[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 51 (Thursday, March 26, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2047-S2050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Kirk):
S. 870. 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 Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today a bill to
try to bring some transparency and fairness into FEMA's disaster
declaration process. It is the Fairness in Federal Disaster
Declarations Act.
The inspiration for the bill was a tragic one. On February 29, 2012,
leap day, a category F-4 tornado tore through southeastern Illinois,
causing damage in 11 Illinois counties and causing major damage in the
small towns of Harrisburg and Ridgway. Eight people in Harrisburg,
alone, died in the event and 15 people were killed in total. Winds
reached 175-miles per hour. It is not too much of a stretch to say
these two small towns were almost wiped off the map.
Requests for Federal assistance after a disaster are made by the
Governor of each State. The state emergency management agency typically
does a preliminary damage assessment and then the Governor decides
whether State resources are adequate to absorb the costs of clean up
and recovery. In the case of the Harrisburg and Ridgway tornado, the
Governor's request for federal emergency designation for Individual
Assistance was denied, as was the State's appeal of that decision. With
that denial, individuals whose homes or properties were damaged were
precluded from direct federal help.
I asked FEMA why it denied the Governor's request--which was
supported by my colleague Senator Kirk and me, along with the entire
Illinois delegation--and we were told it was because the disaster did
not meet or exceed the State's per capita. In other words, because
Illinois is a highly populous state, it is presumed it can absorb the
costs of cleanup and recovery from disasters up to a certain level.
FEMA said the deadly tornado event did not exceed the state's presumed
capacity.
Currently, FEMA multiplies the number of people in a state by $1.35
to determine a threshold of the amount of damage a state would have to
have incurred to be considered for Assistance. In Illinois, that figure
is about $18 million. Well, Harrisburg, Ridgway, and the surrounding
communities had about $5.5 million in Public Assistance damages. $5.5
million is a lot of loss, particularly in a rural area--but not enough
to qualify for Federal assistance under FEMA' s rules.
From 2002 to 2015, Illinois was denied federal disaster assistance
seven times. Texas was denied thirteen times--for damage caused by
everything from
[[Page S2048]]
wildfires to tropical storms. Florida was denied Federal disaster
assistance eight times during that 13-year period, and California, New
Jersey, and New York were each denied four times. FEMA's formula does
not work for large, populous states, particularly those with a
concentrated urban area, like Illinois.
Although the ultimate decision whether to award Federal assistance is
made by the President, by statute, under the Stafford Act, FEMA is
required to consider six factors when determining whether assistance is
warranted. After the Harrisburg and Ridgway tornado, we pushed FEMA a
little harder and asked what else, in addition to the per capita, was
considered in the denial. After all, 15-people died in the event and
the damage was startling. We were told that specifics of FEMA's
analysis is not public and wouldn't be disclosed.
Illinois ran into the same issue in November 2013 when, once again,
tornadoes swept through the State. This time six people were killed and
whole neighborhoods were nearly destroyed. The Cities of Washington,
Gifford, and New Minden, Illinois, experienced the worst tornado damage
I have ever seen. Public infrastructure was decimated, but because
Illinois did not meet one of FEMA's criteria, we were denied Federal
Public Assistance. These events inspired my colleague, Senator Kirk,
and me to introduce a bill to try to build in a bit more transparency
and fairness into FEMA's process.
The Fairness in Federal Disaster Declaration seeks to improve the
disaster analysis by assigning a value to each of the factors FEMA must
consider when determining whether Federal disaster assistance will be
made available. When it comes to Individual Assistance--funding to help
people repair and rebuild their homes--the breakdown would be as
follows:
Concentration damages--the density of damage in an individual
community--would be considered 20 percent, Trauma--the loss of life and
injuries and the disruption of normal community functions--would be 20
percent of the analysis, Special Populations--including the age income
of the residents, the amount of home ownership, etc.--would comprise 20
percent, Voluntary agency assistance--a consideration of what the
volunteer and charitable groups are providing--would make up 5 percent,
the amount of Insurance coverage--20 percent, and the average amount of
individual assistance by State, which includes the per capita
analysis--would make up 5 percent of the analysis.
The bill also would add a seventh consideration to FEMA's metrics--
the economics of the area, which will receive 10 percent consideration.
This includes factors such as the local assessable tax base, the median
income as it compares to that of the state, and the poverty rate as it
compares to that of the state.
For Federal Public Assistance, the breakdown would be similar, with a
greater emphasis placed on the Localized Impacts of the disaster, which
would warrant 40 percent of the analysis.
