us, or a significant, i should say, support from democrats here in the congress if we want a repeal to become law. well, mr. president, i hope we'll see that kind of support in the near future. the afford -- the affordable care act has been a disaster from the beginning. it's time to lift the burdens that the law has placed on americans and replace this law with health care reform that will actually drive down costs for american families and consumers and increase access to care. mr. president, that is what we should, and i hope we will be focused on. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to speak as senator thune has just spoken about the disastrous results on health care for patients of obamacare.

and you have to go no further than this sunday's "new york times," the sunday review, front page cover. it looks like a red cross tilted on its side with the headline "sorry, we don't take obamacare ." sorry, we don't take obamacare. i see the minority leader come to the floor, harry reid, and talking about how wonderful it is. the president says forcefully defend and be proud. of what? of something that, sorry, we don't take obamacare. now, this is "the new york times," a newspaper whose editorial board has supported this health care law. they talk about the pains of the health care act frustrating patients. amy modas and her circle of

self-employed small business owners were supporters, were supporters of president obama and the affordable care act. they bought policies on the newly created new york state exchange. we have two democratic senators from new york. where are they to respond to what's happened to the people of their home state as a result of this law? they bought insurance policies in the new york state exchange. what happened? well, when they called doctors and hospitals in manhattan to schedule an appointment, they were dismayed to be turned away. not once, it says, but again and again. here they are. it says we don't take obamacare. it's the umbrella term, the hundreds of plans offered through the president's signature health legislation. mr. president, this is "the new york times," about new york, big city, places where there should be plenty of doctors, plenty of opportunity. ms. moses goes on and says anyone who is on these plans

knows it is a two-tiered system. is that what the president promised the american people, a two-tiered system? she describes the emotional sting of those words to -- she is a successful entrepreneur in a two-tiered system. any time, she says, one of us needs a doctor -- you're talking about a number of women in new york who are entrepreneurs, very successful. "any time one of us needs a doctor, we send out an alert." is that what we're supposed to have, mr. president? any time anybody needs a doctor, send out an alert. you have a sore throat, send out an alert. that's what they need to do. the alert says that, that they send out among this whole group in new york, does anyone have anyone on the exchange plan that does -- and they describe what they need, mammography or colonoscopy, who takes our insurance?

she says that is really a problem. i could go on, mr. president. this is what the president of the united states and the democrats of this body who should have had this down the throats of the american people, a plan that one out of four say a plan that has hurt them personally. that is just one story in the news in one major newspaper. but it says a lot about the health care law in general. people know, and we just heard from senator thune, this health care law is a lot more expensive than the president ever promised. people all around the country remember the president saying it would drive down health care premiums by $2,500 a family if this became law. remember that? people all across the country remember it. it hasn't happened. costs have gone up. co-pays have gone up. deductibles have gone up. people have lost their plans, lost their ability to see their doctor, can't go to the hospital if they want, can't go to get the care that they need. of course insurance companies are cutting back on which

doctors people can see. they're cutting back on what drugs people can take. all of those things because of the health care law. this health care law has made health care worse across the united states of america. we know that some insurance companies are dropping states entirely in terms of a place to do business. so millions of americans are going to lose their insurance plan even again next year. remember what the president said? if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. well, not next year, not last year, not the year before that. even the kaiser family foundation, who studies these things, says that there are more than 650 counties where families will have only one choice for insurance next year. now, mr. president, i just pulled up an article from "the new york times." that's not the only place there has been a similar article. this is monday. this is monday's paper, may 16, "wall street journal," "health insurers quit rural exchanges." just abandoning rural areas all

across the country. my home state of wyoming, but it's happening everywhere. entire states: alaska, alabama, wyoming. there's only one choice where people can buy obamacare insurance next year. often if you only have one choice, you're put in a situation where you can take it or leave it. not under obamacare. oh no, you must buy it. you have no choice other than pay an expensive penalty. that's what health care looks like now under harry reid and the democrats and barack obama and the united states senators on the democrat side of the aisle who voted for this monstrosity. take it or leave it, but you can't leave it because you must buy it. well, what happens when there's no competition? what happens when the health care law adds thousands of pages of expensive mandates and costs continue to go up? premiums have gone through the roof. these are the requested premium

hikes for obamacare plans for next year. we've seen requests in virginia, 33%. oregon, 32%. iowa, 43%. new hampshire, 45% for some families. people are finding out that their insurance premiums are now higher than their mortgage payment. so what do the democrats say about all of this? well, someone brought this up to hillary clinton. it's a picture of her there on abc news. they brought it up to hillary clinton at a campaign event in virginia last week. a woman who owns a small business said, i've seen our health insurance for my own family, she said -- she is telling this to hillary clinton -- go up $500 a month in just the last two years. she said we went from 400-something to 900-something a month. so what did hillary clinton have to say about this? what was her response? she said -- quote -- "what could possibly have raised your

costs?" she said, "that's what i don't understand." is she serious? what could possibly have raised your costs $500? i don't understand. it's obamacare that raised her costs. where has hillary clinton been the last six years that she doesn't understand that? this was in virginia. so this small business owner, the woman that went to the town hall meeting, asked hillary clinton a question, she may see her rates go up another 33% next year. well, it's not just hillary clinton who's clueless. harry reid, the democratic leader who just left the floor of the senate, came to the floor last month, and he said, and he told the world, obamacare is working. harry reid, minority leader, senator from nevada. does harry reid not understand that millions of americans are paying more for their health insurance and their health care than they did before obamacare? many paying for insurance but they can't get care as we see

from "the new york times" story. does senator reid not understanding that people are paying more for coverage and getting less care back in return? does every senator on the democrat side of the aisle who voted for obamacare not understanding how this outrageous law is hurting america and americans and the people of this great country. well, there is a new poll that came out last month. it found that only 44% of americans approve the health care law, but 54% disapprove of the law. i remember senator schumer saying after we pass, it will get more popular. 54% disapprove, the highest disapproval number in the last few years. in this poll almost one in three americans said that the health care law has had a negative effect on their family. a negative effect on their family, their personal family. not that they know somebody, but

in their own family. hillary clinton doesn't seem to understand that. she said she actually wants to expand obamacare. she wants more regulations, more restrictions, more of the terrible ideas that have driven up costs for american families. mr. president, there was another piece of news last week that shows one more way that the health care law is failing. it turns out that the obama administration has been making illegal payments, payments found by a judge to be illegal to big insurance companies to help prop up this health care law. it's what the federal court ruled last thursday. back in 2014, the administration asked congress to appropriate money to pay insurance companies above and beyond the subsidies that they already get that the government pays for insurance premiums. it's called a cost-sharing subsidy. well, congress, power of the purse, refused to appropriate the money. you know what the administration did? the administration panicked.

