Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have been asked by a couple of my colleagues why it is that I couldn't just have the good sense to let their amendments go through. I say let's do it. Let's have it right now. I support the amendment. Let's vote on it right now. Let's vote on Senator Moran's amendment right now, and let's vote on mine right now. Now the comparison has been made by the Senator from South Carolina that because he didn't get his vote because someone objected this morning to his amendment dealing with the Export-Import Bank, that I should also have my amendment blocked. It is important to realize that the Export-Import Bank was not created by a previous iteration of the National Defense Authorization Act. The provision I am objecting to here and the provision I am trying to address here was, in fact, created by a previous iteration of the National Defense Authorization Act. It was passed in 2011 with, I believe, far too little consideration, without the American people being aware of what they were doing, and it remains on the books to this day. The next argument made by my friend from South Carolina is an interesting one, which is that this needs more of an airing, needs more of a hearing. He has promised me now a hearing on the Judiciary Committee which he chairs. As much as I appreciate that gesture, that is not enough. Let me replay a couple of things. First of all, I have been working on this for 5 years. I got a vote on it 4 years ago, and 67 Senators voted for it. It was removed in a conference committee. Someone said there was confusion as to why it was removed in a conference committee; regardless, it was removed. I have been trying ever since then, in subsequent iterations of the Defense authorization act, to get another vote on it. I served on the Armed Services Committee, and I was told by the chairman, my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona last year--I told him I wanted to bring it up in committee. He said: You can't bring it up in committee because there is a jurisdictional issue with the Judiciary Committee. That is better dealt with on the floor. I said: OK. I will deal with it on the floor. We got to the floor. I was blocked from operating on the floor. It didn't happen. So this year I was told: You can't bring it up in committee. There is a jurisdiction issue. You are best served waiting for the floor for that. I said: OK. I will wait for the floor. I brought it up again this year. Now I have been told by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the senior Senator from Arizona, that we will deal with it next year. I have been told by the Senator from South Carolina that he will deal with it at some unknown point in the future in a hearing--not markup, just a hearing--in a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee which he chairs. So we are talking about an issue now that was brought up 5 years ago, and I am being told again and again to wait, to wait, to wait more. This is an issue that got the vote of 67 Members of our body 4 years ago. This is an issue that was brought about by a previous iteration of the National Defense Authorization Act. This is the appropriate vehicle in which to address this. This is not a frivolity. This is not just some nicety. This is not some parochial interest. This is a basic human rights interest. This is an interest that relates to some of the most fundamental protections in the U.S. Constitution. When you say that you want to lock up American citizens detained on U.S. soil without charge, without trial, without access to a jury, indefinitely, for an unlimited period of time, you are implicating at a minimum the Fourth, the Fifth and the Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution. These are very significant. My friend from South Carolina says we just need to take a deep breath and deal with this another day. Why does the status quo--the status quo which is insulting to the history, the traditions, the text, the context of the U.S. Constitution--why should that be the status quo? Why should we wait to deal with this? Why should the status quo be one that is insulting to the American people, one that is insulting to the descendents of those Japanese Americans who were interned in World War II indefinitely without charge, without access to trial, without access to the jury system, without access to their fundamental rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments under the Constitution, among others? Why should that status quo prevail? Why, moreover, should someone who is concerned about these issues-- these fundamental human rights issues, these fundamental constitutional rights issues--why should someone who is concerned about those be maligned and accused of not caring about individuals who would be harmed by the non-passage of another amendment? Why should that person be blamed when that person--I--is willing to allow a vote on the Shaheen amendment, on the Moran amendment, as long as they give me a vote on my amendment--an amendment that was allowed a vote 4 years ago, an amendment that received 67 votes--a veto-proof supermajority--only 4 years ago? So, having been told again and again n, wait until next year, wait until next year, wait until the next committee process, wait until the next floor process, after a while, one begins to discern a pattern. That is a pattern that I am discerning. There is another pattern that I discern, which is a pattern in which when you allow government to exercise a certain power, even if it might not being exercised at the moment, eventually it will. That is why we put precautionary language within our laws. That is why we have rights in our laws. What are rights, after all, but statements of law that restrict action by the government? As Madison noted in Federalist 51, the government is a reflection of human nature. To understand government, you have to understand human nature. If men were angels, we would have no need of a government. And if government could be administered by angels, we would have no need for these external constraints on government, on its ability to exercise power. But we have learned through sad experience that when human beings get power and when they get excessive power, sometimes they abuse that power, so we have to constrain it. And it is important that we decide that we are going to constrain it before the moment arrives, lest we see another Korematsu moment, lest we see the internment of more American citizens without charge, without trial, on an indefinite basis, on the basis of mere accusations--accusations unproven, accusations untested by a jury. The whole reason for having a Constitution rests on this understanding. This fundamental understanding is that when government power grows, when it expands, it does so at the expense of individual freedom, and it sometimes does so at great risk to the human soul, at great risk to the ability of an individual to remain free. I am all in favor of the Shaheen amendment. I am all in favor of the Moran amendment. Let's have a vote on those two amendments and on the amendment that I have proposed, an amendment that is limited and an amendment, I should note here, that would not foreclose the ability of this body down the road to identify the changed circumstances of the sort that some of my colleagues have referred to. It simply says that if the government is going to do this, there has to be a plain statement, a clear statement; that it has to do so expressly; that Congress must expressly authorize this kind of action either in a declaration of war or an authorization for the use of military force. I don't think that is too much to ask, especially given the types of constitutional protections we are dealing with. If, in fact, we are going to call the American homeland--if, in fact, we are going to call the territorial jurisdiction of the United States of America part of the battlefield, ought we not to have a declaration of war, an authorization for use of military force that identifies it as such? I mean, after all, the precedents that we are talking about, the precedents upon which this theory is based are premised on this idea that you have enemy combatants who become part of an enemy's fighting force, as was the case of Ex parte Quirin, where you had American citizens going over to Germany, putting on a German uniform, and fighting for the Germans. That was part of that war. They were enemy combatants on the battlefield. There was Ex parte Milligan, where you had Confederate rebel soldiers who were enemy combatants on the battlefield fighting against the United States. So if we are willing to do that, we need a declaration of war. We need an authorization for the use of military force that states so expressly. That is the sole purpose of my amendment. I don't think that is unreasonable. In fact, I think that is necessary. So I would like to get this done. I would like to get this done. We can get this done today. Let's have votes on all three amendments.

