this is the best example of what can be done if we make investments and the investments we make is investments in human capital in the united states of america in the spirit of america. this is what we're doing. and i would hope awful you for the many stories i read that have such horrible endings, this is one that has a happy ending and can help many, many people. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. i thank the senator from west virginia. he has been a tiring on this issue. -- he has been a tiger on this issue. i hope we'll answer his call. the epidemic is no better in connecticut where most of our cities are on track to see a doubling of overdose deaths this year from last year and last year was quadruple the number it was just three or four years ago. so thank you very much to my colleague from west virginia. mr. president, i'm on the floor to talk about an amendment to the pending bill. it's an issue that a lot of us thought was decided by this body

decades ago, and that's the prohibition of discrimination in housing based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical or mental disability and family status. it's the fair housing act. the fair housing act was in many ways the culmination of the legislative fight for civil rights in the 1960's. it was the first effective federal law guarding against discrimination in the sale and the rental of housing in the united states and for nearly 50 years, it has been employed to assure that every american can choose where to live free from discrimination and the immoral and unconstitutional consequences of residential segregation. we've come a long way since the 1960's, but we are by no means all of the way there. today discrimination is still a reality in housing markets all across the country.

there are cases in every single state of landlords misrepresenting the availability of housing or outright refusing to sell or rent to certain protected individuals or groups of people. there are others that are given different terms and conditions based on their race, their gender, their physical disability on a mortgage or on a rental contract. i hear these stories, even in my state, a pretty progressive state of connecticut. for instance, i'll tell you the stare of crystal carter. -- story of crystal carter. she was a homeless single mother living in hartford, connecticut with her five children, one of whom is developmentally disabled. she said for to years my family had jumped between homeless shelters and staying with family and friends. i searched for affordable housing for several hours a day every day and submitted dozens of applications. then i found about an open waiting list for rental vouchers in a suburban area. i was excited of the chance to move to a safer area with better schools for my children.

but when i called the suburban housing authority who managed the program, i was told i couldn't even file an application because i didn't already live in one of the approved nearby towns. i was also told that it was some place i wouldn't want to live anyway and that i should be looking in hartford or bridgeport instead. johnny daly is another victim of housing discrimination. here's her story. in 200013, i was searching for a -- 2013 i was searching for a new home for my family, including my young niece and grandson. i found a single-family home that would have been perfect for my family. is was on a imiet street -- quiet street. the rent was less than my current apartment. my real estate agent called the listing and told them i was interested in the property and i had a section eight voucher. the listing agent responded to the owner of the property which was a boston-based out of state company, wouldn't troants me because they were not interested in accepting section eight vouchers. i was discriminated against and denied the opportunity to rent the property because i'm solely

someone who uses section eight. when i think about the discrimination i experienced, i feel upset and i feel embarrassed. so crystal and johnny's stories are just two of literally tens of thousands of stories from all across the country that underscore the need for the fair housing act. we made progress, but we aren't done. and while the fair housing act rose out of the fight for civil rights for african-americans, we also need to remember today that over half of all reported complaints in housing discrimination are initiated by people with disabilities. there are veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan with debilitating injuries that have altered their lives completely. these individuals also include a growing number of elderly americans who are living with disabilities. as a nation we know that we're stronger and better when we assure access and opportunity for all americans, including the 57 million americans who are living with disabilities today.

unfortunately, mr. president, civil rights laws are under attack today. now, it's not a position that is endorsed wholesale by the republican party but there is a coordinated effort on the right to use every tool possible to strip civil rights protections from african-americans, hispanics, the disabled and the poor. we saw this in the ultimately successful campaign to get the supreme court to invalidate portions of the voting rights act. and now on the floor of the senate we're talking about an amendment that would gut the enforcement of the fair housing act. this amendment which is offered by my friend, senator lee, what it would do is it would effectively stop the department of housing and urban development to be able to enforce the fair housing act. the la you would stay on the books but it wouldn't enforce some of the most important elements. one of these elements passed in the 1960's is an affirmative requirement that states and cities actually take steps to

remedy discrimination that exists in their community. the fair housing act, which is a better -- civil rights laws has held for decades that it isn't just enough to ban discrimination based on race or disability or gender. local jurisdictions actually have to do something to make discrimination less likely for renters and home buyers. this isn't new. this has been on the books since the 1960's. but a few years ago g.a.o. discovered in a report that most localities weren't doing n. they were ignoring that aspect of the law. so appropriately h.u.d. clarified the obligations under this section of the fair housing act so that cities and towns know exactly what they need to do so assess the scope of the discrimination in their area and to better understand their obligations under the act to fix the problems. senator lee's amendment would strip from h.u.d. the ability to enforce this part of the law. and that's a shame. we can close our eyes and box our ears and pretend that discrimination doesn't exist, but if that's what my friends

what to do, it's a grievous mistake, we aren't in a post-racial world. we don't live in a society where the disabled always get a fair shake. discrimination exists and the federal government since the beginning of this republic has taken seriously its moral and constitutional responsibility to ensure that everyone living under the protection of this government gets an equal chance at success no matter their race, their gender, their ability -- their disability. so 50 years after the passage of the civil rights act, the voting rights act and the fair housing act these fundamental civil rights that have been granted to every american still need to be continually shielded from attempts to dismantle them. any limitationses reversal on h.u.d.'s ability to enforce the fair housing act would us for -- would for us as a senate would be to ignore the moral compass that has guided our nation's civil rights over decades of progress. i'm encouraged the chair and senator reed both intend to

oppose the lee amendment and i would urge all my colleagues to do the same. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i note 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 florida. mr. nelson: i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. is there objection? without objection. mr. nelson: thank you, mr. president. i'm waiting on senator reed who will be coming here to make a motion with regard to the zika crisis that we have. while we've got a moment here, i just want to set the table. can you imagine being a pregnant woman in a southern part of the united states this summer in a poor county that does not have

the funds for mosquito control because that pregnant woman knows that if she gets bitten by the aegypti mosquito carrying the zika virus, that there's a good chance that that virus is going to infect the baby in her womb and could have the consequences all of which we have seen in these very, very disturbing photos of children born with deformed heads. as a matter of fact, the doctors in the centers for disease control tell us that the baby can be born with no abnormalities but that the abnormalities appear later in the child's development after birth. and so i said can you imagine

being a pregnant woman in the southern part of the united states in a poor county, a poor county like counties in the state of the presiding officer that don't have the funds for mosquito control. but what about a rich county that has run out of their budgeted funds for mosquito control? if you're going to control the zika virus, you've either got to have a vaccine which they're working on, you've got to have in addition to a vaccine you've got to be able to stop the mosquito from being able to reproduce. they're working on genetic alterations but both of those all take time. so in the meantime there's only one thing to do. a senator: would the senator

yield for a question? mr. nelson: i want to finish my statement. in the meantime, if you don't have a vaccine and you don't have the ability to stop the mosquito population, the particular strain that carries the virus, there's only one thing else to do and that is mosquito control. and that's what local counties and cities and states are begging us now as was indicated by the letter that i introduced from osceola county which is right next to the county of orlando, orange county. it's a relatively well off, affluent county. but they don't have any more mosquito control funds. and so that brings to the floor all the more the concern about as we go into this summer with the rains and remember, this

aegypti mosquito, it doesn't have to be a pond that is stag nantz water. it -- stagnant water. it can be a bottle cap that is filled with water that the mosquito lays her lava -- her larva and they hatch. yes, i will yield to the distinguished senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i appreciate the senator from florida yielding for a question. i would just ask the question, is the senator aware that $580 million of unspent ebola funds has been reprogrammed by the obama administration as a downpayment on dealing with this impending crisis? mr. nelson: indeed the senator is aware of that and thank goodness there was this pot of money so that the administration could start this because, look, we haven't been doing anything in the congress to produce the emergency appropriations. so thank goodness there was a pot of money that they could

borrow but did you know that there is ebola that is erupting again in western africa right now? and so don't we have a responsibility to replenish that ebola fund? so mr. president, i said i was going to talk until leader reed arrived. he is here and i will yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i've had a long, press sanity relationship with the senior senator from florida. we served in the house together. we served in the senate together. i have great admiration for him and his lovely wife, grace. i'm happy to are here on the floor with him today. the people of florida are so fortunate to have this good manage representing them. mr. president, look at this map behind me. there are two types of

mosquitoes that carry this disease. this condition this virus. and you will see this map here covers 39 states. it goes without saying, they're not subtropical states. they're not florida. they're not louisiana or southern texas. there are places like boulder, colorado. there are places like las vegas, nevada. subtropical? no, i don't think so. four inches of rain a year. up into maine. so, mr. president, this is a serious, serious issue. 39 states. as the weather warms, the mosquitoes will multiply, and people will be bitten by these vicious liena -- little insects.

