[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2263-S2266]
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, Mr. Rubio, and Ms. Duckworth):
S. 2701. A bill to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to carry out a pilot program to enhance the mapping
of urban flooding and associated property damage and the availability
of that mapped data to homeowners, businesses, and localities to help
understand and mitigate the risk of such flooding, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. DURBIN. 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. 2701
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 ``Flood Mapping Modernization
and Homeowner Empowerment Pilot Program Act of 2018''.
SEC. 2. FLOOD MAPPING MODERNIZATION AND HOMEOWNER EMPOWERMENT
PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
(2) Coastal.--The term ``coastal'' means, with respect to a
unit of general local government, that the unit borders a
body of water that--
(A) is more than 2,000 square miles in size; and
(B) is not a river.
(3) Pelagic.--The term ``pelagic'' means, with respect to a
unit of general local government, that--
(A) the unit is a coastal unit; and
(B) the body of water that the unit borders is--
(i) an ocean; or
(ii) a large, open body of water, including a bay or a
gulf, that empties into an ocean.
(4) Pilot program.--The term ``pilot program'' means the
pilot program carried out by the Administrator under this
section.
(5) Urban flooding.--The term ``urban flooding''--
(A) means the innundation, by water, of property in a built
environment, particularly in a densely populated area, that--
(i) is caused by falling rain--
(I) collecting on an impervious surface; or
(II) increasing the level of a body of water that is
located near that built environment; and
(ii) overwhelms the capacity of drainage systems in the
built environment, such as storm sewers;
(B) includes--
(i) a situation in which stormwater enters a building
through a window, door, or other opening;
(ii) the backup of water through a sewer pipe, shower,
toilet, sink, or floor drain;
(iii) the seepage of water through a wall or a floor;
(iv) the accumulation of water on property or a public
right-of-way; and
(v) the overflow from a body of water, such as a river,
lake, or ocean; and
(C) does not include flooding in an undeveloped or
agricultural area.
(6) Urbanized area.--The term ``urbanized area'' means an
area that has been defined and designated as an urbanized
area by the Bureau of the Census during the most recently
completed decennial census.
(b) Establishment.--The Administrator shall carry out a
pilot program to make grants to units of local government
to--
(1) enhance the production of maps relating to urban
flooding and associated property damage; and
(2) increase the availability of the maps described in
paragraph (1) to homeowners, businesses, and units of local
government to enable those entities to minimize the risk of
urban flooding.
(c) Objectives.--Amounts from grants made under the pilot
program may be used only to carry out activities that meet
the following objectives:
(1) Developing a methodology for assessing the risk of
urban flooding through the deployment of technology-based
mapping tools that--
(A) are easily understandable by the public; and
(B) effectively convey information regarding the level of
flood risk.
(2) Providing structure-specific projections of annual
chance flood frequency.
(3) Providing structure-based flood risk assessments.
(4) Providing program design for the mitigation of the risk
of urban flooding.
(5) Incorporating information regarding climate trends into
urban flooding risk assessments.
(6) Making the information described in this subsection
publicly available on the Internet through a web-based portal
so as to increase transparency regarding homeowner flood
risks.
(d) Eligible Recipients.--
(1) In general.--A grant under the pilot program may be
made only to--
(A) a unit of general local government that is located in
an urbanized area with a population of more than 50,000
individuals; or
(B) a stormwater management authority of a unit of general
local government described in subparagraph (A).
(2) One-time grants.--A grant under the pilot program may
not be made to--
(A) any unit of general local governmental, or the
stormwater management authority of a unit of general local
government, that previously received a grant under the pilot
program;
(B) any unit of general local government if the stormwater
management agency for that unit previously received a grant
under the pilot program; or
(C) any stormwater management agency of a unit of general
local government if that unit previously received a grant
under the pilot program.
[[Page S2264]]
(3) Treatment of certain stormwater management
authorities.--
(A) In general.--In the case of a stormwater management
authority that operates with respect to more than 1 unit of
general local government, the application of that authority
shall be considered for purposes of paragraph (2) of this
subsection and subsections (f), (g), and (h)(1) to be made
for the largest unit of general local government with respect
to which that authority operates.