It is reasonable that FEMA should take into consideration the size of
the state requesting assistance, but as the regulations stand, large
states are being penalized. Assigning values to the factors will help
ensure that the damage to the specific community weighs more than the
state's population. Illinois is a relatively large State,
geographically, and has a concentrated urban area. The State--
particularly downstate--is being punished for this fact.
If the Cities of Washington and Gifford, and Harrisburg and Ridgway,
do not qualify under FEMA's current criteria for federal assistance,
something is wrong. This legislation is necessary because the way FEMA
evaluates whether to declare an area a Federal disaster is not working.
It is done behind closed doors and it works against states with large
populations.
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. 870
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 2015''.
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.
(c) Effective Date.--The amended rules issued under
subsection (a) shall apply to any disaster for which a
Governor requested a major disaster declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) and was denied on or after
January 1, 2012.
______
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Heller, Mrs. Capito, and Mr.
Paul):
S. 871. A bill to provide for an application process for interested
parties to apply for an area to be designated as a rural area, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 871
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 ``Helping Expand Lending
Practices in Rural Communities Act of 2015'' or the ``HELP
Rural Communities Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF RURAL AREA.
(a) Application.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection shall establish an application process under which
a person who lives or does business in a State may, with
respect to an area identified by the person in such State
that has not been designated by the Bureau as a rural area
for purposes of a Federal consumer financial law (as defined
under section 1002 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act
of 2010), apply for such area to be so designated.
(b) Evaluation Criteria.--When evaluating an application
submitted under subsection (a), the Bureau shall take into
consideration the following factors:
(1) Criteria used by the Director of the Bureau of the
Census for classifying geographical areas as rural or urban.
(2) Criteria used by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget to designate counties as metropolitan
or micropolitan or neither.
(3) Criteria used by the Secretary of Agriculture to
determine property eligibility for rural development
programs.
[[Page S2049]]
(4) The Department of Agriculture rural-urban commuting
area codes.
(5) A written opinion provided by the State's bank
supervisor, as defined under section 3(r) of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(r)).
(6) Population density.
(c) Rule of Construction.--If, at any time prior to the
submission of an application under subsection (a), the area
subject to review has been designated as non rural by any
Federal agency described under subsection (b) using any of
the criteria described under subsection (b), the Bureau shall
not be required to consider such designation in its
evaluation.
(d) Public Comment Period.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after receiving an
application submitted under subsection (a), the Bureau
shall--
(A) publish such application in the Federal Register; and
(B) make such application available for public comment for
not fewer than 90 days.
(2) Limitation on additional applications.--Nothing in
this section shall be construed to require the Bureau, during
the public comment period with respect to an application
submitted under subsection (a), to accept an additional
application with respect to the area that is the subject of
the initial application.
(e) Decision on Designation.--Not later than 90 days after
the end of the public comment period under subsection (d)(1)
for an application, the Bureau shall--
(1) grant or deny such application, in whole or in part;
and
(2) publish such grant or denial in the Federal Register,
along with an explanation of what factors the Bureau relied
on in making such determination.
(f) Subsequent Applications.--A decision by the Bureau
under subsection (e) to deny an application for an area to be
designated as a rural area shall not preclude the Bureau from
accepting a subsequent application submitted under subsection
(a) for such area to be so designated, so long as such
subsequent application is made after the end of the 90-day
period beginning on the date that the Bureau denies the
application under subsection (e).
(g) Sunset.--This section shall cease to have any force or
effect after the end of the 2-year period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. OPERATIONS IN RURAL AREAS.
The Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in section 129C(b)(2)(E)(iv)(I), by striking
``predominantly''; and
(2) in section 129D(c)(1), by striking ``predominantly''.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Sullivan):
S. 872. A bill to provide for the recognition of certain Native
communities and the settlement of certain claims under the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to allow
five Southeast Alaska communities to finally be allowed to form urban
corporations under the terms of 1971's Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition
and Compensation Act. I am joined in sponsoring this bill by my Alaska
colleague, Senator Dan Sullivan.
At the very beginning of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of
1971 there are a series of findings and declarations of congressional
policy that explain the underpinnings of this landmark legislation. The
first clause reads: ``There is an immediate need for a fair and just
settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, based
on aboriginal land claims.'' The second clause states: ``The settlement
should be accomplished rapidly, with certainty, in conformity with the
real economic and social needs of Natives.''
Unfortunately 44 years have passed since the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act became law and still the Native peoples of five
communities in Southeast Alaska: Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg,
Tenakee and Haines--the five ``landless communities''--are still
waiting for their fair and just settlement.
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act originally awarded $966
million and 44 million acres of land to Alaska Natives and provided for
the establishment of Native Corporations to receive and manage such
funds and lands. The beneficiaries of the settlement were issued stock
in one of 13 regional Alaska Native corporations--12 based in Alaska.
