it is time to revisit these assessments. If you look at this
property, there is no way it should have ever passed any inspections.
We need to fix the inspection process in HUD because there is no reason
a property like this should pass any inspection.
The third amendment I filed, and that I hope we can pass, would give
State and local governments more say when HUD renews contracts for
owners who have violated previous contracts. In essence, the amendment
would allow the Secretary to refuse to withdraw a notice of default if
the Governor of the requisite State petitions HUD to do that.
Currently, the only trigger for the Secretary to withdraw a notice is
a REAC score of 60 or above. If this amendment became law, if the
property passed the inspection but the Governor of the State in which
the property is located requests the Secretary to overturn the result,
the Secretary would have the power to do so.
This impacts Eureka Gardens and these other places because flawed
inspections led HUD to recertify properties that are not up to
standard. The Jacksonville City Council has been engaged and Mayor
Curry of Jacksonville is supporting this amendment. It would grant them
the ability to seek the Governor's support in having a say over the
properties.
The last amendment I filed is Rubio amendment No. 3986, and it is to
make temporary relocation assistance available for residents in
situations such as those I have just described. This amendment would
make tenant protection vouchers available for tenants living in units
where the owner has been declared in default of a HUD Housing
Assistance Payments contract due to physical deficiencies, allowing the
Secretary to consider granting tenant relocation vouchers sooner in the
process.
The lack of temporary relocation assistance has kept these tenants
trapped in Eureka Gardens. The inability to temporarily relocate
resulted in tenants being hospitalized because of gas leaks and other
difficult conditions. For example, a man had to sleep in his bathtub
for a week at Eureka Gardens, and tenants could not cook because the
heat was shut off for days at a time.
One of the things we hear from HUD is: Well, we can take away the
contract, but then what happens to all these people? We don't want to
do that, and slumlords like Reverend Hamlet and his group know they can
get away with this as a result.
There is probably more to be done. I said publicly that I think the
Justice Department should look into these people. I think the Justice
Department should look into places such as this. I think the IRS should
examine their tax status. I think people like this should never again
be allowed to have a single HUD contract anywhere in America. This is
unacceptable, and it is happening right under our noses.
Today it is Eureka Gardens, but I mentioned all those other States.
In fact, I encourage my colleagues who live in the States of Alabama,
Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, New York, and Georgia to look into
the properties that Global Ministries Foundation operates in your
States. If the trends continue, if the trends hold up, then I almost
guarantee you are going to find slumlike conditions in your State the
way they were found in my State and the way they were found in
Tennessee.
I hope I can earn my colleagues' support in bringing these reforms as
a part of the bill before us today.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Overtime Pay
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe that real long-term economic
growth is built from the middle out, not from the top down, and our
government and our economy and our workplaces should work for all of
our families, not just the wealthiest few.
Across the country today, millions of workers are working harder than
ever without basic overtime protection. That is why I am very proud to
come to the floor today to express my strong support for the new
overtime rule to help millions of workers and families in our country.
Back in 1938, Congress recognized the need for overtime pay. Without
overtime protection, corporations were able to exploit workers' time to
increase their profits. So the Fair Labor Standards Act set up a
standard 40-hour workweek. By law, when workers put in more than 40
hours, their employers had to compensate them fairly with time-and-a-
half pay. But those protections have eroded over the past several
decades.
In today's economy, many Americans feel as if they are working more
and more for less and less pay, and in many cases, they are. Right now,
if a salaried worker earns just a little more than $23,000 a year, he
or she is not guaranteed time-and-a-half pay. That salary threshold is
much too low. In fact, it is less than the poverty level for a family
of four.
Workers should not have to earn poverty wages to get guaranteed
overtime protection. It is clear that overtime rules in this country
are severely out of date. Consider this: Back in the mid-1970s, 62
percent of salaried workers had guaranteed overtime pay. Today, just 7
percent of salaried workers have that protection. Big corporations use
these outdated overtime rules to their advantage. They force their
employees to work overtime without paying them the fair time-and-a-half
pay. That might be good for a big corporation's profit, but it is a
detriment to a working family's economic security.
Today, the Department of Labor has issued a final rule to raise the
salary threshold from about $23,000 to just over $47,000 a year. That
will restore protections for millions of Americans, and it is
especially important, by the way, for a parent. Think about what it
would mean for a working mom, who right now works overtime and doesn't
get paid for it. By restoring this basic worker protection, she could
finally work a 40-hour week and spend more time with her kids or, if
her employer asks her to work more than 40 hours a week, she would have
more money in her pocket to boost her family's economic security.
That is why this is so important for our struggling middle class.
When workers put in more than 40 hours a week on the job, they should
be paid fairly for it. That is the bottom line.
I have heard from some of my Republican colleagues who don't want to
update these overtime rules. If you listen closely, it sounds as though
they are trying to argue that businesses in this country can't operate
unless they are able to exploit workers' time and refuse them overtime
pay.
Well, Democrats fundamentally disagree. In fact, when workers have
economic security, when they are able to make ends meet and succeed,
businesses succeed, our economy succeeds. That virtuous cycle is part
of what makes America great.
If Republicans want to take away these basic worker protections, they
will have to answer to millions of hardworking Americans putting in
overtime without receiving a dime of extra pay. They can try, but I
know that I and many others are going to be right
[[Page S2947]]
here fighting back for the workers and families we represent--families
like Meryle's from Bellingham, WA. She said that early in her career
she worked low-wage jobs and oftentimes her overtime hours went unpaid.
When Meryle heard about the Obama administration updating overtime
protections, she wrote in to comment on that new rule. She said those
unpaid overtime hours hurt her pocketbook, but she said she lost more
than money. She was working overtime without being paid fairly for it
on top of missing out on important time with her daughter.
Boosting wages and expanding economic stability and security is good
for our families, and it is good for our economy. By the way, that is
exactly what we should be focused on here in Congress to help build our
economy from the middle out, not the top down.
For workers who want fair pay for a day's work, for the parents--like
Meryle--who have sacrificed family time for overtime and not seen a
dime in extra pay, for families who are looking for some much needed
economic security, I urge all of my colleagues to support restoring
these important overtime protections.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
(The remarks of Mrs. Gillibrand and Mr. Grassley pertaining to the
introduction of S. 2944 are printed in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to revisit my discussion with
Senator Durbin yesterday regarding my amendment No. 3925 to the
Department of Veterans Affairs funding bill.
As I made clear yesterday, this is a commonsense amendment protecting
constitutional rights. It is designed to make every effort to ensure
that the Second Amendment rights of veterans are protected under the
law. Yet the Democrats have objected. Because of that, our veterans
will continue to not be protected by their Second Amendment
constitutional rights.
Let me make myself very clear. Senator Durbin said my amendment
``doesn't solve the problem.'' ``Doesn't solve the problem'' are his
words. Well, the Department of Veterans Affairs is reporting names to
the Department of Justice which are then placed on the national gun ban
list, and the VA is doing so merely when a veteran is appointed a
fiduciary--which does not mean he or she is dangerous. That is the
problem.
As I explained yesterday, my amendment requires the VA to first
determine that a veteran is a danger to self or others before reporting
names. That simply solves the problem.
Senator Durbin also said that under my amendment, ``mental health
determinations would no longer count as prohibiting gun possession.''
As I stated yesterday, I do not want people who are known to be
dangerous to own and possess firearms. My amendment makes that very
clear.
Further, given that plain language, it is obvious that under my
amendment, mental health determinations do count because some mental
health problems equate to a very dangerous condition. Again, my
amendment is centered on forcing the Federal Government to determine
whether a veteran is a danger to self or others before revoking his or
her constitutional rights to own a firearm.
Senator Durbin said that ``tens of thousands of names currently in
the NICS system''--the gun ban list--``would likely need to be purged,
meaning these people could go out and buy guns.'' Now, that is not so.
If anything, my amendment would require the Federal Government to look
over the VA records sent to the gun ban list and verify that those
persons on it are dangerous to themselves or others.
That doesn't have to be purging. Rather, the Federal Government would
now have the burden of proving a veteran should not be able to exercise
his or her fundamental Second Amendment rights. Since there is no
purging, but rather dangerous persons will be identified via a
constitutional process, it is not accurate to say that ``these people
could go out and buy guns.'' Therefore, Senator Durbin has not studied
my amendment and its outcome. Really, the government should always
provide constitutional due process before infringing on a fundamental
constitutional right.
Senator Durbin mentioned 174,000 names were supplied by the VA to the
gun ban list and about 15,000 of them had serious mental illnesses.
Actually, as of December 2015, the VA has supplied 260,381 names out of
the 263,492 in the mental defective category. That happens to be 98.8
percent of the total number of people on the mental defective list that
are there because of the VA and not because it has been determined
their constitutional rights should be taken away.
Assuming Senator Durbin is correct about the 15,000 who had a serious
mental illness, that leaves about 245,000 who did not. Those are
245,000 people whose constitutional rights are being restricted without
due process for no good reason. Not a single individual was determined
to be dangerous before the VA submitted their name to this list so
their constitutional rights could be violated.
My amendment, and my remarks last night, make clear that if a person
is dangerous, they will not be able to possess a firearm. Therefore,
Senator Durbin's concern that my amendment will allow dangerous people
to buy firearms is simply inaccurate.
Importantly, Senator Durbin even admitted that not all the names
reported to the VA are dangerous. Senator Durbin said: ``I do not
dispute what the Senator from Iowa suggested, that some of these
veterans may be suffering from a mental illness not serious enough to
disqualify them from owning a firearm, but certainly many of them do.''
Then, Senator Durbin said: ``Let me just concede at the outset that
reporting 174,000 names goes too far, but eliminating 174,000 names
goes too far.'' I am glad that Senator Durbin acknowledged that many of
the names on the gun ban list supplied by the VA do not pose a danger
and should be removed.
But again, my amendment is not about purging names from the list. I
would be happy to take him up on his offer to work with him on that
problem. Surely, we can agree that, going forward, the VA should start
affording due process to veterans before they are stripped of their
Second Amendment rights. If you really want a solution to this problem,
stop objecting to this amendment.
As I stated yesterday, my amendment does three things. First, it
makes the ``danger to self or others'' standard applicable to the VA.
We all agree that dangerous persons must not own or possess firearms.
Second, it shifts the burden of proof from the veteran and back to the
Government where it belongs. Third, it fixes the constitutional due
process issues by removing the hearing from the VA to the judicial
system.
The last thing I will note is something on which I wholeheartedly
agree with Senator Durbin. Yesterday, he said: ``We need to find a
reasonable way to identify those suffering from serious mental illness
who would be a danger to themselves, their families or others, and to
sort out those that don't fit in that category.''
As I have made clear, my amendment does exactly that. Why, then, are
the Democrats refusing to fix this problem if they admit the problem
exists? This is an outrage. We all know that veterans are being treated
unfairly. My amendment fixes the problem, yet Democrats object.
What is dangerous is that Democrats are allowing veterans to be
subjected to a process that casts their Second Amendment rights aside.
All of this smells of hypocrisy. For months, the Democrats and their
allies have been attacking me and the Republicans for not voting on the
Supreme Court nominee. But the Democrats will not even allow a simple
vote on protecting veterans' constitutional rights.
Can you imagine the chaos that would reign over this Chamber again if
the Democrats were to take control over the Senate? I will continue to
stand firm in defense of our veteran population. I will continue to
fight to protect their constitutional rights from offensive and
oppressive government outreach.
Our veterans are a special group. They give life and limb for our
safety so that we can sleep in peace at night.
[[Page S2948]]
The iron fist of government must submit to the constitutional rights of
veterans, and those constitutional rights have been taken away by the
VA willy-nilly just because somebody needs a fiduciary--nothing to do
with the competence of that veteran to not be able to buy a gun.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about
amendment No. 4012. I want to thank my cosponsors--Senators Sessions,
Vitter, Cotton, and Inhofe. This amendment addresses a very serious
public safety threat; that is, the threat posed by sanctuary cities.
This is a problem that is not a theoretical abstraction. It is a
problem that some Americans know all too well--one father, in
particular.
On July 1, 2015, Jim Steinle was walking arm in arm with his daughter
Kate on a pier in San Francisco. A gunman opened fire and hit Kate.
Within moments, she died in her father's arms. Her last words were:
``Help me, Dad.''
What is maddening about this is that the shooter should never have
been on the pier in the first place. He was an illegal immigrant. He
was here illegally. He had been convicted of seven felonies, and he had
been deported five times. But it gets worse.
Just 3 months prior to his shooting and killing Kate Steinle, the San
Francisco police had him in custody. Federal immigration officials knew
that the San Francisco police had him in custody. They knew he was here
illegally, in violation of multiple deportations--a violent criminal
convicted on multiple occasions. They said: Hold him until we get
somebody there to pick him up and deport him. But the police refused to
hold him. Instead, they released the shooter into the public.
Why did they do that? Because San Francisco is a sanctuary city. That
means that they are a city that specifically--and by law, within the
city--forbids their police from cooperating with Federal immigration
officials. Even when the police wants to cooperate, it is against the
law in the city to do so.
The local police and President Obama's administration agree that,
with respect to a dangerous person, the Federal and local law
enforcement authorities ought to cooperate, but the local politicians--
in San Francisco, in this case--have overridden that judgment. Instead,
the police, who had every opportunity to prevent this man from being on
the pier that night, released him, and he went on to kill Kate Steinle.
As a father of three young children, I can't even imagine the pain
that family has gone through. Sadly, the Steinles are not alone.
According to the Department of Homeland Security--our current
administration's Department of Homeland Security--during an 8-month
period that they examined last year alone, sanctuary city jurisdictions
released over 8,000 illegal immigrants, and 1,800 of them were later
arrested for criminal acts. It included two cities that released
individuals who had been arrested for child sex abuse. In both cases,
the individuals released sexually assaulted other children again.
In the wake of these tragedies, you would think that elected
officials across America would end this practice of having these
dangerous sanctuary city policies. Sadly, that is not the case.
In the biggest city in my State, Philadelphia, they have taken the
opposite approach. In fact, they imposed one of the most extreme
versions of sanctuary cities anywhere in America. Two weeks ago,
President Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security visited Philadelphia
for the specific purpose of trying to persuade the city government to
make a tiny exception to their sanctuary city policy. He wanted to
change the policy so that the Philadelphia police would be able to
notify Federal immigration officials if they are about to release from
their custody a person who has been convicted of a violent felony or
convicted of a crime involving a gang or is a suspected terrorist. The
mayor of Philadelphia refused.
Even under those circumstances, the police of Philadelphia are
forbidden from cooperating and sharing the information with Federal
immigration officials.
What are the kinds of consequences for this? Consider the case of
Alberto Suarez. In 2010, Alberto Suarez kidnapped and raped a girl from
Montgomery County, which is just outside of Philadelphia. He bragged to
the girl that the police would never be able to catch him because he is
here illegally. Five months later, he kidnapped a 22-year-old woman
from a Philadelphia bus stop, and he raped her. He has been
apprehended, he has plead guilty, and he is awaiting sentencing. But
some day, he will be released. Under the current Philadelphia city
policy of being a sanctuary city, the police cannot inform Federal
immigration officials when they are releasing him. This is ridiculous.
Imagine that the Philadelphia police have in their custody an illegal
immigrant whom the FBI suspects of plotting a terrorist attack. The
Department of Homeland Security might very reasonably say to the
police: Hold on to him until we can get an agent down there to take him
into custody and ask him some questions because we suspect that he is
involved with a terrorist plot. The Philadelphia police's response--not
by their choice but by virtue of Philadelphia's being a sanctuary
city--to the Federal official is this: Could you come back again after
he has actually committed the terrorist attack and been convicted of
it, and then we will see if we can help you?
This makes no sense at all. This is not partisan. This policy has
been criticized by the former Philadelphia mayor, former Pennsylvania
Governor, and Democrat Ed Rendell. It has been criticized by President
Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security and Pennsylvania law enforcement
officials across the political spectrum.
Let me be very, very clear. This is not principally about
immigration. It is not about immigration at all. It is about violent
and dangerous criminals. Everybody knows--I certainly know--that the
vast majority of immigrants are never going to commit a violent crime.
It isn't about them. It is about the fact that if you have any
significant population--and, certainly, 11 million people are here
illegally--some subset of that population will be violent criminals. We
know that.
I have an amendment. It is modeled on a bill that the Senate voted on
last October. It was supported by a bipartisan majority of Senators in
that vote. It deals with this problem. First of all, there is an
understandable reason why some communities have become sanctuary
communities, and that is because a court decision has created a legal
liability for the cities if they, at the request of the Department of
Homeland Security, detain someone who later turns out to have been the
wrong person. That legal liability has scared a number of communities.
It is understandable.
This amendment changes that. It makes it clear that when the local
police are in compliance with a Department of Homeland Security
detainer request, the local police have the same authority as the
Department of Homeland Security. If that person has been identified
wrongly, then the liability still exists. If the person's civil rights
have been violated, they can sue. But the liability is with the
Department of Homeland Security, as it should be, and not against local
law enforcement officials who are temporarily acting on behalf of the
Department of Homeland Security.
Having corrected that problem, if this amendment passes, what we say
is this: If you want to, nevertheless, be a sanctuary city and refuse
to allow the local police to cooperate with Federal immigration
officials, then we are going to withhold community development block
grant funds from such a community. As you know, these are the funds
that have great discretion in the hands of local elected officials to
spend on various projects.
The fact is that sanctuary cities impose a very real cost--a real
cost for the Federal Government. The most important cost, by far, is
the danger to society that it imposes. It is entirely reasonable for
the Federal Government to withhold some of these grants in the event
that a city chooses to inflict that cost on the rest of us.
This legislation is endorsed by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association, the National Sherriffs' Association, the National
Association of Police Organizations, and the International Union of
Police Associations,
[[Page S2949]]
which is a division of the AFL-CIO. It is a simple, commonsense
amendment, and it stands for the simple principle that the safety of
the American people matters, and the life of Kate Steinle matters.