Mr. LEE. I object to the original request.

Mr. LEE. If the Senator will yield, I will answer----

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I sat here and I heard some fairly hyperbolic arguments--arguments suggesting somehow that anyone who has other amendments they would like to have considered are somehow unpatriotic or unsympathetic if they don't allow these amendments to go through. The fact is, I have no problem with either of these amendments. I will gladly not only allow a vote on them, but I will also vote for the amendment from Senator Shaheen and the amendment from Senator Moran. I support both of them, but I would like a vote on my amendment as well. This is an issue I have worked on for 5 years. This issue arose 5 years ago when a provision was slipped into the NDAA that we passed that year that I think raises significant concerns. I have worked with my colleague, the senior Senator from California, and Senators on both sides of the aisle, and put together a proposal to deal with that language. We put that in and had a vote on it in 2012, and 67 Members of this body voted for it, including some of the people who have spoken in the last few minutes. This is an issue that became a part of our law because of the NDAA 5 years ago. It is appropriate to bring this up now. Moments ago, the Senator from South Carolina made reference to an objection I made to an amendment of his within the Senate Armed Services Committee on which he and I serve. It is true that I made an objection because in the committee we have some jurisdictional rules. There are reasons why certain amendments aren't jurisdictionally proper within the committee. There was a reason I didn't bring up the amendment that I wanted to vote on within the committee because of a jurisdictional issue. I was told last year and this year that if this is an amendment you want to bring up, the appropriate time to do so is on the floor and not in committee. The reason I did that is that there are jurisdictional issues present within the committee. Again, I don't have a problem with the Shaheen or Moran amendments. I will support both of them. All I am asking for is to give me a vote on my amendment as well. Therefore, I ask that the unanimous consent be modified to include my amendment--amendment No. 4448.

Mr. LEE. I agree. I note the presence of my distinguished colleague from California, and I yield the floor so that she can address the body.

Mr. LEE. We are trying to get a vote. This got a vote in 2012. It received 67 votes from people of both parties, votes from some Members--including at least one person whom you may be thinking of who has objections to it now. We need this to get a vote. If we are voting on other amendments, which we should be doing, this should get a vote. Nobody has explained to me why this should not at a minimum receive a vote. If somebody doesn't like this, fine, let them vote against it. But we should have a vote on this because this is relevant to the National Defense Authorization Act. It was the National Defense Authorization Act passed in 2011 that was the vehicle for enacting this into law.

