a senator: mr. president? the presidin the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i want to thank -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: and i address the senate as if in morning business. i want to thank the senator -- senator warner and senator schumer, the senators from virginia and new york. they're committed to the veterans in their states and in this country, and i believe that we have worked out an agreement to try to get them the vet ran services that -- veteran services that they have earned and are not receiving at this

time. the usual calm and quiet conversation has led to a conclusion that now i can ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment 4039. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from arizona mr. mccain proposes amendment number 4039 to amendment 3896. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, i thank my friend, the senator from arizona, for working with us on this very important issue of making sure that veterans and a number of our states are able to get the kind of care and -- quality care in a location that is convenient to them and appreciate his partnering with me and senator schumer and others on this issue. mr. president, i was going to rise a little earlier when my friend, the senator from

missouri, spoke, and that was to talk about the question on infrastructure investment. this is infrastructure investment week and stakeholders from across the country are here to continue to raise the question that we need to do more to rebuild our nation's crumbling infrastructure. we all know that recently we passed a five-year highway bill, and i supported it. the fast act as it was called was a good bill. but it included only modest increases in funding, and it's clear whether we look at our region's metro or the memorial bridge that many of us travel on on a regular basis or airports or water systems all over the country, we need to look at additional ways to invest in our nation's infrastructure. senator blunt and i have filed an amendment to the current transportation appropriations

bill that we had before us that would establish a national infrastructure financing authority, the bridge act, a bridge act that is supported currently and cosponsored by six republicans, six democrats as bringing about a new tool to make innovative ways to finance projects. i believe my friend, the senator from connecticut, is a supporter of this type of approach. our bipartisan bridge act creates a $10 billion government loan fund, a loan fund that will repay. it doesn't add a single dime to the federal deficit and all experts say this modest initial investment ultimately could unlock up to $300 billion in private sector capital to invest in our nation's infrastructure. let's be honest. we all know why we're here.

the funding mechanisms which our transportation system relies on are simply unsustainable. we spend more money each year just in maintaining our highway trust fund and highway system than our trust fund brings in. and yet our needs continue to grow. the american society of civil engineers recently gave the united states a d plus grade on infrastructure. now, i don't know about my friend, the senator from new york, but i'm sure that he often preferred grades better than d plus when he was a student. if we look back over recent times, this is not a democrat or republican issue. this is a problem that has been gnawing at this country for some time. there's literally been a 50% decrease in infrastructure investment as a percentage of

our g.d.p. since the 1970's. the unction spends less than 2% of our gross domestic product on infrastructure. according to the american society of civil engineers, underinvestment in our national infrastructure will cost each american family $3,400 a year. that's in wasted time. that's sitting in gridlock. that's in not being able to get to work, not being able to be with one's family. the most significant gap of course is not only in water but is obviously in transportation. where it's been estimated that an additional $1 trillion is needed across the network, including roads, bridges, rail during the next decade, again i point to many of the members in this body and so many of the

folks who work for us simply traveling across the memorial bridge, one of our nation's icons which is basically in a crumbling state. meanwhile, if we look at nations around the world in terms of what they're doing, remember, the united states is under 2% of g.d.p. investment and infrastructure. europe and india spend about 5% of their g.d.p. on an annual basis in infrastructure. china nearly 9%. australia already has a national infrastructure financing authority. china also has a national infrastructure funding authority that's building out national high speed rail networks. think about it. for most of the 20th century it was america infrastructure that led to america's economic dominance in the 20th century. today whether it's flying into our airport, looking at our rail system, our crumbling roads and

bridges, america's infrastructure in many ways is a disgrace and actually retards economic growth r growth. as we -- economic growth. as we tighten our belts at the state level and i say that as a former governor and at the federal level, we need to do everything we can to invest in infrastructure as a means of not only providing jobs but helping the flow of goods and people and services to stay competitive in the global economy. despite the recent passage of the so-called fast act, only 6% of infrastructure funding in the united states is from the private sector. with over $2.2 trillion sitting in private ledgers looking for a place to invest, that's meager 6% figure in terms of private sector investment and infrastructure could be dramatically increased. the bridge act, the bill i'm

working on with senator blunt, establishes such an authority. it complements existing federal programs scattered across several agencies. it allows us to consolidate expertise it takes to go against wall street, frankly, in putting together infrastructure financing programs. this new authority could provide an important new tool for state and local governments to partner with the private sector to invest in our nation's infrastructure. now, let me be clear. infrastructure financing alone isn't a silver bullet. if you finance, you've got to pay those dollars back, but when we're looking at interest rates at record lows, failure to take advantage of accessing these private markets with interest rates at these low levels is the equivalent of political

malfeasance. this program in terms of the bridge act would complement existing programs like tifia and wifia which already provide good work. my hope is, mr. president, that joining with senator blunt and 12 of our colleagues, equal numbers of democrats and republicans, if not on this bill, we will act a the -- act on the bridge act and provide this critically important needed infrastructure tool to our tool kit to make sure that our roads, bridges, airports, water and sewer systems are both functioning and allows america to compete in the 21st century economy. with that, mr. president, i notice -- i yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. a senator: mr. president? i just want to -- the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you. the presiding officer: the presiding officer: we're

in roll call. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i'll be very brief. a number of us have clinics that serve our veterans' population. i have one in rochester. the senator from virginia has one, i think in newport beach. hampton roads. and there are others on both sides of the aisle where there was a potential -- where there's a potential problem because of the way c.b.o. scored it. we agreed rather than piggyback on the mccain amendment, that we would figure out a way to solve this problem bipartisan in the ndaa bill and i very pruch appreciate my friend from arizona's commitment to help us solve that problem. i know we'll have the complete cooperation of our ranking member, senator reed, and i look forward to trying to solve the problem for the benefit of

