[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 57 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2548-S2549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Kirk):
  S. 2303. A bill to require rulemaking by the Administrator of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency to address considerations in 
evaluating the need for public and individual disaster assistance, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Fairness in 
Federal Disaster Declaration Act. I am introducing it on behalf of 
myself and my colleague, Senator Mark Kirk. What we are trying to 
achieve is fairness in FEMA's consideration of whether a community will 
be granted Federal assistance after a disaster. I think this 
legislation is essential because of what just happened in my State.
  From 2007 to 2011, Illinois was denied Federal assistance three 
times. Texas was denied nine times. The damage was caused by everything 
from wildfires to tropical storms. California was denied five times 
during that 5-year period. Florida was denied four times, including for 
damage from Hurricane Ike. And unfortunately, as I mentioned, in my 
home State of Illinois, the communities of Harrisburg and Ridgway were 
denied.
  This is the damage I saw when I went down to Harrisburg, IL, after a 
recent tornado. This was a shopping mall, but it was virtually 
collapsed by winds of 175 miles-per-hour intensity. That is the second 
highest intensity of recorded winds in a tornado. This property damage, 
of course, is just a minor part of what actually happened. The major 
part was the loss of life. Seven people were killed as a result of the 
tornado damage.
  I grew up in the Midwest. I have seen tornadoes all my life. I lived 
waiting to hear the air raid sirens and head toward the basement. But I 
never saw anything quite as devastating as what I saw in Harrisburg. 
And then when I went over to Ridgway, IL, about 25 miles away, I saw 
that the local Catholic church, which had been standing for I think a 
century, collapsed when the winds hit it.
  It was clear to me and to the Governor and many others as we toured 
the site that this was going to be a Federal disaster area.
  That 175 mile-an-hour wind literally lifted homes off of their slab 
foundations and tossed them on top of other homes. In one neighborhood 
in Harrisburg, I happened to see some people leaving in a truck, and I 
stopped them and they said that the lady in the front seat actually 
lived in one of the houses that had been destroyed. She pointed it out 
to me. She got up early enough so that she heard the air raid siren and 
had the good sense to hit the floor in the bathroom right before the 
tornado hit her home. Of course, after it hit, and another home 
collapsed on top of it, the ceiling of her bathroom collapsed on her, 
but there was enough room for her to survive. They started hearing 
shortly thereafter the rescuers coming in. She made it with a few 
scratches and bruises. Just across the street, in one of the homes that 
was tossed was a 22-year-old local nurse who died as a result.
  There were great efforts by first responders, terrific humanitarian 
gestures. The local coal miners a few miles away, when they heard about 
the disaster, in full gear, came out of the coal mines and rushed into 
Harrisburg to pull people out of their homes after they had collapsed.
  We went ahead and made our application for Federal disaster aid in 
Harrisburg, IL, and we were denied. In the President's home State, we 
were denied. We thought, something is wrong here. We thought, with all 
of this damage from a tornado of this intensity, it must be wrong. So 
Governor Quinn sat down with local and State officials and redrafted 
our application for Federal assistance. It was sent to Washington, and 
it was denied a second time. I was stunned by it. I couldn't believe 
it, after having seen it, that this happened.
  We went to FEMA and said, What did we miss here? People died, over 
100 homes were destroyed, and it ripped its way through Harrisburg and 
into Ridgway, IL. What was missing here? Well, they said, we have to do 
a calculation under the law, and one of the elements in the calculation 
is the population of your State. Well, this is how it turned out. The 
damage that happened in southern Illinois, if it had happened across 
the river in Indiana or in Kentucky or in Missouri, would have been a 
Federal disaster. But because we have about 12 million people, we 
weren't declared a Federal disaster. What is the thinking behind that? 
If you are from a big State, you must have a lot of resources to take 
care of your own problems. Not so. Unfortunately, the State budget of 
Illinois is virtually bankrupt.
  So we decided it was time to put a bill in that took into 
consideration a lot of factors and did not allow this disqualification 
for a large State. The bill Senator Mark Kirk and I are introducing 
today assigns a value to each of the six factors that are to be 
considered in a disaster declaration analysis. When it comes to 
individual assistance, help for people to rebuild their homes and pay 
for temporary housing, we use the same consistent factors no matter 
where the disaster strikes. The population of the State is worth 5 
percent of the consideration. The consideration of the concentration of 
damages is worth 20 percent; the amount of trauma to the disaster area, 
20 percent; the number of special populations such as the elderly or 
unemployed, 20 percent of the analysis; the amount of voluntary 
assistance in the area, 10 percent; and the amount of insurance 
coverage for the type of damage incurred, 20 percent.
  Our bill also adds a seventh consideration to FEMA's metrics: the 
economics of the area. It turns out that southern Illinois is hard-
pressed. There are a lot of unemployed people, a struggling economy. So 
we take a look at the local tax base, the median income as it compares 
to that of the State, and the poverty rate in the area that has been 
hard hit. It is reasonable that FEMA should take into consideration the 
size of a State; I don't argue with that, but it shouldn't loom large 
and disqualify situations which clearly deserve to be considered 
Federal disasters. Assigning values to the factors will ensure that 
damage to a specific community weighs more than just the State's 
population.
  After the tornadoes hit Harrisburg and Ridgway, the head of the 
Illinois Emergency Management Agency, Jonathon Monken, worked with 
locals and people from the FEMA regional office to determine if the 
State could apply for public assistance--money to help local Mayor 
Gregg in Harrisburg and others pay for overtime accrued by all the 
people working around the clock to help the community dig out of the 
destruction. What Director Monken and others discovered was that it 
would have been a waste of the State's

