Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2016, at 10:15 a.m., in room SR-328A of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Farm Credit System: Oversight and Outlook of the Current Economic Climate.''

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2016, 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Treaties.''

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2016, 11:30 a.m.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct an executive business meeting.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2016, at 2 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Declining Deportations and Increasing Criminal Alien Releases--The Lawless Immigration Polices of the Obama Administration.''

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2016, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving Communities' and Businesses' Access to Capital and Economic Development.''

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2814 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I just want to thank the Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia for an excellent statement. As he has indicated, he comes to this issue from the perspective of an attorney who is an expert in the Fair Housing Act, which, as he notes, is a landmark civil rights law. But he also brings a very important perspective of having been a mayor who was the recipient of Federal funds and who looked to HUD for guidance on how to make sure that, when community development block grant monies, for example, were given to local communities, the communities used them in ways that carried out the goals of the 1968 Fair Housing Act. It is very valuable that he has both the technical understanding of an attorney who has practiced in this very field for many years and also as a municipal official who had to live with the Federal rules. The fact is, as he indicated, the Fair Housing Act regulation that came out last year is intended to give clarity to local officials who are the recipients of Federal funds. I am very much opposed to the amendment offered by Senator Lee that would prohibit any funding for carrying out HUD's affirmatively furthering fair housing rules. It is important to recognize that this rule didn't just come out of the blue. It is based on a specific requirement included in the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which mandates that HUD ensure that the recipients of Federal funds not only prevent outright blatant discrimination but also act to affirmatively further the fair housing goals of the act. In fact, Congress has repeatedly reinforced this concept in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, and the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. All of those laws require HUD program recipients to affirmatively further fair housing. It is probably a phrase that most of us are not that aware of, and it does not come trippingly off of one's tongue. But it is an integral part of the 1968 civil rights law, the Fair Housing Act. It is also important to remember that when we are discussing fair housing, we are not only talking about discrimination based on race but also discrimination based on disabilities, national origin, and even against families with children. It is important to note that more than 50 percent of all reported complaints of housing discrimination are initiated by individuals with disabilities. That is one reason the Paralyzed Veterans of America organization has come out so strongly against the amendment that will be offered by Senator Lee. In a letter issued by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the organization notes: HUD's AFFH rule helps curb discrimination against people with disabilities, including veterans and the elderly. Each year, over 50% of all reported complaints of housing discrimination are initiated by people with disabilities. The organization goes on to say: This alarming trend will continue and affects Americans returning from conflicts abroad with a disability and the growing percentage of elderly Americans with a disability. HUD's AFFH rule will help governments identify strategies and solutions to expand accessible and supportive housing choices for our veterans and elders with disabilities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Paralyzed Veterans of America be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thought it would be useful for our colleagues if I gave a brief update on where we are. First of all, I think it is important to know that more than 70 Senators had input into the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development and Related Agencies funding bill. I am sure if you added the number of Senators who weighed in on the VA-Military Construction bill, the number is even higher. We worked very hard in the subcommittee process and the full committee process to incorporate suggestions from many of our colleagues to produce a bipartisan bill. The ranking member, my friend and colleague Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, has been a tremendous leader in this effort. We have worked in a very transparent and collaborative manner to bring us where we are today. Since we started the debate on this bill, we have had 17 amendments that have been adopted by unanimous consent on the two divisions of the bill. That has required a great deal of work, but I think it shows the good faith of both of the managers of the bill and the sponsors of these amendments that we were able to work together, compromise, negotiate, and get them adopted in three separate packages. We are continuing that process. More and more amendments have been filed, and we are continuing to see how we can best accommodate the concerns that have been raised by our colleagues while keeping the essential principles of this bill and the desire to make sure we keep on track with the appropriations process. I believe it is a great credit to the Senate, to the leaders, and to Senator Mitch McConnell, who has made as a goal that we would report all of the appropriations bills, bring them to the floor, one by one, for full and open debate, the way it should be, and that we get our work done so we avoid the situation of either having a series of continuing resolutions--which lock in last year's priorities and lead to wasteful spending, which is not a good solution and ends up costing us more because agencies can't plan, they can't do their contracting activity--or having the other unfortunate outcome of bundling all 12 of the appropriations bills into one huge omnibus bill that is thousands of pages long and is very difficult for Members to know exactly what is in the bill. That is not a good way to legislate. It is not in keeping with our responsibilities. I am proud the Appropriations Committee in this Chamber is doing its job and that the Republican leader set as the goal that we are starting the appropriations process earlier than ever before. The Energy and Water appropriations bill was passed earlier than any appropriations bill in literally decades. I would note that would not be possible without the cooperation we have had from our Democratic colleagues on the committee. We have worked as teams. That is the way the process should work. I could not have a better partner in that regard than Senator Jack Reed. We also had a very vigorous debate yesterday on the funding that is necessary to combat the very serious threat posed by the Zika virus. We know this virus causes very severe birth defects, in some cases, and has been linked to Guillain-Barre syndrome, which can lead to paralysis and even death. So this is a serious public health threat. A couple of weeks ago, Senator Johnny Isakson and I went to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA. We were briefed on the threat posed by Zika, which is carried by a mosquito that is known as the cockroach in the mosquito world because it is so difficult to get rid of. It can reproduce in water in a container that is size of a bottle cap. We know Zika has already become an epidemic in Puerto Rico and that there are confirmed cases in nearly every State in the Union. That is because, even if you live in a far Northern State where the type of mosquito that causes Zika is not present, such as the State represented by the Presiding Officer, Zika is still a threat. People travel. We know it can be transmitted through sexual contact. That is why we are seeing Zika showing up in virtually every State. We need to get ahead of this epidemic. That is why we had three different approaches offered yesterday on the Senate floor. Cloture was successfully invoked on a bipartisan proposal offered by Senators Blunt and Murray that provides more than $1 billion to counter effectively the threat of Zika. The last thing we want is not to have acted against this serious public health threat and find that pregnant women, who are especially at risk, are going to be infected and, in some cases, have children who will have a lifetime of serious disabilities as a result of the impact of Zika. We are hearing more and more about the dangers of the Zika virus every day. I have great confidence in the CDC, which is the major interface with our local and State public health agencies, to do an excellent job on prevention and education of providers and the public. They are also working on diagnostic tests so we can have a more rapid response to Zika. The National Institutes of Health is working on a vaccine which we hope will be available in another year, but in the meantime this truly is a public health emergency. I believe the Senate deserves great credit for putting the Zika supplemental on our bill and providing adequate funding to do the job, to do the job that is necessary to counter this very serious threat. We will have to proceed to a vote on the underlying Blunt-Murray amendment now that we have invoked cloture by 68 votes. I would note also that there is a 1 p.m. deadline today on filing first-degree amendments to the substitute bill. I also anticipate that this afternoon we will have a debate on Senator Lee's amendment, which has to do with a rule the Department of Housing and Urban Development has issued to implement provisions of the landmark 1968 Fair Housing Act. In addition, Senator Reed and Senator Cochran and I have offered an alternative amendment. At some point, we will have votes related both to the Collins-Reed-Cochran amendment and the Lee amendment. That is going to be a very important debate this afternoon on a very important policy that I believe helps to further the goals of the 1968 civil rights-era Fair Housing Act. That will be an important debate on this bill. In the meantime, we are continuing to work with our colleagues on other amendments, as the Presiding Officer is well aware. I believe we are continuing to make progress. I thank my colleagues for coming to the floor, for working with us. That is the update I wanted to give my colleagues at this point.