veterans throughout the country who don't get the services that we need and we can move forward, at least in 17 areas where they will. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i just want to join my colleague from new york as the rarpging member of the -- ranking member of the v.a. committee, having worked with senator mccain on his amendment, i'm very pleased that the mccain-blumenthal amendment has been made pending and that we have an agreement to authorize those v.a. leases that were requested over the last fiscal years when we turned to the national defense authorization act. i want to stress that these leases have been requested over the last several fiscal years, and this agreement embodies a situation that has to be addressed. and i thank my colleague from arizona for working with me on the amendment and now being so understanding on these requests,

at least in committing to make sure we address this very strongly felt need. and i also want to thank my colleague from virginia for his work on this issue and for his work on the infrastructure spending measure that he has offered, and i have supported for years. i hope that we can get it done because the infrastructure of our nation as well as my state require that we commit the money as an investment. it's not funding. it's not spending. it's an investment in our future. we can't have a 21st century economy unless we have a 21st century infrastructure, roads, bridge, rail, airports. and i am pleased and proud to join him in this effort. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. a senator: mr. president, in a

piece of legislation of this size and this scope and this magnitude, there's always much to praise. mr. lee: unfortunately from time to time there's much to criticize. i rise today specifically to try to correct one major mistake in this bill. as currently written, it permits the department of housing and urban development to proceed with the implementation of its radical new regulation, the insultingly misnad firm tifl -- affirmatively furthering fair housing rule or affh. opponents of affh, including president obama, claim that affh fulfills the original purpose and promise of the fair housing act of 1968, but the truth is, mr. president, h.u.d.'s new housing rule isn't the fulfil fulfillment but a betrayal of the fair housing act of 1968. the purpose of the fair housing

act was to protect the god given right of individuals and families regardless of their skin color or their ethnicity to buy and rent homes where they please. by contrast, the explicit purpose of h.u.d.'s new rule is to empower federal bureaucrats to dictate where a communities -- a community's low-income residents will live. this is not what progress looks like, mr. president. affh not only grants unprecedented new powers to h.u.d., powers that were not contemplated by and have for legitimate basis in the fair housing act of 1968, but it will ultimately hurt the very people it purports to help, public housing residents, especially african-american public housing residents who too often find themselves trapped in dysfunctional, broken neighborhoods. to make matters worse, this new

rule will end america's unique and uniquely successful commitment to localism and diversity and make neighborhood level construction decisions subject to the whims of future presidents. if this past year has not yet done enough to give you pause about handing over such power to the executive branch, then you're not paying close enough attention. so i'm offering an amendment today number 3897, an amendment that would prohibit h.u.d. from using any federal taxpayer money to carry out the affirmatively furthering fair housing rule. the house of representatives has already passed this amendment twice and will likely do so again in the near future. we should follow the lead of the house of representatives in this regard. now, here's how the rule works: affh requires cities and towns across the country to audit their own local housing policies

under close supervision by h.u.d. regulators who may have never lived anywhere near the city or town or municipality in question. if any aspect of a community's housing and demographic patterns fails to meet h.u.d. bureaucrats' expansive definition of "fair housing," te local government must submit a plan. according to the preferences and the priorities set not by the community in question but by the bureaucrats, the bureaucrats in washington, possibly hundreds or even thousands of milesway. -- miles away. critics of affh often say -- and i have said myself -- that this rule turns h.u.d. that a sort of national housing board with the power to unilaterally rewrite local zoning laws and land use regulations in every city, in every town in america. but that's not quite how the rule works, and that's why

senator collins' amendment would not do anything to prevent the implementation of the very things we worry about with affh. in the 10 months since the rule was finalized, it has become clear that the mechanics of affh are much more underhanded and surer havive than critics have often claimed. under the new rule, h.u.d. doesn't replace local housing authorities, it conscripts them into its service. mr. president, this gets to the very heart of the difference between my amendment and the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, the senior senator from maine, senator collins. the danger of affh is not that h.u.d. will direct local governments and public housing authorities to make specific changes to their zoning policies. it will just threaten them by tying obedience to federal community development block grants, obedience to the

commands ever federal regulators will be a condition precedence of sorts to the on-going receipt of federal funds from the cdbg program. cdbg is a federal grant program controlled by h.u.d., one that allocates some $3 billion per year to local governments to help them address a variety of community development needs, including providing adequate and affordable public housing for their community. traditionally, local officials have been more or less free to use their cdbg funds according to their own community's unique needs and specific priorities, but under affh, h.u.d. officials will withhold a local government's cdbg funds unless that local government adopts h.u.d.'s preferred housing policies. now, predictably, proponents of the rule claim that this will be a collaborative process with local government officials in the driver's seat while the bureaucrats at h.u.d. merely provide support and guidance.

but the ten-month track record of affh suggests that precisely the opposite will be true. in fact, i've already heard from the housing authority of salt lake county predicting that the costs of complying with affh will stretch their already-thin resources, add hundreds of hours of bureaucratic paperwork to their workloads, and eliminate their autonomy to determine the best ways to provide adequate low-cost housing to their communities. mr. president, the problem with h.u.d.'s new rule has nothing to do with the stated intentions behind it. in a press release announcing the finalization of affh, h.u.d. secretary hulian castro said, "unfortunately, too many americans find their dreams limited by where they come from and a zip code should never determine a child's future."