Mr. LEE. That is absolutely right, and that is precisely why we need these protections. That helps illustrate the slippery-slope nature of this problem. And it also emphasizes why it is that there are some in our body who want to make sure this power exists in the government, that we must pass legislation affirmatively making it so, expressly providing that power rather than doing it indirectly. That is all our amendment does. This is indeed a slippery slope. If all you have to do to indefinitely detain someone without charge, without trial, suspending their rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth amendments--if that is all you have to do, is charge them in a certain way, then our constitutional protections have become weakened, indeed, to a dangerous degree.

Mr. LEE. No.

Mr. LEE. No. No. Due process can include habeas, but someone might say habeas corpus is the beginning of due process, not the end. Sometimes it occurs at the beginning, sometimes at the end, but regardless of when in the process it occurs, a habeas proceeding does not represent the sum total universe of what due process means. You can't read the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution to see that what happened in the version of NDAA that we passed in 2011 was an affront to the constitutional order. It was an aberration. We are not asking for anything drastic. All we are asking here is that before the government takes this step--the type of drastic step you are describing--that at minimum we require Congress to expressly authorize that. Is that really too much? For those who would say that we are at war, we are in danger--and I understand that. There are those who don't like our way of life. They even perhaps want to do us harm. For those who would say that we are at war and we have to take that into account and consider that, my response is, OK, if that is the case, then let's at least do it the way we are supposed to do it. Let's at least have that discussion rather than doing it by subterfuge, rather than doing it under a cloud of uncertainty, rather than doing it by implication. We need to do so expressly. That is all this amendment does.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss and urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 4448, the due process guarantee amendment. This amendment addresses a little known problem that I believe most Americans would be shocked to discover even exists. Under current law, the Federal Government has proclaimed the power--has arrogated to itself the power to detain indefinitely, without charge or trial, U.S. citizens and lawful, permanent residents who are apprehended on American soil. Let that sink in for just a minute. If you are a U.S. citizen or a U.S. green card holder and you are arrested on American soil because you are suspected of supporting a terrorist group or other enemy of the United States, the Federal Government has claimed the power to detain you indefinitely without formally charging you or without offering you a trial. I am not talking about American citizens who travel to foreign lands to take up arms against the United States military and are captured on the battlefield. I am talking about U.S. citizens who are apprehended right here in the United States of America. Under current law, even they can be imprisoned for an unspecified--in fact, unlimited--period of time without ever being charged and without the benefit of a jury trial to which they are entitled. You don't need to be a defense attorney to recognize what an outrage this is. Arresting U.S. citizens on American soil and then detaining them indefinitely without charges or a trial are obvious deviations from the constitutional right to due process of law. The last time the Federal Government exercised such power and did so without congressional authorization was during the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Congress responded by passing a law to prevent it from happening again. Of course, such legal protection should not need to be codified into Federal statute in the first place, but they did it anyway. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states in no uncertain terms that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Then again, as James Madison reminded us, if men were angels, no government would be necessary. In the wake of World War II, Congress passed and President Nixon signed the Nondetention Act of 1971, which states: ``No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.'' Those last few words are absolutely crucial: ``except pursuant to an Act of Congress.'' The Nondetention Act of 1971 recognized, as I believe most Americans do, that in some cases--in some grave, treacherous, unfortunate cases--indefinite detention of U.S. citizens may, in the eyes of some, be deemed necessary, but the point is that the Federal Government does not inherently possess the power of indefinite detention. The extent to which such power can even be said to exist within our constitutional framework at all is a question that many of us would regard as at least debatable. Certainly only an act of Congress, such as an authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF, or perhaps a declaration of war can give the Federal Government that power. Fast forward 40 years, and this important legal protection has eroded. In 2011, 40 years after the passage of the Nondetention Act of 1971, Congress passed its annual National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012, the predecessor of the bill that we are considering today. In that version of the NDAA, there was a provision, section 1021, giving the Federal Government the power to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without trial, even those who were apprehended on American soil. It may sound as though section 1021 meets the ``Act of Congress'' threshold established by the Nondetention Act of 1971, but importantly it does not. It does no such thing. Here is why: The language of section 1021 merely presumes that the 2001 AUMF gives the Federal Government the right to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without having to prove anything, even though an explicit grant of such power appears nowhere at all in the 2001 AUMF. My amendment would resolve this problem. In clear and straightforward language, my amendment clarifies that a general authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority on its own, shall not be construed to authorize the imprisonment or detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States. This means that if Congress believes it is necessary to have the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens who are captured in the United States, then Congress must expressly say so in any authorization it passes. My amendment recognizes that the due process protections of U.S. citizens are far too important to leave up to implied legal contemplation. The 2001 AUMF does not expressly state that the Federal Government has the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens who were apprehended on American soil. It just doesn't say it. You can look at the 2001 AUMF and you will not find that. For those who believe it is somehow in the national security interests of the United States for the Federal Government to have that power, they should file an amendment to the AUMF that says so explicitly, and then we can see what the American people think and we can find out, just as importantly, what their elected representatives in the House and in the Senate think, or they can file an entirely new AUMF that expressly provides such authority. This amendment--the one I am discussing today--should not be controversial. In fact, in 2012--just a year after the initial offending provision that I described a moment ago was passed--the Senate passed this amendment with 67 votes, in large part thanks to the tireless efforts of my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, who today joins me as a cosponsor of the amendment. Unfortunately, the due process guarantee amendment was stripped from that version of the NDAA passed in 2012 for 2013 during the conference process. At the time, some opponents of the amendment were under the impression that it would extend due process provisions to citizens outside of the United States, but that is undeniably false. The due process guarantee amendment applies only to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who are apprehended on U.S. soil. It has been 4 years since that misunderstanding prevented Congress from passing this commonsense bipartisan reform. That is more than enough time for this institution to gain clarity on what this amendment does do and, just as importantly, on what this amendment does not do. So it is time that we finally pass this amendment, and I urge each of my colleagues to do so.

