Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I just want to thank my friend and colleague from Georgia for his extremely eloquent and persuasive presentation. The example he gave us of the development in Georgia, done by Mr. Cousins, is precisely what the HUD rule is intended to promote. That is why it is called affirmatively advancing fair housing, affirmatively furthering fair housing.

With the amendment that Senator Jack Reed, Thad Cochran, and I are going to be offering, we will make absolutely clear that it is not HUD's role to dictate or interfere with local zoning ordinances. But what we should embrace in this country is the goals of the 1968 Fair Housing Act. The Senator from Georgia, who knows more about housing than any Member of this Senate, has stated very clearly and very eloquently in the example that he has given us what the goals are of the 1968 Fair Housing Act and the regulation that was issued by HUD last year.

Again, I would note that the regulation issued last year came from a GAO report issued in 2010 that found that HUD was not doing a particularly good job in this area. So it was not something that was devised by some out-of-touch bureaucrat. It was directly the result of the GAO report. The kind of mixed development, which has transformed neighborhoods in Atlanta and throughout this country and given hope and opportunity to those who may feel they are in the shadows of society, is exactly the goal of this regulation and of that famous civil rights era law, the 1968 Fair Housing Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President,

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the presentation made by my colleague from Utah, Senator Lee, and I wish to respond to the concerns he raised. Indeed, if the picture he drew were accurate, I might be a supporter rather than an opponent of his amendment.

First, let me be clear that there is nothing in our bill that authorizes this rule. This rule was issued pursuant to HUD's normal regulatory authority in response to a report, which I will discuss in a moment, that was issued by the GAO, the Government Accountability Office.

The amendment offered by Senator Lee would prohibit funding for HUD's rule that is known as the affirmatively furthering fair housing rule. It was finalized in July of last year, but it is based on a requirement from the landmark civil rights-era law, the 1968 Fair Housing Act. That law mandates that HUD ensure that recipients of HUD funding not only prevent discrimination but also act to further the goals of fair housing that are outlined in this landmark law. In fact, repeatedly over the years, Congress has reinforced this goal. As recently as 1998, the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act required HUD program recipients to affirmatively further fair housing.

When we talk about fair housing, it is important that we remember we are talking about not only prohibiting discrimination based on race but also discrimination based on disabilities, ethnic origin, and even against families with children. In fact, in fiscal year 2015, 56 percent of all reported complaints of housing discrimination were initiated by people with disabilities, and that is why so many organizations that are representing our disabled citizens are so strongly opposed and concerned about Senator Lee's amendment.

For example, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, an organization that was founded by servicemembers who returned home after World War II with spinal cord injury, believes that HUD's rule will help curb discrimination against people with disabilities, including our veterans and our seniors. According to the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the alarming trend of more than 50 percent of complaints about housing discrimination being initiated by individuals with disabilities will affect Americans returning from conflicts abroad, as well as a growing percentage of our seniors who are suffering from or living with disabilities. The organization also believes that HUD's rule will help local governments identify strategies and solutions to expand accessible and supportive housing choices for our seniors and our veterans.

I wish everyone had heard Senator Isakson's eloquent speech on the floor this afternoon when he talked about a wonderful, inclusive mixed- income housing development in Atlanta that has included a charter school and a Y. The children's test scores have gone up and crime has decreased because of the model that was adopted for this particular development.

Earlier I mentioned that it is important to know that HUD issued this new rule in response to a specific 2010 GAO report.

Members in this Chamber are always looking to GAO for information, advice, and recommendations on how we can improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of Federal programs to make sure they are fulfilling the mandates we have written and to make sure they are serving the people they are intended to serve in the manner Congress intended.

GAO took a look at the fair housing requirements and particularly the requirement in the Fair Housing Act that recipients of HUD's grants were to affirmatively advance fair housing. It was very critical of the haphazard nature of HUD's oversight and the fact that communities didn't know whether they were in compliance. There was also a lack of tools, of community involvement, and of assessments to make sure those goals were being met.

Once HUD issued its final rule, the GAO was satisfied and closed out its recommendations. As the Presiding Officer is well aware, there are times when Federal agencies never implement GAO's recommendations, or take years to do so, and we in the Senate have to hammer the agencies over and over again on why they didn't implement GAO's recommendations. Well, in this case, HUD did so.

So not only was the origin of the rule the GAO report but also communities were seeking better tools and more guidance. Senator Kaine, a former mayor of Richmond and a former Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, was eloquent in describing the fact that he welcomed these rules because it was so hard when he was the mayor to know exactly how to accomplish the goal of affirmatively advancing fair housing. What exactly did that mean to HUD?

Indeed, there is an excellent article that appeared in The Hill today by the director of the PolicyLink Center for Infrastructure Equity and the codirector of the Promise Neighborhoods Institute that talked about the history of this rule. In particular--and I want to quote--the authors say:

The opposition ignores the fact that the rule was developed in response to city- and state-level requests for better tools and improved guidance; that it involved significant input from local-level innovators and experimenters; and that it was piloted in 74 regions nationwide over five years in the Sustainable Communities Initiative through a tool called the fair housing and equity assessment.

It lists cities across the country, including Salt Lake City, ironically; Denver, St. Paul, and Dallas, which have all invested in affordable housing, in transit-oriented developments to ensure that residents would have access to affordable transit and housing choices, just as examples.

So the idea that this rule came out of thin air is just not accurate. It is based on a law that has been on the books for decades--a law that is a landmark civil rights-era law--the 1968 Fair Housing Act. It is based on a GAO report in 2010 which said HUD wasn't doing a good job. It is based on requests from States and communities for more tools and more guidance from HUD.

