[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 35 (Thursday, March 11, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1460-S1462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILIS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Tester, Mr. Begich, 
        Mr. Burris, Mr. Specter, Mr. Isakson, and Mr. Graham):
  S. 3107. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for 
an increase, effective December 1, 2010, in the rates of compensation 
for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of 
dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain 
disabled veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today, as Chairman of the Senate Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs, I introduce the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-
Living Adjustment Act of 2010.
  This measure would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
increase, effective December 1, 2010, the rates of veterans' 
compensation to keep pace with the rising cost of living in this 
country, if such an adjustment is triggered by an increase in the 
Consumer Price Index. This legislation, commonly referred to as the 
COLA, would make an increase available to veterans at the same level as 
a cost-of-living increase, if provided to those who receive Social 
Security benefits.
  My colleagues on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, including 
Senators Burr, Rockefeller, Murray, Sanders, Brown of Ohio, Tester, 
Begich, Burris, Specter, Isakson, and Graham join me in introducing 
this important legislation. I appreciate their continued support of the 
Nation's veterans.
  Congress regularly enacts a cost-of-living adjustment for veterans' 
compensation in order to ensure that inflation does not erode the 
purchasing power of those veterans and survivors who depend upon this 
income to meet their daily needs. Last year, Congress passed, and the 
President signed into law, Public Law 111-37. While there was no cost-
of-living increase in 2010 due to a decline in the Consumer Price 
Index, the 2011 adjustment has not yet been determined.
  The COLA affects, among other benefits, veterans' disability 
compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving 
spouses and children. It is projected that over 3.5 million veterans 
and survivors will be in receipt of compensation benefits in fiscal 
year 2011. Many of these recipients depend upon these tax-free payments 
not only to provide for their own basic needs, but those of their 
spouses and children as well.
  It is important that we view veterans' compensation, including the 
COLA, and indeed all benefits earned by veterans, as a continuing cost 
of war. It is clear that the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan 
will continue to result in injuries and disabilities that will yield an 
increase in claims for compensation.
  Payment of disability compensation to those of our Nation's veterans 
who have an illness or disability related to their service constitutes 
one of the central missions of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It 
is a necessary measure of appreciation afforded to those veterans whose 
lives were forever altered by their service to this country.
  I urge our colleagues to work together to ensure this benefit remains

[[Page S1461]]

available and is not diminished by the effects of inflation. I also ask 
our colleagues for their continued support for the Nation's veterans.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3107

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-
     of-Living Adjustment Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN RATES OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND 
                   DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION.