it knew that without more washington spending, people would pay even more out of pockets for their health care costs and it would make obamacare even more unpopular than it is today. so in the panic, because they knew that if that happened people would realize how expensive the law really was, and the disaster it's turning into, people would see that all the president's promises about reducing costs were nothing but fairy tales. so the panicked obama administration went ahead and they handed over the money anyway without the authority of congress. the total was about $7 billion over the last two years. that's how much additional taxpayer money the administration has given away so far to hide the fact that the health care law is an expensive failure. and the american people have had enough of this costly and collapsing health care law. they have had enough of losing their insurance, losing their doctor, losing access to the prescription drugs that they

need and paying 20% or 30% more every year to get less coverage. so the democrats can come to the floor and pretend that obamacare is working. democrats like hillary clinton don't understand what's going on. well, the american people know exactly what's going on. they want us to repeal obamacare and replace it with health care that actually works. fewer restrictions, more freedom, freedom for people to get the coverage that works for them and their family, not what president obama says they have to have because he believes he knows better what they need than they do. we need fewer mandates that drive up the costs for everyone, more options for patients to see the doctor that they want, to get the medicine that they need. mr. president, that's what the american people want and it's time for democrats to show that they are listening to the people of america and that they

understand, because up to this point they've not been listening and they do not understand. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. president. i thank the senator for his words obviously an expert in health care, spent his entire life serving patients and so his expertise on this issue is particularly important as we debate the real life ramifications of obamacare, the affordable care act, the so-called affordable care act. that's why i come to the floor today, mr. president, to talk about the broken promise of obamacare and the negative impacts that this poorly planned law has had on my state of colorado. in essence, what obamacare did was create a pay to play scheme, mandates and dictates of a law where you will pay higher

premiums to abide by the law. as obamacare continues on a downward trajectory, americans are the ones who are bearing the brunt of its failures, particularly those living in rural america and rural colorado. month after month, headline after headline americans are no longer surprised when they hear of another obamacare disaster, as they continue to fruit -- to foot the ever increasing bill. fewer choices, less competition and higher costs. if you like your plan, you can keep your plan, remember those famous words? the president assured americans time and time again not to worry because if you liked it, your health care plan, if you liked it, you could keep it. said it countless times, echoed by almost every member in this body who supported obamacare. but coloradoans, millions of americans around the country learned that this promise was far from the truth. in late 2013, roughly 335,000 small group and individual policies in colorado were canceled due to the requirements

in obamacare. 335,000 coloradoans who witnessed through a letter in their mailbox, including a letter that i received in my mailbox canceling my insurance because of obamacare, that 335,000 people realized if you like your plan, you can keep your plan, was simply not true. but the cancellations in 2013 were just the very beginning, because in 2014, a couple months later, the colorado division of insurance canceled another 249,000 plans because these plans didn't meet the requirements of obamacare. and when we talk about these plans being canceled because they didn't meet the requirements of obamacare, some people on the left, some people who supported obamacare would argue well, they must have been bad plans, they must have been bad insurance, they must have been bad policies. but that assumes, and that's presuming, that the government knows what's best for everyone involved, that the government has a better idea of what their insurance ought to be, that the government should take care to

think for the people who chose these plans themselves individually. but 249,000 people on top of the 335,000 people in january of 2014 had their insurance canceled. and again in 2015, the story continued with an additional 190,000 plans on the individual and small group markets being canceled. in total, according to the congressional research service, over 750,000 health insurance plans in colorado were canceled between 2013 and 2015. three quarters of a million people who were promised if they like their plan they could keep their plan had their plans canceled under the promise, the broken promise of obamacare. but that's still not the end of it for coloradans because coloradans are still receiving cancellation notices. they are still receiving cancellation notices. within the last two months, two of the nation's largest health insurers, united healthcare and huma, announced their intent to

exit the individual marketplace. united health group c.e.o. sited that the marketplaces were a risky investment and they could not serve these services on an effective and sustained basis. this decision will impact roughly 20,000 more coloradans and beneficiaries of these plans can expect cancellation notices in july. the disappointment and frustration over a canceled plan that your family once enjoyed is made worse by rising costs of the remaining plans. and that's what many americans are facing today. after losing 750,000 of them in colorado, losing their health insurance plans, they were promised they could keep, they now look at the second promise that was made under obamacare, and that is that this will lower the cost of health care. now they're met with a second broken promise, the broken promise of cost. because they were told that they would see reduced costs under obamacare, but yet the colorado division of insurance found that individual insurance premiums for 2016 on the western slope of

colorado rose by an average of 25.8%. nearly 26% rate increases on the western slope of colorado. when people think of colorado, that's often the part of colorado that they think of most. you have got denver on the front range and then you have the mountains, the ski communities, the rural communities, farming, agriculture, the mining communities, oil and gas industries on the western slope. these rural areas watch their health insurance rates increase premiums by 26%, premiums that were promised would be going down. one woman in a recent interview with the denver post who lives on the western slopes saw her premium costs alone rise from $300 per month, $300 per month to $1,828 per month. or nearly $22,000 a year in increased costs. she says, and i quote -- "it's actually like another mortgage payment. i have friends who are uninsured right now because they can't

afford it. insurance is hard up here." the western slope of colorado had two promises broken. the promise that if you liked your health care, you could keep it. that this would lower the cost of your health care. 26% increases. if you're living on the western slope of colorado, you saw an increase go from $300 a month, a premium of $300 a month to over $1,800 a month, a $22,000 a year increase. this is incredible. in 2014, one study found that nearly 150,000 coloradans saw their health insurance become 77% more expensive. where is the promise of obamacare? where are the people who supported the affordable care act at today defending this law, defending the promise or explaining how these promises weren't broken? they're not here because they can't because they know the promise was broken. they know that 750,000 people had their promises broken. in colorado alone.