mosquitoes has been causing problems in the world for centuries, but never to anyone's knowledge has this mosquito caused these birth defects that now is happening with the zika virus. the virus discovered in 1947 or 1948 i in new began did ghanda. over the decades, something has happened and these mosquitoes have become so, so dangerous. this virus is a threat to people living in these areas, and it's as real as it gets. right now the focal point is two places, but it's changing as we speak. puerto rico -- american citizens in puerto rico have been

hammered. that poor territory of ours has so many problems. all the money problems that they're having compounded by the fact that tourism is being damaged significantly as a result of this zika virus now. but it's not open the birth defects that it causes, which is so repugnant and scary, but it also has the ability, this virus, to create real serious problems with paralysis in human beings. it's happened. there are reported cases on that already. this is a ravaging problem we have. puerto rico has almost 1,000 reported cases now, including at least 128 pregnant women -- and probably more.

one citizen has died in puerto rico as a direct result of zika. 20% of puerto ricans, 3.5 million people it is estimated, they're going to be infected with this virus. 20% of 3.5 million. as of may 11, there were 200 zika cases in the mainland. senator nelson has talked about that in, as well he should, representing that state. but no state is on the front lines of this ravaging problem we have more than the state of florida. it's a nightmare, and who knows how long before the map becomes our national nightmare.

you can't -- no one is making this up. this is serious. somehow the republican-controlled congress still hasn't sent a bill to the president's desk to provide emergency funding to fight this devastating, devastating virus. if we were here tal talking aboa national emergency -- floods, fires, earthquakes, all the many things that we come here to the floor often -- and my friend from texas is on the floor. how many times have we come to this floor to help the state of texas? so many times, and we were all glad to do it. emergency supplemental bills to help the citizens of the state of texas. so there is no reason that i can understand why we don't have a piece of legislation on the floor, just like it would be if we had a flood or a fire or some

other emergency i in a state. but, no, we're going through this process that is never going to end in time to take care of the problem. under the present process we have, this emergency spending is part of an appropriations bill. everyone knows, the house can't even get a budget. they can't do their aappropriations bills. so how are we going to take these things to conference? when the house can't even come up with a budget? at the very, very -- i don't know how we can do it any sooner than sometime toward the understan--toward the end of thl year. that's september or ofnlgt by then, the cornel is beginning to be gone. but the mosquitoes won't be gone, but the devastation they've left will be gone. -- will not be gone either. experts tell us they need this money and need it now. i met yesterday with the present

chief of staff, his director of meangt anthe his direct of manad budget. it is clear they desperately need this money. it sounds like my friend from texas is saying, well, we've got the ebola money, use that. the ebola money, they're working on that also. two years ago what was the emergency we had here? it was ebola, and what did we do? we did something to provide money so they could do research to alleviate the spread of this scourge. and they're doing that now. but we're robbing peter to pay paul. that's actually what we're doing. and the $1.1 billion for zika that we invoked cloture on yesterday is a band-aid. it is not enough. congress isn't moving fast enough to give researchers, doctors, and public health officials what they need to combat this. now the house is going to make it even worse by passing a bill

for $622 million, and what would you guess, mr. president, they're going to use to fund this money? let's see, what could it be? oh, maybe obamacare. which they've tried to defeat 67 times, each time it winds up the same. as einstein said, if you continuing to do the same thing over and over again, with the same results -- that's einstein's definition of insanity. that's what we have with the house republicans, and i'm sorry to say it's spilled over here, too. we haven't tried to eliminate it over here that many times, but as many times as they could. so they're going to come up with a bill to provide $622 million to use from a number of sources, principally obamacare money. $622 million is a fraction of what's needed. it is 25% approximately of what is really needed. the appropriations process, to

say it is too slow is a gross understatement. we need to get this done now. i don't know when, if ever, these appropriations bills will be signed into law. dr. anna andrew fe fauci, who hs been at the four front of all of these dread things we've had in recent decades -- he was the leading advocate scientifically on the aids epidemic that we had, here's what he said. "when you get an emergency situation, you really need to get funding as quickly as possible." well, the time to act is now. this summer when zika is on the news every day -- which it will be -- senators will regret that they did not act quickly to address this crisis. so i urge my colleagues to take care of this today, to provide $1.9 billion in emergency money,

just as we would do with one of the other national emergencies we've taken care of number united states times and do it in a way that will get the known them the quickest. so, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 157, h.r. 3038, that all after the enacting clause be stricken, that the nelson substitute amendment to enhance a federal response and preparedness with respect to the zika virus which is at the desk be agreed to, that thereby up to an hour of -- there be up a an hour of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their deeings, that upon the use of yielding back of time, the bill as amended be read a third time and the senate pass the bill as amended and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cornyn: mr. president, reserving the right to object, our democratic colleagues won't take "yes" for an answer. yesterday the murray-blunt

language, which now the democratic leader calls a band-aid actually got -- obtained cloture and i suspect it will pass tomorrow as part of the underlying appropriations bill. $1.1 billion on top of the $580 million that's already been reprogrammed from the ebola fund to be used to combat the zika virus is not a band-aid. it's a serious effort in a nonpartisan way to address a public health challenge. and as you can see from this map, texas is right in the crosshairs. we're ground zero in the united states, long with florida, along with louisiana and other southern states where this -- where this mosquito is present. thank goodness no mosquito-borne transmission has occurred yet. but i agree with my colleague from florida ... this is a serious matter. would end to treat it seriously. but that's not what's happening now. so i'm -- this is legislation -- this is a bill that the senate

defeated cloture on yesterday. so this is an attempt to end-run that defeat of a vote before the entire senate. i am compelled to object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i don't know what my friend from texas is going to tell the people from texas this summer when there's no money to help. you've heard the senator from florida talk about the need for local governments to prepare for this. some of the stuff is pretty straightforward. how do you get rid of the mosquitoes? can't wish them away. thethey don't -- they don't go y that way. it is mosquito control and it takes money. where that does money come from? local government. that's why they're desperate for money in florida and they're gobbing desperate -- going to be desperate for that money in texas and every place else. using my friend from texas'

logic, don't worry about it. we're going to get you some money this fall. i remind everyone, the house is stuck. they can't do appropriations bills because they don't have a budget. they can't get people to agree to what they want to do. my friend, paul ryan, is seeing -- i don't mean to say that, he is not poor. what john boehner put up with all these years before they ran him away from the speakership. he's having the same problem. thew man who -- this manage who talked about budgeting, that's his key, he was the idea man, paul ryan can't get a budget out of his own house. my friend who says we've got a down payment, we took the money from ebola, we'll worry about ebola later and maybe we'll borrow that money from someplace else to continue our research on ebola ... senator schumer mentioned at a meeting a short

while, a the one thing he remembered from a meeting the time dr. fauci came and talked about this dread problem we have, he said that we are very close at the national institutes of health of coming up with a vaccine for this. but we take -- it takes money. just like when we had sequestration, there were close it a flu vaq -- vaccine. that's gone. you got to do it when you can. right now is an opportunity to do something to save the lives of people and especially these unborn infants. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i apologize to the democratic leader. apparently, wasn't able to communicate my point, which is there's also $580 million available today to combat the zika virus, today. finally, the administration took the advice of those on this side of the aisle and said, let's use this unused ebola funds to fight