Most beneficiaries also had the option to enroll and receive stock in a
village or urban corporation or group.
For reasons that still defy explanation, the native peoples of the
``landless communities,'' were not permitted by the Act to form village
or urban corporations. These communities were excluded from this
benefit even though they did not differ significantly from other
communities in Southeast Alaska that were permitted to form village or
urban corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. For
example, the Ketchikan area had more Native residents in 1970, than
Juneau, which was permitted to form the Goldbelt urban corporation, or
Sitka that formed the Shee Atika urban corporation. This finding was
confirmed in a February 1994 report submitted to the Secretary of the
Interior at the 1993 direction of Congress. That study was conducted by
the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of
Alaska.
The native people of Southeast Alaska have recognized the injustice
of this oversight for more than four decades. An independent study
issued two decades ago confirms that the grievance of the landless
communities is legitimate. Legislation has been introduced in the past
sessions of Congress to remedy this injustice. Hearings have been held
and reports written. Yet legislation to right the wrong has inevitably
stalled out.
I am convinced that this cause is just, it is right, and it is about
time that the Native peoples of the five landless communities receive
what has been denied to them for so long.
The legislation that I am introducing today would enable the Native
peoples of the five ``landless communities'' to organize five ``urban
corporations,'' one for each unrecognized community. These newly formed
corporations would be offered and could accept the surface estate to
23,040 acres of land--one township as granted all other village
corporations in Southeast. Sealaska Corporation, the regional Alaska
Native Corporation for Southeast Alaska, would receive title to the
subsurface estate to the designated lands. This version of the
legislation has been modified to guarantee that the lands to be
conveyed may include subsistence sites, aquaculture sites,
hydroelectric sites, tidelands, eco-tourism sites and surplus federal
properties to help satisfy any compensation requirement.
It is long past time that we return to the Native peoples of
Southeast Alaska a small slice of the aboriginal lands that were once
theirs alone.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Sullivan):
S. 873. A bill to designate the wilderness within the Lake Clark
National Park and Preserve in the State of Alaska as the Jay S. Hammond
Wilderness Area; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to
rename a wilderness area in my home state of Alaska in honor of
Alaska's fourth Governor, Jay S. Hammond. I am pleased that I am joined
in sponsoring this bill by my Alaska colleague, Senator Dan Sullivan.
Jay Hammond is truly one of the unique figures in Alaska history. In
a state with many unique statesmen, Hammond is truly worthy of honor. A
New Yorker who first studied petroleum engineering at Penn State, he
became a Marine fighter pilot who fought in World War II in the
Pacific/China with the famed Black Sheep Squadron. After the war he
found life on the East Coast too confining and flew an old plane to
Alaska in 1946, never looking back. Initially a pilot to ``Bush'',
remote rural parts of Alaska, he worked as a trapper, wildlife guide
and laborer before heading back to college to gain a degree in
biological sciences in 1949 from the University of Alaska.
He then went to work as a wildlife biologist and hunter for the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. By 1950 after conducting some of the first
swan studies in northern Alaska, Jay Hammond was transferred to
Southwest Alaska where he conducted predator/prey studies on Alaska
Peninsula caribou, flew fisheries enforcement flights out of Dillingham
Alaska, and fell in love with Lake Clark and its surrounding
wilderness, a 45-mile lake on the west side of Aleutian Range that he
would call home, besides a setnet salmon site at Naknek, for nearly 55
years.
Mr. Hammond, upon Alaska entering the Union in 1959 ran and won
election to the Alaska State House of Representatives as an
independent, serving
[[Page S2050]]
three terms before redeclaring himself as a Republican and serving two
terms in the state Senate. He then served as mayor of the Bristol Bay
Borough from 1972 to 1974, after serving as the borough's manager in
the 1960s and 1970s.
Mr. Hammond then was drafted to run for Governor of Alaska in 1974,
defeating the state's second Governor and former Secretary of the
Interior Walter J. Hickel in the Republican Primary before defeating
the state's first Governor William A Egan in the general election. It
was an election dominated by Hammond's opposition to oil leasing in
Southcentral's Kachemak Bay, concern over the State of Alaska's salmon
fisheries and fear over the state over spending soon after the
discovery of oil on Alaska's North Slope.
Governor Hammond during his two terms oversaw construction of the
Trans-Alaska oil Pipeline System, TAPS, championed creation of the
Alaska Permanent Fund savings account, and was the author of the Alaska
Permanent Fund Dividend program, which provides Alaskans a yearly
dividend check from the interest earnings of the savings from a quarter
of the State's petroleum revenues. He also won approval of a
constitutional budget reserve that was intended to reduce State
spending, and championed agricultural development in Interior Alaska.