Mr. LEE. Yes.

Mr. LEE. That is correct. This wouldn't cover them at all because that person is outside the United States. That person is captured on a battlefield outside the United States. That person wouldn't be covered under this amendment.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Frederick L. Dressler, a national security fellow in the office of Senator Ayotte be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I am grateful to respond to both points made by my distinguished colleague, the Senator from North Dakota. In the first place, as to the need to have a full-throated debate, I welcome that. That is exactly what we need. It is what I have been wanting to have for a long time. But last year, instead of having a full-throated debate specifically about Ex-Im, we saw Ex-Im attached to a much larger package--a much larger package that a lot of people were determined to support, regardless of what else was in there. So a lot of people voted for that package, regardless of how they might feel about the Export-Import Bank. But as for a full-throated debate, yes, that is exactly what we need. We would get that if we could actually debate the reauthorization of Export-Import on its own merits, as we should have done last year. We were deprived of that opportunity, so now we are using every opportunity we can to have a real full-throated debate. That is why we are doing this. That is exactly the reason we need to do that. As to the figure the Senator cited with respect to the percentage of loans going to small business, sure, if one wants to talk about the number of actual loans made, one can make that number look pretty good. But look at the number that I think is more significant: Only one-half of 1 percent of all small businesses in America actually benefit from Ex-Im financing. That is a pretty significant deal when one looks at how much of the lending authority in the total dollar amount the Export-Import Bank supplies to larger businesses and to businesses, regardless of their size, that could in fact obtain financing in the open market. Again, we are not back in the Great Depression anymore. This is a Great Depression era relic. So regardless of what my colleague may think about the Great Depression era dynamics at play that caused those serving in this body and the House of Representatives in the 1930s to put this program in place, we have other challenges today. And many of those challenges are created by the government itself--by the government being too big a presence within our marketplace, inuring ultimately to the benefit of big business and harming everyone else.

Mr. LEE. And I am sure she is prepared to tell us that.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, as my colleague is asking the question, I assume she has the answer.