close quote. i completely agree. there's no disputing that the neighborhood in which a child grows up might affect his educational, social, and professional outcomes in the future. nor is there any disagreement that far too many children today are raised in dysfunctional neighborhoods because it's the only place their parents can find affordable housing. the lack of affordable housing is not a new problem in america. just ask anyone who has ever had to pay rent in one of the major metropolitan areas controlled by the democratic party. but neither is the solution. the best way to make housing more affordable is to allow more housing to be built and the best way to help low-income citizens find fair and affordable house something to empower them to live in a neighborhood that meets -- meets their needs. the history of chicago is instructive here.

in the 2000's, chicago's city government demolished many of its city's public housing facilities without any kind of a plan to replace them. those with the resources and wherewithal to choose where to live, move to places where house something cheap and economic opportunity is plentiful. but the less fortunate were relocated to more remote, less prosperous towns, towns like dubuque, iowa, at the behest of -- who else? -- the u.s. department of housing and urban development. in 2008, the it city of dubuque was struggling to meet the needs of its own public housing residents. yet in stepped the u.s. department of housing and urban development declaring that the city's housing policies would fail to meet the agency's fair housing standards and that, therefore, the city would be ineligible to receive federal funding from h.u.d. unless the

local government actively recruited section 8 voucher holders from chicago. unwhrg to lose access to federal funding on which the city had come to rely, the small iowa town acquiesced to h.u.d.'s demands. aggressive as they were, unacceptable as they were. this imposed an enormous administrative burden on the city's resource-strapped agencies. the but h.u.d.'s real victims were shies public housing residents were forcibly displaced to an unknown town 200 miles from the city that they used to call home. mr. president, unless we pass this amendment to defund the disastrously misguided affh rule, this is what the future of public housing in america will

look like. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and reaffirming that low-income families are not statistics to be managed by distant bureaucrats. they're human beings, our neighbors in need who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: th the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i've listened very carefully to the presentation made by my colleague from utah, senator lee, and i wish to respond to the concerns that he raised. indeed, if the picture that he drew were accurate, i might be a

supporter rather than an opponent of his amendment. first let me be clear that there is nothing in our bill that "authorizes" this rule. this rule was issued pursuant to h.u.d.'s normal regulatory authority in response to a report which i will discuss in a moment that was issued by the g.a.o., the government accountability office. the amendment offered by senator lee would prohibit funding for h.u.d.'s rule that is known as the affirmatively furthering fair housing rule. it was finalized in july of last year. but it is based on a requirement from the landmark civil rights

era law, the 1968 fair housing act. that law mandates that h.u.d. ensure that recipients of h.u.d. funding not only prevent discrimination but also act to further the goals of fair housing that are outlined in this landmark law. and, in fact, repeatedly over the years, congress has reinforced this goal. as recently as 1998 in the quality housing and work responsibility act, h.u.d. program recipients were required to affirmatively further fair housing. now, mr. president, it is important when we talk about fair housing that we remember

that we're talking about not only prohibiting discrimination based on race but also discrimination based on disabilities, on ethnic origin, and even against families with children. in fact, in fiscal year 2015, 56% of all reported complaints of housing discrimination were initiated by people with disabilities, and that is why so many organizations who are representing our disabled citizens are so strongly opposed and concerned about senator lee's amendment. for example, the paralyzed veterans of america, an organization that was founded by

service members who returned home after world war ii with spinal cord injuries, believes that h.u.d.'s rule will help curb discrimination against people with disabilities, including our veterans and our seniors. according to the paralyzed veterans of america, the alarming trend of more than 50% of complaints about housing discrimination being initiated by individuals with disabilities will affect americans returning from conflicts abroad as well as a growing percentage of our seniors who are suffering from disabilities or living with disabilities. the organization also believes that h.u.d.'s rule will help local governments identify strategies and solutions to

expand accessible and supportive housing choices for our seniors and our veterans. i wish everyone had heard senator isakson's eloquent speech on the floor this afternoon when he talked about a wonderful, inclusive mixed-housing development -- mixed-income housing development in atlanta that has included a charter school and a "y" and has resulted in the test scores of the children going up and crime decreasing because of the model that was adopted for this particular development. now, i mentioned earlier that it's important to know that h.u.d. issued this new rule in

response to a specific 2010 g.a.o. report. now, members in this chamber are always looking to g.a.o. for information, advice, recommendations on how we can improve the effectiveness and the efficiency ofederal programs to make sure that they're fulfilling the mandates that we have written, to make sure that they are serving the people who they are intended to serve in the manner that congress intended. so g.a.o. took a look at the fair housing requirements -- and particularly the requirement in the fair housing act that recipients of h.u.d.'s grants

were to affirmatively advantages fair housing -- advance fair housing, and it was very critical of the haphazard nature of h.u.d.'s oversight and the fact that communities didn't know whether they were in compliance or not, that there was a lack of tools of community involvement, of assessments to make sure that those goals were being met. well, mr. president, once h.u.d. issued its final rule, the g.a.o. was satisfied and closed out its recommendations, and as the presiding officer is well aware, there are times when federal agencies never implement g.a.o.'s recommendations or take years to do so, and we in the senate have to hammer the

agencies over and over again on why didn't you implement g.a.o.'s recommendations. well, in this case, h.u.d. did so. so not only was the origin of the rule the g.a.o. report but also communities were seeking better tools and more guidance. senator kaine, a former mayor of richmond, a former governor of the commonwealth of virginia, was eloquent in describing the fact that he welcomed these rules because it was so hard when he was the mayor to know exactly how to accomplish the goal of affirmatively advancing fair housing. what exactly did that mean to h.u.d.?