26% increases, 77% increases. and as we approach the new rates for 2017, it appears that there will be no limit, no limb to the additional costs that coloradans will have to bear as a result of this poorly conceived partisan law. the president and c.e.o. of america's health insurance plans agent who served as a key obama administration health official as an administrator of c.m.s., a person who testified multiple, multiple times before the committees of the house and senate has warned, she herself has made warnings that the affordable care act premium increases are coming. she has predicted that the increases for open enrollment in 2017 are going to be higher than ever before. and this is coming from a former administration official who helped run obamacare, who was in the room during the discussions and the crafting of policies on obamacare. in colorado, insurers submitted their initial premium bids last

friday, may 13. we'll soon know those rates that have been approved by the colorado department of insurance in late september or early october, but it looks like coloradans are in for yet another rude awakening. so here they are, people in colorado had their health insurance plans canceled. more losing their policies this year in july. trying to figure out how to make ends meet. and if you are in a situation about like i spoke of before, the example i used before, this person is going to have to figure out over the next year how they are going to basically create a $22,000 a year payment that they didn't face before. i was speaking to one executive with an insurance company who said that they believe the rates that they will be submitting for increased this year to their department of insurance commissioner will be between 60% and 70%. that's a 60% and 70% insurance rate increase under obamacare this year for the 2017 psych.

-- cycle. premiums are expected to rise and many parts of the country are going to experience double-digit rate hikes. plans are getting canceled, plans are getting more expensive, but yet the obamacare mandates continue. i believe what we need in this country is greater competition, greater choice. that's what president obama promised in the marketplace, but data shows that because of unbearable bureaucratic hurdles, competition is actually -- has actually decreased. on sunday, "the wall street journal" published an article titled insurance options dwindle in some rural regions. i live in a very rural part of colorado, on the eastern plains as opposed to the western slope that we spoke of before, a town of about 3,000 people. the nearest big town is 60 miles away and that town has 9,000 people. this article in "the wall street journal" explains how rural areas have experienced the greatest decline in competition and how many rural counties will have only one insurer's plan to choose from. i think most people understand that rural areas aren't exactly the wealthiest areas in the

nation. there are pockets of wealth, absolutely, as there are in most places, but by and large, our rural communities represent some of the poorest and least economic driven counties in the country. a kaiser family foundation study found that over 650 counties across this country will have only one insurer on the exchanges to choose from during the open enrollment in 2017. this is a number that's up 225%. excuse me. this is a number which is up 225 points from 2016. let me say that again. 650 counties across this country are only going to have one choice when it comes to open enrollment, one choice of a plan to choose from under obamacare. this is the plan for competition that the affordable care act was supposed to address. but instead of adding more inhalf-hourers to the marketplace, it's actually resulted in fewer insurers in the marketplace. we'll see 225 additional

counties down to one choice in 2017. these 650 counties are 70% rural. these rural areas are fearful the dwindling competition will create a monopoly and costs will continue to rise. the president also insisted the competition would increase through consumer-run co-ops. over 80,000 coloradans felt the impacts of this broken promise which he colorado health op was found to be insolvent by the commissioner and expeditiously lick liquidated. today 12 of the 23 co-ops created by obamacare have been shut down. that's an additional 80,000 people in colorado who had their insurance policies canceled because obamacare created a system that allowed insurance co-ops and companies to bank on a bailout. they were able to bank on a bailout and use that to create some aura of economic feasibility on their balance sheets, and when the government

couldn't provide any bailouts because government shouldn't be in the business of bailouts, the obamacare promises were shown for what they truly were. poor policy. collectively, the failed co-ops were loaned over $1 billion in taxpayer money to help get them off the ground. now with these failures, the taxpayers will never get their money paid back and tens of thousands of people lost their insurance. today this congress has shown a path forward. with each passing disaster of obamacare, it continues to become more clear how much of a failure this law is. and americans continue to demand real health care reform that will increase competition, reduce costs and expand access to life-saving care that improves the quality of their lives. and most importantly, that will provide predictability and sustainability in the marketplace. this crisis demands real leadership, and i continue to remain committed to working with my colleagues on free market

solutions that will bring about real change that will actually uphold the promises that were made. in colorado, i've heard from countless individuals who have been displaced from their plans, and it's time for congress to stand up as well. mr. president, in the article that i referred to about the broken health care system on colorado's western slope, "the denver post" article begins with a statement from terry newland, glenwood springs, colorado. the headline, colorado mountain residents struggle to pay for health insurance. the story starts with the new era of affordable health care bypassed terry newland. millions of americans have seen the affordable care act's era of affordable health care bypass them, and this body's responsibility for that law can only be made up by repealing the law and putting in its place the bill that actually increases the quality of care and decreases the cost of care.

mr. president, i yield my time. mr. gardner: mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, since december, 2014, back when the united states and cuba ended 50 years of diplomatic isolation that did nothing good for the people of cuba or the united states, since we ended that, there has been an explosion of engagement between our two countries. the number of u.s. citizens traveling to cuba has skyrocketed. talks between both governments have resulted in agreements to resume direct airline and ocean ferry and mail service to expand in cooperation a wide range of bilateral and regional issues.

those are encouraging steps. this is a long road ahead. for 50-some years, no matter what the -- whatever problems there were in cuba, the cuban government could blame it on the united states because of our embargo and our resistance to recognize them. well, some members of congress have expressed disappointment. they have criticized president obama's opening to cuba because the restoration of diplomatic relations has not quickly brought about dramatic changes in cuba's repressive political system. we did not turn around 54 years in 54 days. these members of congress are either naive or they simply prefer to ignore the positive changes that are occurring. choose to ignore or dismiss the views of the overwhelming

majority of cubans and americans who support the restoration of relations, and they continue defending a discredited policy of ice laition that for 50-some odd years failed to achieve any of its objectives. as president obama said, if you try something for 50 years and it doesn't work, then it's time to try something else. in the past 15 months, although the naysayers won't publicly admit it, the cuban people have a sense of hope about the future that has not existed since the 1959 revolution. i know. i've seen it on my trips there. it's also important to recognize that the majority of cubans alive today were born after the revolution. and just as cuba's population has changed, so has the world changed. overwhelmingly cuba's younger

generation has experienced enough of a paternalistic communist dictator and economic stagnation to know that's not what they want. it is no surprise that their reaction to president obama's extraordinary speech in havana was warmly, enthusiastically greeted by them, by several top cuban officials sensing the inspiring impact of the president's words felt compelled to criticize our president. i was there for that speech. i saw the reaction of the cuban people. it was very positive. the raising of the american flag in havana last august symbolizes the beginning of a new era. but change was happening in cuba well before then. it is going to continue at its own pace. ultimately the cuban people, not the united states, will determine that pace of what a

postcastro cuba will look like. marcel stood at our embassy as that flag went up. we heard the cheers from the cuban people standing outside the gates of our embassy. so we can contribute to the process of change in positive ways. one way is through student exchanges. last month vermont students from burlington, shelton and bristol traveled to cuba to participate in little league baseball pwaeupls -- baseball games and cultural exchange. marcelle and i went to see them off and i cannot begin to explain the thrill in their faces, the excitement there. we gave them an american flag to bring with them.