(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) may
be construed to limit the ability of a stormwater management
authority described in that subparagraph to carry out
activities under a demonstration project in any other
jurisdiction in, or with respect to any other unit of local
government with, which that authority operates.
(e) Applications.--To be eligible for a grant under the
pilot program, a unit of general local government or a
stormwater management agency shall submit to the
Administrator an application in such form and containing such
information as the Administrator shall require.
(f) Selection of Recipients.--
(1) Annual selection.--Subject to paragraph (2), and to the
submission of approvable applications, in each fiscal year
for which amounts are made available for grants under the
pilot program, the Administrator shall select, from among
applications submitted under subsection (e) for that fiscal
year, 3 units of general government or stormwater management
authorities to receive grants under the pilot program.
(2) Aggregate limit.--Subject only to the submission of
approvable applications, the Administrator shall select, in
the aggregate over the entire duration of the pilot program,
12 units of general government or stormwater management
authorities to receive grants under the pilot program, as
follows:
(A) Tier 1.--3 of the applicants selected shall be units of
general local government, or stormwater management
authorities for those units, each of which has a population
of more than 800,000 individuals, as follows:
(i) Pelagic coastal city.--One shall be--
(I) a unit of general local government that is a pelagic
unit; or
(II) a stormwater authority for a unit described in
subclause (I).
(ii) Non-pelagic coastal city.--One shall be--
(I) a unit of general local government that--
(aa) is a coastal unit; and
(bb) is not a pelagic unit; or
(II) a stormwater authority for a unit described in
subclause (I).
(iii) Non-coastal city.--One shall be--
(I) a unit of general local government that is not a
coastal unit; or
(II) a stormwater authority for a unit described in
subclause (I).
(B) Tier 2.--Six of the applicants selected shall be units
of general local government, or stormwater management
authorities for such units, each of which has a population
that is more than 200,000 individuals and not more than
800,000 individuals, as follows:
(i) Coastal cities.--Three shall be--
(I) units of general local government that are coastal
units; or
(II) stormwater management authorities for units described
in subclause (I).
(ii) Non-coastal cities.--Three shall be--
(I) units of general local government that are not coastal
units; or
(II) stormwater management authorities for units described
in subclause (I).
(C) Tier 3.--Three of the applicants selected shall be--
(i) units of general local government, each of which has a
population that is more than 50,000 individuals but not more
than 200,000 individuals; or
(ii) stormwater management authorities for units described
in clause (i).
(g) Priority.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall select applicants
for grants under the pilot program based on the extent to
which the applications of those applicants shall achieve the
objectives described in subsection (c).
(2) Tiers 2 and 3.--In selecting applicants to receive
grants under the pilot program under subparagraphs (B) and
(C) of subsection (f)(2), the Administrator shall give
priority to applicants--
(A) that are highly vulnerable to sea level rise;
(B) within which are located a military installation or
another facility relating to national security concerns; or
(C) that have--
(i) populations that are highly vulnerable to urban
flooding; and
(ii) an uneven capacity for flood mitigation and response
efforts resulting from socioeconomic factors.
(h) Amount.--
(1) Considerations.--In determining the amount of a grant
under the pilot program, the Administrator shall consider the
population of the grant recipient, which may be considered in
terms of the tier under subsection (f)(2) with respect to the
recipient.
(2) Federal share.--The amount of a grant under the pilot
program may not exceed 75 percent of the total cost incurred
in carrying out the activities described in subsection (c).
(i) Duration.--The Administrator shall require each
recipient of a grant under the pilot program to complete the
activities described in subsection (c), which shall be,
subject to subsection (h)(2), carried out using the grant
amounts, not later than 18 months after the date on which the
recipient initially receives the grant amounts under the
pilot program.
(j) Use of Census Data.--The Administrator shall make all
determinations regarding population under the pilot program
by using data from the most recently completed decennial
census by the Bureau of the Census.