indeed, there is an excellent article that appeared in "the hill" today by the director of the policy link center for infrastructure equity and the director of the promise neighborhoods institute that talk about the history of this rule, and in particular -- and i want to quote -- the authors say the opposition ignores the fact that the rule was developed in response to city and state level requests for better tools and improved guidance, that it involves significant input from local level innovators and experimenters and that it was piloted in 74 regions nationwide over five years in the sustainable communities initiative through a tool called

the fair housing and equity assessment. and it lists cities across the country, salt lake city ironically, denver, st. paul and dallas that have all invested in affordable housing, in transit-oriented developments to ensure that residents would have access to affordable transit and housing choices as examples, just as examples. so the idea that this rule came out of thin air is just not accurate. it is based on a law that has been on the books for decades, a law that is a landmark civil rights era law. the 1968 fair housing act.

it is based on a g.a.o. report in 2010 which said h.u.d. wasn't doing a good job. it is based on requests from states and communities for more tools and more guidance from h.u.d. so this rule was not developed by our committee. it was not authorized by our committee. it comes from the 1968 law which as i said has been reaffirmed in at least three subsequent laws this this body has passed. it comes from a g.a.o. report, and it involved a lot of input. now, according to senator lee -- and we heard him speak about it today -- he fears that h.u.d. is going to be turned into -- i believe he's called it a

national zoning authority for every neighborhood and federal bureaucrat thousands of miles away in washington will be in charge of our local communities. well, first let me say that i do not believe that to be the case, and i believe it is a misreading of the guidance. however, i would never want that either, and that's why, along with my colleagues senator jack reed and senator thad cochran, we have introduced an amendment to ensure that h.u.d. cannot do that to prohibit h.u.d. from being involved in local zoning decisions. so that the recipients of federal dollars will continue to make their own local decisions to address the federal

requirements. and because there has been so much misrepresentation about our amendment, let me read you exactly what it says. it couldn't be clearer. none, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of housing and urban development to direct a grantee to undertake specific changes to existing zoning laws as part of carrying out the final role entitled affirmatively furthering fair housing. so, mr. president, i don't know how the amendment could be any clearer than that. so we have made sure that the worst fear, the worst scenario that the sponsor of this amendment has conjured up cannot

occur if our amendment passes. on the other hand, i want to point out what senator lee's amendment would do. it would prevent h.u.d. from providing the necessary technical assistance and guidance and help that localities have continuously asked h.u.d. to provide to ensure that they don't get sued, that they are not susceptible to costly and unnecessary fair housing litigation brought by individuals or outside groups. they want h.u.d.'s help. but under senator lee's amendment, no funding could be used to get them that kind of help. i don't see how that makes sense, but that is how broadly

written his amendment is. i want to correct something else that was said. senator lee talked about the enormous burden that this rule will impose on the recipients of h.u.d. funds. to be clear, the rule requires the recipients to complete the fair housing analysis only once every five years. once every five years. similar to all other h.u.d. requirements in their consolidated plans. so that argument also in my judgment falls. let me say that we are all aware of concerns, despite the

tremendous progress that has been made in this country, about the lack of progress in providing housing opportunities to all americans. that's why in our bill we try to deal with homeless veterans even though we do deal with homeless veterans. we put in $57 million for additional vouchers for homeless veterans, even though the administration wanted to eliminate that important program. we are continuing to work on them. finally, let me respond to a specific case that senator lee mentioned involving chicago and dubuque. now, to begin with, it is simply a mistaken statement to say that

chicago residents were -- quote -- forced to relocate to dubuque. that is just not accurate. it is true that this is a federal voucher program, and as republicans, we usually like vouchers because we want americans to have choices about where they live, so the section 8 program, for example, which is a voucher-based program, doesn't say that you can only use it in portland, maine, or providence, rhode island, or salt lake city, utah, or chicago, illinois. it is a program that allows people to live where they want to live but it is a program with

a long waiting list in most cities. and nothing also, despite what has been written, nothing in the rule requires that dubuque be considered part of chicago, that it's not a statement that the sponsor of the amendment made today, but it is a statement that has been circulated by some outside groups, and it's simply ridiculous. it's absolutely absurd. the concerns raised with dubuque are related to a settlement that the city reached with h.u.d. in 2013 which was well before this rule was finalized. and the agreement was a result of a compliance review under the civil rights act, title 6 of the

civil rights act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin, in programs receiving assistance. and sadly, the city of dubuque was found to not be in compliance with the civil rights act because the city was purging and closing wait lists for the section 8 voucher program and creating residency requirements that are not allowed. and indeed, sad to say, in the letter of finding, h.u.d. wrote the city of dubuque knew its actions would limit or deny participation of african-americans in its section 8 program. and i would hope we could all agree -- i'm sure we could all

agree that that is just wrong. so the dubuque case, rather than being an example of the bizarre consequences of this rule, as has been portrayed, is in fact yet another reminder that even in this day and age, there continue to be some clear violations of the fair housing act. mr. president, i hope that my colleagues will join me in voting against senator lee's amendment. i am sure that he is well intentioned, but the effects of this amendment would be very harmful to the goals that we all share of fair housing in

america. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. i rise to support the position of my colleague, the chairman of the committee, senator collins of maine, in opposition to the amendment offered by the senator from utah, which would inhibit, indeed prohibit h.u.d. from implementing or enforcing the affirmatively furthering fair housing regulations. i think it's important to remind everyone why these regulations were proposed in the first place. the fair housing act of 1968 was enacted because banks, landlords and developers were excluding people from buying or renting in certain neighborhoods based on race. under that law, communities are qierd to take steps to further fair housing to prevent discrimination and segregation. i think we have come a long way from 1968 and i don't think anyone is arguing with the premise and the purpose and the