[[Page S2549]]

time and resources to even consider applying for it. We didn't meet 
FEMA's threshold.
  Currently, FEMA multiplies the number of people in a State by $1.35 
to determine the threshold of the amount of damage a State would have 
to incur to qualify for public assistance. In Illinois, that figure is 
$17 million. Well, Harrisburg, Ridgway, and the surrounding communities 
had about $5.5 million in public assistance damage. That is a lot of 
loss for rural areas and small towns, but not enough to qualify for 
Federal assistance.
  So we put together in this bill a standard for public assistance--
money that would go to local units of government. Per capita 
consideration, 10 percent; localized impact of the disaster, 40 
percent; the estimated cost of assistant needed, 10 percent; insurance 
coverage, 10 percent; the number of recent multiple disasters, 10 
percent; and an analysis of other Federal assistance in the area, 10 
percent. The bill would also add a seventh consideration just as it did 
under individual assistance, and that is the economic circumstances of 
the affected area. I mentioned earlier the elements that were brought 
into consideration there. I think this is a more honest and realistic 
approach.
  Today, in order to introduce this bill, I am talking about a disaster 
which visited our State a few weeks ago. Tomorrow it could be the State 
of one of my colleagues. My colleagues could find out that a 
devastating natural disaster does not qualify for Federal disaster 
assistance simply because of the population of their State. I don't 
think that is a fair metric to use. I think our approach is fairer.
  I commend this bill to my colleagues. As I say in closing, over this 
last few months it was Illinois. Tomorrow, it may be a colleague's 
State. Please take the time and look at this approach. I think it is 
fair to taxpayers. It is certainly fair to families across America.
  Those of us who have been in the Senate and the Congress for a while 
have stepped up time and again when our colleagues were affected by a 
natural disaster. I hope my colleagues will take the time to consider 
this legislation from Senator Kirk and myself.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record as follows:
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record as follows:

                                S. 2303

       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 ``Fairness in Federal Disaster 
     Declarations Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. REGULATORY ACTION REQUIRED.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency (in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Administrator'' and ``FEMA'', respectively) shall amend the 
     rules of the Administrator under section 206.48 of title 44, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, in accordance with the provisions of 
     this Act.
       (b) New Criteria Required.--The amended rules issued under 
     subsection (a) shall provide for the following:
       (1) Public assistance program.--Such rules shall provide 
     that, with respect to the evaluation of the need for public 
     assistance--
       (A) specific weighted valuations shall be assigned to each 
     criterion, as follows--
       (i) estimated cost of the assistance, 10 percent;
       (ii) localized impacts, 40 percent;
       (iii) insurance coverage in force, 10 percent;
       (iv) hazard mitigation, 10 percent;
       (v) recent multiple disasters, 10 percent;
       (vi) programs of other Federal assistance, 10 percent; and
       (vii) economic circumstances described in subparagraph (B), 
     10 percent; and
       (B) FEMA shall consider the economic circumstances of--
       (i) the local economy of the affected area, including 
     factors such as the local assessable tax base and local sales 
     tax, the median income as it compares to that of the State, 
     and the poverty rate as it compares to that of the State; and
       (ii) the economy of the State, including factors such as 
     the unemployment rate of the State, as compared to the 
     national unemployment rate.
       (2) Individual assistance program.--Such rules shall 
     provide that, with respect to the evaluation of the severity, 
     magnitude, and impact of the disaster and the evaluation of 
     the need for assistance to individuals--
       (A) specific weighted valuations shall be assigned to each 
     criterion, as follows--
       (i) concentration of damages, 20 percent;
       (ii) trauma, 20 percent;
       (iii) special populations, 20 percent;
       (iv) voluntary agency assistance, 10 percent;
       (v) insurance, 20 percent;
       (vi) average amount of individual assistance by State, 5 
     percent; and
       (vii) economic considerations described in subparagraph 
     (B), 5 percent; and
       (B) FEMA shall consider the economic circumstances of the 
     affected area, including factors such as the local assessable 
     tax base and local sales tax, the median income as it 
     compares to that of the State, and the poverty rate as it 
     compares to that of the State.
                                 ______