       (a) Rate Adjustment.--Effective on December 1, 2010, the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall increase, in accordance 
     with subsection (c), the dollar amounts in effect on November 
     30, 2010, for the payment of disability compensation and 
     dependency and indemnity compensation under the provisions 
     specified in subsection (b).
       (b) Amounts To Be Increased.--The dollar amounts to be 
     increased pursuant to subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) Wartime disability compensation.--Each of the dollar 
     amounts under section 1114 of title 38, United States Code.
       (2) Additional compensation for dependents.--Each of the 
     dollar amounts under section 1115(1) of such title.
       (3) Clothing allowance.--The dollar amount under section 
     1162 of such title.
       (4) Dependency and indemnity compensation to surviving 
     spouse.--Each of the dollar amounts under subsections (a) 
     through (d) of section 1311 of such title.
       (5) Dependency and indemnity compensation to children.--
     Each of the dollar amounts under sections 1313(a) and 1314 of 
     such title.
       (c) Determination of Increase.--
       (1) Percentage.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), each 
     dollar amount described in subsection (b) shall be increased 
     by the same percentage as the percentage by which benefit 
     amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 401 et seq.) are increased effective December 1, 2010, 
     as a result of a determination under section 215(i) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)).
       (2) Rounding.--Each dollar amount increased under paragraph 
     (1), if not a whole dollar amount, shall be rounded to the 
     next lower whole dollar amount.
       (d) Special Rule.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may 
     adjust administratively, consistent with the increases made 
     under subsection (a), the rates of disability compensation 
     payable to persons under section 10 of Public Law 85-857 (72 
     Stat. 1263) who have not received compensation under chapter 
     11 of title 38, United States Code.
       (e) Publication of Adjusted Rates.--The Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs shall publish in the Federal Register the 
     amounts specified in subsection (b), as increased under 
     subsection (a), not later than the date on which the matters 
     specified in section 215(i)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(D)) are required to be published by 
     reason of a determination made under section 215(i) of such 
     Act during fiscal year 2011.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Tester):
  S. 3109. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to conduct levee 
system evaluations and certifications on receipt of requests from non-
Federal interests; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural 
Community Flood Protection Act of 2010.
  We have all seen, and many of us have experienced firsthand, the 
devastation that a flood can bring to any community. This devastation 
is experienced equally, whether your home is in an area that is high or 
low hazard, rural or urban, wealthy or poor. Flood control is a multi-
pronged effort involving structural and non-structural flood control 
measures, hazard mitigation, emergency planning, and insurance. Our 
Nation has a myriad of programs designed to address flood hazards. FEMA 
produces flood maps to define the risk and operates hazard mitigation 
programs to reduce risk. The National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, 
provides flood insurance to property owners in a mapped risk area. The 
Army Corps of Engineers designs and constructs flood control projects. 
This hodgepodge of responsibilities has always been a challenge for the 
U.S., and it continues to be one today.
  Nowhere is this challenge more evident than in the process of FEMA's 
map modernization program, the Corps' levee certification 
responsibilities, and NFIP program requirements. This issue has 
lingered around the edges for years, and its impact is now being felt 
in an enormous way in Montana where communities struggling to navigate 
the maze of what seems to be an overwhelming Federal bureaucracy are 
incredibly frustrated.
  Let me begin by saying that it is important that we recognize the 
risks we face before we make snap judgments about whether preventive 
action should or shouldn't be taken. Specifically, it is a good idea 
for FEMA to update our Nation's flood maps so that we can be honest 
with ourselves about the risks we face. However, that process, must be 
transparent and it must recognize the differences between Sacramento, 
CA, and Saco, MT. It can be overwhelming for a small community in 
Montana to participate in this process. That is why I have written to 
FEMA Director Craig Fugate asking him to consider the needs of small, 
rural communities as the Agency progresses with its map modernization 
program.
  Once flood hazards are accurately mapped, communities must work to 
ensure that their flood control structures, if they have them, are up 
to par and can actually provide protection for the hazards they face. 
Without a levee ``certification'' by a professional engineer, those 
portions of a community located behind the levee, believing for years 
that they had adequate flood protection, are suddenly faced with a map 
that depicts them as in the floodplain, unprotected, required to 
purchase flood insurance.
  It seems like it would be a simple process to get a levee 
certification. Traditionally, the Army Corps has performed this work. 
However, in 2008 the Army Corps of Engineers established a policy that 
it would no longer perform levee certifications on non-Federally 
operated levees. This policy has left communities like Great Falls, 
Montana high and dry when it comes to a certification process. I wrote 
to the Corps of Engineers on February 18, 2010, asking the Agency to 
re-evaluate this policy.
  I hope that the Corps will change their policy. But, Montana cannot 
wait for that to happen. Great Falls, Vaughn, Miles City, Glendive, 
Saco, Havre, Forsyth, Malta, Glasgow and others cannot wait for the 
Corps deliberations. That is why I am introducing legislation today 
that will give the Corps direct authority to perform levee 
certifications. In addition, my bill includes special provisions for 
small communities and for those levee districts that are operated by a 
volunteer staff, allowing the Corps to perform these certifications at 
100 percent Federal cost.
  This bill is one step in what will be a long process for all of us as 
we update and upgrade our knowledge of the risks posed by flooding, our 
current level of protection, and additional steps we need to take to 
ensure that lives and property are not unnecessarily lost. In the 
process of that upgrade, we cannot lose sight of the impact of this 
process and these decisions on our local communities.
  We don't want the cost of staying in the NFIP to rise above the point 
where small communities can participate. We don't want a burdensome 
Federal bureaucracy to make it impossible for people to make good 
decisions about their own safety and that of their community. In these 
economic times, rural communities are struggling to come up with enough 
money just to keep afloat, and a hefty certification fee can be an 
undue burden.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record.