Mr. LEE. Yes.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, what my distinguished colleagues from North Dakota and Indiana are proposing is to unleash the Export-Import Bank from the constraints under which it currently must operate and to begin authorizing transactions above $10 million. Between 2007 and 2014, 84 percent of the Bank's subsidy and loan guarantee deals exceeded $10 million--84 percent--and the vast majority of those were given to the wealthiest, most well-connected businesses in America that should have no problem at all obtaining financing in the open market. The Export-Import Bank represents so much of what the American people resent and despise about Washington, DC. This is a Great Depression era relic, one that lives on today and has grown into one of the most treasured relics for favoring banks. It is a favored relic for well- heeled lobbyists, big government, and politically favored businesses. It is an 82-year-old case study in American corporate welfare, and for some reason this Senate continues to support it. Ex-Im has managed to live through more than 30 corruption and fraud investigations into its system of doling out taxpayer-backed subsidies and loan guarantees to foreign buyers of U.S. exports. In 2013, for half of the financing deals within the Export-Import Bank's portfolio, Ex-Im was either unable or unwilling to provide any justification whatsoever connected to its mission. That is $18.8 billion in estimated export value that apparently had no connection to Ex-Im's mission or, if it did, Ex-Im didn't bother to offer that up. Many of Ex-Im's supporters claim the Bank's main function is to support small business. That sounds nice, but the problem with it is that this claim doesn't stand up to even a modest amount of scrutiny. Look at the institution's track record. Only one-half of 1 percent of all small businesses in America benefit from Ex-Im financing--one-half of 1 percent. And even that tiny figure may well be an overestimation, may well overstate the case, because Ex-Im uses such a broad definition of the term small business. Confirming this nominee would allow Ex-Im to return to its old ways of approving massive financing deals for the largest corporations, in coordination with the largest banks, all with the backing of American taxpayers. Permanently ending the Export-Import Bank would be a small but important and symbolic step toward restoring fairness to our economy and fairness to our government. It would prove to the American people that their elected representatives in Congress have the courage to eliminate one of the many Federal programs that foster cozy relationships between political and economic insiders, providing a breeding ground for cronyism and for corruption. So long as this Senate remains unwilling to close Ex-Im, we should, at the very least, make sure it does not have the ability to further advance its cronyist agenda. If you want to talk about harming competitiveness, let's talk about that. If we want to have that discussion, let's have that discussion now. If you want to know what harms competitiveness in America, including and especially the kind of competitiveness that has tended to foster the development of the greatest economy the world has ever known--the kind of competitiveness that makes it possible, where it exists, for small businesses to make it onto the big stage--let's look at Federal regulations. Federal regulations are a big deal in this country. I remember being appalled 20 years ago to learn the Federal regulatory system was imposing some $300 billion a year in corporate compliance costs-- regulatory compliance costs. Those regulatory compliance costs might be borne immediately and initially by big corporations, by small corporations, mostly by businesses, but you know who pays for it? Hard- working Americans. In fact, some have described this effect as sort of a backdoor, invisible, and very regressive tax on the American people. So when I first learned of this problem, I started thinking of it this way. This is an additional $300 billion a year the American people are essentially paying into the Federal Government because everything they buy--goods and services--becomes more expensive. They also pay for it in terms of diminished wages, unemployment, and underemployment, but they do pay for it. And they pay for it disproportionately at the middle and at the low end of the economic spectrum in America. Unlike our actual tax system--our visible tax system--which is highly progressive, our backdoor invisible tax system--our regulatory system-- is highly regressive. Some have estimated this regulatory compliance cost--just complying with Federal regulations--today costs the economy some $2 trillion a year, meaning this has multiplied roughly sevenfold just in the last 20 years. If you don't think that is a significant impediment to competitiveness in America, I don't know what is. This is a problem. And some have estimated that each and every American household pays some $15,000 more each year for goods purchased simply because of Federal regulations. This hurts competitiveness. So do our high tax rates; these harm competitiveness. So I stand with the senior Senator from Alabama and I support him in his objection. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise not to debate the broad question of the Federal Government's proper role in protecting and advancing public health; instead, I am here to stress to my colleagues that with a growing national debt that will soon exceed $20 trillion, we cannot continue spending money we don't have. If this emergency supplemental measure is adopted, it will be the 15th emergency supplemental we have passed since 2006, totaling about $190 billion in deficit spending. This is not how responsible governments budget. It is not how responsible governments behave. Indeed, we have the ability to provide the resources the country needs to fight the Zika virus without adding to our national debt. For starters, we can undo the $500 million President Obama took from the international infectious diseases account which was placed in his unapproved Green Climate Fund. USAID is sitting on $1.2 billion in unobligated Ebola funds. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response currently has $347 million not being put to use. There is $525 million in CDC's global health security agenda that is unspoken for. To the extent that the Zika virus is truly an emergency, one that deserves the Federal Government's attention, we already have more than enough unused emergency funds to pay for the fight against this emerging threat. Yesterday, my colleague, the distinguished junior senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford, illustrated that this administration has tens of billions of dollars in unobligated discretionary funds to pay for this as well. What we should not do, however, is allow the Zika virus to be yet another excuse to run up the national debt, just so appropriators can come back and use unspent emergency money on nonemergency parochial priorities at some later date. The entire emergency spending label is to some, perhaps, a little bit misleading. It does not mean that the money gets spent any faster. All it does is give Congress the ability to spend the money without having to pay for it, to spend the money without having to offset it somewhere else. That is not how we should operate. I urge my colleagues to uphold this budget point of order. Mr. President, pursuant to section 314(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I raise a point of order against all of the emergency designations contained in amendment No. 3900, a list of which I am sending to the desk.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, unlike the Collins amendment that just passed with broad support, my amendment would actually do something with respect to affirmatively furthering the fair housing rule. Specifically, it would defund this rule and ultimately force the Department of Housing and Urban Development to respond to the GAO in a way that does not undermine local control or increase costs on already stretched thin local housing agencies. My colleagues who oppose this amendment have given a number of examples of local governments being newly connected to make better governing decisions, but my amendment in no way stops local governments from continuing to do that. All my amendment does--the only thing it does--is to prevent the Federal Government from forcing local governments to comply with a costly and unnecessary new data collection program, and it does so in order to protect local autonomy. I therefore encourage each of my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the affirmatively furthering fair housing rule, which my amendment would defund, is equal parts condescension and willful blindness. The condescension of this particular rule and its proponents is that local governments and public housing authorities across America can't figure out how to provide fair and affordable housing to their communities without the help, without the paternalistic interference of Federal bureaucrats. This is the epitome of the paternalism that informs so much of what happens in Washington, DC, today. I don't doubt, as Senator Collins has said repeatedly, that local governments would like ``better guidance'' from the Department of Housing and Urban Development in Washington. But this is a problem that was created by HUD, with its onerous requirements and its vague mandates, not the result of local governments being unable or unwilling to provide adequate low-cost housing for their neighbors in need. This brings us to the willful blindness part of the affirmative furthering fair housing rule. Proponents of the rule claim that HUD officials consulted closely with local governments and public housing authorities when drafting and finalizing the AFFH rule. In their telling, local housing agencies across the country are welcoming the AFFH rule with open arms. But this ignores what local officials have actually said about AFFH. I will let these local officials speak for themselves. Roger Partridge, the county commissioner of Douglas County, CO, had this to say, in an email, about AFFH, the closed process that produced it, and the immense burdens it will place on local governments: Douglas County believes that the Assessment of Fair Housing tool as it now stands is an unfunded mandate that will create an administrative nightmare for jurisdictions who want to further fair housing and implement community programs with HUD grants. Partridge continues: HUD headquarters has repeatedly ignored the local practitioners responsible for AFFH and implementing the AFH in our communities. He continues: In fact, HUD headquarters staff was in Denver for a Public AFFH roundtable on April 21st, during [the AFH tool] comment period. They ignored the opportunity to inform Region VIII Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) staff or the local practitioners attending the roundtable. No notice from the HUD EXCHANGE to the grantee list serve was found. The local governments who were asked to comment on the publication were shut out of the process. Likewise, this is what we have heard from Salt Lake County officials: The administrative burden imposed by this tool is excessive. Resources that could be put into housing related tasks are being funneled into completing the tool and its associated administrative tasks. Additionally, although HUD claims that this tool can be completed without the use of a consultant, the assessment is complex enough to warrant considering a consultant. The rule imposes a jurisdictional and regional analysis that is too complex to be effectively completed by staff without specific statistical and mapping knowledge. As housing providers, most staff at PHAs have comparative advantages that lie in providing affordable housing services, but not providing complex statistical data analysis. Forcing PHA staff to do this analysis is an inefficient use of their scarce time. Salt Lake County officials added the following: The AFH does not recognize the zero-sum nature of a PHA's resource allocation. By allocating resources to complete this process, PHAs are not allocating resources somewhere else. Those resources could be used to provide additional housing assistance. Instead of ignoring the words and the experiences of our local officials, and instead of condescending to them, we should listen to them and learn from them. We should stop this disastrous new housing rule from causing more problems than it has already caused. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Maine in and of itself is unobjectionable and does no harm, and on that basis I intend to vote for it. Unfortunately, it also doesn't do anything. It does nothing to help the many housing agencies that have told the Federal Government that President Obama's AFFH rule imposes far too many reporting costs and their already stretched staffs are going to suffer as a result. It does nothing to shield local housing authorities from the very many real lawsuits they will face as a result of the data collected from this regulation, and it does nothing to stop HUD from blackmailing local housing agencies with Community Development Block Grant Program funds. At this time, I wish to cede the remainder of my time to my friend, the senior Senator from Alabama.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call for regular order with respect to the Blunt amendment No. 3900.