vermonters didn't speech much spanish. the cubans spoke almost no p english. it didn't really matter. they had translators and the game of baseball is a language across cultures. here is a picture with the american flag we gave them, the cuban had their flag and a vermont flag. this was taken in cuba. i love to take photographs. i wish i had been there to take that one. but we know a picture's worth a thousand words. they show just how a few days of competing on baseball diamond can help to bridge a half-century divide between two countries and cultures. anybody that has children who play baseball or little league ball or now grandchildren recognize these smiles. we know -- we know what it means. they don't speak the same language. they speak one language, and

that's baseball. the vermonters voiced high praise for the cuban players who won all the games except the all-star game at the end when they shared players and we evenly matched. but winning isn't everything, and as the vermont players recounted after returning home, it was not only a fun week of baseball but one of the most rewarding parts of the trip was the time spent after the game, getting to know the cuban players, getting to know their families, learning about life in cuba. this is actually the second baseball exchange involving vermont and cuban little leaguers, the first being in 2008 when a group from vermont and new hampshire played a series of games on the outskirts of havana. but then one of the players said the team went to cuba just to have fun. we're not here to win. there are maybe other teams who want to do this, maybe get a cuban team to the united states who want to play.

lisa briganty in my office took this photograph. i think it says it all. you can't see the face. you know one is cuban and one's american. these are kids playing in the little league game. look what it means. children don't care about the politics. they don't even care about the differences in language. they just care about the things that unite them. i remember speaking with president obama shortly after he became president, saying we had to change what's happening in cuba. he knew there were those who said hold tight, those two leaders, the two castros would be gone any day. i pointed out that same memo was sent to president eisenhower and

president kennedy and president johnson and president nixon. and he said i get your point. nothing has changed during those more than half a century when we refused to acknowledge their existence. now i think change will come. our governments remain far apart on key issues. the minority of members of congress continue to stubbornly obstruct efforts to end the embargo. but as every poll has shown in this country, the american people, especially young vermont athletes, are showing us the way forward by breaking down barriers of their own. i am so proud of these young people from vermont, and i think of what this shows. they know. they know what the future is. the rest of us must step forward and see the future with them.

mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, what is the pending business? mr. president, i would note that we're in a quorum call and ask that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, what is the pending business? the presiding officer: the

senate is in morning business with time reserved for the democrats. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without

objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 2577 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 138, h.r. 2577, an act making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016 and for other purposes. 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's important to know that more than 70 senators had input into the transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies funding bill. i'm sure that if you added the number of senators who weighed in on the military construction

v.a. bill, that the number is even higher. and 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, and 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, to compromise, to negotiate, and to get them adopted and to -- into three separate packages. we're continuing that process. more and more amendments have been filed and we're continuing to see how we can best accommodate the concerns that have been raised by our colleagues while keeping the essential principals of this bill and the desire to make sure we keep on track with the appropriations process. i believe that it is a great credit to the senate and to the leaders and to senator mitch mcconnell who has made as a goal that we would report all of the appropriations committees, bring them to the floor one by one for full and open debate,

the way that it should be and that we get our work done so that we avoid the situation of either having a series of continuing resolutions which lock in last year's priorities and lead to wasteful spending, not a good solution, and end up costing us more because agencies can't plan, they can't do their contracting activities, 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's not in keeping with our

responsibilities, and i'm proud that the appropriations committee and this chamber is doing its job and that the republican leaders set as a 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. but i would note that that would not be possible without the cooperation that we've had from our democratic colleagues on the appropriations bills. the democratic colleagues on the committee. we have worked as teams, and that's the way the process should work, and i could not have a better bart near 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 that this virus causes very severe birth defects in some cases and has been linked to guillain-barre disease which can lead to paralysis and even death. so this is a serious public health threat. senator johnny isakson and i a couple of weeks ago went to the centers for disease control and prevention in atlanta, georgia, and 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 that

is in the size of a container of a bottle cap, and we know that it's already -- zika has already become an epidemic in puerto rico and that there are confirmed cases in nearly every state in the union, and 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 that it can be transmitted through sexual contact. so that is why we are seeing zika showing up in virtually every state. we need to get ahead of this

epidemic, and that's why we had three different approaches offered yesterday on the senate floor and cloture was successfully invoked on a bipartisan proposal offered by senators blunt and murray that provides more than a billion dollars to counter effectively the threat of zika. the last thing we want is not to have acted against the serious public health threat and find that pregnant women who are especially at risk are going to have -- be infected and in some cases have children who will have a lifetime of serious disabilities as the result of the impact of zika. we're learning more and more

about the dangers of the zika virus every day, and i have great confidence in the c.d.c. which is the major interface with our local and state public health agencies to do an excellent job on prevention, education of providers and the public. they are also working on diagnostic tests so that we can have a more rapid response to zika, and 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, and i believe that 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 a vote cloture by 68 votes. i would note also that there is a 1:00 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 that the department of housing and urban development has issued to implement the provisions of the

landmark 1968 fair housing act. in addition, senator reed and senator cochran and i have offered an alternative amendme amendment, and at some point we will have votes related both to the collins-reed-cochran and the lee amendments. that's 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. so that will be an important debate on this bill. in the meantime, we're continuing to work with our colleagues on other amendmentses a the presiding officer is well

aware, and i believe that we are continuing to make progress. so i want to thank my colleagues for coming to the floor, for working with us, and that is the update that i wanted to give my colleagues at this point. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i would like to honor all arkansas law enforcement officers as this week's kansans of the week. this marks the 54th national police week and on sunday we marked national peace officers memorial day, a day set aside by president kennedy in 1962, to honor those law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty. arkansas has over 7,000 law enforcement officers who protect our state every day. these men and women willingly put themselves in harm's way to ensure the safety of our residents and maintain order in