He also oversaw the state's purchase of the Alaska Railroad from the
federal government.
Hammond on environmental issues opposed construction of a proposed
Ramparts hydroelectric dam on the Yukon River, supported the
congressional creation of a 200-miles fisheries zone off the State's
coast that improved state fishery stocks, oversaw creation of a state
limited entry fisheries regime, oversaw the creation of the Nation's
largest State park, the Wood Tikchik State Park in Southwest Alaska,
which contains 1.6 million acres of wilderness, and worked with
Congress and observed congressional passage of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980 that replaced the designation
of 120 million acres of Alaska into protected status under the federal
Antiquities Act, while placing 104 million acres of new lands into
national parks, preserves, refuges, monuments, wilderness and wild and
scenic river classifications. The law added 5.5 million acres of
wilderness in 14 units in national forests, added more than 40 million
acres in 10 new units to national parks, including the 3.86 million-
acre Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, bringing to 54 million
acres the total size of Federal park holdings in Alaska; added a number
of new wildlife refuges in Alaska, bringing to 19 the number of refuges
covering 76.8 million acres in the State; and created 13 wild and
scenic rivers running 3,131 miles. The act created 57.9 million acres
of formal wilderness in the State, Alaska containing about 60 percent
of the nation's total formal wilderness.
Mr. Hammond was also a talented and prolific writer and poet,
presenting to the University of Alaska Library Archives an impressive
collection of speeches, testimony, notebooks and papers. He also wrote
several books on life in Alaska, led by his first book, ``Tales of
Alaska's Bush Rat Governor.'' He died on Aug. 2, 2005, at age 83 in his
sleep at his homestead near Port Alsworth, Alaska, having survived five
plane crashes and innumerable close calls during his first flight to
Alaska and in fighting a fire at his home at Lake Clark, and over the
following 59 years in the State. He was survived by his wife, Bella and
daughters Heidi and Dana.
Jay Hammond was well-respected for reaching across the aisle to forge
bipartisan alliances and enjoyed many close friendships with colleagues
in both political parties and with his staff, who were deeply loyal to
him. The designation of the 2.6 million acres of already created
wilderness in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, where his
homestead lies, will honor Jay Hammond and will be a fitting tribute to
his honorable life and legacy, a man that the Anchorage Municipal
Assembly on August 7, 2005, called, ``the finest example of a true
public servant. There are few men who have influence through their
quiet articulation of what is right and fair in the way of Jay
Hammond.''
I hope for quick passage of this bill prior to the anniversary of
either his birthday or the date of the tenth anniversary of this death.
He was creative, funny, thoughtful, respectful, wise and courageous and
truly deserves this honor.
______
By Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. Reed):
S. 882. A bill to amend part A of title II of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, we rely on our public schools to prepare the
next generation for success as citizens, workers, and innovators. We
have asked educators to raise the bar and educate all students to
internationally competitive college and career-ready standards. To
achieve these goals, we need to establish a comprehensive system of
educator preparation and support that ensures that new educators are
profession-ready and that provides for their growth and development
over the course of their careers.
Today, I am pleased to join Senator Casey in introducing the Better
Education Support and Training, BEST Act to reform induction,
professional development, and systems for professional growth and
improvement for teachers, librarians, and principals currently on the
job, updating the Effective Teaching and Leading Act that I introduced
last Congress. The BEST Act will strengthen Title II, Part A, of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act to ensure that formula grant
funds support the goal of all students having equitable access to
profession-ready and effective educators. The BEST Act will ensure that
all educators on the instructional team--teachers, principals,
counselors, librarians, and other specialized instructional support
personnel--collaborate and are prepared and supported in helping
students achieve and grow. It will offer induction and mentoring
programs for new educators; personalized, job-embedded professional
development, and career pathways and leadership roles for teachers and
other educators.
In the coming weeks, I will be reintroducing legislation to address
the front end of the educator pipeline--the Educator Preparation Reform
Act. This legislation builds on the success of the Teacher Quality
Partnership Program, which I helped author in the 1998 reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act.
Together, these two bills will modernize Federal policy for education
preparation and development to create a continuum of support for
professional educators throughout their careers. They provide a
blueprint for reauthorizing Title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act and Title II of the Higher Education Act. Over the years,
I have been fortunate to work with many stakeholders on these bills,
including the Coalition for Teaching Quality, representing over 100
national, State, and local organizations.
I look forward to working to incorporate these bills into the
upcoming reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
and the Higher Education Act, and I urge our colleagues to join in this
effort.
____________________