(k) Grantee Reports to FEMA.--Each recipient of a grant
under the pilot program shall, not later than 30 months after
the date on which the recipient initially receives the grant
amounts, submit to the Administrator a report that
describes--
(1) the activities carried out with the grant amounts;
(2) how the activities carried out with the grant amounts
have met the objectives described in subsection (c);
(3) any lessons learned in carrying out the activities
described in paragraph (2); and
(4) any recommendations for future mapping modernization
efforts by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
(l) Biennial Reports by FEMA.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this Act, and not less frequently
than once every 2 years thereafter until the date on which
all activities carried out with amounts from grants under the
pilot program are completed, the Administrator shall submit
to Congress and make available to the public on an Internet
website a report that--
(1) describes--
(A) the progress of the activities carried out with amounts
from those grants; and
(B) the effectiveness of technology-based mapping tools
used in carrying out the activities described in subparagraph
(A); and
(2) with respect to the final report that the Administrator
is required to submit under this subsection, includes
recommendations to Congress and the executive branch of the
Federal Government for implementing strategies, practices,
and technologies to mitigate the effects of urban flooding.
(m) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that,
because the pilot program is limited with respect to scope
and resources, communities that participate in the pilot
program should acknowledge that the most successful efforts
to mitigate the effects of urban flooding--
(1) take a structural-based mitigation approach with
respect to construction, which includes--
(A) recognizing any post-storm damage that may occur; and
(B) pursuing designs that proactively minimize future flood
damage;
(2) make individuals in the community aware, through any
cost-effective and available means of education, of the best
approaches regarding the construction of properties that are
able to survive floods, which reduces the cost of future
repairs; and
(3) encourage home and property owners to consider the
measures described in paragraphs (1) and (2), which are the
most cost-effective and prudent ways to reduce the impact of
flooding, when constructing or renovating building
components.
(n) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated for
grants under the pilot program--
(1) $1,200,000 for fiscal year 2019; and
(2) $4,300,000 for fiscal year 2020, to remain available
through 2022.
______
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Peters):
S. 2703. A bill to authorize the Project Safe Neighborhoods Grant
Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CORNYN. 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. 2703
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 ``Project Safe Neighborhoods
Grant Program Authorization Act of 2018''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``firearms offenses'' means an offense under
section 922 or 924 of title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term ``Program'' means the Project Safe
Neighborhoods Block Grant Program established under section
3; and
(3) the term ``transnational organized crime group'' has
the meaning given such term in section 36(k)(6) of the State
Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C.
2708(k)(6)).
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.
The Attorney General of the United States is authorized to
establish and carry out a program, to be known as the
``Project Safe Neighborhoods Block Grant Program'' within the
Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice.
SEC. 4. PURPOSE.
(a) Project Safe Neighborhoods Block Grant Program.--The
purpose of the Program is to foster and improve existing
partnerships between Federal, State, and local
[[Page S2265]]
agencies, including the United States Attorney in each
Federal judicial district, entities representing members of
the community affected by increased violence, victims'
advocates, and researchers to create safer neighborhoods
through sustained reductions in violent crimes by--
(1) developing and executing comprehensive strategic plans
to reduce violent crimes, including the enforcement of gun
laws, and prioritizing efforts focused on identified subsets
of individuals or organizations responsible for increasing
violence in a particular geographic area;
(2) developing evidence-based and data-driven intervention
and prevention initiatives, including juvenile justice
projects and activities which may include street-level
outreach, conflict mediation, provision of treatment and
social services, and the changing of community norms, in
order to reduce violence; and
(3) collecting data on outcomes achieved through the
Program, including the effect on the violent crime rate,
incarceration rate, and recidivism rate of the jurisdiction.
(b) Additional Purpose Areas.--In addition to the purpose
described in subsection (a), the Attorney General may use
funds authorized under this Act for any of the following
purposes--
(1) competitive and evidence-based programs to reduce gun
crime and gang violence;
(2) the Edward Byrne criminal justice innovation program;
(3) community-based violence prevention initiatives; or
(4) gang and youth violence education, prevention and
intervention, and related activities.
SEC. 5. RULES AND REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall promulgate
rules to create, carry out, and administer the Program in
accordance with this section.
(b) Funds To Be Directed to Local Control.--Amounts made
available as grants under the Program shall be, to the
greatest extent practicable, locally controlled to address
problems that are identified locally.
(c) Regional Gang Task Forces.--30 percent of the amounts
made available as grants under the Program each fiscal year
shall be granted to established Regional Gang Task Forces in
regions experiencing a significant or increased presence of,
or high levels of activity from, transnational organized
crime groups posing threats to community safety in terms of
violent crime, firearms offenses, human trafficking, drug
trafficking, and other crimes.