our state. national police week is also a time to remember and honor the nearly 300 arkansans who have lost their lives in the line of duty as law enforcement officers. their service and sacrifice is not forgotten. arkansas is safer because of their service. there are many different types of law enforcement officers, but each plays an important and distinct role in our safety. there are officers like chris bunch who protects arkansas students as a school resource officer. and officers like jeff prescott who is retiring after 20 years of service. and corporal christie bennet who serves as the public information officer. christie recently received the silent wilbur award. these are just a few of the long list of arkansas law enforcement

officers who serve our state, but there are many more where those names came from. i know i join all arkansans in extending our appreciation to all arkansas law enforcement officers, not only this week but every week. i yield the floor. mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, we're all too familiar with the famous promises president obama made to sell the american people on his obama proposal, and i said, yes, "sell." we now know from the white house revelations made by former members who worked for the president, we know that they -- the white house has been

actively engaged in selling their programs and selling their proposals to the american people through some admittedly sophisticated ways in using social media to achieve a goal. just recently, white house national security advisor ben rhodes did an interview and discussed openly how the white house manipulated the media and the american people to sell the administration's iranian nuclear agreement. so with all the authority given to an american president, president obama made this statement to sell obamacare to the american people -- and i quote -- "no matter how we reform health care," the president said, "we will keep this promise to the american people. if you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor, period. if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period."

why did the president add "period" to that statement? the statements are clear. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. when you add "period," it basically says, take my word for it, count on it, it's a done deecialtion i'm tell -- it's a done deal. i'm telling you, the american people, i'm making you a promise -- period, you can take this one to the bank. well, i'm not often a reader of "the new york times," but a recent headline in the paper caught my attention. "sorry, we don't take obamacare." the article discusses the growing number of doctors and hospitals who are no longer accepting paishtds who are covered -- patients who are covered by obamacare insurance plans. so, so much for, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period." so much for that promise.

and it's not just medical professionals who are saying "no" to obamacare. the nation's largest health insurer, united health group, recently announced that it will stop selling individual obamacare plans in indiana next year because such plans simply are not profitable. pretty hard to run a business if you're not making a profit. if you're losing money, you can't pay the employees, you can't produce your product, and united healthcare has savingly said, we've lost so much money under this obamacare mandate that we no longer are going to sto-- -- stop selling individual plans. "united health said it would drop out of all but a handful of state exchanges where it sells individual obamacare plans." it said, "the exchange market was smaller and riskier than had been expected." i think i heard a lot of members

on the floor here on the republican side basically saying, what has been written and endorsed and imposed on the american people is something that simply doesn't make economic sense, and there are going to be insurance companies that are sumly not going to be -- simply not going to be able to not only survive on this basis but not make think profit whatsoever. and obviously with the case of united healthcare, they're dropping this because they simply cannot expose themselves to this kind of risk. it is said that -- it said that they will lose $650 million on the plans this year alone, and united healthcare sold coverage in 34 states on the obama exchanges -- obamacare exchanges. and united healthcare's situation is not unique. according to the indiana business journal, roughly half of the sell insurers selling money on obamacare in indiana

are losing money on the business -- have lost money on the business last year. so much for the president's promise, if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. -- period. so much for the president's promise. decreased access to providers is just one of many problems with obamacare. another major problem is the rising cost of coverage for those who are on this plan. oh, yes, there were other promises made by the president here also. you may recall that the president promised that the annual health care costs would be cut by $2,500 per family, if obamacare was enacted. as recently as 2012, we were told by the president that the health insurance premiums paid by small businesses and individuals will go down because of obamacare. another promise to the american people. don't worry, folks ... your

costs are going to go down, not up. and despite that promise that obamacare will cut costs and make coverage more affordable for families and small businesses -- that's quote from the president of the united states -- many americans are experiencing higher premiums or paying outrageous deductibles when they purchase coverage through the obamacare exchanges. i've been on this floor documenting literally hundreds, if not thus, of inputs into my office through e-mails, phone kawcialtion and so forth saying -- phone calls, and so forth saying, wait a minute ... i just got a notice from my insurance company that my deductible is skyrocketing from $1,000 to $5,000 or to $7,500 or $9,000. so i can't afford this kind of stuff. i thought this was -- you know, i thought we were promised that this wouldn't happen? and it's not just the deductibles. it's the co-pays. people said, wait ... all of a sudden i walk in and the

doctor's office says, ways wait a second. you got to put down the cash co-pay here, and my co-pays have just gone through the roof. premium increases have dramatically increased. the average premium for benchmark silver plans in the obamacare exchange rising by 7.5% this year. in indiana, premiums for policies on the obamacare marketplace have gone up by an average of 14.4% per year since obamacare was implemented, a total increase -- get this: we have had a total increase of premiums under obamacare in indiana totaling 71.5% increase. tell the american people, you got my word, period. this isn't going to happen, and it happens. and what do we hear?

this rhetoric we hear coming out of the white house. this is the most wonderful thing that's ever happened. in the campaign -- i mean, those running for office who -- from the president's party are simply saying, you know, you got to elect us to preserve this wonderful obamacare health plan. don't ask -- is it any wonder the american people are turning out in record numbers to vote against this kind of thing? so these are just a few of the many broken promises and the many problems with the obamacare law. there are many other things i could get into, such as the failure of many state-run exchanges. some states only have one exchanges or no exchanges left. the rollout of the plan, which cost american taxpayers hundreds of millions of hard-earned tax dollars, because this rollout was so botched -- nobody could get into the computers or get

even on the phone. the thing was rushed to judgment, to me, the deadline, and they weren't prepared. hundreds of millions of dollars just to get the thing on-board so that people could begin to ask questions as to what they were mandated that they had to do. so from increasing premiums and increased health care costs, failures to keep your doctor to reduced access to doctors and hospitals, obamacare -- bottom line, obamacare is not working for the american people. rather than making health care more affordable and accessible, obamacare has actually driven up health care costs and decreased choice of doctors for too many americans and too many american businesses. it is a long time -- past time for repeal of the president's disastrous health care law. we need to replace it with more effective and clearly patient-centered solutions. despite numerous attempts by republicans to repeal this fatally flawed legislation, all