Right up front, I want to debunk some of the misinformation that is
occasionally promulgated about this amendment. One is the idea that it
would discourage people from coming forward and reporting crimes or
reporting that they witnessed a crime or that they were a victim of
crime, and that, therefore, it is a bad idea. The fact is that our
legislation has been drafted in such a way that if a local community
has a law that says that local law enforcement shall not inquire about
the immigration status of a crime victim or witness, according to our
legislation, that doesn't make you a sanctuary city. Any city would
still be free to offer that protection to people so that they would not
have to fear deportation for disclosing a crime.
The fact is that this amendment is germane, and it was timely filed.
It satisfies all of the relevant rules. This is the right time, and
this is the legislation to consider this. It is time to stop with this
politically correct nonsense and being so worried that we can't offend
anyone that we are going to risk the safety of our communities.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be
set aside so I may offer my amendment No. 4012.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I reserve my right to object. The Senator
from Pennsylvania has very thoughtfully pointed to significant issues
with respect to immigration law and public safety, but I believe the
remedy of cutting off CDBG funding is not the appropriate response to
these very serious problems. Indeed, CDBG funding is available
throughout the Nation to large communities and small communities, and
in many cases it provides support for public safety projects, such as
infrastructure that protects people, and on and on and on.
With all due respect to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I object to
making the amendment pending at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, with all due respect to my friend and
colleague from Rhode Island, I just have to say that this is exactly
what Americans are so fed up with. There is a real problem out there
with public safety, and they know it. This is a ridiculous and
indefensible policy, but I am willing to have a debate about it. I did
not ask for unanimous consent to have my amendment adopted. I asked
unanimous consent to have it debated and have a vote. If a majority of
Senators disagrees with me, then I don't know why they can't come down
here and cast a vote and let us know. It is germane, it is in order,
and it complies with all the rules.
The status quo means dangerous criminals are being released onto our
streets. That is a fact.
I will tell you what is going on here. We have colleagues who are
afraid to cast a vote. They are afraid of having to make a choice. They
are afraid that if they vote with me to put pressure on cities to end
sanctuary cities, it will offend some people, and they don't want to do
that. If they vote against it, they know they are endangering their own
constituents, and they don't want their constituents to know that.
Rather than standing up and making a decision, what do they do? They
say: Let's not allow the debate; let's not allow the amendment. This is
exactly what the American people are so fed up with.
I am not giving up on this. This is a very important issue. We have a
responsibility to be stewards of the money that we give these cities. I
think the vast majority of Pennsylvanians, the people whom I represent,
want me to be a steward who is looking after their safety, and the
status quo doesn't do that. This amendment would solve a very important
problem. It is outrageous that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are afraid to have this debate, afraid to go on record, and
afraid to let their constituents know whether they support sanctuary
cities or not. We are not finished with this issue.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on Tuesday, Senator Grassley came to the
floor advocating for an amendment. His amendment dealt with access to
guns for those who have been determined by the Department of Veterans
Affairs to be mentally incompetent due to injury or disease.
Senator Grassley's amendment was 10 lines long. It would simply cut
off funds for the VA to ``treat'' any person who the VA has determined
to be mentally incompetent under its current administrative process as
a prohibited gun purchaser under Federal firearms laws.
On behalf of myself and other Senators, I objected to this amendment.
I pointed out that Senator Grassley's amendment would likely require
purging the NICS background check database of thousands of records of
people who have already been diagnosed with serious mental illness and
referred to NICS by the VA.
As Senator Grassley no doubt knows, current law requires a Federal
agency that submits a record to NICS to notify the Attorney General if
the basis upon which the record was submitted to NICS no longer
applies. The Attorney General is then obligated to remove the record
from NICS within thirty days.
If the Grassley amendment were to pass and prohibit the VA from
continuing to ``treat'' a mentally incompetent person as a prohibited
gun purchaser, then it casts into doubt the basis upon which tens of
thousands of NICS mental health records were submitted.
So Senator Grassley's amendment would likely purge those records from
NICS. Tens of thousands of people with serious mental illnesses would
become able to buy guns.
Senator Grassley came to the floor earlier this afternoon to
criticize my objection. He made two main points that I want to respond
to.
First, he said that Democrats were being hypocritical for not
allowing a vote on this issue.
Senator Grassley must have only started paying attention to this
issue recently. I can remember at least three votes we have had on the
Senate floor on this issue.
In April 2013, when the Senate was under Democratic control, an
amendment offered by Senator Burr that was very similar to Senator
Grassley's amendment was voted upon and failed to pass.
An alternative and more sensible proposal for addressing the issue of
VA referrals to the NICS database was included in the Manchin-Toomey
legislation which the Senate voted upon in April 2013 and again last
December.
In contrast to the Burr and Grassley amendments, which specified no
process for reviewing the thousands of VA mental health referrals that
have already been made to NICS, the Manchin-Toomey amendment set up a
notification, review, and appeal process. It wasn't perfect, but it was
very credible process, and I voted for it.
That is how we should be approaching this issue, with thoughtful
authorizing legislation, not 10-line appropriations riders that are
airdropped in on the Senate floor.
Second, Senator Grassley said that the VA has been depriving veterans
of their constitutional rights willy-nilly.
I would urge Senator Grassley to look at the actual process the VA
undertakes.
In connection with an award of veterans benefits, the VA formally may
determine as ``mentally incompetent'' a person who ``because of injury
or disease lacks the mental capacity to contract or to manage his or
her own affairs, including disbursement of funds without limitation.''
The types of mental disorders that qualify as ``injury or disease ``
for this purpose are set forth in 38 C.F.R. 4.130 and include diseases
such as schizophrenia, dementia, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress
disorder, and bipolar disorders, among others. Such illness or disease
must be responsible for a person's inability to manage his or her own
affairs for a VA determination of incompetency.
Like all VA benefit determinations, incompetency determinations are
governed by clearly defined procedures to ensure due process.
Where the VA becomes aware that a veteran may be unable to manage his
[[Page S2950]]
or her affairs, an incompetency rating is proposed and the individual
in question is provided with notice and the opportunity to submit
evidence and appear before a VA hearing officer. Determinations are
based on all evidence of record. Unless the medical evidence is clear,
convincing, and leaves no doubt as to the person's incompetency, no
determination is made. Reasonable doubt is resolved in favor of
competency.
All VA determinations of incompetency may be appealed within the VA's
administrative appeals process, which includes the opportunity to seek
review by the Board of Veterans' Appeals. Final BVA decisions may be
appealed to the independent United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims.
Here is the bottom line: All of us respect our veterans, but we know
that gun access by those with serious mental illness increases the risk
of suicide and violence, and the VA has identified tens of thousands of
people with serious mental illness.
We can work on a reasonable process, like the Manchin-Toomey
legislation proposed, to make sure that the VA is not submitting mental
health records inappropriately, but simply invalidating all the records
that the VA has supplied to the background check database is
irresponsible and dangerous.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the
heroin and prescription drug epidemic that is gripping my State and the
country. I come to talk about the 200,000 people in Ohio who are
addicted. I come to talk about the police officers during National
Police Week who are doing their jobs to address this issue and why they
need more help from us and how we should provide that to them.
This is the sixth time I have come to the floor since the Senate
passed on March 10 the legislation called the Comprehensive Addiction
and Recovery Act. It was voted on by a 94-to-1 vote in this Chamber,
which is highly unusual. That never happens around here. It happened
because in every single State people are seeing this addiction
epidemic, overdose issue. We need to address it.
The House has been working on its own legislation. I have come here
every single week we have been in session since we passed our
legislation to urge the House to act. I come this week to thank the
House for acting because on Friday of last week the House of
Representatives passed legislation--again, a large bipartisan vote--18
different bills that were combined into one bill to deal with this
opioid epidemic.
In some respects, it is very similar to the legislation we passed in
the Senate. In other respects, it has additional provisions that I
think are very helpful. In other respects, it doesn't pick up
everything that is in the Senate legislation.
Our focus in the Senate would be to have a comprehensive approach,
and I believe, by including some of the provisions in the House-passed
version, we will come up with a more comprehensive approach, and that
is what is needed. In fact, in the Senate we spent 3 months working
with the House on companion legislation. We had a number of conferences
here in Washington, DC--five different conferences to deal with this
issue--and we came up with legislation that took best practices around
the country and included them in the legislation to deal with a very
real problem in our communities.
It has to be comprehensive. Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak
with the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
Michael Botticelli, as well as Dr. Kana Enomoto, who is the Acting
Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration. It was a hearing of the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee. We were talking about how to come up
with the right response to this issue in so many different respects.
The bottom line is, both of them strongly agree it has to be a
comprehensive approach if we are going to make a difference, if we are
going to begin to turn the tide and begin to save lives and get people
back on track to deal with this level of drug addiction and overdose
that is happening in our communities. We have to provide the resources,
but we also have to ensure that the resources are wisely spent. In
other words, we have to be sure we are spending the money on things
that are going to be effective. I was grateful that both Director
Botticelli and Dr. Enomoto said they would work with us to try to get
this conference between the House and Senate done as quickly as
possible. The House and Senate bills coming together is important so we
can get it to the President and, more importantly, so we can get it to
the communities to begin to help. They offered to continue to work with
us going forward, and I appreciate that, and we will need them.
Everybody needs to pull together on this.
It has been 67 days since the Senate acted. In those 67 days, if we
assume that about 120 Americans are lost every day to drug overdoses,
about 8,000 Americans have lost their lives through drug overdoses
since the Senate passed this legislation on March 10. Think about that.
That is what I call an epidemic.
Unfortunately, my State of Ohio has been particularly hard hit. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that Ohio had the
second most overdoses of any State in the Union, and the fifth highest
overdose death rate. On average, we are losing about five Ohioans every
day to overdoses. We lost 330 since the Senate passed the CARA
legislation on March 10.
Unfortunately, since March 10 the headlines have continued to show
that families are being torn apart, communities devastated. These
headlines make it clear this is not slowing down. I talked to some
experts on this in Ohio last week, and I asked: Tell me, are things
getting better? Are we beginning to change the attitudes to turn the
tide? The answer was, no, the hotline is lighting up more than ever,
more people are coming for treatment, and there is more crime than ever
related to this. Sadly, I do not believe, at least in my home State of
Ohio, that we have begun to make the progress we have to make.
It is happening everywhere--in the cities, suburbs, and rural areas.
Addiction is affecting everybody of every age no matter where you are
from, no matter what neighborhood you live in. It knows no ZIP Code.
Just in the time since I spoke on the floor this last week, in the
past week in Ohio, here are some things that have happened. In
Northeast Ohio, in the city of Lorraine, police searched three
different drug houses. This happened last Thursday. They arrested seven
people possessing more than 120 grams of heroin. In Southwest Ohio, in
a rural area in Brown County, a couple was arrested for possession of
heroin. They have four children between the ages of 3 and 6. This
happened last week. In the suburbs of Dayton, OH, this time in the
suburbs, Harrison Township, police say a man was driving under the
influence of heroin, veered into the wrong lane and struck a vehicle
head-on, killing an innocent woman and injuring her husband. More and
more traffic accidents are being linked to addiction.
In Central Ohio, in the Columbus area, the city has now spent
$144,000 last year alone on Narcan, which is a miracle drug that will
be able to deal with overdoses and save people's lives. Paramedics in
Columbus spent 10 percent of their entire budget just on Narcan last
year, reversing over 100 overdoses. Paramedic Pete Bolen says that
sometimes he takes up to four overdose calls per day. I have been to
police stations and firehouses around Ohio, and they tell me they are
responding to more overdoses than they are fires.
Dr. Eric Adkins of Ohio State's Wexner Medical Center says that their
emergency room sees two to four overdose patients every day. Last year,
Wexner spent $1.2 million treating overdose patients. That is one
medical center in one city.
In Chillicothe, Assistant Fire Chief Jeffrey Creed says that overdose
calls are on pace to double this year compared to last year. Again,
they will tell you there are more overdoses than fires.
Rita Gunning of Grove City, OH, lost her daughter Sara, who was just
30
[[Page S2951]]
years old, to a heroin overdose. Last year, Sara was trying to fight an
opioid addiction and managed to stay clean for 50 days, but she
relapsed, and 3 days later she died of an overdose. Rita is now raising
Sara's three children and trying to increase the availability of
naloxone across Ohio. She is on a mission because she believes this
miracle drug naloxone could have saved her daughter. She said: ``Maybe
if they had it that night, they could have saved Sara's life.'' She
shouldn't have to say that. By the way, making naloxone more available
is one thing the legislation does that was passed in the Senate. We
have to be sure the House and Senate legislation does that and also
provides the training that goes along with it.
Our legislation also says that when they provide naloxone, or Narcan,
they provide not only training with it but also information about where
to get treatment because it is not enough to apply Narcan, we need to
get these people into treatment so we don't have to apply Narcan again
and again and again.
Karen Young of Columbus lost her daughter Kayla when she was just 22.
She had surgery when she was 20, and she was prescribed pain pills, as
many of us have after surgery. She became addicted to those pain pills,
and like so many others, when the pills ran out, she switched to a less
expensive and more accessible alternative--heroin. She went to rehab
for about 7 weeks, but she relapsed, overdosed, and died--just like
that. In the span of 2 years, she developed an addiction because she
went in for surgery and she died from it. As Karen put it, ``her Dad
will never get to walk down the aisle with Kayla.''
Unfortunately, that is true with so many thousands of people whose
lives are cut short across Ohio and across the country. The stories are
heart-wrenching. You hear about kids who go in to have their wisdom
teeth pulled. They are given prescription pain pills. They get addicted
to the pain pills. They then turn to heroin--or maybe not. Maybe they
even die of an overdose from the pain pills themselves, which has
happened.
This should not be happening. Overprescribing of pain medication is
obviously one of the huge issues. Four out of five of the heroin
addicts in Ohio started with prescription drugs. People need to know
that. By the way, our legislation would allow people to know that
through an awareness campaign about that very issue.
Unfortunately, these overdoses are just the tip of the iceberg in the
sense that in addition to the 8,000 we have lost since March 10 in this
country, there are hundreds of thousands more who are among the
wounded. What do I mean by that? They have lost their jobs. They have
been driven to theft or fraud to pay for their habit. They have gone to
jail. They have broken relationships with loved ones because of an
addiction.
I hear this time and again from recovering addicts saying: When I had
this addiction, the drug was everything. It was everything. That is how
my family broke up. That is how I lost my job. That is how I lost my
self-respect.
I have seen the consequences firsthand. In Ohio on Monday, I visited
a treatment center that was for women only. It is an extraordinary
place, the only place in my hometown of Cincinnati where women can take
their kids and get treatment, which has been very effective. I got the
chance to meet with a number of women who are in recovery. Each had a
heart-wrenching story to tell about how they got there. Each was
absolutely committed to dealing with their addiction not only for their
sakes but also for their baby's sake because these women were pregnant.
In the last 12 years in Ohio, there has been a 750-percent increase
of babies born with addiction. This syndrome, babies born with
addiction, requires babies to be taken through the same kind of rehab
that adults are taken through, of course at different levels of
treatment. It is a very sad situation. Many doctors and nurses, who are
incredibly compassionate, tell me they don't know what the long-term
consequences are.
At this treatment center called First Step Home, which is in my home
town, they are doing impressive work. They are teaching women how to be
better moms in addition to providing the treatment they need. They
don't just get medication, they get a sense of home and security.
Talking to these women and listening to their stories inspires me to
make the Federal Government a better partner with First Step and other
nonprofits around the country to ensure that we are, indeed, beginning
to turn this tide.
Today and tomorrow, the Addiction Policy Forum, which is a coalition
of advocacy groups, is leading a CARA Family Day on Capitol Hill here
in Washington, DC. I will be joining them in that effort. I thank them
for calling attention to this pressing issue and for their strong
support of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, CARA.
With this being National Police Week, I would also like to thank our
police officers who are confronting this epidemic on the frontlines
every single day. Police, other first responders, and medical personnel
confront this epidemic more than anyone else. I have been told by
prosecutors back home that in some counties in Ohio, more than 80
percent of the crime is directly related to this issue of heroin and
prescription drug addiction. I am told that in some areas, nearly all
of the thefts that are committed are done by those struggling with
addiction to pay for their habit.
The Fraternal Order of Police has been incredibly helpful to us in
this legislation. They contributed valuable advice and feedback during
the 3 years we were crafting CARA. I am grateful for their help and for
their endorsement of CARA, which was very important to getting such a
strong vote on the floor of the House and Senate.
Police officers across Ohio have told me about the extent of the
epidemic. They have told me about the need for the Federal Government
to take action that is comprehensive.
Major Jay McDonald, who is the president of Ohio's Fraternal Order of
Police has told me that ``heroin mixed with fentanyl is the most deadly
drug cocktail I've witnessed in my entire career.'' I visited a place
called Jody's House with him. It is a residential house for women in
recovery in Marion, OH. Major McDonald told me that our response should
include enforcement, prevention, and treatment. In other words, it has
to be comprehensive. He is absolutely right.
Our police want CARA for a lot of reasons. For example, CARA would
authorize new law enforcement task forces around the country to
investigate trafficking in heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamines, and
prescription drugs. Police know that these extra resources will help
them to do their job. By the way, these task forces are not included in
the House-passed legislation. We have to get that in conference to
ensure that we are helping our police officers who are out there on the
frontlines.
Another reason I think the law enforcement community wants CARA
passed is that they are using naloxone more and more every day. First
responders used it 16,000 times in Ohio last year--16,000 times. CARA
would increase access to naloxone. It would improve the training so
that they could be more effective in administering this miracle drug in
time to save a life.
It would also insist, again, as it is being administered, that the
drug treatment programs in the community locally are made available--
information available to people--so that we are not just seeing this
revolving door. If we give our police the tools they need, they will be
able to save even more lives and get more people into treatment.