(d) Priority.--Amounts made available as grants under the
Program shall be used to prioritize the investigation and
prosecution of individuals who have an aggravating or
leadership role in a criminal organization.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney
General to carry out the Program $50,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2019 through 2021.
______
By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Harris, Mr. Booker,
Ms. Baldwin, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Schatz, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr.
Heinrich, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr. Udall):
S. 2708. A bill to provide for the establishment of Medicare part E
public health plans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the most important words of our
Constitution are the first three words: ``We the people.'' That is the
mission statement of our Constitution.
Our Founders did not seek to design a government that would enable
the powerful and the privileged to make rules to benefit themselves.
They didn't say: We want to have a Constitution that enables the
wealthy and the well-connected to take away the riches of this country
at the expense of the people. No, they laid out the vision ``We the
people.'' They put that mission statement in supersized font, so even
if you were reading the Constitution from across the room, you would
understand its core mission--a core mission that unfortunately has been
sabotaged in the Citizens United decision, which, instead of pursuing
government of, by, and for the people, instead of providing what
Jefferson called the equal voice, mother principle of America--that
each citizen should have an equal voice--proceeds to give the powerful
the reins of power through unlimited third-party campaign spending.
The corruption of our democracy is in full gear, and we see it
through the bills that are coming to this floor--bills to wipe out
healthcare for 22 to 30 million Americans, a bill that passed that
borrows $1.5 trillion from our children and proceeds to give that money
virtually entirely--more than 80 percent--to the very richest
Americans. I encourage my colleagues to think about how we have a
responsibility under our oath of office to fight for this vision of
America, not a corrupted ``we the powerful'' vision of America.
As we address the issues that people care about at the kitchen table,
it comes down to four basic things. It comes down to education,
housing, living-wage jobs, and healthcare. Eisenhower said: ``Because
the strength of our nation is in its people, their good health is a
proper national concern.''
We have worked to design improved healthcare systems, lower costs,
higher quality, and improved accessibility. We have come a long way
through the ACA, the expansion of Medicaid, and the establishment of
competitive marketplaces for insurance. Indeed, in Oregon, we reduced
the uninsured rate from 15 percent to 5 percent. That is a huge stride
forward. We increased our resources in our rural healthcare clinics,
our rural hospitals, and our urban healthcare clinics and our urban
hospitals. We strengthened the healthcare system, but it is not enough.
We still have 41 million adults in this country who are underinsured.
We have 30 million who remain completely uninsured.
That is why, today, I am delighted to join with my colleague Senator
Chris Murphy to introduce the Choose Medicare Act. Every American
deserves the promise of access to a popular, affordable, high-quality
healthcare option. Fortunately, we have such an option. It is called
Medicare. It is time-tested. It is well-vetted. It is admired and
desired by our seniors.
Today, Chris Murphy and I are introducing the Choose Medicare Act,
which creates a Medicare option for all, putting consumers and
businesses in the driver's seat on the pathway to universal healthcare.
With the Choose Medicare Act, we affirm that here in America,
healthcare is not a privilege for the wealthy and well-connected. It is
a right and a fundamental value to have healthcare for all.
I am pleased that we have been joined in introducing this today with
nine of our colleagues as original cosponsors: Senator Baldwin, Senator
Blumenthal, Senator Booker, Senator Harris, Senator Heinrich, Senator
Shaheen, Senator Schatz, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Udall. Thank
you to each and every one of these original cosponsors, who believe in
the vision of improving our healthcare system.
We appreciate the groups that worked to help forge this vision to put
meat on the bones of this idea: PCCC, which was involved from the very
beginning with insights, CREDO, Daily Kos, Democracy for America,
MoveOn, and Families USA. We appreciate their endorsement of this plan.
When we were talking about Medicare for All, many folks said: How do
you create the transition? And back during the ACA discussions, we did
debate reducing the age of Medicare to 55. We had 60 votes for it in a
week but lost our 60th vote.
