[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.

                          ____________________