Our police are also helping to take drugs off the street. Since 2014,
DEA agents in Ohio, working with local police departments, have seized
more than 171 kilograms of heroin. Federal agents have now arrested
more than 70 drug traffickers or drug dealers in Ohio in the last year
alone.
Sometimes the intervention of a police officer is exactly what it
takes to get somebody into treatment. I have found that again and
again. Two weeks ago, there was a heartbreaking story of a woman in the
Miami Valley area--Dayton area--named Cheri, who said she was glad her
son was in jail because ``I would rather have him sitting behind bars
in jail than have to carry him out in a body bag.''
Two weeks ago in Wellington, OH, there was a town meeting held about
[[Page S2952]]
the crisis. Nicole Walmsley told the story of how, after postpartum
surgery at age 19, she was prescribed a prescription pain killer. She
became addicted. She ended up being arrested 18 times and convicted of
two felonies. ``I sold my morals; I sold my soul. Drugs became
everything.''
After an overdose in Youngstown, she begged her probation officer to
send her to jail. That is how bad it is. That is how difficult it is
sometimes to find treatment. She asked the police officer and the judge
to send her to prison because that is the best way to get good
treatment, to be convicted of a felony. Even then, sometimes the best
treatment is not available.
That is the status quo today. Unless and until we get a more
comprehensive bill to the President and signed into law, this
continues. Too many are going without treatment. Too many are afraid to
come forward. Too many are treating this not as a disease that needs to
be treated, which it is, but instead are concerned about the stigma.
We need to get people to come forward and come into treatment. But
thanks to help from police, in the case of Nicole, as I mentioned, she
did get treatment. For 3 years now, she has been living a clean and
productive life and helping others do so too. Police across Ohio have
been offering treatment to those struggling with addiction.
I am impressed with what is going on in Lucas County, Ohio, which is
in the Toledo area. Sheriff Tharp has started a drug abuse response
team that offers addiction counseling, free rides to treatment for
those who need it, and followup visits for those who have overdosed. In
talking to Sheriff Tharp and some of his deputies about this, they have
made an incredible difference in people's lives.
In Lodi, OH, anyone can simply turn themselves in to the police, and
they will get treatment with no questions asked. This is done using
private donations entirely. This year they have already placed in
rehabilitation 28 people who had no insurance and no income. The police
there report that since they started the program, overdoses and
property crimes have decreased considerably.
In Wellington and in Auglaize County, police make the same offer:
Turn yourself in and get treatment. We will not ask any questions. We
will get you the help you need. I am told this is also the case in
Creston, OH, and Newark, OH. So locally, police departments are taking
up this issue and dealing with it effectively. I salute them for that.
I also salute them for putting their lives on the line every day for
all of us and for their compassionate care of those they run across who
need this treatment. I know the statistics about drug abuse are
heartbreaking. They can certainly be discouraging, including the
relapse rates. But thanks in part to our police officers and good
treatment providers around the country, such as those I visited on
Monday, there are a lot of stories of hope, too, that encourage and
inspire us. Many of those who are struggling have inspirational stories
too.
In Colerain Township, near my hometown, police have started what is
called a quick response team of police, paramedics, and addiction
counselors. When they arrest someone or save them from an overdose,
they get them into treatment--again, not just applying Narcan but
getting them into treatment. Last summer, they found Damon Carroll, who
was just 22 years old, on his bedroom floor after an overdose. They got
him counseling and treatment. Damon is now living a clean and
productive life working at a restaurant. You know who stops by his
house and stops by the restaurant and makes sure he is okay? The police
officers who found him. Thanks to our police, he is beating this. There
is hope. They saved a life. They are helping this young man to live out
his God-given potential.
I hope we can send comprehensive legislation to the White House as
soon as possible because it is needed. It is urgent. It is an
emergency. We have lost nearly 8,000 Americans since the Senate passed
this Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act. That is the status quo
today. Again, that does not begin to tell the story of those who have
not died because of an overdose but struggle with addiction every day.
Our police officers and those nonprofits I talked about, those
treatment centers, those who are struggling with addiction--all of them
deserve better. They deserve us to act. Again, we are not going to
solve the problem here in Washington, DC, but we can be better partners
with State and local governments, with these nonprofits, with these law
enforcement officials around the country who are dealing with this
issue every day. They deserve a better partner.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I was pleased to come over here early
before I spoke and listen to my colleague from Ohio. We have the same
issues in Indiana. I think probably the Presiding Officer's State and
every State has serious opioid addiction issues, particularly with our
young people. We cannot solve all of the problems here. We have passed
a piece of legislation. Hopefully we can reconcile with the House
shortly and put it on the President's desk. In a number of ways, that
will provide the support for dealing with this problem.
It is a national issue, it is a State issue, it is a city issue, it
is a smalltown issue, and it is a rural America issue. It is all hands
on deck here. We are losing precious lives through this scourge of
addiction that is sweeping through our country.
Wasteful Spending
Mr. President, today I am back, as I have been every week for now 43
weeks for the waste of the week. The ``Waste of the Week'' is where I
highlight waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government system that
is using hard-earned taxpayer dollars that ought to be able to be used
by the taxpayer to pay the mortgage, pay the bills at the end of the
week, to put aside some money hopefully for the children's education as
they grow, or for any number of needs out there.
We have the responsibility and the duty to be carefully managing the
tax money that is assessed to our public. ``Waste of the Week'' has
pointed out some significant examples, yet drop-in-the-bucket of
expenditures that have not been successful, have not been used for the
purpose they are supposed to be used, part of the waste, fraud, and
abuse category of now nearly--well, nearing $200 billion. That is not
small change.
This week, I am highlighting a Federal program that has a lousy track
record and over $7 billion in leftover money--funds Congress has
appropriated for this program. Let me explain the program. In 2008,
shortly after the economic recession began, Congress created something
called the Home Affordable Modification Program; in short, HAMP. This
is a new emergency program established to help homeowners facing
financial distress to avoid foreclosure by reducing their monthly
mortgage payments.
All this occurred at a time when our country truly was in distress--a
serious recession. People were working less hours or no hours. Those
who owned homes were finding it difficult if not impossible to pay the
monthly mortgage payments.
So the HAMP program, which is a voluntary program for homeowners and
mortgage lenders--if the two of them get together and agree to
restructure their home loan payments, they can stay in their home, and
it doesn't have to go through foreclosure. It is a sensible program at
a time of real need. Lenders work through the Treasury Department to
reduce those monthly mortgage payments to no higher than about one-
third of the homeowners' income.
Historically, if you are telling your kids about buying a home or you
are graduating from school and you want to buy a home, the solid advice
has always been, don't commit yourself to more than 25 percent of the
income you are earning to pay on your mortgage. You are going to need
the rest of that money to pay the rest of your bills--all the
utilities, food, transportation, buying a car, and so forth and so on.
Well, this program said all the way up to a third. If you qualified on
that, we would use 33 percent instead of 25 percent and restructure
your mortgage so that you had a lower payment you had to make each
month on that mortgage.
The Department of Treasury put this program in place. It was
scheduled to expire at the end of 2012. In 2013, after the program had
technically expired,
[[Page S2953]]
an inspector general found that the number of participants who ended up
redefaulting on their new modified mortgage was ``increasing at an
alarming rate.''
What is this word ``redefaulting''? Look, if you don't pay your
mortgage payments, you are in default. If you are in default long
enough, the bank or the mortgage company that is holding your mortgage
says: We are going to foreclosure and take your house back because you
are not making payments. This program was designed to help people avoid
that catastrophe.
Redefaulting is the process by which the person, having already
agreed to--with the mortgage company and with the support of the
Federal Government, the person agreed to a program to lower the
payments so they could keep their house. They defaulted again, so the
technical term is redefaulting, but it is two defaults. So if Joe Smith
has problems and he gets with his lender, he gets a new program, but
then down the line, he defaults again.
According to the inspector general, this became something that needed
to be addressed because we simply cannot continue to proceed with this
program with the taxpayers' dollars if the participants aren't doing
their share.
Despite the poor performance, the administration unilaterally--and
how many times have we seen this happen during the Obama
administration?--bypassing Congress, they unilaterally extended the
program beyond its December 2012 expiration date. Interestingly enough,
even with this extension, the number of applicants steadily declined.
People either couldn't meet the measures or they didn't need it. The
economy was improving, and they didn't need to do this. According to
the Treasury Department, the number of HAMP participants declined
because there was a shrinking number of eligible mortgagees.
Given that the outcomes of those receiving help were largely subpar
and the number of applicants was declining, you would think we would
come to the conclusion that the program needed to be terminated. It was
already extended past the deadline, but on the basis of what was
happening with the program, essentially we should terminate that.
When HAMP was created, the goal was to help about 4 million
homeowners. Unfortunately, as it turned out, the program ended with
only 1.3 million homeowners making it through the trial phase and
ultimately being accepted into the program. Of those people, about one-
third ultimately redefaulted, costing taxpayers an additional $1.5
billion.
We had a broken program. What was left in the fund with the Treasury
was $7 billion. Some people call these slush funds. This is money that
has been appropriated, put into a program--not expended in the program
but sits there. How many times have we heard about government agencies
with excess taxpayer money saying: Don't give it back.
Now, of course, this is the Treasury. Sometimes we say: Give it back
to the Treasury. This is the Treasury itself. Well, don't terminate
this and give it back; we might want to use it for something else.
That is a classic way of describing how Washington often works. Spend
all the money that is appropriated to you, or they will reduce the
money they give you next year. I previously sat on the Appropriations
Committee, and this is not a one-off proposition. Every year, we have
to scrub through these agencies' expenditures, and we find that there
is excessive spending at the end of the fiscal year so that they don't
get a reduced amount of funds sent to them for the next fiscal year.
Think of the ways this money could be used if it was put back into
the Treasury. No. 1, it could be used for essential Federal functions.
Wouldn't NIH like to have $7 billion to be able to hopefully break
through on a wonder drug that would address Alzheimer's or diabetes or
something else? Wouldn't the Department of Defense want to have this
money for the shortcomings they have had because of the drastic
reduction in expenditures for our national defense and security?
Wouldn't any number of Federal agencies that produce essential programs
that have to be addressed financially want to use that money for the
right purposes? Most important of all, wouldn't the taxpayer want to
get that money back or not have it spent at all or use it? Wouldn't the
Treasury want to use it to reduce our ever-deepening national defense?
So there are a lot of uses for this money that is sloshing around in a
trust fund--not a trust fund, but sloshing around in the fund held by
the Treasury Department.
This is a waste because it is sitting there. It is going to be spent
on something that it was not intended to be spent on. For that reason,
it becomes the waste of the week. As the waste of the week, we add $7
billion to our ever-growing total of waste, fraud, and abuse, taking
our total overall to $170 billion. This is not small change. We have
people struggling in America to make ends meet. They live paycheck to
paycheck. They want their hard-earned dollars that are taken from their
paycheck used for the right purposes. If the money is not used for the
right purposes, they don't want to send it; they want it back.
We have an accountability to the American people, the people we
represent, to do the best we can to provide the most efficient,
effective use of their tax dollars. If we can't provide that--this is
just, as I said, a drop in the bucket. I could be standing here every
day with a waste of the day. I could be standing here every hour with a
waste of the hour. We have a responsibility to be accountable to the
people whose money is taken by the Federal Government and used. They
don't mind using it for the right things. Maybe a veterans program
needs that $7 billion to treat more veterans better than the way they
are treated now.
In any event, we add this, and we have $170-plus billion in
documented waste, fraud, and abuse.
I will be back next week with the next version, and we will continue
to expose funding that is unnecessary and is putting a real burden on
our hard-earned tax dollars being paid to the Federal Government.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Iran's Influence on Iraq and Syria
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to the
pernicious and malign impact that the Iranian Government and its
intrusion into Iraq and Syria are having on regional security, on the
condition of people in those two countries, and on the stability and
future of that whole region.
Today, Iraq is riven by sectarian divides, confronted with the
presence of barbaric ISIS terrorists in its north and west, and led by
a tragically fragile government. Meanwhile, the oppression of the
murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria has helped create a
humanitarian crisis on the scale of nothing we have seen since the
Second World War.
Iran claims that it wants to be a legitimate, contributing member of
the international community, but despite those claims, Iran has played
and continues to play a major role in fomenting instability in Iraq and
Syria and in exacerbating security, political, and military crises in
both countries.
Today, I wish to give just a brief overview of the tragedies of Iraq
and Syria, explain Iran's destabilizing role in each country, and
highlight a number of the steps I think the United States can take to
counter Iran's dangerous influence.
Let's begin with where we are today in Iraq. In recent months, Iraqi
and coalition forces have reduced the territorial presence of ISIS in
Iraq by roughly 40 percent. Since taking office in 2014, Prime Minister
Haydar al-Abadi has taken concrete steps to reduce corruption, to share
power with Kurdish and Sunni leaders, and to form a competent,
technocratic government that can deliver real results for the Iraqi
people and reduce the many grievances that have forced Iraqis into the
arms of extremists. Yet dangerous divides continue to paralyze the
Abadi government, hindering Iraq's ability to fight ISIS and to defend
against the terrorist attacks that have killed hundreds of people, 200
in the last week alone.
As coalition forces retake land previously captured by ISIS, ISIS
appears to be bringing its savage and barbaric tactics to the capital
city of Baghdad in brutal attacks in recent days and in other attempts
to stoke sectarianism and to distract the Abadi government
[[Page S2954]]
from its efforts to retake the major city of Mosul. Sectarian divisions
among the Iraqi people and within the government itself make political
reconciliation and a coherent national military campaign against ISIS
even more difficult.
Syria, meanwhile, faces a nearly unimaginable humanitarian crisis.
Since March of 2011, more than 400,000 Syrians have been killed and
more than 1 million injured because the Assad regime has engaged in a
murderous campaign against its own people in order to cling to power.
Some estimates put the number of dead as high as half a million
Syrians. Nearly 5 million Syrians have been forced out of their own
country, with 6.5 million displaced internally and 13.5 million in need
of humanitarian assistance. Even more tragically, a huge number of
those Syrians have been unable to receive international aid or relief
because the Assad regime blocks access to international aid
organizations.
Rather than playing a constructive role in this tortured, difficult
region, such as by contributing more meaningfully to the anti-ISIS
fight or by moderating conflicting factions, Iran continues to prop up
the Assad regime. In fact, without Iran's help, I believe Assad would
have likely fallen or come to the table to negotiate peace by now.
Instead, Iran continues to foment instability, sectarian violence, and
support terrorism.
In Iraq, Iran continues to fund Shia militias who seek to capitalize
upon and exacerbate tensions between Iraq's Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish
populations. Iranian-backed Shia militias have pushed ISIS out of some
areas, but rather than allowing Sunni civilians to peaceably return and
rebuild, they have engaged in killings and human rights violations
against the very Sunni communities they have just liberated from ISIS.
According to Human Rights Watch, in response to ISIS bombings in the
Iraqi town of Muqdadiyah in January of 2016, Shia militias ``demolished
Sunni homes, stores, and mosques'' and abducted and killed dozens of
Sunni civilians. This is just one of many examples of atrocities
committed by Iranian-backed Shia militias in recent months. These
killings further raise tensions and drive more recruits to ISIS and
other extremist groups.
In Syria, Iran has joined Russia in providing the aid that has kept
the Assad regime in power, despite hundreds of thousands willing to
fight against Assad and despite the coordinated effort of many
countries.
Although Iran's Government denies the presence of its military forces
in Syria, it is clear that in addition to financial support and
weapons, Iran has sent thousands of its own troops to reinforce the
murderous regime of Assad. One estimate puts the number of Iranian
forces in Syria at 3,000, including 2,000 of the elite Quds Force, a
select group of fighters from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps,
the hard-line group dedicated to preserving the reactionary Iranian
Government. In total, more than 700 Iranians are believed to have been
killed in Syria, directly contradicting Iran's claims that it is not
involved in the conflict. In fact, Iraq recently doubled down on its
support for Assad by sending soldiers from the regular Iranian army to
join the IRGC troops on the ground in Syria. There are rumors that they
are even mobilizing and deploying Afghans and others from the region to
join militias in support of Assad.
Although it remains clear that a lasting resolution to the Syrian
conflict will be impossible until Assad leaves power, Ali Akbar
Velayati, a senior adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei, said in
a recent televised interview that ``the removal of Assad . . . is a
redline for us.''
As long as Iran continues to increase its support--its military
support, its financial support--for Assad, it will bear direct
responsibility for the carnage in Syria, rising extremism on all sides
of the conflict, and the humanitarian exodus from Syria that is causing
massive suffering and destabilizing countries on three continents.
This behavior from Iran is a clear sign that the regime is not to be
trusted, does not intend to comply with international norms, and
deserves close scrutiny and constant pushback from the United States
and our allies.
Briefly--noting another colleague who stands to speak soon--there are
a number of steps the United States and our allies have to take in
response. At the very least, to prevent Iran from obtaining the
material necessary to advance its nuclear program, we must work with
our allies to tightly enforce all four corners of the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear agreement between Iran, the
United States, and other world powers.
We must continue to work with our allies and their navies to
interdict Iran's ongoing illegal weapons shipments to support the
Houthis and other of their terrorist proxies in the region, not just in
Yemen, but in Gaza, Bahrain, and Lebanon. Since February, U.S. forces
and allied navies have, on at least three occasions, interdicted in
international waters shipments of thousands of AK-47s, anti-tank
missiles, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, and other weapons destined
from Iran to the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
The United States must continue to maintain sanctions on Iran for its
support for terrorism, its human rights violations, and its continued
illegal ballistic missile tests. We must be willing to sanction both
individuals and entities linked to the IRGC and Iran's continued and
illegal ballistic missile program. In addition to punishing Iran for
its dangerous and provocative behavior, these actions send a signal to
Iran that the international national community will not tolerate its
ongoing bad behavior.