We wrestled with this vision. How do you create the transition? Well,
folks come to my townhalls--and I hold a lot of them. I have held well
over 300 during the 10 years I have been serving in the Senate. They
come and say: We have this great healthcare plan, Medicare. Why can't
we buy into it? Why not give us the advantage of its efficiency and
cost control, its low-administrative costs and high-quality healthcare?
That is exactly what Chris Murphy and I are putting forward along
with our cosponsors--that vision of a Medicare option for all. That is
a ``we the people'' bill. That is not a bill for the powerful and
privileged. That is not government by the wealthy and well-connected.
This is about the fundamental issue people wrestle with around the
kitchen table--the complexity and the cost of our healthcare system. I
am on Medicaid today, but I have earned a little too much, so am I off?
How do I get on the exchange in the middle of the year? How do I sign
up for those tax credits? What if I don't get that right? What if the
correspondence gets lost in the mail or misfiled, which seems to
happen? Why can't we have a simple, seamless system?
Well, we have one--Medicare. Folks say: Why can't we participate? You
can, if we pass this bill. It makes sense to create this public option
competitor. What we have seen for States that have a public option in
their provision for workplace insurance is that the costs come down
dramatically. That certainly happened in my home State of
[[Page S2266]]
Oregon. It happened on the other coast in Rhode Island. It has happened
around this country.
Lyndon Johnson, when he signed the bill for Medicare, said:
It calls upon us never to be indifferent toward despair. It
commands us never to turn away from helplessness. It directs
us never to ignore or to spurn those who suffer untended in a
land that is bursting with abundance.
Medicare is high-quality coverage for 58 million Americans. It has
bargaining power, low administrative costs, and high respect by
participants.
What does the Choose Medicare Act do? Well, it covers all that
Medicare covers today, and then, because it would be open to people of
all ages, it throws in pediatric and reproductive healthcare and builds
those networks. It strengthens the exchanges by strengthening the tax
credits so that the middle class is not stranded when it comes to the
affordability of healthcare. It extends those tax credits from 400
percent of poverty to 600 percent of poverty, reaching further into the
middle class to make that transition--to make healthcare affordable on
the exchange. It strengthens, certainly, Medicare itself, by putting a
cap on the out-of-pocket costs.
For all those who are in traditional Medicare, their Medicare
improves as well. It provides the ability to drive down the cost of
drugs by giving Medicare the ability to negotiate those prices. That is
certainly a very important feature.
Here we have something that is very popular with the public. When the
public is asked ``Would you like to see the opportunity for every
single American to be able to buy into Medicare, have that as an
option; it is a voluntary option, but an option,'' overwhelmingly, they
say yes. Democrats say yes. Republicans say yes. Independents say yes.
They would like to have that option. The more they learn about how a
public option has driven down costs, the more they say that this is
needed.
We not only make it possible to buy it on the exchange, we make it
possible for self-insured companies to take advantage of Medicare. We
make it possible for employers in regular companies, who are buying
other healthcare plans for their employees, to consider buying a
Medicare plan. So this reach is broad and deep.
That is the type of ``we the people'' legislation we should be
considering on the floor of this Senate--not a healthcare bill designed
to destroy healthcare for 22 to 30 million people, as we saw last year
courtesy of our majority, not a plan to borrow $1.5 trillion from our
children and to give it away to the very richest Americans, the
biggest, boldest bank heist seen in American history--perhaps in world
history. That is the type of bank heist you would expect out of
corrupt, Third World governments, not here in the United States of
America, which tells you just how corrupt our election process has
become, with Citizens United allowing unlimited billionaire dollars
into our campaign system.
We have to fight to take back the vision of our Nation, the ``we the
people'' vision of our Nation. It has been stolen. It has been
corrupted, and we have to take it back. When we take it back, we are
going to put bills on the floor of this Senate that are about the
fundamentals for families, living-wage jobs, public education and
public college education, affordable quality classrooms, and the cost
of housing, which is completely out of reach, and, certainly, profound
substantial improvements to our healthcare system.
Again, I thank Chris Murphy for partnering in this project. I
supported Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All, and I love that vision.
Chris Murphy supported Brian Schatz's bill to be able to buy into
Medicaid. We don't have an identical healthcare profile, but what we
sought together is the option of buying into Medicare, which is a
complete win for the American people and a complete win for our
healthcare system.
____________________