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, March 11, 2010.
     Administrator W. Craig Fugate,
     Office of the Administrator, Federal Emergency Management 
         Agency, C Street, S.W., Washington, DC.
       Dear Administrator Fugate: I am writing to express concern 
     about the impact of FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map 
     Modernization on small communities across Montana. Let me 
     state up front that I fully support your agency's efforts to 
     provide the nation with digital flood hazard data and maps 
     that are more reliable, It is critically important that land 
     owners are protected against the risk to life and property 
     posed by flooding.
       However, as your agency conducts the Map Modernization in 
     Montana, I urge you to take every possible step to 
     accommodate the unique circumstances small rural communities 
     face. For example, small towns often

[[Page S1462]]

     cannot afford to challenge FEMA's preliminary flood insurance 
     study. These communities are left in the untenable position 
     of paying thousands of dollars for an engineering firm to 
     develop the revised flood insurance study required to appeal 
     FEMA's preliminary study, or to accept FEMA's preliminary 
     flood insurance study as is, even if there are valid grounds 
     to dispute the study's findings. It is clear that an improved 
     appeals process could help correct errors made during FEMA's 
     map modernization and thus prevent unneeded flood insurance 
     expenses.
       Please provide a detailed list of the steps your agency is 
     taking to accommodate the special needs of rural communities 
     during the map modernization process. Specifically, detail 
     how your agency accommodates appeals to a preliminary flood 
     insurance study by small communities with small budgets.
       Thank you for your prompt response to this request.
           Sincerely,
     Max Baucus.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, February 18, 2010.
     Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy,
     Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), U.S. Army 
         Corps of Engineers, G Street, NW., Washington, DC.
       Dear Assistant Secretary Darcy: I am writing to you 
     regarding the January 23, 2008 memo establishing priorities 
     for Fiscal Year 2008 Levee Safety Program Inspection Funds. 
     Specifically, I would like you to provide additional 
     justification for your policy determination that levee 
     certification is a non-Federal responsibility and that these 
     certifications will not be funded using Federal funds.
       Throughout Montana and the rest of the country, non-Federal 
     sponsors for Federally-constructed levees are struggling to 
     work through the FEMA floodplain re-mapping process and the 
     associated requirements for levee certification. I recognize 
     the need to ensure that accurate information is provided to 
     property owners and decision-makers regarding the residual 
     risk of flooding that exists behind a flood control structure 
     and to ensure that such properties are adequately insured to 
     prevent excessive disaster payments by the Federal 
     government, I understand that FEMA's map updates will portray 
     a floodplain area protected by a certified levee as an area 
     with 1 in 100 year flood protect and a floodplain area that 
     is protected by an uncertified levee as unprotected.
       Therefore, the levee certification process is a critical 
     step in the nation's efforts to ensure that our existing 
     flood control system offers viable protection for life and 
     property. First and foremost, from an engineering 
     perspective, it is important that any flaws or shortcomings 
     in our existing levees are identified and repaired before a 
     disaster, not after. Second, because the certification of a 
     levee is the determining factor in how a particular 
     floodplain will be mapped and what insurance requirements 
     will apply, it is important that communities have access to a 
     clear, reasonable process to obtain this certification,
       Prior to January 2008, the Corps performed levee 
     certifications for Federally-constructed levees. On January 
     23, 2008, a memorandum regarding prioritization of fiscal 
     year 2008 funds was released by your office, which precluded 
     the Corps from using fiscal year 2008 funds to perform levee 
     certifications and stated that levee certification is a non-
     Federal responsibility. Please provide your justification for 
     this abrupt change in policy, in addition to a cost analysis 
     of the impact of this change to non-Federal sponsors. Please 
     describe the outreach that was performed prior to and after 
     this decision to ensure that levee managers throughout the 
     country were properly informed. Please articulate, in detail, 
     the options available for levee districts seeking 
     certification of their Federally-constructed levee. In 
     determining the effective date of your new policy, was a 
     transition plan considered and/or implemented for those 
     levees that were already moving through the remapping process 
     and were anticipating that the certification process would be 
     conducted by the Corps? Was consideration given to the 
     differing technical and financial capabilities of levee 
     districts throughout the country to ensure that small, rural 
     communities are not adversely impacted by this policy change 
     when compared to large communities? Has the Corps considered 
     the lack of engineering resources in certain parts of the 
     country as a planning factor for implementing the new January 
     2008 policy? The January 23 memo states that the Corps can 
     perform levee certification on a reimbursable basis. How do 
     the limitations adopted in 31 U.S.C. 6505, as amended, affect 
     the ability of the Corps to perform these certifications? 
     Have levee districts in small, rural communities elected to 
     pay the Corps to perform levee certifications since January 
     2008? Please describe how this decision was and continues to 
     be coordinated with the FEMA remapping process. Thank you for 
     your attention to this critical issue.
           Sincerely,
     Max Baucus.

                          ____________________