We have to use diplomatic channels to urge countries such as Russia
to not sell more dangerous arms to the Iranian regime--allegedly
defensive arms that will simply further destabilize the regime--and to
press Russia to allow U.N. Security Council action in response to
Iran's recent ballistic missile tests.
Finally, we have to continue to make smart investments in training,
technology, and innovation, on which our military depends. America's
ability to push back on Iran critically depends on maintaining a
credible conventional military deterrent.
The United States must do everything we can to support our allies in
the Middle East, in particular by strengthening our partnership with
the State of Israel, by concluding a new 10-year memorandum of
understanding that provides a reliable long-term and significantly
enhanced pathway toward support. Senator Graham and I, along with 81 of
our colleagues, recently wrote a letter to the President urging the
administration to support a stronger MOU to ensure Israel has the
resources it needs to defend itself in this chaotic region.
In closing, in the years to come, I hope this body will be just as
dedicated to enforcing the terms of the nuclear agreement with Iran and
pushing back on Iran's continued dangerous behavior outside the
parameters of the deal as we were in the months leading up to its
consideration in this body. Iran continues to exercise a malign
influence on Iraq, on Syria, and the region. It is our responsibility
to use every tool we have to make it clear to Iran that we will contain
its bad behavior and we will not tolerate its ongoing actions.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment with
Senator Blumenthal that would extend the Veterans Choice Card Program
for 3 years and restore funding that was moved out of the program last
year.
Our amendment is critically important. It extends the Veterans Choice
Card Program so it does not expire prematurely next year. It restores
funding removed from the program last year to pay for other VA
programs, provides additional funding to stabilize the VA Choice Card
Program for the next 3 years while Congress works on a long-term
solution to reform veterans health care, and allows the Secretary of
the VA to standardize and modernize the way it pays all the doctors,
hospitals, and clinics participating in the many programs the VA offers
to veterans to get the care they need in their communities.
I was very proud 2 years ago that Congress acted quickly to pass
major VA reform legislation following the scandal in care that resulted
in the deaths of hundreds of veterans waiting endlessly for care. We
now know that
[[Page S2955]]
what was originally uncovered in Phoenix, AZ, had been occurring
throughout the country. Fortunately, we acted decisively, and in a
bipartisan manner, by passing the Veterans Access, Choice, and
Accountability Act in near-record time. That law provided extra
emergency funding for the VA to hire doctors and nurses and to build
more hospitals and clinics.
Perhaps the most important and the most promising piece of the
legislation was the $10 billion emergency fund for the Veterans Choice
Card Program. This program allows any veteran who has to wait more than
30 days for an appointment or lives more than 40 miles from a VA
facility to visit a participating doctor in their community instead of
continuing to wait for care with no options. After an extremely
difficult start, the Veterans Choice Card Program is now authorizing
more than 150,000 appointments for veterans care per month--over 6,000
per workday.
According to the VA, as of the end of March, nearly 1 million
appointments for veterans had been scheduled under the Veterans Choice
Card Program. Each of these appointments represents a veteran's
appointment that would have otherwise been delayed potentially for
months in the VA's scheduling system.
An extra advantage of the Choice Card is it also helps veterans who
don't use it. By enabling some veterans to receive care in their
community, the VA is able to free up its appointment backlog and
accommodate veteran appointments sooner.
Over the last year, the number of participating doctors and medical
professionals in the Veterans Choice Program in the western region has
jumped from around 95,000 to nearly 160,000. The turnover rate is very
low. More than 90 percent of all doctors are being paid within 30 days,
and the great majority of doctors are choosing to stay in the Veterans
Choice Card Program to treat our Nation's veterans.
Unfortunately, under current law, the Veterans Choice Card Program is
scheduled to expire in the middle of next year. The Veterans Choice
Card Program is capped at $10 billion in emergency spending and 3 years
of operation, whichever is reached first.
I know Members on both sides of the aisle don't want to return to the
status quo of never-ending wait times for appointments and poor care at
the VA. Too many of our constituents have been harmed, too many lives
devastated.
I remember standing on the Senate floor in 2014 and urging passage of
the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act. At that time, we
acknowledged the Veterans Choice Program was a first step toward fully
reforming the VA. That law created a blue-ribbon Commission on Care
that is still meeting and owes Congress recommendations this summer on
long-term reform, but we need time for hearings, investigations,
oversight and analysis of the Commission's report to get long-term
reform right.
As the chairman and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee
will attest, this is the dictionary definition of an emergency. While
we cannot rush the reforms the VA health care system needs, we also
cannot bring the Veterans Choice Program to a full stop. Too many
veterans and VA hospitals depend on the Veterans Choice Program to
provide care in a timely fashion.
I have heard from multiple Administrators and VA officials who have
told me and my staff that they do not know what they will do if the
Veterans Choice Card Program ends. I urge my colleagues to adopt this
amendment and commit to continuing the hard work of enacting long-term
reform to the VA health care system.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment in order to call up amendment No. 4039 with the changes that
are at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, John
McCain is my good friend for whom I have ultimate respect. I was just
informed of this amendment and was informed it would not enable--we
have a real problem in Rochester, where they do not have enough VA
services. They have to drive very far away to go to a big metropolitan
area.
I am going to object, hoping I can talk to my friend from Arizona to
see if we can work this out. So I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I don't know what the credentials are of
the Senator from New York as far as veterans are concerned, but I know
this. I know that what the Senator from New York is stopping is 160,000
veterans--160,000 veterans--from participating in this program in the
western part of the United States.
Mr. SCHUMER. If my colleague will yield. What I am simply asking for
is not to block it but to sit and talk with him to see what exactly his
amendment does and the effect it will have on Rochester.
I was just told of it. That is all I want to do. I don't know the
details. I have great respect for my friend, but I have an obligation
to the veterans in Rochester who have come to me about their problem,
and so I want to talk to my colleague about it.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I hope very strongly that my colleague
and friend the Senator from New York and Senator McCain will succeed in
resolving this potential roadblock to amendment No. 4039, because I
very fervently support it.
The amendment would extend the temporary Veterans Choice Program for
an additional 3 years and provide funding to do so. The extension of
this program is vital, and the current authorization is coming to an
end. At this point, we lack a path forward on any of the proposals to
overhaul the VA's care in the community program.
While the Veterans Choice Program has been far from perfect,
requiring multiple legislative and administrative changes to make it
function for veterans, extending it for an additional 3 years will
allow us to address these necessary changes that Senators Tester and
Burr have provided in a bipartisan way in the committee earlier this
year. I remain committed to working with them and with Chairman Isakson
to make further changes to the program as well as continuing to improve
access to care within the VA, which is the preferred choice for many
veterans.
In addition to extending Choice, this amendment also would allow the
VA to move closer to consolidating existing programs for care in the
community, eliminating some of the bureaucratic hurdles to smooth
contracting for the VA. I thank my colleague from Arizona Senator
McCain for championing this cause because this amendment will ensure
that all veterans currently using Project ARCH to access care through
the VA will be grandfathered into the Veterans Choice Program. This is
important for some veterans in rural areas to maintain continuity in
care. It is of great interest to our colleagues from Maine and Kansas
and other States where these veterans live, primarily, but to all of us
who care about veterans health care.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as well as to support
The Veterans First Act, another bipartisan bill I was pleased to work
on with Chairman Isakson to achieve--that bill makes additional changes
to veterans health care to improve opioid therapy, access to
chiropractic care, as well as ensuring strong accountability within the
Department.
Again, I express my appreciation to my colleague and friend Senator
McCain and say that I look forward to working with him closely on this
amendment, which would be helpful, in my view, to the Veterans Choice
Program. Without this extension, the Veterans Choice Program would
expire next year before Congress enacts long-term reform for veterans
health. The stability provided by this extension and funding will help
ensure maximum participation by doctors, hospitals, and clinics in the
community who wish to treat our veterans.
[[Page S2956]]
This amendment is one I support, having worked with my colleague
Senator McCain on it, and I am very hopeful we can move forward with
the support of this body.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would tell Senator Schumer's staff that
he may want to come back.
What Senator Schumer is asking for is a 25-year lease on a clinic in
Rochester, NY, according to his staff.
I have been privy to examples of blocking the greater good because of
a specific geographic area, but I have to say that I haven't seen
anything quite like this one.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I will talk one
more time with the Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, this is an important issue that is being
discussed on the floor. I join Senator Blumenthal certainly in my
commitment to do whatever we can to extend more choice to veterans.
I believe there are less than a handful of issues in which the VA is,
in all likelihood, the best provider. They should be better at post-
traumatic stress than anything else. The VA should be better at IED-
attack injuries. They should be better at prosthetics. There is no
reason they should be the better place to have your heart valve
replaced or your kidney cancer dealt with.
More choice for veterans is better for veterans, and will make the VA
a better provider than the VA is today. So I am certainly supportive of
that discussion.
Mr. President, Senator Warner and I today have filed an amendment to
the transportation bill, which is the part of this debate that deals
with transportation. The BRIDGE Act creates new ways to help us fund
our Nation's infrastructure.
Last year, Congress was finally able to come together to pass a
bipartisan highway bill, the FAST Act. It took a while to get to the
FAST Act. We had 37 short-term extensions of the highway bill from 2009
on, but we finally have a 5-year highway bill that provides certainty
for the next 5 years. This is a chance when, at every level of
government, we can now put extra tools in the toolbox, and we can
involve the private sector in ways that it has not been involved as a
funding partner. There are many things the private sector can do in
partnership with the public sector.
Strengthening our overall infrastructure, especially our
transportation network, is vital to boosting economic growth, to
creating jobs, and to increasing competitiveness in Missouri, in
Senator Warner's State of Virginia, and across the Nation. Current
infrastructure fails to meet our current needs, including our drinking
water, highways and ports, and energy transmission.
In addition to all the things we see above ground, there are many
things below ground that need to be dealt with. Part of the storm water
system in the city of St. Louis was built while Abraham Lincoln was
President. It is amazing how long wood will last if you keep it soaked
in water for 152 years or so, but that is what a part of that system is
all about. We are way short in infrastructure investments. Senator
Warner and I, for three Congresses now, have been trying to find the
best way to add more ability to do more of the things that need to be
done. We have a transportation system that is interconnected, with an
extensive network of highways, roads, and bridges, and of freight and
passenger railroads, urban and rural rail transit systems, airports,
waterways, and pipelines. All of those things make us more competitive
than we would be otherwise, and more competitive means better jobs. It
means that people living paycheck to paycheck have an opportunity to
have paycheck to paycheck plus savings. They have an opportunity to
have paycheck to paycheck plus retirement. They have an opportunity to
see those things happen that need to happen in their lives and for
their families.
The transportation system links our country. It links urban and rural
America. It serves as the backbone for interstate commerce, and it
connects the United States to the rest of the world. Our economic
competitiveness and our ability to export in the most competitive way
is very dependent on our infrastructure.
The American energy revolution is directly related to the ability to
access unconventional oil and gas. We have more new American energy
than we ever dreamed possible. We can access that energy, but we don't
have a way to transport the energy that we need to use it most
efficiently.
The Greater Mississippi River Basin--the biggest contiguous piece of
agricultural land in the world--is where the waterways of the country
come together. These waterways allow us to be more competitive. They
allow farmers to easily ship their products to domestic and foreign
markets. A modern transportation system will be key to remaining
competitive with other grain producers elsewhere in the world. Brazil
is a great example of a country whose ability to grow agricultural
products has far outgrown its infrastructure. The ability to compete--
the ability to get things to market, the ability to get things all over
the world--is dramatically impacted by that.
The American Society of Civil Engineers continues to give the United
States poor marks on our infrastructure and says that we need billions
of dollars in investment over the next several years to bring it up to
adequate conditions.
The BRIDGE Act is not a way for Federal taxpayers to become
responsible for every local obligation but for States and communities,
along with the Federal Government, to have new ways to do the things
that need to be done. We can't continue to ignore the infrastructure
needs of the country. We particularly can't continue to ignore the
infrastructure needs of the country that we can't see.
We just saw appropriate attention in Flint, MI, to a problem that
didn't meet the eye because it is underground. The gas lines, the water
lines, the storm sewer lines all need attention. The capital markets
and private sector investors have growing interest in being a part of
meeting that great infrastructure need. The BRIDGE Act will incentivize
private sector investment by establishing an independent infrastructure
financing authority to provide loans and loan guarantees to critical
infrastructure projects, including transportation, water, and energy
infrastructure. It is a proposal like the ones we need to help close
the gap that needs to be closed.
During this week--a week in which I am not sure how the planning
worked here--we have the transportation bill on the floor during
infrastructure week. I think we ought to give serious consideration not
just to the infrastructure that we appropriate money for but the
process and the tools we put in place so that the infrastructure needs
of the country can be met.
I am certainly pleased to get to work with Senator Warner on this
project. We have had lots of input from people who understand the
infrastructure needs of the country. I hope the Congress will look at
this as one of the things that can be done to help meet those needs.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Warner from Virginia and
Senator Schumer from New York. They are committed to the veterans in
their States and in this country.
I believe we have worked out an agreement to try to get the veterans
the services they have earned and are not receiving at this time.
Amendment No. 4039 to Amendment No. 3896
Mr. President, the usual calm and quiet conversation has led to a
conclusion that now I can ask unanimous
[[Page S2957]]
consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up
amendment No. 4039.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 4039 to amendment No. 3896.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To extend and expand eligibility for the Veterans Choice
Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs and to establish
consistent criteria and standards relating to the use of amounts under
the Medical Community Care account of the Department of Veterans
Affairs)
At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
extension and expansion of veterans choice program
Sec. 251. (a) Extension.--The Veterans Access, Choice, and
Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-146; 38 U.S.C.
1701 note) is amended--
(1) in section 101(p)(2), by striking ``3 years'' and
inserting ``6 years''; and
(2) in section 802(d)(1), by striking ``$10,000,000,000''
and inserting ``$17,500,000,000''.
(b) Expansion of Eligibility.--Subsection (b)(2) of section
101 of such Act is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``; or'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (D)(ii)(II)(dd), by striking the period
at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) has received health services under the pilot program
under section 403 of the Veterans' Mental Health and Other
Care Improvements Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-387; 38 U.S.C.
1703 note) and resides in a location described in section
(b)(2) of such section.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Subsection (g)(3) of such
section is amended by striking ``or (D)'' and inserting
``(D), or (E)''.
(2) Subsection (q)(2)(A) of such section is amended--
(A) in clause (iii), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(B) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(v) eligible veterans described in subsection
(b)(2)(E).''.
(d) Emergency Requirement.--The amounts made available
under the amendments made by subsection (a) are designated by
the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)(i)).
(e) Quarterly Report.--Not less frequently than quarterly
until all amounts deposited in the Veterans Choice Fund under
section 802 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and
Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-146; 38 U.S.C.
1701 note) are exhausted, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of
Representatives an update on the expenditures made from such
Fund to carry out section 101 of such Act during the quarter
covered by the report.
establishment of criteria for provision of services under medical
community care account
Sec. 252. In using amounts made available in this title for
the Medical Community Care account of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
establish consistent criteria and standards--
(1) for purposes of determining eligibility of non-
Department health care providers to provide health care under
the laws administered by the Secretary, including standards
relating to education, certification, licensure, training,
and employment history; and
(2) for the reimbursement of such health care providers for
care or services provided under the laws administered by the
Secretary, which to the extent practicable shall--
(A) use rates for reimbursement that are not more than the
rates paid by the United States to a provider of services (as
defined in section 1861(u) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395x(u))) under the Medicare program under title
XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) for
the same care or services;
(B) incorporate the use of value-based reimbursement models
to promote the provision of high-quality care to improve
health outcomes and the experience of care for veterans; and
(C) be consistent with prompt payment standards required of
Federal agencies under chapter 39 of title 31, United States
Code.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for
working with us on this very important issue of making sure that
veterans in a number of our States are able to get quality care in a
location that is convenient to them, and I appreciate his partnering
with me and Senator Schumer and others on this issue.
Mr. President, I was going to rise earlier when the Senator from
Missouri spoke to talk about the question around infrastructure
investment. This is infrastructure investment week, and stakeholders
from across the country are here to continue to raise the question that
we need to do more to rebuild our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. We
all know that recently we passed a 5-year highway bill, and I supported
it. The FAST Act--as it was called--was a good bill, but it included
only modest increases in funding. Whether we look at our region's Metro
or the Memorial Bridge that many of us travel on a regular basis or
airports or water systems all over the country, it is clear that we
need to look at additional ways to invest in our Nation's
infrastructure.
Senator Blunt and I have filed an amendment to the current
Transportation appropriations bill that we had before us that would
establish a National Infrastructure Financing Authority. The BRIDGE Act
that is cosponsored by six Republicans and six Democrats is bringing
about a new tool to make innovative ways to finance projects. I believe
my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, is a supporter of this type of
approach.
Our bipartisan BRIDGE Act creates a $10 billion government loan
fund--a loan fund that will repay. It doesn't add a single dime to the
Federal deficit. All experts say this modest initial investment
ultimately could unlock up to $300 billion in private sector capital to
invest in our Nation's infrastructure.
Let's be honest. We all know why we are here. The funding mechanisms
that our transportation system relies on are simply unsustainable. We
spend more money each year just in maintaining our highway trust fund
and highway system than our highway trust fund brings in, yet our needs
continue to grow.
The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave the United
States a D-plus grade on infrastructure. I don't know about my friend,
the Senator from New York, but I am sure that he often preferred grades
better than D-plus when he was a student.
If we look over recent times, this is not a Democrat or Republican
issue; this is a problem that has been gnawing at this country for some
time. There has been a 50-percent decrease in infrastructure investment
as a percentage of our GDP since the 1970s. The United States spends
less than 2 percent of our gross domestic product on infrastructure.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, underinvestment
in our national infrastructure will cost each American family $3,400 a
year. That is wasted time. That is a city in gridlock. That is not
being able to get to work and not being able to be with one's family.