beneficial aspects of that legislation. it's based on trying to ensure that americans have fair access to housing, no matter their race in 1968, but we have added legislatively physical ability, family status or religion. that people should have a chance to live based on their own choice and their resources and that should be the deciding factor. and i hope we could all agree that people should not be turned away from a thaikd because of their rlg -- neighborhood because of their religion, disability or race. that was the aspiration in 1968 and still often it's the aspiration of the united states. and what h.u.d. is trying to do with these regulations is to give local communities the tools and the resources to live up to the legislative mandate that we imposed and we continue to impose. and as the chairman said so

well, this doesn't emanate from some person in a room thinking a great thought. in 2010 the government accounting office did an audit to i a says compliance to the -- assess compliance to the fair housing act. that's their job. they're the people who check whether federal agencies are doing what we tell them to do, we, the united states congress. and they found that many h.u.d. grantees did not analyze impediments to fair housing. that we were giving money to organizations throughout this country and they weren't even making an attempt to analyze the impediments that exist at the fair housing. they also found that for those that did, they failed to establish any goals or objectives or address any impediments to fair housing. they just found them and said fine. that's not what the 1968 legislation requires. and that h.u.d. was unable to determine if a community was actually meeting its obligation under the law. h.u.d. did not know whether 1968

act and subsequent amendments to that act by the united states congress was being implemented at the local level. and this was the g.a.o.'s finding. they did the audit. and in response and h.u.d. is often criticized for not responding effectively to the g.a.o. or anyone else, here they responded. they required and developed regulations which would insist that grantees conduct a fair housing analysis and submit their fair housing assessment to h.u.d. for review. as a result of this proposed regulation, h.u.d. went through a two-year rule-making process. this was not some whimsical spur of the moment decision, a press release to say let's do this. two years, fully open to public hearings, comment and review, fully susceptible to challenge in court if it was not measured up to the administrative

procedure act and fair housing act of 1968. so this process is a result of the regulations that will actually carry out the intent of the united states congress. and to reinforce and to clarify what the chairman has said, these regulations, you're not changing existing law. they do not dictate local zoning decisions. they in fact simplify the responsibilities of grantees to comply with the fair housing act because they give the grantees the data and the tools to help communities comply with the law. they do not require grantees to gather new data because h.u.d. provides the data to them. and to help communities comply with the fair housing act, h.u.d. is working closely with the grantees providing technical assistance and holding training sessions across the country. so this is a collaborative effort. it's an effort that does not

dictate a national outcome. it helps localities working with their particular situation to develop a response to the legislature requirements that we had emphatically insisting upon since 1968. and we're also working as we should to make sure that this process is continually evaluated by h.u.d. to be streamlined, to be simplified and particularly when it comes to dealing with small communities who can't bear the administrative overhead that some larger cities might be able to do. and h.u.d. is providing assistance to ensure that these grantees are complying with the law. we all understand, and this is a principle that applies not just to h.u.d. programs but every program, that grantees have an obligation to use federal resources responsibly, consistent with the legal

requirements and basically the requirements of the 1968 act was access to housing should not be denied because of race and as we further amended, disability and other categories. and this is the same we should expect for all recipients of federal support, that they follow the law. this improved process, in my view, protects communities to ensure they still have a choice of how they meet their obligations under the fair housing act. and there's nothing in these regulations that undermines the ability of a local community to determine these solutions. but they have to begin to recognize their responsibilities under the 1968 act. and their solutions are ones that will be organic to the community, what works for them given the objective ensuring that there are no artificial

impediments to access to housi housing. also important to note that if h.u.d. is prevented from implementing these regulations, that doesn't change the obligations of these communities under the fair housing act. it's been in place for 48 years. those requirements will still remain in place, and they'll be not only opportunity but there will be the obligation to take legal action. senator kaine this morning was on the floor and as a young lawyer in virginia, he became an expert in fair housing because people came to him with complaints and he took them to court. what we're trying to do, interestingly enough, is avoid a lot of that by having a process where the impediments have been removed by a local solution. this amendment that senator lee proposes would prevent h.u.d. from satisfying these g.a.o. recommendations to provide guidance, clarity and support to its guarantees.

and this amendment makes guarantees liable for compliance without the tools of the data -- or the data to do it. ironically it probably puts them in a worse position. and so i would join the chairman and urge our colleagues to reject this amendment. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i want to express my strong support for the 200017 -- 2017 transportation, housing and urban development appropriations bill. senator collins and senato senad deserve tremendous credit for their leadership on this bipartisan bill. mr. boozman: congress has a basic responsibility to determine how we spend hard earned taxpayer dollars. it's a responsibility that my

colleagues and i on the appropriations committee take very seriously. debating and passing these annual bills provides accountability. it's an important part of setting priorities, making choices, and reducing waste. last week the senate passed an energy and water appropriations bill crafted by senators alexander and feinstein. i don't serve on their subcommittee, i was very proud to support their bill and i congratulate them on moving forward, moving forward and making the process work. the 2017 transportation-hud bill is the latest example of the senate's return to regular order. this process enables all senators to play an active role in the legislative process and to address concerns that are important to their states. this bill is crafted with bipartisan support and helps drive the growth of our nation. senator collins and reed have put in a lot of work to prepare

this bill for consideration as have both of their staffs. the discretionary spending in this bill is within the budget caps and reflects a responsible approach. the bill strongs our country's infrastructure -- strengthens our country's infrastructure and transportation system. this week is recognized as infrastructure week, and i've heard from several arkansans that this must remain a priority. our citizens have opportunities and our nation is a powerful economic force thanks in part to our roads and bridges, airports, waterways, and related structures. we need to maintain our roads because they provide a reliable way to move goods and services around the country and the rest of their infrastructure to countries around the world. these investments lead to job creation and greatly benefit our economy. the bill provides critical funding to modernize air traffic control, and while our current