Ms. COLLINS. So I think it is important, as we debate this issue today, that we recognize what is at stake. The Paralyzed Veterans of America organization was founded by a band of servicemembers who came home from World War II with spinal cord injuries. I think we should listen to their experience. There are many other groups that have come out in opposition to Senator Lee's amendment. They include the Urban League. Those are big cities that receive a lot of Federal funds, but they are opposed to Senator Lee's amendment. The NAACP is opposed to the amendment. Disability groups have come out in opposition to the amendment. There is another extremely important point that the Senator from Virginia made; that is, this rule, which has been criticized by some, is in direct response to GAO criticizing HUD for not doing a good job in carrying out this part of the 1968 Fair Housing Act. That is so important. How many of us in this Chamber have repeatedly looked to GAO for advice on how we can improve how Federal programs work? Look to GAO. Look to its 2010 report, which is very critical of HUD. Surely, it is significant that when HUD issued the new regulations last year, the GAO said ``Fine'' and closed out its recommendations as being completed. That is significant. This wasn't some wild scheme that was dreamed up by bureaucrats at HUD, as some have claimed. This was in response to a report from the Government Accountability Office. We talk about how we want more efficiency, better accountability. That is why we have the GAO. This rule that was directly adopted in response to the GAO's report surely is significant. I see the Senator from Texas has arrived and wants to speak. I will be speaking more on this issue later today. Let me make one final point. There are those who have claimed that somehow HUD is going to get involved in dictating the zoning rules and ordinances of local communities. I don't believe that is the case, but we are going to offer an amendment and have filed an amendment to make sure that is not the case. The amendment that Senator Reed, Senator Cochran, and I am offering specifically prohibits HUD from dictating in any way to any community what its zoning ordinances should be. If that is a possibility, we will foreclose it with our amendment. I will be speaking further about this important issue later this afternoon, but I know there are many of my colleagues who are eager to speak, and I will yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska, Mrs. Fischer, for her comments. She is such a leader on so many issues in the Senate. We work closely together on transportation issues, and she gave us very valuable input for the bill that is before us. So I acknowledge her help and assistance and guidance and thank her for her comments. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. I know of no further debate on these amendments.

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.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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 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.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?