The most significant gap, of course, is not only in water but,
obviously, in transportation, where it has been estimated that an
additional $1 trillion is needed across the network--including roads,
bridges, rail--during the next decade. Again, I point to many of the
Members in this body and so many of the folks who work for us simply
traveling across the Memorial Bridge, one of our Nation's icons, which
is basically in a crumbling state.
Meanwhile, if we look at nations around the world in terms of what
they are doing--remember the United States is under 2 percent of GDP
investment and infrastructure--Europe and India spend about 5 percent
of their GDP on an annual basis in infrastructure. China spends nearly
9 percent. Australia already has a national infrastructure financing
authority. China also has a national infrastructure funding authority
that is building out national high-speed rail networks.
Think about it. For most of the 20th century, it was American
infrastructure that led to America's economic dominance in the 20th
century. Today, whether that is flying into our airports, looking at
our rail system, or looking at our crumbling roads and systems, in many
ways, America's infrastructure is a disgrace and actually retards
economic growth.
As we tighten our belts at the State level--and I say that as a
former Governor--and at the Federal level, we
[[Page S2958]]
need to do everything we can to invest in infrastructure as a means of
not only providing jobs but helping the flow of goods and people and
services to stay competitive in the global economy.
Despite the recent passage of the so-called FAST Act, only 6 percent
of infrastructure funding in the United States is from the private
sector. With over $2.2 trillion sitting on private ledgers looking for
a place to invest, that meager 6-percent figure, in terms of private
sector investment in infrastructure, could be dramatically increased.
The BRIDGE Act, the bill I am working on with Senator Blunt,
establishes such an authority. It complements existing Federal programs
scattered across several ages. It allows us to consolidate the
expertise it takes to go against Wall Street in putting together
infrastructure financing programs.
This new authority could provide an important new tool for State and
local governments to partner with the private sector to invest in our
Nation's infrastructure.
Let me be clear. Infrastructure financing alone isn't a silver
bullet. If you finance, you have to pay those dollars back. But when we
are looking at interest rates at record lows, failure to take advantage
of accessing these private markets with interest rates at these low
levels is the equivalent of political malfeasance. In terms of the
BRIDGE Act, this program would complement existing programs such as
TIFIA and WIFIA, which already provide good work.
My hope is that joining with Senator Blunt and 12 of our colleagues--
equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans--if not on this bill, we
will act on the BRIDGE Act and provide this critically important needed
infrastructure tool to our tool kit to make sure that our roads,
bridges, airports, water and sewer systems are functioning and allow
America to compete in the 21st century economy.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be very brief. A number of us have
clinics that serve our veterans population. I have one in Rochester.
The Senator from Virginia has one in Hampton Roads, and there are
others on both sides of the aisle where there is a potential problem
because of the way CBO scored it. We have agreed that, rather than
piggyback on the McCain amendment, we would figure out a bipartisan way
to solve this problem in the NDAA bill. I very much appreciate the
commitment of my friend from Arizona to help us solve that problem.
I know we will have the complete cooperation of our ranking member,
Senator Reed, and I look forward to trying to solve the problem for the
benefit of veterans throughout the country who don't get the services
they need, and we can move forward at least in 17 areas where they
will.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the VA
Committee, I want to join my colleague from New York, and having worked
with Senator McCain on this amendment, I am very pleased that the
McCain-Blumenthal amendment has been made pending and that we have an
agreement to authorize those VA leases that were requested over the
last fiscal year when we turned to the National Defense Authorization
Act.
I want to stress that these leases have been requested over the last
several fiscal years, and this agreement embodies a situation that has
to be addressed. I thank my colleague from Arizona for working with me
on the amendment and now being so understanding on these requests, at
least in committing to make sure that we address this very strongly
felt need.
I also want to thank my colleague from Virginia for his work on this
issue and for his work on the infrastructure spending measure that he
has offered and that I have supported for years. I hope that we can get
it done because the infrastructure of our Nation, as well as that of my
State, requires that we commit the money as an investment. It is not
funding. It is not spending. It is an investment in our future. We
can't have a 21st century economy unless we have a 21st century
infrastructure--roads, bridges, rail, airports. I am pleased and proud
to join him in this effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Amendment No. 3897
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, in a piece of legislation of this size, this
scope, and this magnitude, there is always much to praise.
Unfortunately, from time to time there is much to criticize.
Specifically, I rise today to try to correct one major mistake in
this bill. As currently written, it permits the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to proceed to the implementation of its radical
new regulation, the insultingly misnamed affirmatively furthering fair
housing rule, or AFFH.
Proponents of AFFH, including President Obama, claim that AFFH
fulfills the original purpose and promise of the Fair Housing Act of
1968. The truth is, HUD's new housing rule isn't the fulfillment but a
betrayal of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The purpose of the Fair
Housing Act was to protect the God-given right of individuals and
families, regardless of their skin color or their ethnicity, to buy and
rent homes where they please. By contrast, the explicit purpose of
HUD's new rule is to empower Federal bureaucrats to dictate where a
community's low-income residents will live. This is not what progress
looks like.
AFFH not only grants unprecedented new powers to HUD--powers that
were not contemplated and have no legitimate basis in the Fair Housing
Act of 1968--but it will ultimately hurt the very people it purports to
help--public housing residents, especially African-American public
housing residents who too often find themselves trapped in
dysfunctional, broken neighborhoods.
To make matters worse, this new rule will end America's unique and
uniquely successful commitment to localism and diversity and make
neighborhood-level construction decisions subject to the whims of
future Presidents. If this past year has not yet done enough to give
you pause about handing over such power to the executive branch, then
you are not paying close enough attention.
I am offering an amendment today, No. 3897, that would prohibit HUD
from using Federal taxpayer money to carry out the affirmatively
furthering fair housing rule. The House of Representatives has already
passed this amendment twice and will likely do so again in the near
future. We should follow the lead of the House of Representatives in
this regard.
Here is how the rule works. AFFH requires cities and towns across the
country to audit their own local housing policies under close
supervision by HUD regulators who may have never lived anywhere near
the city, town, or municipality in question. If any aspect of a
community's housing and demographic patterns fails to meet HUD
bureaucrats' expansive definition of ``fair housing,'' the local
government must submit a plan to reorganize the community's housing
practices according to the preferences and priorities set not by the
community in question but by the bureaucrats--the bureaucrats in
Washington, possibly hundreds or even thousands of miles away.
Critics of AFFH often say and I have said myself that this rule turns
HUD into a sort of national zoning board with the power to unilaterally
rewrite local zoning laws and land use regulations in every city and
town in America. But that is not quite how the rule works, and that is
why Senator Collins' amendment would not do anything to prevent the
implementation of the very things we worry about with AFFH. In the 10
months since the rule was finalized, it has become clear that the
mechanics of AFFH are much more underhanded and subversive than critics
have often claimed. Under the new rule, HUD doesn't replace local
housing authorities, it conscripts them into its service. This gets to
the very heart of the difference between my amendment and the amendment
offered by my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Maine,
Ms. Collins.
[[Page S2959]]
The danger of AFFH is not that HUD will direct local governments and
public housing authorities to make specific changes to their zoning
policies; it will just threaten them by tying obedience to Federal
community development block grants. Obedience to the commands of
Federal regulators will be a conditional precedent of sorts to the
ongoing receipt of Federal funds under the CDBG Program.
CDBG is a Federal grant program controlled by HUD, one that allocates
some $3 billion per year to local governments to help them address a
variety of community development needs, including providing adequate
and affordable public housing for their community. Traditionally, local
officials have been more or less free to use their CDBG funds according
to their own community's unique needs and specific priorities, but
under AFFH, HUD officials will withhold local government CDBG funds
unless that local government adopts HUD's preferred housing policies.
Predictably, proponents of the rule claim this will be a
collaborative process, with local government officials in the driver's
seat while the bureaucrats at HUD merely provide support and guidance,
but the 10-month track record of AFFH suggests that precisely the
opposite will be true. In fact, I have already heard from the housing
authority of Salt Lake County, predicting that the cost of complying
with AFFH will stretch their already thin resources, add hundreds of
hours of bureaucratic paperwork to their workloads, and eliminate their
autonomy to determine the best ways to provide adequate, low-cost
housing to their community.
The problem with HUD's new rule has nothing to do with the stated
intentions behind it. In a press release announcing the finalization of
AFFH, HUD Secretary Julian Castro said: ``Unfortunately, too many
Americans find their dreams limited by where they come from, and a ZIP
code should never determine a child's future.'' I completely agree.
There is no disputing that the neighborhood in which a child grows up
might affect his educational, social, and professional outcomes in the
future. Nor is there any disagreement that far too many children today
are raised in dysfunctional neighborhoods because it is the only place
their parents can find affordable housing. The lack of affordable
housing is not a new problem in America--just ask anyone who has ever
had to pay rent in one of the major metropolitan areas controlled by
the Democratic Party--but neither is the solution. The best way to make
housing more affordable is to allow more housing to be built, and the
best way to help low-income citizens find fair and affordable housing
is to empower them to live in a neighborhood that meets their needs.
The history of Chicago is instructive here. In the 2000s, the Chicago
city government demolished many of its public housing facilities
without any kind of a plan to replace them. Those with the resources
and wherewithal to choose where to live moved to places where housing
was cheap and economic opportunity was plentiful, but the less
fortunate were relocated to more remote, less prosperous towns, towns
like Dubuque, IA, at the behest of--who else?--the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
In 2008 the city of Dubuque was struggling to meet the needs of its
own public housing residents. Yet in stepped the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development declaring that the city's housing
policies would fail to meet the agency's fair housing standards and
that therefore the city would be ineligible to receive Federal funding
from HUD unless the local government actively recruited Section 8
voucher holders from Chicago. Unwilling to lose access to Federal
funding on which the city had come to rely, the small Iowa town
acquiesced to HUD's demands--aggressive and unacceptable as they were.
This imposed an enormous administrative burden on the city's resource-
strapped housing agencies, but HUD's real victims were Chicago's public
housing residents who were forcibly displaced to an unknown town 200
miles from the city they used to call home. Unless we pass this
amendment to defund the disastrously misguided AFFH rule, this is what
the future of public housing in America will look like.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and
reaffirming that low-income families are not statistics to be managed
by distant bureaucrats; they are human beings--our neighbors in need
who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the
presentation made by my colleague from Utah, Senator Lee, and I wish to
respond to the concerns he raised. Indeed, if the picture he drew were
accurate, I might be a supporter rather than an opponent of his
amendment.
First, let me be clear that there is nothing in our bill that
authorizes this rule. This rule was issued pursuant to HUD's normal
regulatory authority in response to a report, which I will discuss in a
moment, that was issued by the GAO, the Government Accountability
Office.
The amendment offered by Senator Lee would prohibit funding for HUD's
rule that is known as the affirmatively furthering fair housing rule.
It was finalized in July of last year, but it is based on a requirement
from the landmark civil rights-era law, the 1968 Fair Housing Act. That
law mandates that HUD ensure that recipients of HUD funding not only
prevent discrimination but also act to further the goals of fair
housing that are outlined in this landmark law. In fact, repeatedly
over the years, Congress has reinforced this goal. As recently as 1998,
the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act required HUD program
recipients to affirmatively further fair housing.
When we talk about fair housing, it is important that we remember we
are talking about not only prohibiting discrimination based on race but
also discrimination based on disabilities, ethnic origin, and even
against families with children. In fact, in fiscal year 2015, 56
percent of all reported complaints of housing discrimination were
initiated by people with disabilities, and that is why so many
organizations that are representing our disabled citizens are so
strongly opposed and concerned about Senator Lee's amendment.
For example, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, an organization that
was founded by servicemembers who returned home after World War II with
spinal cord injury, believes that HUD's rule will help curb
discrimination against people with disabilities, including our veterans
and our seniors. According to the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the
alarming trend of more than 50 percent of complaints about housing
discrimination being initiated by individuals with disabilities will
affect Americans returning from conflicts abroad, as well as a growing
percentage of our seniors who are suffering from or living with
disabilities. The organization also believes that HUD's rule will help
local governments identify strategies and solutions to expand
accessible and supportive housing choices for our seniors and our
veterans.
I wish everyone had heard Senator Isakson's eloquent speech on the
floor this afternoon when he talked about a wonderful, inclusive mixed-
income housing development in Atlanta that has included a charter
school and a Y. The children's test scores have gone up and crime has
decreased because of the model that was adopted for this particular
development.
Earlier I mentioned that it is important to know that HUD issued this
new rule in response to a specific 2010 GAO report.
Members in this Chamber are always looking to GAO for information,
advice, and recommendations on how we can improve the effectiveness and
the efficiency of Federal programs to make sure they are fulfilling the
mandates we have written and to make sure they are serving the people
they are intended to serve in the manner Congress intended.
GAO took a look at the fair housing requirements and particularly the
requirement in the Fair Housing Act that recipients of HUD's grants
were to affirmatively advance fair housing. It was very critical of the
haphazard nature of HUD's oversight and the fact that communities
didn't know whether they were in compliance. There was
[[Page S2960]]
also a lack of tools, of community involvement, and of assessments to
make sure those goals were being met.
Once HUD issued its final rule, the GAO was satisfied and closed out
its recommendations. As the Presiding Officer is well aware, there are
times when Federal agencies never implement GAO's recommendations, or
take years to do so, and we in the Senate have to hammer the agencies
over and over again on why they didn't implement GAO's recommendations.
Well, in this case, HUD did so.
So not only was the origin of the rule the GAO report but also
communities were seeking better tools and more guidance. Senator Kaine,
a former mayor of Richmond and a former Governor of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, was eloquent in describing the fact that he welcomed these
rules because it was so hard when he was the mayor to know exactly how
to accomplish the goal of affirmatively advancing fair housing. What
exactly did that mean to HUD?
Indeed, there is an excellent article that appeared in The Hill today
by the director of the PolicyLink Center for Infrastructure Equity and
the codirector of the Promise Neighborhoods Institute that talked about
the history of this rule. In particular--and I want to quote--the
authors say:
The opposition ignores the fact that the rule was developed
in response to city- and state-level requests for better
tools and improved guidance; that it involved significant
input from local-level innovators and experimenters; and that
it was piloted in 74 regions nationwide over five years in
the Sustainable Communities Initiative through a tool called
the fair housing and equity assessment.
It lists cities across the country, including Salt Lake City,
ironically; Denver, St. Paul, and Dallas, which have all invested in
affordable housing, in transit-oriented developments to ensure that
residents would have access to affordable transit and housing choices,
just as examples.
So the idea that this rule came out of thin air is just not accurate.
It is based on a law that has been on the books for decades--a law that
is a landmark civil rights-era law--the 1968 Fair Housing Act. It is
based on a GAO report in 2010 which said HUD wasn't doing a good job.
It is based on requests from States and communities for more tools and
more guidance from HUD.
So this rule was not developed by our committee. It was not
authorized by our committee. It comes from the 1968 law which, as I
said, has been reaffirmed in at least three subsequent laws that this
body has passed. It comes from a GAO report, and it involved a lot of
input.
Now, according to Senator Lee, and we heard him speak about it today,
he fears HUD is going to be turned into--I believe he called it a
national zoning authority for every neighborhood, and Federal
bureaucrats thousands of miles away in Washington will be in charge of
our local communities.
First, let me say I do not believe that to be the case, and I believe
it is a misreading of the guidance. However, I would never want that
either. That is why, along with my colleagues Senator Jack Reed and
Senator Thad Cochran, we have introduced an amendment to ensure that
HUD cannot do that, to prohibit HUD from being involved in local zoning
decisions so the recipients of Federal dollars will continue to make
their own local decisions to address the Federal requirements.
Because there has been so much misrepresentation about our amendment,
let me read to my colleagues exactly what it says. It couldn't be more
clear: None--none--of the funds made available by this act may be used
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to ``direct a
grantee to undertake specific change to existing zoning laws as part of
carrying out'' the final rule entitled ``affirmatively furthering fair
housing.''
I don't know how the amendment could be any clearer than that. We
have made sure the worst fear, the worst scenario the sponsor of this
amendment has conjured up, cannot occur if our amendment passes.
On the other hand, I want to point out what Senator Lee's amendment
would do. It would prevent HUD from providing the necessary technical
assistance, guidance, and help that localities have continuously asked
HUD to provide to ensure that they don't get sued, that they are not
susceptible to costly and unnecessary fair housing litigation brought
by individuals or outside groups. They want HUD's help, but under the
Lee amendment no funding could be used to give them that kind of help.
I don't see how that makes sense. That is how broadly written his
amendment is.
I want to correct something else that was said. Senator Lee talked
about the enormous burden this rule will impose on the recipients of
HUD funds. To be clear, the rule requires the recipients to complete
the fair housing analysis only once every 5 years--once every 5 years--
similar to all other HUD requirements in their consolidated plans. So
that argument, in my judgment, also falls.
Let me say that we are all aware of concerns, despite the tremendous
progress that has been made in this country, about the lack of progress
in providing housing opportunities to all Americans. That is why in our
bill we try to deal with homeless veterans--we do deal with homeless
veterans. We put in $57 million for additional vouchers for homeless
veterans, even though the administration wanted to eliminate that
important program. We are continuing to work on that.
Finally, let me respond to a specific case that Senator Lee mentioned
involving Chicago and Dubuque. To begin with, it is simply a mistake in
a statement to say that Chicago residents were ``forced to relocate to
Dubuque.'' That is just not accurate. It is true that this is a Federal
voucher program and, as Republicans, we usually like vouchers because
we want Americans to have choices about where they live. So the section
8 program, for example, which is a voucher-based program, doesn't say
that you can only use it in Portland, ME, or Providence, RI, or Salt
Lake City, UT, or Chicago, IL. It is a program that allows people to
live where they want to live, but it is a program with a long waiting
list in most cities. Nothing--also, despite what has been written--
nothing in the rule requires that Dubuque be considered part of
Chicago. That is not a statement that the sponsor of the amendment made
today, but it is a statement that has been circulated by some outside
groups and it is simply ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd.