system is second to none in safety, the f.a.a. must accelerate its progress toward operating a more efficient system. a modern air traffic control system will be more convenient for travelers, it will save money, and it will clean the environment by reducing the amount of fuel used by aircraft. the bill provides critical funding to improve aircraft certification services. these improvements can help aircraft manufacturers including those in arkansas that are fighting to win in a competitive global market. the bill provides critical highway funding that is consistent with the long-term highway bill we passed last year. under the leadership of senator inhoffe and boxer. i'm pleased that this bill includes a provision i authored to empower the state to designate a portion of highway 67 in arkansas from north little rock to walnut ridge, its future

i-57. arkansas has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to build an interstate quality road and we're not calling it what it is. the presence of an official interstate highway is one of the initial key factors that developers consider when determining where to make major investments, such as building new factories. community leaders along this stretch of road shared their excitement about the future designation. the executive director for the regional chamber of commerce says this, will improve the transportation network and expand economic development opportunities. john chadwell, executive director for the newport economic development commission says this will open up opportunities to arkansas business and give companies an even greater access to national and global markets. walnut ridge mayor charles snatt says this designation will open a lot of doors.

the alderman voted to support the designation, resolutions for the support i-57 designation have been passed by the newport economic development commission as well as chambers of commerce in cabot, jacksonville, lawrence county, newport, sherwood. other expressions of support have been received from communities throughout the central arkansas and northeast arkansas regions. this designation is an important step to make arkansas a better connected state that is open for business. this bill also sets high priorities and provides critical funding through programs like community development block grants. these programs work because they allow decisions to be made at the local community level. i appreciate the efforts to make sure rural states like arkansas are not left behind by housing and development programs. i compment the chair and rank -- compliment the ranking member

and chair to address priorities under these programs. we're also jointly considering the military construction veterans affairs bill. they have worked very hard to put together a good package for the senate to debate. the bill funds record levels and invests in priorities such as veterans health care, benefit claims processing, the board of veterans appeals, the v.a. inspector general as well as prosthetic research. it also includes funding for projects to ensure military readiness and improve the quality of life for our military families. i grew up in a military family, and i would be honored to serve on the veterans affairs committee since my first day in the house of representatives. the needs of veterans are very important to me, and i'm proud to support the work that senator kirk and senator tester have done to provide funding for 2017. these are funding and policy priorities for both sides of the aisle. i encourage my colleagues to

support this legislation because it creates an environment that helps grow our economy, reins in spending and takes care of our veterans. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. a senator: mr. president, i want to recognize the good work of the chairman and the ranking member on the transportation, housing, urban development appropriations subcommittee for their good work on this very important appropriations bill. ms. murkowski: i recognize that while we haven't had a

multiseries of votes on amendments on this bill, i know that the floor managers have been working aggressively to process amendments and make this appropriations bill not only the t-hud but the milcon bill, make it a good, good appropriations america. so i thank my colleagues for their respective efforts, and i'm pleased to see us processing appropriations bills here on the senate floor. mr. president, i wanted to take just a few minutes this evening to talk about the affordable care act and some of the impacts that we're seeing in my state of alaska. we treefer this as the -- we refer to this as the a.c.a., the affordable care act. but most folks when i talk to them back home call it the unaffordable care act because we just don't see how this is making health care affordable.

last year we saw a dozen co-ops fail that were created by the a.c.a. which literally threw people into turmoil. united health, one of the largest providers in the country, has been forced off the exchanges in numerous states. just last week we had the news back home that moda health was going to be withdrawing from the alaska market in 2017. what that means, mr. president, is that we will be a state with only one option in the individual market next year. so what that means for the some 14,000 alaskans that are currently on a moda plan, they're going to be forced to change insurers next year, imu i guess it's -- but i guess it's an easy choice when you only have the choice of one on the individual market there. then we saw the court find that the administrative payments of the cost-share option was

unconstitutional, so we can only assume that that's going to exacerbate problems. this week there was an article about the ever-shrinking market for rural areas. and the article mentioned a small business owner in kodiak, alaska, a book keeper who is worrying about what the price of premiums will be when you're left with only one option. and see makes this statement. hey says, "it's going to be -- it's going to be a monopoly basically. here's the price, take it or leave it." that's what happens when you have just one. as the market continues to fail in other states, we are seeing other states lose their options as well. alabama and wyoming are also now left with only one choice, and more states may be facing this in the near future.

"the wall street journal" article goes on to point out that the "patchwork of coverage reflects continued instability in the individual markets as companies shift their geographic footprints to avoid areas that have turned out to generate steep losses and focus on places that they believe that they can get their a.c.a. business into the black." so what that means for states like alaska that are very rural and that have some of the highest health care costs in the nation, we're just not attractive enough to foster competition. and at the end of the day, who suffers? it's -- it's the alaskans. it's those who are seeking the care. the administration says that the market just needs to -- quote -- "stablingize and -- stabilize and evolve." but, really, what about this book keeper in kodiak? what about educators out there, parents who are left wondering,

what do we do in the meantime? it used to be that the federal government broke up monopolies and worked to foster competition in order to benefit consumers. but now what we're seeing -- at least playing out in my state -- is through bad law and failed policies, we see that same government creating de facto monopolies in the individual marketplace. i find it deeply troubling that, as these options -- these health insurance options continue to shrink, any hope of curbing the rapid increase of premium rates also disappears. we are -- we are constantly asked by our constituents, are my premiums going to continue to increase? we're talking about monthly premiums in the state of alaska amounting to $3,000 a month for a family. think about that.