efforts have been rejected by the president and the white house. but we're approaching the time when the american people can express their response to these broken promises this administration has made in relation to obamacare. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the president pro tempore. mr. hatch: mr. president, i rise today to speak once again about the rising cost of neck the united states. -- the rising cost of health care in the united states. it's been a while since i've come to comment on the state of our health care system. sadly, over that time period, we've seen little if anything in the way of good news. indeed, while the u.s. has some of the best health care in the world, the recent headlines point to serious problems with how that system is work being. -- working. a little over six years ago, the democrats on both sides of the capitol and on both ends of pennsylvania forced the affordable care act on the american people without any republican votes or any serious

attempts to get bipartisan consensus. the result was an attempted overhaul of roughly one-sixth of the american economy crafted with the input and support of only one political party. as i've said before, given its size and scope, the passage and signing of obamacare was probably the largest exercise of pure partisanship in our nation's history. and quite frankly, our country hasn't been the same since. at the time the law was passed, republicans made a number of predictions about the negative impact this law would have for people buying health insurance and for our economy overall. and six years later, many of those predictions have already come to pass, with many more on the way. still, looking back on it all, i think we may have undersold our case at the time. i don't think any of us could have predicted just how detrimental the law would be, not only for health care in the united states but on our

nation's public discourse and our government institutions. as a result of obamacare, the divide between republicans and democrats has gotten deeper, voter have become more cynical and distrustful of our government and our leaders, and the government itself has expanded its powers well beyond the authority granted in the statute. at the time the law was passed, many of us issued warnings of what was to come, but much of that seemed to have been drowned out by the sounds of celebration emanating from the capitol and the white house. to quote some of my friends on the other side, "passage of this law was a -- quote -- "big bleeping deal," unquote, because once the law was passed, the american people would finally get a chance to see what was in it. and in the midst of that self-adulation, many promises were made about what the law would do for individuals and families throughout the united states of america chief among

those many promises was the claim that, as a result of this law, the cost of health care for the average american family would go down. that's what the american people were told in 2010. now in 2016, the law has been implemented and, i in fact for e years. despite those promises, average health insurance premiums have gone up every single year, and insurers begin to make decisions about rates and availability for the 2017 plan year, we are looking at significantly higher premiums. double-digit increases in some places for the fourth straight year. reports about these premium increases seem to be coming in on a daily basis. for example, in virginia, we know that among the five largest carriers in the state, premiums could go up anywhere from 9% to 37%. with a likely average of around

18%. in iowa, tens of thousands of people who buy their insurance from one major carrier will likely see increases in the neighborhood of 40%. in or gone the state's largest insurer in the individual market has requested a premium increase of nearly 30%. that number 30% is similar to the rate hikes requested by some of the largest insurers in maryland as well. i can go on and on here, mr. president. i'm not just cherry-picking states. this is a trend and unfortunately it's having a real world impact. people are concerned and they have every right to be. according to the -- to a gallop poll a few weeks back, health care costs are the number one financial concern for families in the u.s. people are more concerned about health costs than they are about low wages, housing, education, or even debt.

i can imagine as premiums go up and the number of families concerned about health care costs will continue to go up as well. in addition to higher premiums for 2017, we're also hearing many insurers will be opting to drop out of the exchange markets. for example, one of the country's largest insurers has so far decided to pull out of more than two dozen state exchanges due to mounting losses. this is the same company that currently offers plans in 34 different states but has said it will only continue to do so in a small number of states going forward. in utah we recently saw the closing of an obamacare coop that covered roughly 45,000 people, all of whom had to find health insurance at the beginning of this year. indeed, 12 of the 23co-ops around the country have already closed further reducing the

number of health insurance options available to people throughout the country. now, the obama administration is trying to downplay these reports and convinced people that a smaller number of insurers in various markets won't be a problem. but, mr. president, the impact should be obvious. when an insurer let alone many insurers drops out of a market, the patients and consumers in that market are left with fewer choices. and in any market for any product, when consumers have reduced options, it generally leads to both lower quality and higher prices. that's definitely true in the health insurance market. the question many of asking is why is this happening? why are so many insurers raising premiums or choosing not to participate in the obamacare exchanges? the answer is relatively simple. obamacare is not working and can't work the way it was

designed. i think it would be helpful at this point to briefly review its timeline. from the time the law was first drafted, the affordable care act included a number of insurance coverage mandates designed to dictate what insurance companies had to offer and what coverage patients would have to buy. of course, imposing those kinds of requirements was bound to increase the cost of insurance across the board. however, as you'll recall, mr. president, during the congressional debate over the law, the president and supporters repeatedly claimed because the law was going to require everyone to have health insurance, more young and healthy patients would be coerced into the insurance risk pools. and according to their arguments, this shift in the market would more than compensate for the costs associated with the new insurance coverage mandates. in short they claimed that they

could extend coverage requirements and keep premiums from going up. now, fast forward to 2013 which is when the exchanges went online. at that time insurers entered the exchanges and set premium rates presumably assuming that the law would work as promised. as it turns out, that assumption was in many cases ill informed and insurance companies across the board found that they had priced their premiums too low. the expansion of younger healthier, less risky market participants never came, and as a result the industry suffered huge losses. according to a report released last month by the me rca da center, in 2014 alone, insurers nationwide suffered more than $2 billion in losses for plans sold on the exchanges. this happened despite subsidies they received from the

government to mitigate the risks of covering a mostly unknown population. and as we fast forward once again to the present day, we see that this situation has not corrected itself over the first three plan years under obamacare. in fact, it's only gotten worse. premiums are going up, enrollment is lagging far behind the initial rosy estimates, and millions of the younger, healthier population of insured people the system needs to properly function either opting to pay the fines for going without insurance, going undetected because they don't file tax returns, or staying on their parents' insurance for as long as legally possible. a recent blue cross blue shield report compared three separate groups among the carrier's membership. these groups were, number one,

individual members newly enrolled in the obamacare exchanges. number two, members who had individual plans prior to the passage of obamacare. and three, members currently enrolled in blue cross employer plans. according to the study, the people newly enrolled in insurance under obamacare are significantly less healthy and require significantly more services than the other two groups. and the cost of care among that group is not surprisingly significantly more expensive. that's remarkable, mr. president. if we assume what's happening in this study is in any way reflective of what's happening nationwide, not only did the affordable care act fail to create more favorable risk pools for insurers and patients sharing the costs, the risk pools are overall more risky now than they were before.