The concerns raised with Dubuque are related to a settlement that the
city reached with HUD in 2013, which was well before this rule was
finalized. The agreement was the result of a compliance review under
the Civil Rights Act--title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--which
prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in
programs receiving assistance. Sadly, the city of Dubuque was found to
not be in compliance with the Civil Rights Act because the city was
purging and closing wait lists for the section 8 voucher program and
creating residency requirements that are not allowed. Indeed, it is sad
to say, in the letter of finding, HUD wrote: ``The City of Dubuque knew
its actions would limit or deny the participation of African Americans
in its Section 8 program.'' I would hope we could all agree--I am sure
we could all agree--that is just wrong.
So the Dubuque case, rather than being an example of the bizarre
consequences of this rule, as has been portrayed, is in fact yet
another reminder that even in this day and age there continue to be
some clear violations of the Fair Housing Act.
I hope my colleagues will join me in voting against Senator Lee's
amendment. I am sure he is well-intentioned, but the effects of this
amendment would be very harmful to the goals we all share of fair
housing in America.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to support my colleague, the chairman
of the subcommittee, Senator Collins of Maine, in opposition to the
amendment offered by the Senator from Utah. This amendment would
prohibit HUD from implementing or enforcing its Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing regulations.
I think it is important to remind everyone of the reasoning for and
history behind these regulations. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was
enacted because banks, landlords, and developers were excluding people
from buying or renting in certain neighborhoods based on race. Under
the Fair Housing Act, communities are required to take steps to further
fair housing in order to prevent discrimination and segregation.
[[Page S2961]]
I think we have come a long way since 1968, and I don't think anyone
is arguing the premise, purpose, or beneficial aspects of the Fair
Housing Act. The law is based on trying to ensure that Americans have
fair access to housing, no matter their race, physical ability, family
status, or religion.
People should be able to live according to their own choice and
resources. I hope that we can all agree that people should not be
turned away from a home or neighborhood because of their religion,
family status, disability, or race. Frankly, that was the aspiration in
1968 and still, too often, remains an aspiration. HUD is trying to give
local communities the tools and resources needed to live up to the
legislative mandate that we imposed and continue to impose.
As the chairman said so well, these regulations don't emanate from
some person in a room thinking a great thought. In 2010, the Government
Accountability Office did an audit to assess compliance with the Fair
Housing Act. That is the GAO's job. That office checks whether Federal
agencies are doing what we--the Congress--tell them to do. GAO found
that many HUD grantees did not analyze impediments to fair housing--
that we were giving money to organizations throughout this country and
that they were not even making attempts to analyze the impediments that
existed to fair housing.
GAO also found that those organizations that did analyze impediments
to fair housing often failed to establish any goals or objectives to
address them. The organizations just found them and did not act. That
is not what the Fair Housing Act requires.
GAO also found that HUD was unable to determine if a community was
actually meeting its obligations under the Fair Housing Act. HUD simply
did not know whether the requirements of the Fair Housing Act were
being implemented at the local level.
HUD is often criticized for not effectively responding to GAO, but
here they responded. HUD developed regulations that insist that
grantees conduct a fair housing analysis and submit that assessment to
HUD for review.
As a result of this proposed regulation, HUD went through a 2-year
rulemaking process. This was not some whimsical spur-of-the-moment
decision or press release to say: Let's do this.
The process was 2 years long, fully open to public hearing, comment
and review, and susceptible to challenge in court if it did not measure
up to the Administrative Procedure Act or the Fair Housing Act. This
process has resulted in regulations that will actually carry out the
intent of the Congress.
To reinforce and clarify what the chairman has said, these
regulations do not change existing law and do not in any way dictate
local zoning decisions. In fact, these regulations simplify the
responsibility of grantees to comply with the Fair Housing Act because
they give grantees the data and tools to help communities comply with
the law.
These regulations do not require grantees to gather new data because
HUD provides the data to them. To help communities comply with the Fair
Housing Act, HUD is working closely with grantees, providing technical
assistance, and holding training sessions across the country. This is a
collaborative effort. It is an effort that does not dictate a national
outcome. HUD is helping localities, working with their particular
situation, to develop a response to the legislative requirements that
we have been emphatically insisting upon since 1968.
We are also working, as we should, to ensure that this process is
continually evaluated by HUD, and streamlined and simplified--
particularly, when it comes to dealing with small communities that
cannot bear the administrative overhead that some larger cities might
be able to bear. HUD is providing assistance to ensure that these
grantees are complying with the Fair Housing Act.
We all understand--and this principle applies not just to HUD
programs, but every program--that grantees have an obligation to use
Federal resources responsibly and consistently with legal requirements.
The Fair Housing Act requires that access to housing not be denied
because of race, disability, or other protected category. This is what
we should expect for all recipients of Federal support--that they
follow the law.
This improved process, in my view, protects communities and ensures
that they still have a choice of how they meet their obligations under
the Fair Housing Act. There is nothing in these regulations that
undermines the ability of a local community to determine these
solutions, but these communities must recognize their responsibilities.
Their solutions are ones that will be organic to the community--what
works for them, given the objective of ensuring that there are no
artificial impediments to access housing.
It is also important to note that, if HUD is prevented from
implementing these regulations, there is no change to the obligations
that these communities have under the Fair Housing Act. This law has
been in place for 48 years. Those requirements will still remain in
place and will not only be opportunities, but also obligations to take
action in certain cases.
Senator Kaine was on the floor this morning stating that, as a young
lawyer in Richmond, VA, he became an advocate for fair housing because
people came to him with complaints, and he took those complaints to
court. What we are trying to do, interestingly enough, is to avoid all
of that by having a process where the impediments have been removed by
a local solution.
The amendment that Senator Lee proposes would prevent HUD from
satisfying these GAO recommendations to provide guidance, clarity, and
support for these grantees. This amendment makes grantees liable for
compliance without the tools and data needed to comply. Ironically, it
probably puts grantees in a worse position.
So I join the chairman and urge all of my colleagues to reject this
amendment.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for
the 2017 Transportation and Housing and Urban Development
appropriations bill. Senator Collins and Senator Reed deserve
tremendous credit for their leadership on this bipartisan bill.
Congress has the basic responsibility to determine how we spend hard-
earned taxpayer dollars. It is a responsibility that my colleagues and
I on the Appropriations Committee take very seriously. Debating and
passing these annual bills provides accountability. It is an important
part of setting priorities, making choices, and reducing waste.
Last week, the Senate passed an energy and water appropriations bill
crafted by Senators Alexander and Feinstein. While I don't serve on
their subcommittee, I was very proud to support their bill, and I
congratulate them on moving forward and making the process work.
The 2017 Transportation and HUD appropriations bill is the latest
example of the Senate's return to regular order. This process enables
all Senators to play an active role in the legislative process and to
address concerns that are important to their States. This bill is
crafted with bipartisan support, and it helps to drive the growth of
our Nation. Senators Collins and Reed have put in a lot of work to
prepare this bill for consideration, as have both of their staffs. The
discretionary spending in this bill is within the budget caps, and it
reflects a responsible approach. The bill strengthens our country's
infrastructure and transportation system.
This week is recognized as Infrastructure Week, and I have heard from
several Arkansans that this must remain a priority. Our citizens have
opportunities, and our Nation is a powerful economic force, thanks in
part to our roads and bridges, airports, waterways, and related
structures. We need to maintain our roads because they provide a
reliable way to move goods and services around the country and, with
the rest of our infrastructure, to countries around the world. These
investments lead to job creation and greatly benefit our economy.
The bill provides critical funding to modernize air traffic control.
While our current system is second to none in safety, the FAA must
accelerate its progress toward operating a more efficient system. A
modern air traffic control system will be more convenient for
travelers, it will save money, and it will clean the environment by
reducing the amount of fuel used by aircraft.
[[Page S2962]]
The bill provides critical funding to improve air traffic certification
services. These improvements can help aircraft manufacturers, including
those in Arkansas, that are fighting to win in a competitive global
market.
The bill provides critical highway funding that is consistent with
the long-term highway bill we passed last year under the leadership of
Senators Inhofe and Boxer. I am pleased that this bill includes a
provision I offered to empower the State to designate a portion of
Highway 67 in Arkansas, from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge, as
``Future I-57.'' Arkansas has invested hundreds of millions of dollars
to build an interstate-quality road, and we are now calling it what it
is. The presence of an official interstate highway is one of the
initial key factors that developers consider when determining where to
make major investments such as building new factories.
Community leaders along this stretch of road shared their excitement
about the future designation. Buck Layne, executive director for the
Searcy Regional Chamber of Commerce, says this will improve the
transportation network and expand economic development opportunities.
Jon Chadwell, executive director for the Newport Economic Development
Commission, says this will open up opportunities to Arkansas business
and give companies an even greater access to national and global
markets.
Walnut Ridge mayor Charles Snapp says this designation will open a
lot of doors, and Walnut Ridge aldermen voted this week to support this
designation.
Resolutions of support for the I-57 designation have been passed by
the Newport Economic Development Commission, as well as the chambers of
commerce in Bald Knob, Cabot, Jacksonville, Lawrence County, Newport,
Sherwood, and Searcy. Other expressions of support will be received in
communities throughout the central Arkansas and northeast Arkansas
regions.
This designation is an important step to make Arkansas a better
connected State that is open for business. This bill also sets high
priorities and provides critical funding through programs like
community development block grants. These programs work because they
allow decisions to be made at the local community level.
I appreciate the efforts to make sure rural States like Arkansas are
not left behind by housing and development programs.
I compliment the chair and ranking member on working to address
Member priorities under these programs.
We are also jointly considering the Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs bill. Senators Kirk and Tester have worked very hard
to put together a good package for the Senate to debate. Their bill
funds the VA at record levels and invests in priorities such as
veterans health care, benefit claims processing, the Board of Veterans'
Appeals, and the VA inspector general, as well as prosthetic research.
It includes funding for projects to ensure military readiness and
improve the quality of life for our military families.
I grew up in a military family, and I have been honored to serve on
the Veterans' Affairs Committee since my first day in the House of
Representatives. The needs of veterans are very important to me, and I
am proud to support the work that Senator Kirk and Senator Tester have
done to provide funding for 2017. These are funding and policy
priorities for both sides of the aisle.
I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation because it
creates an environment that helps grow our economy, reins in spending,
and takes care of our veterans.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the work of
the chairman and ranking member on the Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee for their good work on
this very important appropriations bill.
I recognize that, while we haven't had a multiple series of votes on
amendments on this bill, I know the floor managers have been working
aggressively to process amendments and make this appropriations bill--
not only the T-HUD bill but also the MILCON bill--a good appropriations
measure. So I thank my colleagues for their respective efforts, and I
am pleased to see us processing appropriations bills here on the Senate
floor.
Affordable Care Act
Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this evening to talk
about the Affordable Care Act and some of the impacts that we are
seeing in my State of Alaska. We referred to this as the ACA, the
Affordable Care Act, but most of the folks, when I talk to them back
home, call it the ``un-Affordable Care Act'' because we are not seeing
how it is making health care insurance--any kind of care--more
affordable.
Last year, nationally, we saw a dozen co-ops fail that were created
by the ACA, which literally threw people into turmoil, leaving in
question if they had any insurance at all.
UnitedHealth, one of the largest providers in the country, has been
forced off the exchanges in numerous States.
Just last week we had the news back home that Moda Health was going
to be withdrawing from the Alaska market in 2017. What that means is
that we will be a State with only one option in the individual market
next year. So what that means for the some 14,000 Alaskans who are
currently on a Moda plan is that they are going to be forced to change
insurers next year. But I guess it is an easy choice when you only have
a choice of one on the individual market there.
Then, of course, just last week we saw signs that the
administration's payments of the cost-share reduction were
unconstitutional. So we can only assume that is going to further
exacerbate problems.
This week in the Wall Street Journal, there was an article about the
ever-shrinking market for rural areas. The article mentioned a small
business owner in Kodiak, AK, a bookkeeper, who is worrying about what
the price of premiums will be when you are left with only one option.
She made this statement:
It's going to be a monopoly, basically; ``here's the price,
take it or leave it.''
That is what happens when you have just one.
As the market continues to fail in other States, we are seeing other
States lose their options as well. Alabama and Wyoming are also now
left with only one choice. More States may be facing this in the near
future.
The Wall Street Journal article goes on to point out that the
``patchwork of coverage reflects continued instability in the
individual market as companies shift their geographic footprints to
avoid areas that have turned out to generate steep losses and focus on
places that they believe that they can get their ACA business into the
black.''
So what that means for States like Alaska that are very rural and
that have some of the highest health care costs in the Nation: We are
just not attractive enough to foster competition. At the end of the
day, who suffers? It is the Alaskans. It is those who are seeking the
care.
The administration says the market just needs to ``stabilize and
evolve,'' but what about this bookkeeper in Kodiak? What about the
educators out there? What about parents who are left wondering: What do
we do in the meantime?
It used to be that the Federal Government broke up monopolies and
worked to foster competition in order to benefit consumers, but now
what we are seeing at least playing out in my State is, through bad law
and failed policies, we see that same government creating de facto
monopolies in the individual marketplace.
I find it deeply troubling that as these health insurance options
continue to shrink, any hope of curbing the rapid increase of premium
rates also disappears. We are constantly asked by our constituents: Are
my premiums going to continue to increase? We are talking about monthly
premiums in the State of Alaska amounting to $3,000 a month for a
family. Think about that. That is not affordable in anybody's book. It
is not beyond the realm of possibility given what we have already seen.
Last year in Alaska, between Moda and Premera, the two that are
covering on the individual market, the increases were over 30 percent,
somewhere between 32 and 35 percent increases over the previous year.
[[Page S2963]]
I have been on the floor, and I have shared stories of hard-working
Alaskans who are paying a couple of thousand dollars a month for the
cheapest bronze plan that is available on the exchange. I have spoken
about how the ACA has been called the single greatest threat to quality
public education. The reason for that is our school districts are being
faced with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines under the Cadillac
test when it is imposed. I have relayed stories from employers who are
saying: I can't afford to expand my business. I won't expand my
business because of the employer mandate--harming not only the
businesses but the workers themselves.
The bottom line, and I hear it from all corners of the State, is that
the ACA is not working for us in Alaska.
I had a group of Realtors from around the State visit me in my office
here last week. One woman in the group said that she was paying $2,500
a month. She has a family of four. She has a $6,000 deductible for her
coverage. She said: You know, it is really hard for us to keep making
these payments every month. They don't qualify for the subsidy.
I talked to another young family from Eagle River who was forced to
switch from Premera to Moda after the ACA passed because the premium
increases were not sustainable, and even then, when they switched, they
were paying $1,200 a month with a $10,000 deductible. So what happens
when you have a deductible like that? You put off that health care.
But think about it. It just makes it so hard to run a business. It
makes it so hard to pay for your day-to-day experiences.
Worse yet, for that family from Eagle River, they went from Premera
to Moda because their premiums were too high. Now Moda is leaving, so
they have to go back to the insurer that was too high before. This
family is scrambling. What are they going do? How are they going to be
able to afford insurance in the future?
As the costs continue to rise, these small businesses are wondering:
How long do we keep our doors open if these costs continue at these
rates?
In Anchorage, a couple who has Moda has been paying $2,500 a month,
with a $10,000 deductible--an increase of $1,000 a month over their
premiums for last year. Now they are going to be switching to the only
company on the individual market in 2017. They are going to see yet
another increase.
A woman in Anchorage whom we talked to has watched year after year as
her rates increased from $500 a month to nearly $2,000 a month. She is
basically holding her breath for what the 2017 premiums rates will
hold. We don't know yet in Alaska. Because of the announcement from
Moda, we are not sure what the increase will be coming from the other
insurer.
More and more, I am hearing from folks who say that they feel it is
just cheaper to simply not buy insurance, to pay the tax penalty and
then hope and pray that nobody in the family gets sick. Hoping to not
get sick is not a health plan. As more and more Alaskans are dropping
out, costs for those who stay in go up, driving more to drop out, and
you have this death spiral within the system.
The deeper we get into life under the ACA, the deeper Alaskans fall
into a hole. The ACA has failed the people of our State. This one-size-
fits-all approach rarely works for a State as diverse as Alaska. It
certainly has not worked in the realm of health insurance.
This is not the only place where we are seeing the law failing. There
is more that needs to be done to make the Affordable Care Act work for
rural parts of the country that have specialized needs thanks to higher
medical costs, lack of access, and now fewer insurance options.
We in Congress need to take a serious look at the trends we have seen
and work on solutions that will provide the flexibility that is needed
for the States to make a difference when it comes to access to
affordable care.
I have consistently supported full repeal of the ACA. I voted to do
so on several occasions now. But I have also recognized that it was
going to be difficult, if not impossible, in this administration to do
so. But I have supported steps that will reduce the burdens of the ACA
and I think work to address some of the most harmful provisions in the
law. One example is full repeal of the Cadillac tax I just mentioned.
The Cadillac tax will only worsen conditions in Alaska, with nearly 62
percent of customers who will be facing that tax if the Cadillac tax
were to be implemented. Again, I repeat, in our State, not only are our
health care costs so high, but our insurance costs are so high.
Whether you are in what would be considered a Cadillac plan because
of the benefits or it is just because you are paying so much for it, it
is assumed that those benefits are good. Sixty-two percent of the folks
in Alaska would be impacted by this tax. It is a prime example of the
ACA hurting small, rural States, because so many of us have more
expensive health care due to the remoteness and due to our lower
population size. Then those States are forced to take money away from
things, like our school districts, where they are trying to put the
money into public education, into other services, to pay for the cost.
So our State suffers, boroughs suffer, our schools suffer, and our
Alaskan families suffer.
As we look to the end of this administration and looking to next
year, I would hope that we can seriously address the problem that the
ACA has created for so many areas of our country.
For rural States like Alaska, the approach to health care needs to
focus on more than forcing people to just buy insurance and,
unfortunately, buy expensive insurance. We need to work to find
solutions to these issues, whether it be through the creation of a
nationwide insurance pool so that policies are not limited to one
State, as they are currently. Right now, as I say, Alaska is not a very
attractive market. We have small numbers. We have high costs. Who is
going to come? How are we going to get a greater pool?
We need to look more critically at how we improve the cost of
transparency of medical procedures. We need to look critically at these
special enrollment periods and see if people are finding loopholes that
allow them to game the system.
Expanding both health savings and flexible spending accounts will
allow people to save what they think they should and make the choices
for themselves instead of the government forcing things on individuals.
When we think about those areas where we can save money through not
spending it in the first place--an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure--we should be incentivizing people to live healthier lifestyles
in order to prevent and bring down the incidence of chronic disease.
Type 2 diabetes--largely preventible through lifestyle changes--costs
an estimated $176 billion a year. Obesity-related illnesses cost an
estimated $190 billion a year. A recent study found that a 10-percent
drop in smokers could save $63 billion in health care costs per year.
It makes zero sense to be paying providers to treat these problems
after they have arisen rather than trying to focus on the front end,
paying for lifestyle changes and case management that would
significantly reduce the cost of treating these diseases.
I have been working to find solutions that will help support Alaska's
rural needs, especially those related to access and workforce
development because if we can improve the overall access to treatment
and options to medical providers, we then take steps to reduce the cost
of medical procedures.
I have supported the Family Health Care Accessibility Act that will
improve the care provided by community health centers by enabling them
to utilize volunteer primary care providers. Community health centers--
I think so many of us recognize the benefits and the crucial role they
serve in meeting the needs of rural and underserved communities,
allowing patients to receive local treatment instead of being forced to
travel far from home for treatment.
Steps like these that help to improve access are just some of the
ways I think we should be rethinking our approach to health care in the
broader sense as we seek to alleviate the burdens that have been
imposed by the ACA.
I have continued over several Congresses now to introduce the
Medicare Patient Empowerment Act. This is legislation that would give
patients the
[[Page S2964]]
option to negotiate with their provider. Medicare would pay the typical
fee the patient negotiates for the difference there, but we face a very
unique situation in our State. Again, a one-size-fits-all prescription
doesn't work for us. We have incredibly low reimbursement rates for
Medicare in Alaska, so you have very few providers that will accept
Medicare. When you are newly Medicare eligible or you come into the
State, it is tough to find anybody who will see you.
If there is some flexibility to negotiate prices, what we are trying
to do with this bill is cut through the redtape, allow Medicare
beneficiaries to benefit from increased access, and enable patients to
have the relationships they have built with their physicians. We have a
very fast-rising senior population in the State, and it is going to be
increasingly important to make sure they have the option to seek the
care they need.
I do not support compulsory health insurance but do believe
individuals with preexisting conditions should receive care. As we
discuss these important issues in the Senate, I continue to work to
address--again--these issues that have presented themselves with
implementation of the ACA. So working to a place where we fully repeal
and replace the ACA is where we need to be.
There have been several Republican proposals that would not only
replace this unworkable law but replace it with consumer-based reforms.
Senator Burr of North Carolina, Senator Hatch of Utah, and Senator
Cassidy of Louisiana all have been working on important measures that
take steps to get us to a place where what we are talking about is
affordable health care, a reality that works for all Americans, whether
you are in Alaska or you are in North Carolina.
Obviously, there is much work in front of us. Again, it is important
to recognize the frustration so many are feeling as they are seeing
their costs increase, their access going nowhere, and let them know we
continue to work on these very difficult issues. Alaskans deserve it.
Americans deserve it.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Memorial for Fallen Educators
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak for just a few moments
about the Memorial for Fallen Educators in conjunction with the
National Teachers Hall of Fame located on the campus of Emporia State
University in Emporia, KS.
When someone asks the question, ``Other than your family, name a
person who has made a difference in your life,'' the answer has never
been my Senator, my Congressman. More often the response is a teacher.
That answer speaks volumes about the influence of an educator on the
lives of young people. Teachers fulfill a variety of roles by
encouraging our children, instilling values, and challenging them. Too
often we take this profession for granted, and the people who make
education possible are teachers.
Each one of us remembers a teacher. We remember in the first grade or
second grade when they helped us sound out the big words or guided our
hands as we struggled to make out the shapes of letters.
We remember the middle school teacher or the gym teacher who taught
us how to spike the volleyball or sink the winning hoop while playing
in the playoffs. We remember the high school science teacher who helped
us dissect frogs or build a box made of toothpicks that would protect
the egg as it dropped from a two-story building.
Our teachers are our friends, our mentors, and our role models. The
lessons they teach us stick with us for a long time after we have left
their classrooms. Their jobs are never done, and educators know that
often the last ringing bell of the afternoon, rather than signaling the
end of their workday, begins the beginning of a new kind of work--
grading homework, tutoring individual students, or prepping for the
next day's lesson plan.
Educators work round-the-clock on behalf of the kids they instruct.
They take on a job that requires more hours than there are in the day
because they believe in their students and because they know how
crucial their efforts are in seeing these students succeed. I believe
we change the world one person at a time, and it happens in classrooms
across Kansas and around the country every day.
Teachers often forfeit material gain for the thrill of seeing a
student's eyes light up when they discover a new concept or grasp a new
idea. Teachers have long understood they truly shape the world by their
work, and their greatest product is an educated society.
Unfortunately, each day teachers walk into their classrooms they are
also subject to threats of bullying or violence. Far too many educators
have lost their lives in the line of their professional duty. Teachers
have been killed at the hands of students, and many have been killed
protecting their students from adults perpetrating violent acts.
To honor these slain teachers, the National Teachers Hall of Fame,
under the leadership of the director, Carol Strickland, created the
Memorial for Fallen Educators. The memorial, which was dedicated 2
years ago at Emporia State University, stands alongside the National
Teachers Hall of Fame. I had the honor of visiting the site last
September.
Already built and paid for, the memorial lists the names of educators
across the country since 1764 who have lost their lives while working
with students. It is owned and cared for by the National Teachers Hall
of Fame and Emporia State University.
I introduced legislation last year that would designate the Memorial
for Fallen Educators as a national memorial. The more than 100 fallen
teachers whose names are etched in marble taught in schools across the
country. As a nation, together we should recognize the incredible
sacrifices they each made because of their dedication to educating
young people--their dedication to caring, loving, and protecting young
people.
This legislation has no cost to the taxpayer and private funds will
be used to maintain the memorial. It simply brings the site--the only
one in the United States dedicated to fallen educators--the national
prestige it merits.
As the Senate considers the national memorials proposed for
designation, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this
worthy tribute to our fallen teachers. Anyone who has ever been
inspired by an educator should visit the memorial and recognize and
remember those honorable lives which have been lost.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendments Nos. 3967, 3992, 4011, 4024, and 4042 to Amendment No. 3896
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number:
amendment No. 3967, submitted by Senator Paul; amendment No. 3992,
submitted by Senator Johnson; amendment No. 4011, submitted by Senator
Nelson; amendment No. 4024, submitted by Senator Isakson; and amendment
No. 4042, submitted by Senator Warner.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments en bloc by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for others, proposes
amendments numbered 3967, 3992, 4011, 4024, and 4042 to
amendment No. 3896.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 3967
(Purpose: To provide for the identification of certain high priority
corridors on the National Highway System and to include and designate
certain route segments on the Interstate System)
On page 41, strike lines 12 through 25 and insert the
following:
``(89) United States Route 67 from Interstate 40 in North
Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412.
``(90) The Edward T. Breathitt Parkway from Interstate 24
to Interstate 69.''.
(b) Inclusion of Certain Route Segments on Interstate
System.--Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is
[[Page S2965]]
amended in the first sentence by striking ``and subsection
(c)(83)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)(83), subsection
(c)(89), and subsection (c)(90)''.
(c) Designation.--Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``The route
referred to in subsection (c)(89) is designated as Interstate
Route I-57. The route referred to in subsection (c)(90) is
designated as Interstate Route I-169.''.
amendment no. 3992
(Purpose: To ensure timely access for Inspectors General to records,
documents, and other materials)
At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to deny an Inspector General funded under this
Act timely access to any records, documents, or other
materials available to the department or agency over which
that Inspector General has responsibilities under the
Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), or to prevent
or impede that Inspector General's access to such records,
documents, or other materials, under any provision of law,
except a provision of law that expressly refers to the
Inspector General and expressly limits the Inspector
General's right of access.
(b) A department or agency covered by this section shall
provide its Inspector General with access to all such
records, documents, and other materials in a timely manner.
(c) Each Inspector General shall ensure compliance with
statutory limitations on disclosure relevant to the
information provided by the establishment over which that
Inspector General has responsibilities under the Inspector
General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).
(d) Each Inspector General covered by this section shall
report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate within 5 calendar days any
failures to comply with this requirement.
amendment no. 4011
(Purpose: To ensure the safety of properties covered under a housing
assistance payment contract)
In division A, strike section 225 and insert the following:
Sec. 225. (a) Any entity receiving housing assistance
payments shall maintain decent, safe, and sanitary
conditions, as determined by the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development (in this section referred to as the
``Secretary''), and comply with any standards under
applicable State or local laws, rules, ordinances, or
regulations relating to the physical condition of any
property covered under a housing assistance payment contract.
(b) The Secretary shall take action under subsection (c)
when a multifamily housing project with a section 8 contract
or contract for similar project-based assistance--
(1) receives a Uniform Physical Condition Standards (UPCS)
score of 30 or less;
(2) fails to certify in writing to the Secretary within 3
days that all Exigent Health and Safety deficiencies
identified by the inspector at the project have been
corrected; or
(3) receives a UPCS score between 31 and 59 and has
received consecutive scores of less than 60 on UPCS
inspections.
Such requirements shall apply to insured and noninsured
projects with assistance attached to the units under section
8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f),
but do not apply to such units assisted under section
8(o)(13) (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) or to public housing units
assisted with capital or operating funds under section 9 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g).
(c)(1) The Secretary shall notify the owner and provide an
opportunity for response within 15 days after the results of
the UPCS inspection are issued. If the violations remain, the
Secretary shall develop a plan to bring the property into
compliance within 30 days after the results of the UPCS
inspection are issued and must provide the owner with a
Notice of Default with a specified timetable, determined by
the Secretary, for correcting all deficiencies. The Secretary
must also provide a copy of the Notice of Default to the
tenants, the local government, any mortgagees, and any
contract administrator. If the owner's appeal results in a
UPCS score of 60 or above, the Secretary may withdraw the
Notice of Default.
(2) At the end of the time period for correcting all
deficiencies specified in the Notice of Default, if the owner
fails to fully correct such deficiencies, the Secretary may--
(A) require immediate replacement of project management
with a management agent approved by the Secretary;
(B) impose civil money penalties, which shall be used
solely for the purpose of supporting safe and sanitary
conditions at applicable properties, as designated by the
Secretary, with priority given to the tenants of the property
affected by the penalty;
(C) abate the section 8 contract, including partial
abatement, as determined by the Secretary, until all
deficiencies have been corrected;
(D) pursue transfer of the project to an owner, approved by
the Secretary under established procedures, which will be
obligated to promptly make all required repairs and to accept
renewal of the assistance contract as long as such renewal is
offered;
(E) transfer the existing section 8 contract to another
project or projects and owner or owners;
(F) pursue exclusionary sanctions, including suspensions or
debarments from Federal programs;
(G) seek judicial appointment of a receiver to manage the
property and cure all project deficiencies or seek a judicial
order of specific performance requiring the owner to cure all
project deficiencies;
(H) work with the owner, lender, or other related party to
stabilize the property in an attempt to preserve the property
through compliance, transfer of ownership, or an infusion of
capital provided by a third-party that requires time to
effectuate; or
(I) take any other regulatory or contractual remedies
available as deemed necessary and appropriate by the
Secretary.
(d) The Secretary shall also take appropriate steps to
ensure that project-based contracts remain in effect, subject
to the exercise of contractual abatement remedies to assist
relocation of tenants for major threats to health and safety
after written notice to and informed consent of the affected
tenants and use of other remedies set forth above. To the
extent the Secretary determines, in consultation with the
tenants and the local government, that the property is not
feasible for continued rental assistance payments under such
section 8 or other programs, based on consideration of (1)
the costs of rehabilitating and operating the property and
all available Federal, State, and local resources, including
rent adjustments under section 524 of the Multifamily
Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997
(``MAHRAA'') and (2) environmental conditions that cannot be
remedied in a cost-effective fashion, the Secretary may, in
consultation with the tenants of that property, contract for
project-based rental assistance payments with an owner or
owners of other existing housing properties, or provide other
rental assistance.
(e) The Secretary shall report quarterly on all properties
covered by this section that are assessed through the Real
Estate Assessment Center and have UPCS physical inspection
scores of less than 60 or have received an unsatisfactory
management and occupancy review within the past 36 months.
The report shall include--
(1) the enforcement actions being taken to address such
conditions, including imposition of civil money penalties and
termination of subsidies, and identify properties that have
such conditions multiple times;
(2) actions that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development is taking to protect tenants of such identified
properties; and
(3) any administrative or legislative recommendations to
further improve the living conditions at properties covered
under a housing assistance payment contract.
amendment no. 4024
(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final
rule requiring the use of speed limiting devices on heavy trucks not
later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act)
In division A, on page 49, between lines 6 and 7, insert
the following:
Sec. 142. Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
issue a final rule requiring the use of speed limiting
devices on trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating in
excess of 26,000 pounds.
amendment no. 4042
(Purpose: To provide additional funds for the National Park Service for
certain projects)
On page 37, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 122. (a) Transfer of Amounts.--
(1) State of virginia.--
(A) In general.--Of the total amount apportioned to the
State of Virginia under section 104 of title 23, United
States Code, for fiscal year 2017, the Secretary of
Transportation shall, by the later of November 30, 2016, or
30 days after the enactment of this Act, transfer to the
National Park Service--
(i) an amount equal to--
(I) $30,000,000; multiplied by
(II) the ratio that--
(aa) the amount apportioned to the State of Virginia under
such section 104; bears to
(bb) the combined amount apportioned to the State of
Virginia and the District of Columbia under such section 104;
and
(ii) an amount of obligation limitation equal to the amount
calculated under clause (i).
(B) Source and amount.--For purpose of the transfer under
subparagraph (A), the State of Virginia shall select at the
discretion of the State--
(i) the programs (among those for which funding is
apportioned as described in that subparagraph) from which to
transfer the amount specified in that subparagraph; and
(ii) the amount to transfer from each of those programs
(equal in aggregate to the amount calculated under
subparagraph (A)(i)).
(2) District of columbia.--
(A) In general.--Of the total amount apportioned to the
District of Columbia under section 104 of title 23, United
States Code, for fiscal year 2017, the Secretary of
Transportation shall, by the later of November 30, 2016, or
30 days after the enactment of this Act, transfer to the
National Park Service--
(i) an amount equal to--
(I) $30,000,000; multiplied by
(II) the ratio that--
[[Page S2966]]
(aa) the amount apportioned to the District of Columbia
under such section 104; bears to
(bb) the combined amount apportioned to the State of
Virginia and the District of Columbia under such section 104;
and
(ii) an amount of obligation limitation equal to the amount
calculated under clause (i).
(B) Source and amount.--For purpose of the transfer under
subparagraph (A), the District of Columbia shall select at
the discretion of the District--
(i) the programs (among those for which funding is
apportioned as described in that subparagraph) from which to
transfer the amount specified in that subparagraph; and
(ii) the amount to transfer from each of those programs
(equal in aggregate to the amount calculated under
subparagraph (A)(i)).
(3) Federal lands transportation program.--Of the amounts
otherwise made available to the National Park Service under
section 203 of title 23, United States Code, not less than 10
percent shall be set aside for purposes of this section.
(b) Eligibility and Federal Share.--The amounts under
subsection (a) shall be--
(1) available to the National Park Service only for
projects that--
(A) are eligible under section 203 of title 23, United
States Code;
(B) are located on bridges on the National Highway System
that were originally constructed before 1945 and are in poor
condition; and
(C) each have an estimated total project cost of not less
than $150,000,000; and
(2) subject to the Federal share described in section
201(b)(7)(A) of title 23, United States Code.
(c) Other Funds and Obligation Limitation.--Any funds and
obligation limitation transferred under subsection (a) shall
be in addition to funds or obligation limitation otherwise
made available to the National Park Service under sections
203 and 204 of title 23, United States Code.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now vote on these amendments en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on these
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question occurs on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 3967, 3992, 4011, 4024, and 4042) were agreed to
en bloc.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 3997; 3998; 3933; 4030; 4008; 3920; 3969; 3935, as
Modified; 4038; 4043; 3980; 3944; 3993; 3910; 4005; 4029; and 4023 to
Amendment No. 3896
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: Kirk
No. 3997; Tester No. 3998; Perdue No. 3933; Mikulski No. 4030; Daines
No. 4008; Brown No. 3920; Inhofe No. 3969; Boxer No. 3935, as modified;
Flake No. 4038; Manchin No. 4043; Flake No. 3980; Feinstein No. 3944;
Johnson No. 3993; Klobuchar No. 3910; Heller No. 4005; Durbin No. 4029;
and Sasse No. 4023.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for others, proposes
amendments numbered 3997; 3998; 3933; 4030; 4008; 3920; 3969;
3935, as modified; 4038; 4043; 3980; 3944; 3993; 3910; 4005;
4029; and 4023 en bloc to amendment No. 3896.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 3997
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide for
the inspection of medical facilities of the Department of Veterans
Affairs)
At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
SEC. 251. INSPECTION OF KITCHENS AND FOOD SERVICE AREAS AT
MEDICAL FACILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and not less frequently than
annually thereafter, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
provide for the conduct of inspections of kitchens and food
service areas at each medical facility of the Department of
Veterans Affairs to ensure that the same standards for
kitchens and food service areas at hospitals in the private
sector are being met at kitchens and food service areas at
medical facilities of the Department.
(b) Agreement.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall seek to enter into an
agreement with the Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Hospital Organizations under which the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Hospital Organizations conducts the
inspections required under subsection (a).
(2) Alternate organization.--If the Secretary is unable to
enter into an agreement described in paragraph (1) with the
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations
on terms acceptable to the Secretary, the Secretary shall
seek to enter into such an agreement with another appropriate
organization that--
(A) is not part of the Federal Government;
(B) operates as a not-for-profit entity; and
(C) has expertise and objectivity comparable to that of the
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations.
(c) Remediation Plan.--
(1) Initial failure.--If a kitchen or food service area of
a medical facility of the Department is determined pursuant
to an inspection conducted under subsection (a) not to meet
the standards for kitchens and food service areas in
hospitals in the private sector, that medical facility fails
the inspection and the Secretary shall--
(A) implement a remediation plan for that medical facility
within 48 hours; and
(B) Conduct a second inspection under subsection (a) at
that medical facility within 7 days of the failed inspection.
(2) Second failure.--If a medical facility of the
Department fails the second inspection conducted under
paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall close the kitchen or
food service area at that medical facility that did not meet
the standards for kitchens and food service areas in
hospitals in the private sector until remediation is
completed and all kitchens and food service areas at that
medical facility meet such standards.
(3) Provision of food.--If a kitchen or food service area
is closed at a medical facility of the Department pursuant to
paragraph (2), the Director of the Veterans Integrated
Service Network in which the medical facility is located
shall enter into a contract with a vendor approved by the
General Services Administration to provide food at the
medical facility.
(d) Reports.--
(1) Quarterly.--Not less frequently than quarterly, the
Director of each Veterans Integrated Service Network shall
submit to Congress a report on inspections conducted under
this section during that quarter at medical facilities of the
Department under the jurisdiction of that Director.
(2) Subsequent period.--A Director of a Veterans Integrated
Service Network may submit to Congress the report described
in paragraph (1) not less frequently than semiannually if the
Director does not report any failed inspections for the one-
year period preceding the submittal of the report.
SEC. 252. INSPECTION OF MOLD ISSUES AT MEDICAL FACILITIES OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and not less frequently than
annually thereafter, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
provide for the inspection of mold issues at medical
facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
(b) Agreement.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall seek to enter into an
agreement with the Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Hospital Organizations under which the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Hospital Organizations conducts the
inspections required under subsection (a).
(2) Alternate organization.--If the Secretary is unable to
enter into an agreement described in paragraph (1) with the
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations
on terms acceptable to the Secretary, the Secretary shall
seek to enter into such an agreement with another appropriate
organization that--
(A) is not part of the Federal Government;
(B) operates as a not-for-profit entity; and
(C) has expertise and objectivity comparable to that of the
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations.
(c) Remediation Plan.--If a medical facility of the
Department is determined pursuant to an inspection conducted
under subsection (a) to have a mold issue, the Secretary
shall--
(1) implement a remediation plan for that medical facility
within 48 hours; and
(2) Conduct a second inspection under subsection (a) at
that medical facility within 90 days of the initial
inspection.
(d) Reports.--
(1) Quarterly.--Not less frequently than quarterly, the
Director of each Veterans Integrated Service Network shall
submit to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Congress a
report on inspections conducted under this section during
that quarter at medical facilities of the Department under
the jurisdiction of that Director.
(2) Subsequent period.--A Director of a Veterans Integrated
Service Network may submit to Congress the report described
in paragraph (1) not less frequently than semiannually if the
Director does not report any mold issues for the one-year
period preceding the submittal of the report.
[[Page S2967]]
amendment no. 3998
(Purpose: To provide for coverage under the beneficiary travel program
of the Department of Veterans Affairs of certain disabled veterans for
travel in connection with certain special disabilities rehabilitation)
At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
SEC. 251. COVERAGE UNDER DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
BENEFICIARY TRAVEL PROGRAM OF TRAVEL IN
CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN SPECIAL DISABILITIES
REHABILITATION.
(a) In General.--Section 111(b)(1) of title 38, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(G) A veteran with vision impairment, a veteran with a
spinal cord injury or disorder, or a veteran with double or
multiple amputations whose travel is in connection with care
provided through a special disabilities rehabilitation
program of the Department (including programs provided by
spinal cord injury centers, blind rehabilitation centers, and
prosthetics rehabilitation centers) if such care is
provided--
``(i) on an in-patient basis; or
``(ii) during a period in which the Secretary provides the
veteran with temporary lodging at a facility of the
Department to make such care more accessible to the
veteran.''.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the
Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of
Representatives a report on the beneficiary travel program
under section 111 of title 38, United States Code, as amended
by subsection (a), that includes the following:
(1) The cost of the program.
(2) The number of veterans served by the program.
(3) Such other matters as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the first day of the first fiscal year
that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act.
amendment no. 3933
(Purpose: To require a report on modernizing and replacing hangers of
the Army's Combat Aviation Brigade)
At the appropriate place in division B, insert the
following:
Sec. __. Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit
to Congress a report that includes--
(1) a detailed description of the age and condition of the
aircraft maintenance hangars of the Army's Combat Aviation
Brigade;
(2) an identification of the most deficient such hangers;
(3) a plan to modernize or replace such hangars; and
(4) a description of the resources required to modernize or
replace such hangers.
amendment no. 4030
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide
access to therapeutic listening devices to veterans struggling with
mental health related problems, substance abuse, or traumatic brain
injury)
On page 217, line 4 of Title 2 in Division B, strike the
period and insert ``: Provided further, That the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall provide access to therapeutic
listening devices to veterans struggling with mental health
related problems, substance abuse, or traumatic brain
injury.''
amendment no. 4008
(Purpose: To require a report on the use of defense access road funding
to build alternate routes for military equipment traveling to missile
launch facilities)
At the appropriate place in title I of division B, insert
the following:
Sec. __. Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall conduct
a study and submit to Congress a report on the use of defense
access road funding to build alternate routes for military
equipment traveling to missile launch facilities, taking into
consideration the location of local populations, security
risks, safety, and impacts of weather.
amendment no. 3920
(Purpose: To extend the requirement of the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to submit a report on the capacity of the Department of
Veterans Affairs to provide for the specialized treatment and
rehabilitative needs of disabled veterans)
At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
extension of requirement for report on capacity of department of
veterans affairs to provide for specialized treatment and
rehabilitative needs of disabled veterans
Sec. 251. Section 1706(b)(5)(A) of title 38, United States
Code, is amended, in the first sentence, by striking
``through 2008''.
amendment no. 3969
(Purpose: To require that amounts be made available to Directors of
Veterans Integrated Service Networks to assess, evaluate, and improve
the health care delivery by and business operations of medical centers
of the Department of Veterans Affairs)
At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
Sec. 251. From the amount made available in this title
under the heading ``Medical Support and Compliance'', up to
$18,000,000 shall be made available for Directors of Veterans
Integrated Service Networks to contract with appropriate non-
Department of Veterans Affairs entities to assess, evaluate,
and improve the health care delivery by and business
operations of medical centers of the Department under the
jurisdiction of each such Director.
amendment no. 3935, as modified
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to treat certain
marriage and family therapists as qualified to serve as marriage and
family therapists in the Department of Veterans Affairs)
At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
(a) Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall begin an
assessment of whether the hiring of marriage and family
therapists trained at Commission on Accreditation for
Marriage and Family Therapy Education accredited institutions
is adversely impacting the ability of the Department of
Veterans Affairs to hire marriage and family therapists.
(b) The assessment should also include what steps the
Department of Veterans Affairs is taking to increase hiring
of marriage and family therapists.
(c) Not later than one year after the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit the
report to the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees.
amendment no. 4038
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide for
the conduct by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of
Veterans Affairs of an inspection or audit of the use of a grant to
renovate a veteran's cemetery in Guam)
At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
Sec. 251. Not later than September 30, 2017, the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs shall--
(1) provide for the conduct by the Office of Inspector
General of the Department of Veterans Affairs of an
inspection or audit of the use of Federal award GU1103 in the
amount of $3,265,487 that was awarded in 2013 to renovate a
veteran's cemetery in Guam under the Veterans Cemetery Grants
Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, including--
(A) an itemized accounting of the use of such award; or
(B) if no such itemized accounting is possible, an
explanation of why any amounts in connection with such award
are unaccounted for;
(2) submit to the Committee on Appropriations and the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on the
results on the inspection or audit conducted under paragraph
(1); and
(3) publish the results on the inspection or audit
conducted under paragraph (1) on a publicly available
Internet website of the Department.
amendment no. 4043
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to use amounts
appropriated under this Act for the Department of Veterans Affairs to
improve the veteran-to-staff ratio for each program of rehabilitation
conducted under chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code)
At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
Sec. 251. (a) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may use
amounts appropriated or otherwise made available in this
title to ensure that the ratio of veterans to full-time
employment equivalents within any program of rehabilitation
conducted under chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code,
does not exceed 125 veterans to one full-time employment
equivalent.
(b) Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report
on the programs of rehabilitation conducted under chapter 31
of title 38, United States Code, including--
(1) an assessment of the veteran-to-staff ratio for each
such program; and
(2) recommendations for such action as the Secretary
considers necessary to reduce the veteran-to-staff ratio for
each such program.
amendment no. 3980
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to
Congress a plan on modernizing the system of the Veterans Health
Administration for processing claims by non-Department of Veterans
Affairs health care providers for reimbursement for health care
provided to veterans under the laws administered by the Secretary)
At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
Sec. 251. Not later than September 30, 2017, the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs shall submit to Congress a plan on
modernizing the
[[Page S2968]]
system of the Veterans Health Administration for processing
claims by non-Department of Veterans Affairs health care
providers for reimbursement for health care provided to
veterans under the laws administered by the Secretary.
amendment no. 3944
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out
certain major medical facility projects for which appropriations are
being made for fiscal year 2016)
At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
SEC. 251. AUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY
PROJECTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, which was passed
by the Senate on November 10, 2015, without a single vote
cast against the bill, and the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2016 include the following amounts to be appropriated to
the Department of Veterans Affairs:
(A) $35,000,000 to make seismic corrections to Building 208
at the West Los Angeles Medical Center of the Department in
Los Angeles, California, which, according to the Department,
is a building that is designated as having an exceptionally
high risk of sustaining substantial damage or collapsing
during an earthquake.
(B) $158,000,000 to provide for the construction of a new
research building, site work, and demolition at the San
Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
(C) $161,000,000 to replace Building 133 with a new
community living center at the Long Beach Veterans Affairs
Medical Center, which, according to the Department, is a
building that is designated as having an extremely high risk
of sustaining major damage during an earthquake.
(D) $468,800,000 for construction projects that are
critical to the Department for ensuring health care access
and safety at medical facilities in Louisville, Kentucky,
Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis, Missouri, Perry Point,
Maryland, American Lake, Washington, Alameda, California, and
Livermore, California.
(2) The Department is unable to obligate or expend the
amounts described in paragraph (1), other than for
construction design, because the Department lacks an explicit
authorization by an Act of Congress pursuant to section
8104(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, to carry out the
major medical facility projects described in such paragraph.
(3) Among the major medical facility projects described in
paragraph (1), three are critical seismic safety projects in
California.
(4) Every day that the critical seismic safety projects
described in paragraph (3) are delayed increases the risk of
a life-threatening building failure in the case of a major
seismic event.
(5) According to the United States Geological Survey--
(A) California has more than a 99 percent chance of
experiencing an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or greater in the
next 30 years;
(B) even earthquakes of less severity than magnitude 6.7
can cause life threatening damage to seismically unsafe
buildings; and
(C) in California, earthquakes of magnitude 6.0 or greater
occur on average once every 1.2 years.
(6) On January 20, 2016, the Senate passed this legislation
by unanimous consent as S. 2422, 114th Congress.
(b) Authorization.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may
carry out the following major medical facility projects, with
each project to be carried out in an amount not to exceed the
amount specified for that project:
(1) Seismic corrections to buildings, including
retrofitting and replacement of high-risk buildings, in San
Francisco, California, in an amount not to exceed
$180,480,000.
(2) Seismic corrections to facilities, including facilities
to support homeless veterans, at the medical center in West
Los Angeles, California, in an amount not to exceed
$105,500,000.
(3) Seismic corrections to the mental health and community
living center in Long Beach, California, in an amount not to
exceed $287,100,000.
(4) Construction of an outpatient clinic, administrative
space, cemetery, and columbarium in Alameda, California, in
an amount not to exceed $87,332,000.
(5) Realignment of medical facilities in Livermore,
California, in an amount not to exceed $194,430,000.
(6) Construction of a medical center in Louisville,
Kentucky, in an amount not to exceed $150,000,000.
(7) Construction of a replacement community living center
in Perry Point, Maryland, in an amount not to exceed
$92,700,000.
(8) Seismic corrections and other renovations to several
buildings and construction of a specialty care building in
American Lake, Washington, in an amount not to exceed
$16,260,000.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations for Construction.--
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2016 or the year in which
funds are appropriated for the Construction, Major Projects,
account, $1,113,802,000 for the projects authorized in
subsection (b).
(d) Limitation.--The projects authorized in subsection (b)
may only be carried out using--
(1) funds appropriated for fiscal year 2016 pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in subsection (c);
(2) funds available for Construction, Major Projects, for a
fiscal year before fiscal year 2016 that remain available for
obligation;
(3) funds available for Construction, Major Projects, for a
fiscal year after fiscal year 2016 that remain available for
obligation;
(4) funds appropriated for Construction, Major Projects,
for fiscal year 2016 for a category of activity not specific
to a project;
(5) funds appropriated for Construction, Major Projects,
for a fiscal year before fiscal year 2016 for a category of
activity not specific to a project; and
(6) funds appropriated for Construction, Major Projects,
for a fiscal year after fiscal year 2016 for a category of
activity not specific to a project.
amendment no. 3993
(Purpose: To ensure timely access for Inspectors General to records,
documents, and other materials)
At the appropriate place in division B, insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to deny an Inspector General funded under this
Act timely access to any records, documents, or other
materials available to the department or agency over which
that Inspector General has responsibilities under the
Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), or to prevent
or impede that Inspector General's access to such records,
documents, or other materials, under any provision of law,
except a provision of law that expressly refers to the
Inspector General and expressly limits the Inspector
General's right of access.
(b) A department or agency covered by this section shall
provide its Inspector General with access to all such
records, documents, and other materials in a timely manner.
(c) Each Inspector General shall ensure compliance with
statutory limitations on disclosure relevant to the
information provided by the establishment over which that
Inspector General has responsibilities under the Inspector
General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).
(d) Each Inspector General covered by this section shall
report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate within 5 calendar days any
failures to comply with this requirement.
amendment no. 3910
(Purpose: To authorize the use of amounts for Medical Services to be
used to furnish rehabilitative equipment and human-powered vehicles to
certain disabled veterans)
On page 238, line 22, insert after ``equipment'' the
following: ``(including rehabilitative equipment for veterans
entitled to a prosthetic appliance under chapter 17 of title
38, United States Code, which may include recreational sports
equipment that provides an adaption or accommodation for the
veteran, regardless of whether such equipment is
intentionally designed to be adaptive equipment, such as hand
cycles, recumbent bicycles, medically adapted upright
bicycles, and upright bicycles)''.
amendment no. 4005
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to
Congress a report on the progress of the Department of Veterans Affairs
in completing the Rural Veterans Burial Initiative)
At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
Sec. 251. Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate
and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives a report that contains an update on the
progress of the Department of Veterans Affairs in completing
the Rural Veterans Burial Initiative and the expected
timeline for completion of such initiative.
amendment no. 4029
(Purpose: To make funds available to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to hire Medical Center Directors and employees for other management and
clinical positions with vacancies)
At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
Sec. 251. Of the funds made available in this title for
fiscal year 2017 for medical support and compliance, not less
than $21,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to hire Medical Center Directors and
employees for other management and clinical positions that
are critical to the Department of Veterans Affairs in order
to fill vacancies in such positions.
amendment no. 4023
(Purpose: To protect congressional oversight of the executive branch by
ensuring individuals may speak with Congress)
At the end of title II of division B, add the following:
Sec. 251. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this title may be used by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to enter into an agreement related to
resolving a dispute or claim with an individual that would
restrict in any way the individual from speaking to members
of Congress or their staff on any topic not otherwise
prohibited from disclosure by Federal law.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now vote on these amendments en bloc.
[[Page S2969]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. I know of no further debate on these amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 3997; 3998; 3933; 4030; 4008; 3920; 3969; 3935,
as modified; 4038; 4043; 3980; 3944; 3993; 3910; 4005; 4029; and 4023)
were agreed to en bloc.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, at 11:15 a.m. on Thursday, May 19, all
postcloture time be considered expired on the Blunt-Murray amendment
No. 3900; further, that if cloture is invoked on the Collins substitute
amendment No. 3896, the Cornyn amendment No. 3899 and the Nelson
amendment No. 3898 be withdrawn; that it be in order for Senator
Collins or her designee to call up amendment No. 3970, and that there
be no second degrees in order to the Collins amendment No. 3970 or the
Lee amendment No. 3897.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. For the information of all Senators, at 11:15 a.m.
tomorrow, the Senate is expected to proceed to three rollcall votes: a
motion to waive the budget with respect to the Blunt-Murray Zika
amendment, adoption of the Blunt amendment, and cloture on the pending
substitute. Senators should expect additional votes to complete action
on the bill and any pending amendments during tomorrow's session of the
Senate.
____________________