that's not affordable. -- in anybody's book. and it's not beyond the realm of possibility given what we have already seen. last year in alaska between moda and premera, the two that were on -- covering on the individual markets, the increases were over 30%. somewhere between 32%, 35% increases over the previous year. now i've been on the floor here, i've shared stories of hardworking alaskans who were paying a couple thousands dollars a month for the cheapest bronze plan that is available on the exchange. i've spoken about how the a.c.a. has been called the single greatest threat to quality public education, and the reason for that is our school districts were being faced with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines under the cadillac tax when it

is imposed. i have relayed stories from employers who are saying, i can't afford to expand my business. i won't expand my business because of the employer mandate, harming not only the businesses but the workers themselves. so bottom line -- and i hear it from all corners of the state -- the a.c.a. is not working for us in alaska. i had a group of realtors from around the state visit me in my office here last week, and one woman in the group said that she was paying $2,500 a month -- she's got a family of four, she has a $6,000 deductible for her coverage -- and she's saying, you know, this is really hard for us to keep making these payments every month. they don't qualify for the subsidies. i talked to another young family from eagle river who was forced

to switch from premera to moda after the a.c.a. passed because the premium increases were not sustainable. and even then when they switched, they were paying $1,200 a month with a $^10,000 deductible. so what happens when you got a deductible like that? you put off that health care. but think about it. it just makes it so hard to run a business. it makes it so hard to run -- or to pay for your day-to-day experiences. and, worse yet, for that family from eagle river, they -- they went from premera to moda because the premiums were too high. now moda is leaving, so they've got to go back to the insurer that was too high before. this family is just scrambling. what are they going to do? how are they going to be able to afford insurance in the future? and as the costs continue to rise, these small businesses are

wondering, how -- how long do we keep our doors open, if these costs continue at these rates? in anchorage, a couple with moda has been paying $2,500 a month with a $10,000 deductible, an increase of $1,000 a month over their premiums for last year. now they, again, are going to be switching to the only company in 2017 on the individual market. they're going to see yet another increase. a woman in anchorage that we talked to has watched year after year as her rates increased from $500 a month to nearly $2,000 a month, and she's basically holding her breath for what the 2017 premium rates will hold. we don't know yet in alaska because of the announcement from moda. we're not sure what the increase will be coming from the other insurer.

but more and more i'm hearing from folks who say that they feel it's just cheaper to simply not buy insurance, to pay the tax penalty, and then hope and pray that nobody in the family gets sick. mr. president, hoping to not get sick is not a health plan. and as more and more alaskans are dropping out, costs for those that stay in go up, driving more to drop out, and you've got this death spiral within the system. the deeper we get into life under the a. ce a., the -- under the a.c.a., the deeper the alaskaians fall into a hole. the a.c. hay e.a. has failed the people. this one-size-fits-all approach rarely works for state as diverse as alaska. but this is not the only place where we're seeing the law failing. there's more that needs to be

done to make the health -- the affordable care act work for rural parts of the country that have specialized needs, thanks to higher me medical costs, lacf being a seases and now fewer insurance options. we in congress need to take a serious look at the trends we've seen and work on the solutions that will provide the flexibility that is needed for the states to make a difference when it comes to access to affordable care. now, i have consistently supported full repeal of the a.c.a. i voted to do so on several occasions now, but i've also recognized that it was -- it was going to be difficult, if not impossible, in this administration to do so. but i have supported steps that would reduce the burdens of the a.c.a. and i think work to

address some of the most harmful provisions in the law. one example is full repeal of the cadillac tax that i just mentioned. the cadillac tax will only worsen conditions in alaska with nearly 62% of customers that would be facing that tax, if the cadillac tax were to be implemented. again, i repeat, we -- in our state, our -- not only our health care costs are high, but our insurance costs are so high. so whether you are in what would be considered "a cadillac plan" because of the benefits or it's just because you're paying so much for it, it is assumed that those benefits are good. 62% of the folks in alaska would be impacted by this tax. and it's a prime example of the a.c.a. hurting small, rural states because so many of us have just more expensive health care due to the remoteness and due to our lower population size. and then those states are forced

to take money away from things, like our school districts where they're trying to put the money into public education, into other services to pay for the costs. so our state survetio suffers, r burroughs suffer, and our alaskan families suffer. so as we look to the end of this administration, i would hope -- and looking to next year -- i would hope we could seriously address the problems that the a.c.a. has created for so many areas of our country. for rural states like alaska, the approach to health care needs to focus on more than forcing people to just buy insurance, and unfortunately buy expensive insurance. we need to work to find solutions to these issues, whether it be through the creation of a nationwide insurance pool, so that policies aren't limited to one state, as they are currently.

right now, as i say, alaska is not a very attractive market. we've got high costs, small numbers. how are we going to get a greater pool? we need to look more critically at how we improve the cost of transparency of medical procedures. we need to look critically at these special enrollment periods and see if people are finding loopholes that allow them to game the system. expanding both health savings and flexible spending accounts will allow people to save what they think that they should and make the choices for themselves instead of the government forcing things on individuals. when we think about those areas that we can save money through not spending it in the first place -- an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure -- we should be incentivizing people to live healthier lifestyles in order to prevent and bring down the incidence of chronic disease. type 2 diabetes, largely

preventable through lifestyle changes, costs an estimated $176 billion a year. obesity-related illnesses cost an estimated $190 billion per year. a recent study found that a 10% drop in smokers could save $63 billion in health care costs per year. it makes zero sense to be paying providers to treat these problems after they've arisen rather than trying to focus on the front end, paying for lifestyle chaiption, case management that would significantly reduce the costs of treating these diseases. so i've been working to find the solutions that will help support alaska's rural needs, especially those related to access and workforce development. because if we can improve the overall access to treatment and options to medical providers, we then take steps to reduce the costs of medical procedures. so i've supported the family