well, a number of complicated factors have likely contributed to this outcome, the major reason we're seeing this result is relatively simple. obamacare did little if anything to address health care costs. as a result, young and healthy people who are less in need of health insurance are making the calculation that it would be less costly for them to go uninsured and pay a fine than purchase insurance through an exchange. indeed, in countless polls and surveys of still uninsured americans, we've seen that the biggest reason people refuse to buy health insurance is that it costs too much. under this status quo, insurers can only stay afloat in one of two ways: they can raise premiums which makes their coverage even more costly, driving more young and healthy people out of the market further depleting the risk pools, or they can exit

unprofitable markets. cunchtsly we're seeing -- currently we're seeing insurers do both, the entire system created by the affordable care act are becoming more unstable all the time. let's be clear. there is no solution to this problem that keeps the current system in place. there is no way to reset or rearrange the incentives under the current system. there's no minor tinkering that can fix these problems, and it's not simply going to correct itself over time. the system is, quite frankly, damaged beyond repair. the only thing we can do to give options to patients and bring down costs is create a different system. some of us have put forward plans to do just that. i have a plan that i put forward with senator burr and chairman upton over in the house. it's caused the patient care act -- it's called the patient care act which i've mentioned a number of times here on the

floor. however, ours isn't the only solution out there. there are a number of ideas of the we just need to get serious about addressing these issues. but that won't happen. that will not happen so long as people refuse to acknowledge that there's even a problem. the supporters and authors of the affordable care act have gotten pretty good over the years at mining the available data for favorable citations and moving the goal post for what qualifies as -- quote -- "success" of this law in order to fool the american people. fortunately the people are not buying it. since the day the law passed 95% of national polls show that more people oppose obamacare than support it. i don't see that changing as long as premiums keep going up and people are left with fewer and fewer options. however, as always, i'm an optimist. i believe we can make some progress here. i currently chair the senate committee with jurisdiction over

many of the most consequential elements of obamacare. over the next few months i plan to do something that the authors of obamacare never did. listen. i'm going to take the time to engage with stakeholders from across the spectrum to get a clear sense of what needs to be done to bring down health care costs for american families and get skyrocketing premiums, deductibles and out-of-pocket limits under control. i plan to hear from expert, industry leaders and advocacy groups to get their ideas in order to arrive at a workable solution. then i'm going to slis tat the help of anyone -- solicit the help of anyone in congress from either side of the aisle who is willing to put in the necessary work to right this ship and craft meaningful legislation to address these problems. like i said, the cost ever health care -- the cost of health care is the number one financial concern for american

families. it is an issue that deserves the attention of everyone in this chamber. finding a solution will require not only that we acknowledge the failings of the system created by the affordable care act, but that we also work together to address these failings in a productive, less political way, in a bipartisan way, if you will. now, that is my focus when it comes to health care, mr. president. i hope all of my colleagues will be willing to work with me in this effort. with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. a senator: mr. president, i would ask that the call of the roll be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that jewel will tyranny and jane bigham, detailees with

the health and pensions committee and carr shaeffer, a military fellow in senator murray's personal office be granted floor privileges for the duration of the 114th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. a senator: mr. president, are we stale in quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call. mr. kaine: thank you, mr. president, i rise to speak on an amendment that is going to be offered, lee amendment 3897 that deals with the federal fair housing act. i want to describe why i and many of my colleagues are opposed to the amendment. the amendment would eliminate the current affirmative furthering fair housing enforcement regulations promulgated by the department of housing and urban development. i want to go into that. mr. president, i'll start with a personal story. before i was in partisan elected

politics i was a civil rights in richmond for 17 years. and about two-thirds of my legal practice was fair housing cases. and i'll just tell you the story about my first client and two lessons i learned from my first client that bear upon this amendment. i had barely hung my diploma on the wall in my office where i was the junior person among 12 lawyers when a client was referred to our firm and they did what is often the case, they send it to the newest person, somebody who needed some help, probono assistance. and this young woman's name was lorraine. lorraine was almost exactly my age. i think i was 25 at the time. she was same age. i had just moved to a new city and just gone out to find my apartment in the new city and started my first real job after school was done. and she was kind of in the same place, just out of college, just starting a new job, just looking for an apartment. lorraine had been at work one

day and had read in the newspaper an ad for an apartment in a neighborhood she liked. so she called the landlord and said hey, i really am interested in your apartment. is it still available? yes, it's available. can i come over on my lunch hour to take a look? sure, come on over. well, about an hour later she went over to the apartment and when she met the owner, the owner looked at her and said, oh, you know, i'm sorry this place has just been rented. this was in the fall of 1984. lorraine drove back to her office and had this sinking suspicion that maybe when the person saw that i was african-american, that's why suddenly the available apartment turned into one that wasn't available. when she got back to the office, she asked a caucasian colleague to make a call to the same owner and ask about the apartment and within 20 minutes the colleague had made the call and asked, hey, i'm call bg this apartment. is it still available and the owner who just turned lorraine away said sure, it's still available. when do you want to come over and see it. that was the first lawsuit i drafted.

i know i'm speaking to a president who is an attorney and has done just the same thing. the miles an hour client that was truly mine -- the first client that was truly mine, a federal fair housing action for her, with the testimony of the coworker, it was a slam-dunk case. we settled it shortly after we filed it. so in that sense, it wasn't -- i don't have a big momentous trial story to tell, but it nevertheless made a huge impression on me as a brand-new attorney for two reasons. first, in hearing my client tell me the story, i understood more deeply than i ever had how important your home is, how important housing is. you know, i think most of us feel like what's important in life is relationships, not things, not physical objects. but where you luff is more -- but where you live is more, like, part of your person than a physical thing. and as she described this experience, obviously that was what made it so painful. but the thing that really stuck

with me was this: she and i were so similar in many ways, about the same age, coming out to find a house and having a new job. but my experience, i found an apartment, no problem, for my wife and me, was a positive one. but lorraine's experience of being turned a way and then having the sinking suspicion of being turned away because of my color was a real stinging pain. the pain was not just the pain of something in the past tense. the pain was also the anticipation of what about the next time i look for a house? what about the next time? am i going to be faced with this same differential treatment because of the color of my skin? that first case i had, mr. president, suddenly made me the expert in virginia on fair housing law, doing one case that was settled in a matter of weeks. so for the next 17 years this was heart of my legal practice,

representing people who had been turned away from housing because of their race or disability, apartments, houses, mortgages, homeowners insurance policies, and i learned an awful lot when did i it. one of the things i learned is what a superb piece of legislation the fair housing act is. you had the 1964 act which was public accommodations, employment discrimination. you had the voting rights act of 1965. in 1968 the federal housing act was really the last of those big pieces of federal legislation. and i'm proud to say that even over the course of my legal career from 1984 until i stopped practicing in early 2002, in virginia and elsewhere, there was some significant improvement. the federal fair housing really did open the doors, where people could live where their resources could allow them to live there.

yet when you look at the statistics of residential segregation in all 50 states, you would see that we still have more work to do. there are still barriers that people face, and some of them are just absolute and clear and sharp barriers and mor some aree subtle. h.u.d. was directed by g.a.o. in 2010 to do a study because they had been encouraged as part of the federal fair housing act of 1968 to encourage affirmatively advance the fair housing mission through agencies that are funded by h.u.d. the case that i described with lorraine was a private landlord and that's not necessarily relevant to this topic, except to underline how important the law is and how critical housing is. but in circumstances where h.u.d. is giving funding to organizations -- i was a mayor. my sympathy a housing authority -- my city had a housing authority. husbanh.u.d. funding went into e

housing authority. i was a goafn. -- i was a governor. governors got cdbg funds. whether it is to a city or a county or a state or a cdbg program that gets allocated out to nonprofits, h.u.d. was directed to make sure they were affirmatively advancing the commands of the fair housing act of 168. -- of 1968. h.u.d. was doing this in fits and starts and in a little bit of a kind of ex-temperature rain yaws way and in 2010 the g.a.o. said you have an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing, but can you really look at guidance that you can give to your grantees. now, this was really important that federal grantees get this guidance and affirmatively further fair housing because it wasn't just the private landlords that had done bad

things. in fact, there had been a lot of policies of state, local, and even the federal government that had cut against fair housing. there were zoning laws that cut against fair housing. there were federal appraisal standards to get f.h.a. loans that cut against fair housing. and there were other federal policies that actually cut directly against the goal of allowing people to live where they wanted to live. and so that's the reason why these grantees, who are receiving federal money, who are in a unique position to do something about it and p often are inheriting a history where in the past they did the wrong things, that's why they need to be encouraged and given clear guidance about how to affirmatively further fair housing. and so to follow the g.a.o. directive, h.u.d., under this administration -- and i give secretary castro huge credit for kind of getting this to the goal line -- did the work to come up with clear guidance so that

those organizations that receive h.u.d. funding know what it means to affirmative encourage fair housing and it is not just a vague platitude that you pay lip service to and you don't actually do t the rule is pretty straightforward. it discharge mandate challenges to loa -- to local zoning laws. it allows communities to determine what the best strategies are to comply with the fair housing act. it provides local communities with data and tools that are needed to make fair housing decisions, including allowing local communities to add any relevant local or regional data, so that people can understand the effects of their actions. it does include protected classes in the statute in the larger community planning process. it prevents the use of federal resources to discriminate against protected classes of individuals. it simplifies compliance with the fair housing act. and this is important because a lot of small communities don't

have a phalanx of lawyers and so simplified compliance guidelines are helpful. it does not require grantees to collect new data, data they are not already collecting. and it encourages engagement with the local community, including the real estate industry, residents, and other organizations, developers. i think this guidance, somebody wasiq sitting on -- somebody who was sitting on the other end of this, i think this kind of guidance is actually very, very helpful. and so i was heartened when the g.a.o. directed h.u.d. to do this work. h.u.d. did a significant period of study and put out guidance under secretary castro's leadership, and i think it's actually something that is helpful, not harmful, to those who are receiving h.u.d. funds and should be using h.u.d. funds to advance important goals, including the fair housing goals. and so i think the lee 3897 is

-- i know because i know the senator who is proposing it, that it's well-intentioned and the intention my might be not to put too many burdens and obligations on the shoulders of local planning officials or cities or counties, but as somebody who's been a mayor and been in that spot, guidance is helpful. and i actually think this guidance gives clarity in an area where before the guidance there was some confusion, and i think the guidance strikes the right balance. that's why i don't know when exactly this is going to be called for a vote. i gather soon. but i just wanted to take the floor and hearken back to the days before i ever knew i'd be in politics and i was representing people who desperately needed to just be treated equally to everybody else when this came to their housing. this h.u.d. regulation really furthers that goal in a positive way, and i think we should not eliminate it by accepting lee 3897. for that reason, i will encourage my colleagues to

oppose the amendment. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. 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 the very important perspective of having been a mayor, who as a recipient of -- who is a recipient of federal funds and looked to h.u.d. for guidance on thousand make sure that -- on how to make sure that when community black grant moneys, for example, are given to local communities, that the communities use them in ways

that carry out the goals of the 168 -- 1968 fair housing act. and it's very valuable that he has both the technical understanding of an attorney who has practiced in this very field for many years but also as a municipal official who has to live with the federal rules. and the fact is, as he indicated, the fair housing act regulation that came out in the last year is intended to give clarity to local officials who are the recipients of federal funds. and i'm very much opposed to the amendment that will be offered by senator lee that would

prohibit any funding for carrying out h.u.d.'s affirmatively furthering fair housing rule. it's important to recognize that this rule didn't just come out of the blue. it's based on a specific requirement included in the fair housing act of 1968, which mandates that h.u.d. 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. and, in fact, congress has repeatedly reinforced this concept in the housing and community development act of

1974, the cranston-gonzales national affordable housing arctic the quality housing and work responsibility act of 1998. all of those laws require h.u.d. program recipients to affirmatively further fair housing. it's probably a phrase that most of us are not that aware of and that does not come trippingly off one's tongue. but it is anintegral -- but it is an integral part of 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% of all reported complaints of housing discrimination are initiated by individuals with disabilities, and that's one reason that the paralyzed veterans of america have 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 that h.u.d.'s 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. h.u.d.'s rule will help governments identify strategies and solutions to expand accessible and supportive housing choices for our veterans and our seniors with disabilities." so it's -- and i would ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that the letter from the paralyzed veterans of america be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: so i think it's important as we debate this issue today that we recognize

what is at stake. this organization, the paralyzed veterans of america, was founded by a band of service members who came home from world war ii with spinal cord injuries, and i think we should listen to their experience. there are many, many other groups that have come out in opposition to senator lee's amendment. they include the urban league. while those are big cities that receive a lot of federal funds, but they are opposed to senator lee's amendment. the naacp is suppose suppose --s opposed to the amendment. disability groups have come out in opposition to the