it today while we have an orderly process by which we aappropriate the money in a responsibility way. i -- in a responsible way. i think the sno senator from -- i think the senator from washington, senator murray, and the senator blunt have done a good job of winnowing down the $1.9 billion to the $1.1 billion, which i agree is the right figure. and while we have some other differences, i think the senate is acting in a responsible way, in a bipartisan way, the only way things actually can get done around here. so thank you,man. -- so thank you, mr. president. mr. reid: mr. president, it wasn't because of the good graces of members of the republican senate that president obama took the money from ebola and put it in this fighting the problems we have with zika. the reason he did this, the president did this is he asked nor this money three months ago. three months ago. and they took that money out of des per wages reagan administration because they --

and they took that money out of dedesperation. that money is not waiting to be spent. it's been spent. they need money. they are eoust money. -- they're out of money. there's no more robbing peter to pay paul. this is an emergency and should be handled now because under the process we have before us, there will be no help until the earliest this fall. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, thank you. i have to say i'm really disappointed that once again republicans rejected the administration's full emergency supplemental package. it has been more than three months since president obama first put forward a proposal to fight this zika virus. he laid out what he thought they needed to respond to a crisis in a way that protected our families the best. his administration was here. they testified at hearing after hearing after hearing about the details of his proposal and made it clear there was absolutely no reason for congress to wait. but for months our republican

leaders did nothing. they delayed. they came up with an excuse after another. they ignored the experts, ignored the scientists and ignored the facts. some republicans were saying that zika wasn't something that they were willing to give the administration a penny more for. others said they would think about more money to fight zika but only in return for some partisan spending cuts. and others spent more time thinking about how to get political cover rather than actually trying to address this enormous problem. but many of us knew how important this was and we were not going to give up. we kept the pressure on. we kept pushing to get serious about dealing with this emergency, and we made sure that the mothers and fathers across the country who are scared, who wanted their government to fight this horrific virus, had a voice in this process. so, mr. president, while it shouldn't have taken so long, i am glad that this week many of our republican colleagues in the senate did finally join us at the table to open up a path for an important step forward in

this. this was a compromise proposal. it certainly isn't what i would have written on my own. for example, i want to note that throughout this process i've made it clear that a top priority of mine is making sure that women do have access to reproductive health care in light of the impacts of this virus. so i was disappointed that republicans insisted on including unnecessary language that simply reiterates the preexisting ban on federal funding for abortions. but this bipartisan agreement that we voted on yesterday would support community health centers and other providers in making sure that women have access to contraception and to other critical health care and it would help make sure that women in zika-affected areas have the ability to plan their families and prevent that tragedies like so many we've already seen, especially compared to the house legislation which includes no support for preventive health care or outreach or family planning. i believe those issues are extremely critical and i'm going

to keep fighting to continue getting us to expand this to the full range of reproductive health care that women need. we also didn't get the full amount we'd hoped for in this compromise. democrats still believe that congress should give the president the full funding this administration has asked for and needs. but i am glad that every democrat and 23 republicans willing to do the right thing were going to pass a $1.1 billion down payment on the president's proposal and do it as an emergency bill without offsets the way it ought to be. so i want to thank senator blunt who worked with me to get this done as well as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who voted for it. our bipartisan agreement will provide direct investments for the zika response in puerto rico. it will ramp up prevention and support services for pregnant women, invest in foreign aid for latin america and the caribbean. it will help accelerate development of a vaccine and

backfill nearly $100 million in funding the administration was forced to reprogram due to the republican refusal to act. our agreement would accelerate the administration's work and would allow money to start flowing to address this crisis even as we continue to fight for the more that will be needed. unfortunately, mr. president, now we know house republicans have gone in a very different direction. they released an underfunded partisan and, frankly, in my opinion, a mean-spirited bill that would provide only $622 million. that is less than a third of what is needed for this emergency without any funding for preventive health care or family planning or even outreach to those who are at risk of zika virus. and they are still insisting that funding for this public health emergency be fully offset. and the administration should siphon money away from the critical ebola response and

other essential activities in order to fund zika efforts. mr. president, the choice between the senate and house zika bills is a choice between acting to protect women and families or doing nothing at all. it's a choice between a bipartisan compromise from here that takes an important step forward to address this emergency and a partisan embarrassment that is intended to do nothing more than provide its members with political cover. that doesn't solve this emergency. so, mr. president, the partisan house bill is a nonstarter. but we do have a path forward. the senate bill has the support of democrats and republicans. it can move through the house and it can be signed into law. and it can get resources moving quickly to tackle this emergency quickly. so, mr. president, let's get this bill to the house as quickly as possible. every democrat and a little less than half of the republicans supported the bill.

let's send it to the house right now and urge them to pass it as quickly as possible. there is no reason to keep it attached to this bill we're on and allow house republicans to get it and slow walk it to the fall, as our leader suggested would happen. and there is no reason this funding cannot be approved and signed into law next week in time for the summer and the peak of mosquito season which the senator from florida knows is coming very rapidly. it has the support of the senate on its own. and let's send it to the house on its own. women and families in this company have been looking -- in this country have been looking to congress for action for months and we should not make them wait any longer. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 157, h.r. 3038, that all after the enacting clause be stricken, that the blunt-murray substitute amendment to the enhance the federal response and

preparedness with respect to the zika virus be agreed to, there be up to one hour of debate divided between the two leaders or their designees, that upon the use or yielding back of time the bill as amended be read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill as amended with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, reserving the right to object, again, our colleagues won't take "yes" for an answer. the senator from washington's amendment with senator blunt, the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee responsible for this, it actually attained cloture and will pass tomorrow. tomorrow as part of this underlying appropriations bill, assuming that there are no other objections or that people want to finish that legislation. so i don't really understand why they continue to refuse to take yes for an answer.

but i would say to my friend from washington, would the senator modify her request to include my language at the desk which has the exact same funding levels as the blunt-murray amendment, but includes a pay-for using the prevention fund in the affordable care act? mrs. murray: well, mr. president -- the presiding officer: does the senator from washington so modify her request? mrs. murray: mr. president, reserving the right to be 0, let me just say this, that the spending bill this has now been attached to may take months into the fall or even into the winter months before it's approved. the zika virus isn't going to wait for the winter months. the mosquitoes are here now and they will continue to move very rapidly across our country as our leader has outlined before. so taking it out of this bill, it's now been approved by a number of senators here on a bipartisan basis, moving it quickly to the house and getting it to the president's desk means they will have the resources as

quickly as possible to deal with this and to begin to deal with this in a responsible way. secondly, let me just say that the agreement that the senator from texas just broached means we're going to have to fight over cuts, cuts to women, cuts to families, cuts to critical health care efforts in order to fight the zika virus. that is objectionable. this is an emergency supplemental, as we agreed on yesterday, and needs to move forward that way. so i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there an objection to the original request? mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i have to respond briefly to my friend from washington. the prevention fund that was created by the affordable care act that is the president's signature health care bill has more than adequate money in it to pay for the very research and mosquito eradication the other

services that are necessary, and it's not, it's not depriving anyone of money that they otherwise would have coming. what it does do is it a alleviates the financial burden on future generations to actually pay the money back, what we insist on spending without providing for adequate offsets. so increasing deficits, that's why the national debt has almost doubled under this president, because of the reckless spending. we're trying to do this in a responsible, bipartisan, indeed i would say nonpartisan sort of way. but apparently that's not acceptable to our friends on the other side. the presiding officer: does the senator object? mr. cornyn: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i've listened to debate about zika and it's been

entertaining to me but it's also to hear the series of numbers being it thrown around as if it's apples to apples comparison. let me try to break down a few things with an apples to apples comparison about zika and the funding. the president has asked for $1.9 billion for zika. the senate has now responded back to say we'll do the $500 millions president's already moved over from ebola funding and add to it $1.1 billion and come up with about $1.6 billion, almost $1.7 billion, about $200 million short which is being compared as grossly inadequate to be that .2 short from what the president had asked for. there is also being thrown around about the house proposal saying the house proposal is grossly inadequate to be able to cover what's being discussed there. a little over $600 million. the president wants $1.9 billion. the house is offering $600

million. but what's not being stated is what the senate has done and what the president has asked for is $1.9 billion over two years. the senate has -- or the house has said a little over $600 million this year added to the ebola funding that was already there, meaning $1.1 billion this year and then in our normal appropriations process to take it up again next year. it may be the same amount. and so it becomes very fascinating to me to say they're cutting into a half and it's insulting and it's all these things. i just think it's the same numbers, they're just cutting the times to be able to break down the different numbers. all these number games are all very interesting but they still don't drive at this one essential thing. we do need to deal with zika, but we also need to deal with zika in a fiscally responsible way, and the assumption that to deal with zika means we have to throw the budget out and there's no way we can find $1 billion in

a $4 trillion budget to cover zika is laughable. so what i propose is something very simple. right now department of state, h.h.s. and usaid have $86 billion in unobligated balances right now. there is absolutely no reason $1 billion of that could not be moved in to deal with zika right now, to do the exact same proposal that senator murray and senator blunt have proposed but to actually do it with the unobligated balances. there is no reason that wouldn't occur. $500 million have already been moved over from ebola funding. that would be $1.6 billion moving into to be able to fight zika. the real issue with fighting zika is three simple things. c.d.c. actually tracking the movement so we can stay attentive to it. the second thing is dealing with

mosquito population. that is aggressive spraying. and the third thing is working on a vaccine. all three of those things we can do, and all three of those things have already begun. the research has already begun on the vaccine. the mosquito spraying has already begun. and working through the tracking of the movement of the disease has already started. the implication that somehow nothing can start until this body acts is not true. and the administration, starting in january and february, came in and said this is urgent, we need to be able to move funds. we need to be able to have funds to do it. ironically in january and february they came and held hearings on that, but in march of this year, two months ago, this same administration took $500 million out of the economic support fund that congress had allotted to them last december, which was earmarked especially for -- get this -- infectious

diseases. so in march of this year, the administration took $500 million out of the infectious diseases account for international infectious diseases and moved that over and gave it to the u.n. for the green climate fund. and now they come to us high and mighty and say we need a billion dollars. when the half a billion that we had already allotted that could be used right now, along with the half a billion from ebola, equaling billion, was already allotted by congress, was already there, and could be in operation right now. and they chose to re-allocate it to a different priority. so it really disturbs me to hear the administration saying how come you're not doing anything about this when we did last year, and then they spent that money on green climate fund rather than spending it on zika. what it was allotted for, infectious disease control.

so here's my issue. we need to do both. we need to deal with zika and we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way, and we can. and i understand the term emergency. it means one simple thing here -- spend more. spend more and add more debt immediately because this is an emergency. i don't think americans believe with a $4 trillion budget that we cannot cover a billion from previous accounts. in fact, if you want to be specific enough, the three accounts that the $1.1 billion that the blunt-murray amendment puts money into, they are putting $1.1 billion into a set of accounts. just if we took those accounts alone, those accounts alone they're adding a billion to already have $15 billion in unobligateed balances in those right now.

we can be efficient in what we do and still treat things seriously, and i think we should. i think it's fiscally responsible to not just say the zika virus is moving quickly so we need to add more debt to our children to respond to it. i think we can take care of our debt and take care of zika, and for anyone that would say it's unheard of to be able to move funds for an emergency like this, may i remind you in 2009, this same obama administration facing the h 1-n1 virus around the world moved some of the money out of the same accounts to deal with the h 1-n 1 virus. if that's okay for that virus, why is it suddenly yowbl now dealing with zika? it's not. this is not about zika anymore.

this is about breaking the budget caps. we need to be responsible in our spending and responsible in how we deal with zika. both of them can be done. so with that, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that i may offer my amendment number 395 to the blunt amendment number 3900. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: reserving the right to object. and, mr. president, i like the senator from oklahoma. he is a great friend, and it pains me to reserve the right to object because i do consider him an excellent senator. the issue that he, however, raises in his unanimous consent request is to take the emergency funding of $1.1 billion out of

the appropriations bill and replace that emergency funding with raiding a number of funds that would cut medical research and public health in order to address the zika environment. so what am i talking about? cancer research, children's immunizations, c.d.c.'s efforts to fight other infectious diseases. so to raid money from these other pots that are already so important to the health and welfare of this country. now, the senator from oklahoma who i said and i repeat i consider him a friend and i consider him a good senator. he's from right there, right in

the heart of the country, oklahoma. and oklahoma is covered up with these two strains of mosquitoes, both of which carry the vix. this one is the real culprit. this is the one that gets inside your house. this is the one that lurks in the dark corners of the house. this is the one that lays larva in a rain-filled bottle cap that is upside-down. this is the one -- and i can tell you, mr. president. i will say to the senator from oklahoma, this senator has probably been bitten by more mosquitoes than any other senator. there was a time when i was a kid that i was bitten so much that i was almost immune. but i do not want to be bitten by this critter carry that zika

virus. now, the truth is if you have an earthquake in the state of oklahoma, that's an emergency, and we're going to respond in kind. if the senator from texas has a hurricane coming into galveston, that's an emergency and we're going to respond. this likewise is an emergency, and if you don't realize it now, this is may. the summer months are coming. and the problem -- i want to make sure everybody understands why we need to get this separate from the appropriations bill that the senator from washington, senator murray's talking about. because in order to get an appropriations bill, they have got to get agreement with the house. the house just passed

$622 million, and they were going to raid obamacare to pay for it. there's no way you're going to get an agreement that the president's going to sign going through that appropriations process. the summer's going to be long gone, and the ee -- aegypti is going to be biting, all the more sucking the blood of americans, and therefore while doing that transmitting the virus into the bloodstream of americans. this senator has already described the disastrous consequences if you are a pregnant woman you ought to be petrified if you're in a county where either it's poor and they don't have the funds for mosquito control or it's a welloff county and it's not budgeted and they're not doing it. so it pains me to have to clash

with my friend, the senator from oklahoma, and i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: one quick clarification i'd like to be able to make to my friend on this is the amendment that i had proposed and would still stand by allows us to be able to continue what's going on with mosquito eradication right now. that doesn't stop. and i would hate for anyone in this body to promise every american that if you give d.c. enough money, we'll make sure you're never bit by a mosquito, but i'm not sure that's a promise we would ever want to make because we can't keep that promise. but the amendment that i have proposed gives the administration the latitude to be able to select which accounts this money would come from. we're talking $86 billion of options on multiple accounts from state department, usaid for

international aid and also from h.h.s. those are not all cancer research. those are not all for children's i amizations. -- immunizations. there is enough money in those accounts. and i repeat back the same thing i said before. this administration transferred half a billion dollars just two months ago from the infectious diseases account, noting, apparently, we didn't need money in the infectious diseases account, and moved that money to the green climate fund. so for the administration to say it is more important that the u.n. gets green climate fund than we deal with zika virus is a different set of priorities from where we are in this congress and a different set of priorities than we put in place in december of last year. so this is an issue that this administration already has the authority to deal with. it doesn't have to come from cancer research. it can come from allocated

accounts. but there is no reason to add debt to our children to also deal with mosquito eradication in the united states. we can do both, and we should do both. and i'd yield back. mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, i rise to speak -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. isakson: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president, i rise to address the subject before the senate with regard to the h.u.d. proposed rule, the lee amendment and the amendment proposed by the senator from maine, ms. collins. i do so as one that had 35 years of experience in the housing business, affected by the civill rights act, affected by the 1968 fair housing act, and one who has a good deal of working knowledge about what that

accomplished. and what it accomplished was an end to prejudice against african-americans in the south and ethnic minorities in the northeast and around the country to ensure everybody had an equal opportunity -- underline the word opportunity -- to have safe, affordable housing. that took place in 1968. it's been a long time since 1968. prejudice in america is almost gone. housing access is almost universal. but there's one group of people in america that have very little access to housing because there's none available to them. you can identify them not by their name, not by their region, but by their zip code. it's the neighborhoods of america that have contributed to the climb of many families and many hope and opportunity for individuals. you show me a school that's not performing and i'll show you rough neighborhoods. you show me an individual, a community that doesn't have the tax base it needs, i'll show you a community that doesn't have neighborhoods that are employed. i want to bring to the attention of the senate what i spoke on a year ago on this floor. a gentleman by the name of

thomas g. cousins in atlanta, georgia, the most successful developer in the history of atlanta, georgia, one of the leading developers in the united states of america and a man who gives back more than he takes. ep created the cousins foundation and set out in the early 1990's to find out a way to address the problems of poverty, ignorance and crime in inner city neighborhoods. he bought something called east lake me -- meadows. that's on a golf course that 25 years ago had trees growing in the fair way, dilapidated houses around it. it is an area tom cousins changed by changing minds, by changing attitudes and talking about the things that could be done rather than what could not be done. he knew that the best way to bring those people out of poverty was to provide them with a good education so he came to the state board of education which i chaired, asked for a waiver to create the first charter school in atlanta, georgia, public school system's history in east lake. he leased the school for $1 a year for 25 years and then built

for that neighborhood its own elementary school called drew elementary. 25 years ago it was the poorest testing elementary school in the state of georgia. this year it's one of the top ten in the state of georgia out of 1,400. he changed the minds and attitudes of people, not their race but he changed their mindsant attitudes about opportunity and about hope. he went into a community of dilapidated houses, crack houses and meth houses, bought those houses up, fixed them up and began to create a market for those houses. the kids that formed drugs and gangs on the streets became caddies at the new country club. they went to georgia state university on panther grants for kids on need. many were educated at east lake meadows and drew elementary. people don't associate golf courses and golf tournaments and country clubs with areas of poverty and no housing but east lake is such a place because they build a blend of section 8

housing and rental housing, mid-level housing, upper level housing, shopping centers and the like. they took the things the community didn't have and created a market for them to come. and they created a movement with warren buffett called purpose-built communities. the h.u.d. rule which i have read, which is the issue of discussion today on the floor, is a rule that portends gathering more information to try and find out ways we can end the lack of housing availability to certain americans by bringing in data and trying to create new ways to do that. tom cousins did it with private sector money. he did it in cooperation with the banking industry. he created an idea and a dream and srefpl. he began to bring down the barriers of discrimination and the lack of hope and brought prosperity to a community that had not seen it. better-educated kids, better-developed communities, better schools and the like. and i want to ask unanimous consent, mr. president, if i can have this article in the "wall street journal" about thomas g.a.o. cousins and -- thomas g. cousins and promise built

communities submitted for the report. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: the rule before us deals with the civil rights act of 1968 but i want to caution everybody. it's not just about discrimination because of prejudice. it's about discrimination because of lack of access. if you read the testimony that went into a lot of the rule that's quite clear. there are a number of paralyzed veterans groups and handicapped groups that sent letters against this amendment. let me tell you why they're against it. they don't think anybody discriminates against them because they're handicapped. they think they have no choice of housing because there is nothing that fits their wheelchairs or the walls in the bathroom are not reinforced or the kitchen counter tops are too high. what happened in east lake meadows, 5% of all apartment buildings are built with convertible units so up to 5% of the units can be converted to handicapped access. 36 inch doors, not 30 inch doors. waeupbs coating on the -- in the

bathrooms, kitchen koeurpbt -- counter tops that can be lowered by eight inches. that's the access they want. through the changes in code in terms of construction code, in changes in attitude we have handicapped people in atlanta that have housing built to meet their need. it was a discrimination of lack of opportunity. the way i read the proposed rule they're looking to take a chance to take advantage of things like promise built communities and try to have private builders to have access to funds to create housing that will have more accessibility and affordability for people in those situations. i stphaupbd senator -- understad senator collins and senator reed have an amendment they will offer which will clarify one important point. nothing in here contains anything that portends to promulgate a rule or regulation about land use authority by the federal government. none of us want the federal

government to do that but we have provided programs that have passed this congress, this senate and this united states government promoting housing, section 8 housing, f.h.a. housing, v.a. housing and i could go on. we want to make sure those finances available to finance have housing available to meet the needs of all americans, give them public accommodation and access some of them never had before. with the amendment adopted by senator collins, i think you're protected against any nefarious activity that could be taken on by h.u.d. and you're doing a good thing for the state, a good thing for the united states and a good thing for the senate and i commend senator reed and i commend senator collins for what they're doing and i rise in support of the amendment and will vote for it on the floor. and i yield back my time. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i just want to thank my friend and colleague from georgia for his extremely eloquent and persuasive presentation.

the example he gave us of the development in georgia done by mr. cousins is precisely what the h.u.d. rule is intended to promote, and that's why it's called affirmatively advancing fair housing -- affirmatively furthering fair housing. and with the amendment that senator jack reed and thad cochran and i are going to be offering, we will make absolutely clear that it is not h.u.d.'s role to dictate or interfere with local zoning ordinances. but what we should embrace in this country is what the goals of the 1968 fair housing act are. and the senator from georgia, who knows more about housing

than any member of this senate, has stated very clearly and very eloquently, and the example that he has given us of what the goals are of the 1968 housing -- fair housing act and the regulation that was issued by h.u.d. last year. and again i would note, mr. president, that the regulation issued last year came from a g.a.o. report issued in 2010 that found that h.u.d. was not doing a particularly good job in this area. so it wasn't something that was devised by some out-of-touch bureaucrat. it was directly the result of the g.a.o. report. and the kind of mixed

development which has transformed neighborhoods in atlanta and throughout this country, and given hope and opportunity to those who may feel that they're in the shadows of society is exactly the goal of this regulation and of that famous civil rights era law, the 1968 fair housing act. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: mr. president, i wanted to talk today about the housing issues -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. rubio: mr. president, i ask knack being unanimous consent -- i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: mr. president, i want to talk about the housing issues contained therein in the bill we're debating, and i want to talk specifically about a project in florida that we game

aware of back in october. its name is eureka gardens. it's a low-income, affordable housing project that uses section 8 funds to house people of lower income. as you're all aware of that program. it's run by an organization that owns it. it's called global ministries foundation. it's run by a reverend, richard hamlon. the reverend is the head of the organization. you look at their web site for global ministries, there is a link that says what we do. you go on that section of global ministries. it says -- quote -- "providing affordable housing across the united states and ministering to the physical, spiritual and emotional needs of our residents." end quote. that's what they state as their business purpose. and i imagine that's what they needed to state because of their 501-c-3 not for profit status. however, we have a quote here from reverend hamlett who says

his involvement is purely business related. he said -- quote -- this is a business. this isn't a church mission. these are business corporations that we set up but we're no different from a real estate investment trust or a private equity group -- end quote. that's how he described his 501-c-3 not for profit global ministries foundation. global ministries foundation has over 40 properties in multiple states, alabama, north carolina, new york, tennessee, georgia. in all of these states and all these properties, they have over 5,000 units that qualify as assisted. and 19 locations across florida, they have over 2,000 assisted units. and this particular project in jacksonville, florida, eureka gardens, has 396 assisted units. now, here's the problem that we found with some of these properties. for example, in eureka gardens, in the last year, property was found to be in horrifying condition. i have spoken about it on the floor before.

i'm talking about people living in a place where there was mold on the walls, where the appliances were 15 years old, where the apartments hadn't been paid in 13 -- painted in 13 years, where windows didn't open, where staircases were literally falling down where the city had to come in and evacuate people and condemn the property. these are the conditions in eureka garden. and we got involved last october to get those remedied. and so there was a thinking well, maybe this is just one property. maybe global ministries only has one property that's run this way but generally they are a good actor. well, here's what we found. they have two properties, warren and tulane apartments in memphis, tennessee, that have such poor living conditions as well that h.u.d. pulled their federal funding from the housin. in atlanta, we found that their for evident cove property has been plagued by rodents and sewage. here's what news crews reported about their property in atlanta. it said -- quote -- building, siding and ceiling tiles were

peeling from many of the buildings. garbage and stagnant green water were feet from playing children -- end quote. at the for evident cove, here is what tenants said to news reporters. he said -- quote -- i'm homeless right now. i have moved out to be homeless. the conditions were so bad, the guy moved out of the property. in other words, they would rather be homeless than live in a global ministries foundation property. so here we have two properties in memphis, tennessee, we have a property in atlanta. then there is another property in jacksonville that they own. it's called the washington heights property. it's also been noted for violation, and h.u.d.'s most recent review resulted in the property barely passing federal inspections. i will have more to say about federal inspections in a moment. by the way, at that goodwill village property in memphis, one resident said that he thought the issue was snakes on the property. snakes on the property. he thought they were being caused because they were coming to -- quote -- eat the rats -- end quote. in goodwill village, the same property, a resident had an

issue with a gas leak. the resident's home had the sink torn out, her stove and hot water disconnected and a hole put into her wall, and two months after all of that, no one had come by yet to fix it. in orlando at the windsor cove apartments owned by global ministries foundation, reporters saw holes in the wall where roaches and rodents came into the apartment. the same woman has a gap between her bathtub and the wall that lets water leak into the apartment below. after issues with his properties were exposed, here's what the reverend hamlett said. quote -- no one should live under these conditions -- end quote. these are properties. it's not just one property. these are multiple properties across multiple states. i want to focus specifically on the one i visited last week in jacksonville. by the way, it was an amazing experience. so 48 hours before we announced we were coming, nothing, literally nothing is happening at this property. when we announced that we are coming to visit the property, suddenly a bunch of contractors show up.

they put up a banner welcoming the residents to all the great stuff that they do there. suddenly work crews are walking all over physicalling the place up. all of a sudden because we're coming to visit, all these work crews mysteriously show up. but eureka garden's problems have been going on for a long time, but they only became known in october of last year when a local television station and other local media began to highlight it. my jacksonville office, my staff there, toured eureka gardens in early 2015, in october of 2015. i wanted to report what they found in that one building. as i said, we now have reports about other buildings with similar conditions run by this global ministries 501-c-3, but i want to share with you what my staff found when they visited eureka gardens. they saw crumbling stairs disguised with duct tape and governed with apparent black mold. so what i'm talking about the stairs is the stairs that connect the first floor of the building with the second floor of the building, these metal

stairs. they would just put duct tape over the areas where the stairs and the wall were cracking and almost falling. they just put duct tape on it. there was mold on these stairs. they spray painted over it. they found faulty electrical wiring. do you know what they did with the faulty electrical wiring? they covered it up with a garbage bag so no one could see it. they could smell the natural gas odor being sucked from an outdoor pipe system into the air conditioning units of residents. and they found all sorts of other health and safety issues. at eureka gardens, one resident said dogs live better than this when they were asked about the housing. in fact, there is a 4-year-old living in eureka gardens who was suffering from lead poisoning, which her mother has a right to believe she got in her eureka garden apartment. an apartment, by the way, paid for with your taxpayer moneys. section 8 housing is federal taxpayer money going into the hands of these slumlords, and a child now has lead poisoning

because of it. in december of last year, h.u.d. declared eureka garden to be in default of the contract, and it set its february 4, 2016 deadline to meet repair requirements. in february, eureka garden passed this inspection, but by march, h.u.d. had written to eureka garden saying the department does not believe the property would currently pass another inspection. so last friday, as i said, i visited eureka gardens, and i saw, for example, an apartment where the window did not open. i saw an apartment the window didn't open. a room where the window had been cracked and you know how they fixed it? somebody came in and put a glob of glue over where the window connects to the pane. if you tried to open the window, it wouldn't go up. if there was a fire in that house, the person sleeping in that room cannot get out of that window unless they break out of the home. okay. i saw that with my own eyes yesterday -- last week when i was there. i saw an apartment that hadn't been painted in 13 years, 13

years. i saw a stove where the knobs were unrecognizable because they were covered with glue basically and grime. i saw a refrigerator that had to be -- it looked like it was from north korea. it had to be 15 years old. all sorts of rust on the side. they just spray painted over the rust. global ministries, by the way, as i said earlier, 48 hours before i visited, they started to fix some of these cosmetic issues. by the way, that included putting up a piece of wood with exposed nails and calling it a door. so this apartment has two exits, in the front and in the back. this lady gets home from work, she opens up her back door. they have boarded up the door, and there are nails sticking through the wood. she has little kids, by the way. and the nails, by the way, were the kind that if you ran into that door because you didn't know it was there, you're getting a nail to the face, to the heart, to the gut. so you would ask yourself all right, so you have these owners of all these units and they're getting this federal money under

this h.u.d. contract. where does all the money go? what are they doing with all this money that they make? well, you can look at their 990 tax forms, which are available for all 501-c-3 organizations. let me tell you about the 2014 tax year, which is the most recent one that's available. in the year 2014, the reverend richard hamlet paid himself $495,000 plus $40,000 in nontaxable benefits. also in 2014, the reverend hamlet's family members were paid an additional $218,000. by the way, he had previously failed to disclose his family members' compensation on tax forms, which is in violation of i.r.s. rules that require c.e.o.'s to disclose the compensation of all family members who work for an organization. the i.r.s. reports also show that between 2011 and 2013, global ministries foundation, the landlord that owns all of these units in all of these buildings that your taxpayer

money is paying for, they shifted $9 million away from the low-income housing not profit to its religious affiliate. and there is no one here who is a more strident proponent of private and public partnerships, of faith-based initiatives, but you have these buildings that are crumbling. you have these people living in these deplorable conditions, and they took -- in addition to paying himself half a million dollars and his family another $200,000, they took $9 million and instead of using it to fix these units, they transferred it to the not for profit -- their other entity they had for religious purposes. they don't seem to want to spend the money, including the taxpayer money on making repairs, on making sure places like eureka garden are livable. let me tell you what they do spend their money on. they spend their money on public relations specialists, because last week when i visited eureka gardens, they had a public relations firm on the premises counterspinning me with the media, saying things like oh

where has been rubio all this time? well, this thing became available in october, and since october we have been involved in it. so they have the money to hire a law firm, they have the money to hire a lobbying firm, they have the money to hire a public relations firm, they have the money to transfer $9 million from the not for profit sector into their religious uses. they have the money to pay themselves half a million dollars a year plus $40,000 in nontaxable benefits plus $200,000 for his family members, but they don't is -- have the money to fix these units. and not just in florida, but all across this country. let me tell you what this behavior is. let me tell you what global ministries foundation is. it is a slumlord. they are slumlords. and there are people that are living in these deplorable conditions while your taxpayer money is going into their bank account, and they are laughing at us. by the way, this minister the other day, he's now put these properties up for sale, and he told the press it's -- this is such a profitable business, we have so many bidders that want these properties.

well, if this is such a profitable business, then why are you organized as a c-3, number one, and number two, where is all the money, where is all the profits? why aren't they being invested? i am all in favor of -- of faith-based organizations being involved in the public and civic life of this country, but as an organization who is organized on the principles of caring for others, this is not caring for people. this, my friends, is the stealing of american taxpayer money, subjecting people to slum-like conditions, pocketing the money, living off the money and transferring the money. i for the life of me don't know how they passed any inspections because i'm telling you, i visited -- i'm not a building inspector. you don't have to be one to visit this building and know there is no inspection that that building should ever pass. and i would just say to you that this is the most outrageous behavior i've seen in public housing, and now i'm hearing the same conditions exist in orlando and other buildings in jacksonville.

we know they exist in memphis. in fact, they just lost their h.u.d. contract in memphis. the judge just issued a ruling against them yesterday on another issue in memphis, tennessee. so as a result of these conditions and other issues, i have filed four amendments that i briefly want to talk about. the first is amendment 3918 which passed. what it does is it shortens the required response time for contract violations from 30 days to 15 days. the 30-day notification -- within the 30 days that they found that gas leek at eureka gardens, four people at riewkds were hospitalized -- eureka gardens were hospitalized due to gas leaks. shortening, i'm grad that's going to be -- glad that's going to be a part of it. another amendment we passed, it's one that basically asks h.u.d. to determine the state of the assessments. even the secretary himself has told me it's time to revisit these assessments because if you look at this property, there's no way it should ever have passed any inspoaxes. we need to -- inspections. we need to fix the inspection process athold because there's

no reason any property like this should pass any inspection. the third would give state and local governments more say when h.u.d. renews contracts for owners that have rye lated previous contracts. in essence, the amendment would allow the secretary to refuse to withdraw a notify of default if the governor of the requisite state petitions h.u.d. to do that. currently the only trigger for the secretary to withdraw a notice is a react score of 60 or above. if this amendment became law if a property passed inspection but the governor of the state in which the property is located requested the secretary to overturn the result, the secretary would have the power to do so. and this impacts eureka gardens and these other places because flawed inspections led h.u.d. to recertify properties that are not up to standard. the jacksonville city council has been engaged and the mayor of jacksonville, mayor curry is supporting this amendment. it would grant them the ability to seek the governor's support and having say over the process. the last amendment i filed is rubio amendment 3986 and it is to make temporary relocation

assistance available for residents in situations like the ones i've just described. this amendment would make tenant protection vouchers available for tenants living in units where the owner has been declared in default of a h.u.d. hoursinhoursing assistance paymt contract due to physical deficients. allowing the secretary considering granting relocation vouchers sooner in the process. the lack of temporary relocation assistance has kempt these tenants trapped in eureka gardens. the inability to temporarily relocate resulted in tenants being hospitalized because of gas leaks and other difficult conditions, for example, a man had to sleep in his bathtub for a week at eureka gardens and tenants could not cook because the heat was shut off for days at a time. one of the things you hear from h.u.d. is, well, we can take away the contract but then what happens to all these people so we don't want to do that. and slumlords like reverend hamlet and his group, they know they can get away with this as a result. they know they can get away with

it. there's probably more to be done. i said publicly i think the justice department should look into these people. i think the justice department should look into places like this. i think the i.r.s. should examine their tax status. i think people like this should never again be allowed to have a single h.u.d. contract anywhere in america. this is unacceptable and it's happening right underneath our nose and today it's eureka gardens but i already told you all the state. in fact, i encourage my colleagues who live in the states of alabama and indiana and louisiana and north carolina and new york and georgia, you should look into the properties that global ministries foundation operates in your states because if the trends continue, if the trends hold up, then i almost guarantee you that you are going to find slum-like conditions in your state the way i found in mine and the way they found in tennessee. and i hope i can earn my colleagues' support in bringing these reforms as part of the bill that's before us today. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you. i believe that real long-term economic growth is built from the middle out, not from the top down. mrs. murray: our government and our economy and our workplaces should work for all of our families, not just the wealth yes few. but, -- wealth yes few. but. mr. president, across the country millions of workers are working harder than ever without basic overtime protections. that's why i'm very proud to come to the floor today to express my strong support for the new overtime rule to help millions of workers and families in our country. you know, back in 1938, congress recognized the need for overtime pay. because without overtime protections, corporations were able to exploit workers' time to

increase their profits. so the fair labor standards act set up a standard 40-hour work week. and by law, when workers put in more than 40 hours, their employers had to compensate them fairly with time and a half pay. but those protections have eroded over the past several decades. in today's economy, many americans feel like they are working more and more for less and less pay. and in many cases they are. right now if a salaried worker turns just a little more than $23,000 a year, he or she is not guaranteed time and a half pay. that salary threshold is much too low. in fact, it is less than the poverty level for a family of four. mr. president, workers should not have to earn poverty wages to get guaranteed overtime protections.

it is clear that overtime rules in this country are severely out of date. consider this. back in the mid1970's, 62% of salaried workers had guaranteed overtime pay. today just 7% of salaried workers have that protection. and big corporations use these outdated overtime rules to their advantage. they force their employees to work overtime without paying them their fair time and a half pay. now, that might be good for somebody's profit, but if is detrimental -- but it is detrimental to a working family's economic security. now today the department of labor has issued a final rule to raise the salary threshold from about $23,000 to just over $47,000 a year. that will restore protections for millions of americans, and it's especially important, by the way, for parents. think about what it would mean

for a working mom who right now works overtime and doesn't get paid for it. by restoring this basic worker protection, they could finally work a 40-hour week and spend more time with her kids or if her employer asks her to work more than 40 hours a week, she would have more money in her pocket to boost her family's economic security. that's why this is so important for our struggling middle class. when workers put in more than 40 hours a week on the job, they should be paid fairly for it. that's the bottom line. and i've heard some of my republican colleagues that don't want to update these overtime rules. if you listen closely, it sounds like they are trying to argue that businesses in this country can't operate unless they're able to exploit workers' time and refuse them overtime pay. well, democrats fundamentally disagree. in fact, when workers have economic security, when they are able to make ends meet and succeed, businesses succeed.

our economy succeeds, and that virtuous cycle is part of what makes america great. if republicans want to take away these basic worker protections, they will have to answer to millions of hard-working americans putting in overtime without receiving a dime of extra pay. they can try, but i know that i and many others are going to be right here fighting back for our workers and families we represent. families like merle from billingham, washington. she said earlier in her career she worked low-wage jobs and often time her overtime hours went unpaid. when she heard about the obama administration updating overtime protections, she wrote in to comment on that new rule. she said those unpaid overtime hours hurt her pocketbook, but she said she lost more than money. she was working overtime without being paid fairly for it on top of missing out on important time with her daughter.

mr. president, boosting wages and expanding economic stability and security is good for our families and it is good for our economy. by the way, that's exactly what we should be focused on here in congress to help grow our economy from the middle out, not the top down. for workers who want fair pay for a day's work, for the parents like merle who have sacrificed family time for overtime and not seen a dime in extra pay, for families who are looking for some much needed economic security, i urge all of our colleagues to support restoring these important overtime protections. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i rise to speak about a bill i'm introducing with senator grabbingly called the 'up lick safety officers benefit improvement act --

public safety officers benefit improvement act. with when our officers make the decision to join a police department or a fire department or emt squad, they do so knowing they might encounter hazards on the job that threaten their life or even end their life. these men and women in some of the highest pressure and most dangerous environments, shootouts, fires, natural disasters, terror attacks, think about your own communities back home. when disaster strikes, when there's an emergency, who shows up first speeding to the scene and ready to help? it's our police officers. it's our firefighters. it's our e.m.t. workers. our public safety officers know that death or serious injury is a real risk in their jobs. but they know and they show up to work anyway ready to help and willing to sacrifice if that's

what it takes to keep their communities safe. mr. president, when first responders die as a result of their work, we all have the responsibility to help take care of their surviving family members. in 1984, more than three decades ago, congress did the right thing and created a program called the public safety officers benefit program to help these families. whenever tragedy struck and a first responder was killed on the job or passed away because of their job, these grieving families could take a little bit of comfort in knowing that they would have the financial support they needed with this program. they knew that they would have help from this program transitioning to life without their loved one. but in recent years the families applying to the program have faced confusing and inconsistent

requirements. they faced long delays in receiving compensation. before when a loved one died on the job, the family would get compensation from this program without any serious delay. but now the burden to claim these funds and then retrieve them has been placed on the families, the same families that this program was supposed to be helping. so as a result, hundreds of families who are already grieving now have to dig through public records themselves. they have to endure an exhausting paper chase with no guidance. and they have to go far beyond a reasonable doubt to prove the justice department -- to the justice department that their loved ones in fact serve as first responders. and sacrifice their lives for this job. last fall "u.s.a. today" reported that more than 900 cases they reviewed, the arch wait for decision by the program about compensation was more than

a year. for some families, it was two years, and for some the wait was three years. this even includes our first responders who worked at ground zero. think about the unnecessary stress that these delays have placed on our families who lost loved ones. mr. president, we know we must fix this program. we must fix this program. these families of our fallen officers are not getting the compensation they deserve, that their lovered ones have earn -- loved ones have earned in a timely manner they need. senator grassley's bill and mine is a bipartisan bill that fixes this problem. the public safety officers benefit improvement act would make this compensation program more transparent and more efficient and it would make sure it works. it would require the program to report publicly the status of every claim so that families can

know if and why their compensation is being delayed. it would give weight to the findings and records of federal agencies, state agencies, and local agencies about the cause of the public safety officer's death so that families don't have to reproduce records that already exist. and this bill would reduce the wait for our families to receive the compensation that they deserve and desperately need. so, mr. president, i thank my colleague senator grassley for his strong leadership and his amazing advocacy, and i urge all my colleagues here to support this bill. let's fix the public safety officers benefit program. let's take care of these families, the families of our public safety officers and let's do the right thing. i yield the floor. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i thank the senator from new york with working together on this very important issue to get justice for some of our police officers and their families that have

been burdened by too much red tape. she and i worked together on so many things, and i appreciate this one as well. in' 62 -- meaning 1926 -- president john f. kennedy signed a proclamation designating this week national police week. tens of thousands of law enforcement officers have gathered in our nation's capital to honor those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in service to our nation. i rise to thank these officers, the men and women who have dedicated their lives to protecting our communities. we must never take their sacrifice for granted, and we need to appreciate that their surviving families have suffered real loss. in recognition of this truth, congress passed the public safety officers benefit act in

1976. the goal of the law was to provide death benefits to survivors of the officers who die in the line of duty. over the years, the law has been amended to provide disability and education benefits and to expend the pool of officers -- expand the pool of officers who are eligible for these benefits. looking at the history of this larks -- law, the overall intent of congress is clear. families of fallen officers deserve a fair and timely consideration of their application for these benefits. and the word "timely" is what isn't being carried out right now. if we were in these officers' shoes, we would like to see an answer either "yes" or "no," not years of limbo and lingering uncertainty. unfortunately, this is precisely

what too many families have had to endure since at least 2003, all because bureaucrats in the justice department failed to do their job and do it on time. three weeks ago i chaired the judiciary committee hearing to examine this problem of the lack of timeliness. what we found was troubling. the justice department has a goal of processing these claims within one year of filing. however, according to the most recent data, the justice department is failing to meet its own one-year deadline in 61% of the 693 pending death benefit claims. that's 423 families who have been waiting for more than a year. that rate is unacceptable for a

program designed to support officers -- families of fallen officers. somehow the delays have gone from bad to worse. the failure rate was 27% for claims that were filed between 2008 and 2013. so it's very difficult to understand how that could happen for 13 years and counting since 2003. the delays have persisted, despite a 2004 attorney general memorandum, despite a 2007 judiciary committee hearing, and despite three independent audits recommending corrective action. not surprisingly, there have been periodic improvements in timeliness whenever congress or watchdogs shined light about these delays.

however, these improvements have been very short-lived. in 2007, for example, the justice department more than doubled its monthly rate of processing claims in the first two months following a judiciary committee hearing. however, in the insurge five years -- in the insurge five years, the -- in the ensuing five years, the inspector general found not only significant delays but also a serious lack of documentation and data. i began looking into this program last january, after constituents informed me that families in iowa waited more than three years to get a decision. but the justice department's response to my oversight letters confirmed that these delays persist on a nationwide scale. for instance, there are currently 175 pending death and disability claims that were filed on behalf of officers who

lost their lives as a result of their september 11 response efforts. that is why i've written six letters to the justice department in the last year and a half asking for status updates on all pending claims. initially, after i sent my first letters, the number of pending claims went down at a steady pace. more recently, however, the justice department has simply failed to respond to my letters. at last month's judiciary committee hearing, a claimant from my state of iowa testified about having waited three and a half years without an answer from the justice department. but just two days after that hearing, that claimant got a phone call from the department saying that the claim had been approved. what was the justice department

doing for the past three and a half years on that claim, and what about the 692 other families who are waiting for a decision, families of fallen officers and advocacy groups agree, transparency leads to accountability and the justice department should be held accountable for its handling of these claims. so based on this 13-year record, i've concluded that the best way to ensure timeliness in these claims is to permanently increase the level of transparency surrounding this program. today the senator from new york, just speaking, and i introduced a bill that would do just that. it's called the public safety officers benefits improvement act. this bill would require the justice department to post on its web site weekly status

updates for all pending claims. this way the public can evaluate how well the department is performing under its goal of processing claims within that one-year filing deadline that they have. the justice department is already posting weekly statistics with respect to the september 11 victims' compensation fund, which is a similar program. so the department should be able to do the same with respect to the pending public safety officers benefits claims by posting weekly statistics. in addition, our bill would require the justice department to report to congress other aggregate statistics regarding these claims at least twice a year. and the bill would make it easier for the justice department to process these claims in other ways. for example, by allowing the department to rely on other

federal regulatory standards and to give substantial weight to findings of fact of state, local, and other federal agencies. in short, this is a simple bipartisan bill with narrowly tailored provisions. each provision is targeted to specific problems that have been identified over the past 13 years by independent audits, by committee hearings, by advocacy groups, and, of course, as you would expect, by families of fallen officers who wonder what's going on at the department of justice. so i want to thank senator gillibrand for working with me to develop this commonsense legislation, and i urge my colleagues to stand with us in support of these officers and their families. help us get this bill done, as our way of saying "thank you" to

these men and women, particularly as we honor them in this particular season that we call "national police week." i want to visit on another matter, mr. president. i want to revisit my discussion with senator durbin yesterday regarding my amendment number 3925 to the department of veterans affairs funding bill. as i made clear yesterday, this amendment is a commonsense amendment that is protecting constitutional rights. it is designed to make every effort to ensure that the second amendment rights of veterans are protected under the law. yet the democrats have objected. because of that, our veterans will continue to not be protected to the second amendment constitutional rights. so let me make myself very clear. senator durbin said my amendment doesn't solve the problems,

doesn't solve the problems are his words. well, the department of veterans affairs is reporting names to the department of justice that are then placed on the national gun ban list. and the v.a. is doing so merely when a veteran is appointed a fiduciary, which does not mean that that veteran, he or she, is dangerous. that is a problem. as i explained yesterday, my amendment requires the v.a. to first determine that a veteran is a danger to self or others before reporting names. that simply solves the problem. senator durbin also said that under my amendment -- quote -- "mental health determinations would no longer count as prohibiting gun possession" -- end of quote. as i stated yesterday, i do not want people who are known to be dangerous to own and possess

firearms. my amendment makes that very clear. further, given that plain language, it is obvious that under my amendment, mental health determinations do count because some mental health problems equate to a very dangerous condition. again, my amendment is centered on forcing the federal government to determine whether or not a veteran is in danger to self or others before reis revog his or her constitutional rights -- before revoking his or her constitutional rights to own a firemen. senator durbin said that -- quote -- "tens of thousands of names currently in the nic system -- that's the gun ban list -- would likely need to be purged, meaning these people could go out and buy guns" -- end ever quote. now, that's not so. if anything, my amendment would require the federal government to look over the v.a. records sent to the gun ban list and

verify that those persons on it are dangerous to themselves or others. now, that doesn't happen to be purging. rather, the federal government would now have the burden of proving a veteran should not be able to exercise his or her fundamental second amendment rights. since there is no purging, but, rather, dangerous persons will be identified, via a constitutional process, it is not accurate to say that -- quote -- "these people could go out and buy guns" -- end of quote. senator durbin, therefore, has not studied my amendment and its outcome. and, really, the government should always provide constitutional due process before infringing on fundamental constitutional rights. senator durbin mentioned 174,000

names were supplied by the v.a. to the gun ban list and about 15,000 of them had serious mental illnesses. actually, as of december 15, the v.a. has supplied 260,381 names out of the 263,492 in the mental defective category. that happens to be 98.8% of the total number of people in the mental defective list that's there because of the v.a. and not because they've had their constitutional rights determined should be taken away. and assuming senator durbin is correct about the 15,000 that had a serious mental illness, that leaves about 245,000 who did not. that's 245,000 people whose constitutional rights are being restricted without due process for no good reason. not a single individual is

determined to be dangerous before the v.a. submitted their names to this list so their constitutional rights could be violated. my amendment and my remarks last night make clear that if a person is dangerous, they will not be able to possess a firearm. therefore, senator durbin's concern that my amendment will allow dangerous people to buy firearms is sumly inaccurate -- is simply inaccurate. importantly, senator durbin even admitted that not all the names reported to the v.a. are dangerous. senator durbin said -- quote -- "i do not dispute what the senator from iowa suggested, as some of these veterans may be suffering from a mental illness not serious enough to disqualify them from owning a firearm, but certainly many of them do." then senator durbin said -- quote -- "let me just concede at the outset, reporting 170,000 names goes too far, but eliminating 174,000 names goes

too far." end of quote. i'm glad that senator durbin being a nounalled that many of the names on the gun ban list supplied by the v.a. do not pose a danger and should be removed. but again my amendment is thought about purposing names from the list. i would be happy to take him up on his offer to work with him on that problem. surely we can agree that going forward, the v.a. should start affording due process to veterans before they're stripped of their second amendment rights. if you really want a solution to this problem, stop objecting to this amendment. as i stated yesterday, my amendment does three things. first, it makes the danger to self or others standard applicable to the v.a. we all agree that dangerous persons must not own or possess firearms. second, it shifts the burden of proof from the