So this rule was not developed by our committee. It was not authorized by our committee. It comes from the 1968 law which, as I said, has been reaffirmed in at least three subsequent laws that this body has passed. It comes from a GAO report, and it involved a lot of input.

Now, according to Senator Lee, and we heard him speak about it today, he fears HUD is going to be turned into--I believe he called it a national zoning authority for every neighborhood, and Federal bureaucrats thousands of miles away in Washington will be in charge of our local communities.

First, let me say I do not believe that to be the case, and I believe it is a misreading of the guidance. However, I would never want that either. That is why, along with my colleagues Senator Jack Reed and Senator Thad Cochran, we have introduced an amendment to ensure that HUD cannot do that, to prohibit HUD from being involved in local zoning decisions so the recipients of Federal dollars will continue to make their own local decisions to address the Federal requirements.

Because there has been so much misrepresentation about our amendment, let me read to my colleagues exactly what it says. It couldn't be more clear: None--none--of the funds made available by this act may be used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to ``direct a grantee to undertake specific change to existing zoning laws as part of carrying out'' the final rule entitled ``affirmatively furthering fair housing.''

I don't know how the amendment could be any clearer than that. We have made sure the worst fear, the worst scenario the sponsor of this amendment has conjured up, cannot occur if our amendment passes.

On the other hand, I want to point out what Senator Lee's amendment would do. It would prevent HUD from providing the necessary technical assistance, guidance, and help that localities have continuously asked HUD to provide to ensure that they don't get sued, that they are not susceptible to costly and unnecessary fair housing litigation brought by individuals or outside groups. They want HUD's help, but under the Lee amendment no funding could be used to give them that kind of help. I don't see how that makes sense. That is how broadly written his amendment is.

I want to correct something else that was said. Senator Lee talked about the enormous burden this rule will impose on the recipients of HUD funds. To be clear, the rule requires the recipients to complete the fair housing analysis only once every 5 years--once every 5 years-- similar to all other HUD requirements in their consolidated plans. So that argument, in my judgment, also falls.

Let me say that we are all aware of concerns, despite the tremendous progress that has been made in this country, about the lack of progress in providing housing opportunities to all Americans. That is why in our bill we try to deal with homeless veterans--we do deal with homeless veterans. We put in $57 million for additional vouchers for homeless veterans, even though the administration wanted to eliminate that important program. We are continuing to work on that.

Finally, let me respond to a specific case that Senator Lee mentioned involving Chicago and Dubuque. To begin with, it is simply a mistake in a statement to say that Chicago residents were ``forced to relocate to Dubuque.'' That is just not accurate. It is true that this is a Federal voucher program and, as Republicans, we usually like vouchers because we want Americans to have choices about where they live. So the section 8 program, for example, which is a voucher-based program, doesn't say that you can only use it in Portland, ME, or Providence, RI, or Salt Lake City, UT, or Chicago, IL. It is a program that allows people to live where they want to live, but it is a program with a long waiting list in most cities. Nothing--also, despite what has been written-- nothing in the rule requires that Dubuque be considered part of Chicago. That is not a statement that the sponsor of the amendment made today, but it is a statement that has been circulated by some outside groups and it is simply ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd.

The concerns raised with Dubuque are related to a settlement that the city reached with HUD in 2013, which was well before this rule was finalized. The agreement was the result of a compliance review under the Civil Rights Act--title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs receiving assistance. Sadly, the city of Dubuque was found to not be in compliance with the Civil Rights Act because the city was purging and closing wait lists for the section 8 voucher program and creating residency requirements that are not allowed. Indeed, it is sad to say, in the letter of finding, HUD wrote: ``The City of Dubuque knew its actions would limit or deny the participation of African Americans in its Section 8 program.'' I would hope we could all agree--I am sure we could all agree--that is just wrong.

So the Dubuque case, rather than being an example of the bizarre consequences of this rule, as has been portrayed, is in fact yet another reminder that even in this day and age there continue to be some clear violations of the Fair Housing Act.

I hope my colleagues will join me in voting against Senator Lee's amendment. I am sure he is well-intentioned, but the effects of this amendment would be very harmful to the goals we all share of fair housing in America.

Thank you, Mr. President.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. 3967, submitted by Senator Paul; amendment No. 3992, submitted by Senator Johnson; amendment No. 4011, submitted by Senator Nelson; amendment No. 4024, submitted by Senator Isakson; and amendment No. 4042, submitted by Senator Warner.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. 3997; Tester No. 3998; Perdue No. 3933; Mikulski No. 4030; Daines No. 4008; Brown No. 3920; Inhofe No. 3969; Boxer No. 3935, as modified; Flake No. 4038; Manchin No. 4043; Flake No. 3980; Feinstein No. 3944; Johnson No. 3993; Klobuchar No. 3910; Heller No. 4005; Durbin No. 4029; and Sasse No. 4023.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. on Thursday, May 19, all postcloture time be considered expired on the Blunt-Murray amendment No. 3900; further, that if cloture is invoked on the Collins substitute amendment No. 3896, the Cornyn amendment No. 3899 and the Nelson amendment No. 3898 be withdrawn; that it be in order for Senator Collins or her designee to call up amendment No. 3970, and that there be no second degrees in order to the Collins amendment No. 3970 or the Lee amendment No. 3897.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. For the information of all Senators, at 11:15 a.m. tomorrow, the Senate is expected to proceed to three rollcall votes: a motion to waive the budget with respect to the Blunt-Murray Zika amendment, adoption of the Blunt amendment, and cloture on the pending substitute. Senators should expect additional votes to complete action on the bill and any pending amendments during tomorrow's session of the Senate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source