health care accessibility act that will improve the care provided by community health centers, by enabling them to utilize volunteer primary care providers. community health centers i think so many of us recognize the benefits and the crucial role that they serve in meeting the needs of rural and underserved communities, allowing patients to receive local treatment instead of being forced to travel far from home for treatment. so steps like these that help to improve access are just some of the ways that i think we should be rethinking our approach to health care in the broader sense as we seek to alleviate the burdens that have been imposed by the a.c.a. i have continued over several congresses now to introduce the medicare patient empowerment act. this is legislation that would give patients the option to negotiate with their provider so

medicare would pay the typical fee the patient negotiates for the difference there, but we face a very unique situation in our state. again, a one-size-fits-all prescription doesn't work for us. we have incredibly low reimbursement rates for medicare in alaska, and so you have very few providers that will accept medicare. and so when you are newly medicare eligible or you come into the state, it's tough to find anybody that will see you. so if there is some flexibility to negotiate prices, what we do with this bill is cut through the red tape, allow medicare beneficiaries to benefit from increased access, enable patients to continue to have the relationships that they have built with their physicians. we've got -- we've got a very,

very fast-rising senior population in the state, and it's going to be increasingly important to make sure that they have the option to -- to seek the care that they need. mr. president, i do not support come compulsory health insurance but do believe that individuals with preexisting conditions should receive care, and i continue, i continue as we discuss these important issues here in the senate to work to address again these issues that have presented themselves with implementation of the a.c.a. so working to a place where we fully repeal and replace the a.c.a. is where we need to be. there have been several republican proposals that would not only replace this unworkable law but replace it with

consumer-based reforms. senator burr from north carolina, senator hatch from utah, senator cassidy from louisiana all have been working on important measures that take steps to really get us to a place where what we're talking about is affordable health care, a reality that works for all americans, whether you are in alaska or whether you are in north carolina. obviously, much, much work in front of us, but again it's important to recognize that the frustration that so many are feeling as they are seeing their costs increase, to let them know that we're going to continue to work on these very difficult issues. alaskans deserve it. americans deserve it. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. i'd like to speak for a few moments about the fallen educators memorial in conjunction with national teacher hall of fame located on the campus of emporia state university in emporia, kansas. when we're asked -- when someone asks the question other than your family, name person who has made a difference in your life, the answer has never been my senator, my congressman. more often, the response is a teacher. that answer speaks volumes about the influence of an educator on the lives of young people. teachers fulfill a variety of roles by encouraging our children, instilling values and challenging them. too often we take for granted

this profession and the people who make education possible are teachers. each one of us remembers a teacher. we remember in the first or second grade when they helped us sound out the big words or guided our hands as we struggled to make out the shapes of letters. remember the middle schoolteacher, the jim teacher who taught us how to spike a volleyball or sink the winning hoop while playing in the play-offs. we remember the high school science teacher who helped us dissect frogs or build a box made of tooth picks that would protect the egg as it dropped from a two-story building. our teachers are our friends, our mentors and our role models. the lessons they teach us stick with us for a long time after we have left their classrooms. their jobs are never done and educators know that often the last ringing bell of the afternoon, rather than signaling the end of their workday, means the beginning of a new kind of work, grading homework, tutoring

individual students or prepping for next day's lesson plan. educators work round the clock on behalf of the kids they instruct. they take on a job that requires more hours than there are in the day because they believe in their students and because they know how crucial their efforts are in seeing these students succeed. i believe we change the world one person at a time, and it happens in classrooms across kansas and around the country every day. teachers often forfeit material gain for the thrill of seeing a student's eyes light up when they see a new concept or grasp a new idea. teachers have long understood that they truly shape the world by their work and their greatest product is an educated society. unfortunately, each day teachers walk into their classrooms, they are also subject to threats of bullying or violence. far too many educators have lost their lives in the line of their professional duty.

teachers have been killed at the hands of students and many have been killed protecting their students from bullets perpetrating violent acts. to honor these klan teachers, the national teacher hall of fame under the leadership of director carol strickland created the memorial to fallen educators. the memorial which is -- which was dedicated two years ago at emporia state university stands alongside the national teacher hall of fame, and i had the honor of visiting the site last september. already built and paid more, the memorial lists the names of educators across the country who have lost their lives while working with students since 1764. it is owned and cared for by the national teacher hall of fame in emporia state university. i've introduced legislation last year that would designate the memorial to fallen educators as a national memorial. the more than 100 fallen teachers whose names are etched in marble taught in schools across the country. as a nation, we should recognize

together the incredible sacrifices they each made because of their dedication to educating young people, their dedication to caring, loving and protecting young people. of this legislation has no cost to the taxpayer and private funds will be used to maintain the memorial. it simply brings the site, the only one in the united states dedicated to fallen educators the national prestige it merits. as the senate considers the national memorials proposed for designation, i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this worthy tribute to our fallen teachers. anyone who has ever been inspired by an educator should visit the memorial and recognize and remember those honorable lives that have been lost. mr. president, i yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. collins: snrp. the presiding officer: the senator maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number. amendment number 3967 introduced by senator paul, amendment number 3992 introduced by senator johnson, amendment

number 40 is 1 introduced by -- 4011 introduced by 0 senator nelson, amendment number 4024 introduced by senator isakson, and amendment number 4042 introduced by senator warner. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report by number. the clerk: ms. collins proposes anticipated en bloc numbered 3967, 3992, 4011, 4024, and 4042. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now vote on these amendments en bloc. the presiding officer: there objection? without objection. ms. collins: if there is no further debate on these amendments -- the presiding officer: if not, yoall in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendments are agreed to en

bloc. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: