[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 124 (Thursday, July 15, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4927-S4930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Wyden, Ms. 
        Stabenow, Mr. Peters, Mrs. Gillibrand, and Mr. Bennet):
  S. 2356. A bill to provide funding to rehabilitate, retrofit, and 
remove the Nation's dams to improve the health of the Nation's rivers, 
improve public safety, and increase clean energy production, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
``Twenty-First Century Dams Act,'' which I introduced today. I would 
like to thank Senators Padilla, Wyden, Stabenow, Peters, Gillibrand, 
and Bennet, who have joined me in introducing the bill.
  This bill represents a remarkable and historic coalition of groups 
that are often at odds: environmentalists, the hydropower industry, and 
dam safety advocates have come together to advance this proposal to 
modernize our nation's more than 90,000 dams. This breakthrough 
agreement is the result of a process launched three years ago and led 
by Stanford University's Woods Institute and Steyer-Taylor Center for 
Energy Policy and Finance, with additional direction from the Energy 
Futures Initiative.
  Our Nation's dams serve many important public purposes, including 
water supply, flood control, recreation, and, where appropriately 
mitigated, clean energy generation that will help slow climate change. 
But the dams also block off key habitat for fish, and can reduce flows 
needed for the health of rivers.
  As a result, conservationists have often fought proposals to upgrade 
older hydropower facilities or construct new water-powered energy-
storage projects, undertaking lengthy regulatory disputes over 
environmental safeguards.
  The historic coalition advocating for this bill has agreed to try a 
different approach by working together. They jointly support three 
principles for modernizing dams known as the ``3 Rs'': rehabilitate, 
retrofit, and remove.
  1) First, rehabilitate. Our bill increases investments in 
rehabilitating dams to improve their safety. Many of our nation's dams 
were built more than 50 years ago to safety standards that are 
insufficient today, all the more so because climate change is 
increasing the extreme weather events, like super storms, that dams 
will have to withstand to avoid catastrophic failures.
  2) Second, retrofit. Hydropower provides the United States with more 
than seven percent of its electricity and over 90% of its current 
electricity storage capacity. Both the private and Federal hydropower 
fleet generate electricity, and hydropower facilities can complement 
variable solar and wind power sources and provide long-duration energy 
storage, critical to decarbonizing the grid. DOE estimates that by 
maintaining and retrofitting existing powered dams, U.S. hydropower 
electricity output could reduce carbon emissions by 5.1 billion metric 
tons by 2050 while supporting nearly 200,000 clean energy jobs. 
Retrofitting dams also includes measures to make them less ecologically 
damaging.
  3) Third, removal. There are ample opportunities to remove 
unnecessary dams that no longer provide benefits to the population, 
have safety issues that cannot be mitigated in a cost-effective way, 
and/or have significant environmental impacts that cannot be addressed. 
Dam removals can improve public safety, restore the natural functions 
of rivers, help endangered fish species, create jobs, protect important 
environmental and cultural resources, and increase the climate 
resilience of U.S. rivers.
  I would like to now talk about how the bill would advance each of the 
``3 Rs:'' rehabilitations, retrofits, and removals.
  Rehabilitations of dams to improve their safety has long been a goal 
of mine. As Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Subcommittee, last year I funded for the first time the 
Army Corps of Engineers' loan program under the Water Infrastructure 
Finance and Innovation Act, or WIFIA. This program focuses on dam 
safety, and will use $14 million in federal appropriations to back 
loans supporting approximately $1 billion in dam safety projects.
  Dam safety has been underfunded at Federal, State, and local levels 
for many years. There are nearly 6,000 non-federal high hazard 
potential dams, which are at high risk of failure with probable loss of 
human life if they were to fail. The Association of State Dam Safety 
officials has estimated that the total cost of rehabilitating these 
dams exceeds $20 billion.
  The bill proposes a series of investments to meet this critical need:

[[Page S4928]]

  FEMA's grant program for non-Federal high hazard potential dams would 
be funded at $1 billion over 5 years, up from $10-12 million per year 
in recent years.
  2) USDA's Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act would provide 
another $500 million for rehabilitating non-Federal dams over 5 years, 
up from just $10 million in the most recent appropriations bill.
  3) The Army Corps' WIFIA program, which I mentioned earlier, would be 
funded at $250 million over 5 years, a 250% increase over the most 
recent appropriations bill. This could support as much as $15 billion 
in loans for non-Federal dam safety projects.
  4) The bill would also authorize funds to building existing state 
regulatory oversight capacity, mapping the potential consequences of 
dam failure, and modernizing the National Dam Safety Program.

  Dam safety funding in the bill totals $2.405 billion over five years, 
plus $15 billion in lending capacity to rehabilitate dangerous non-
Federal dams.
  While public safety is paramount, it is also critical that we manage 
our dams as part of a comprehensive strategy to address climate change. 
As I mentioned before, hydropower facilities can ``firm up'' variable 
solar and wind power sources, critical to decarbonizing the grid, by 
both producing 24/7 electricity and providing substantial electricity 
storage capacity for variable resources.
  The coalition proposal has a two-part strategy to advance the second 
``R'' of retrofitting dams. First is investing in existing Federal 
dams, which make up roughly 50% of all U.S. hydropower generation. 
Federal dam investments are essential to maintain this energy resource.
  The bill authorizes $11 billion over five years to improve the safety 
and renewable energy generating capacity, and reduce environmental 
impacts of federally owned dams across the United States. These 
investments are focused on the largest Federal dam-owning agencies, 
including:
  1) $8 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers;
  2) $2 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation;
  3) $650 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and
  4) $350 million for the Forest Service.
  The bill also authorizes $200 million for the Department of Energy 
for research, development, and deployment to support innovative 
waterpower technologies, technologies to improve retrofitting and 
rehabilitating hydropower dams, and furthering the contribution of 
hydropower to grid resilience.
  The coalition has also proposed establishing a 30% tax credit for 
investment at qualifying facilities in dam safety, environmental 
improvements, grid flexibility, and dam removals, with a direct pay 
alternative. Due to Senate rules regarding committee jurisdiction, it 
makes sense to move this tax credit provision separately. Senators 
Cantwell and Murkowski have introduced separate bipartisan legislation 
regarding this tax credit proposal, which they are actively discussing 
with the Senate Finance Committee.
  Let me now turn to the third ``R''--removal of unnecessary dams. 
Around the nation there are thousands of dams, in many cases built a 
century or more ago, which no longer provide significant societal 
benefits, but block fish passage to critical habitats and otherwise 
harm river ecosystems.
  A twenty-first century dam strategy would be wholly incomplete 
without provisions to remove these unnecessary dams. The bill creates 
an interagency council and a stakeholder advisory committee to help 
administer funding to remove dams where appropriate. Identifying 
candidates for dam removal will follow these guiding principles:
  1) The dam owner must give consent;
  2) The priority is to remove dams that pose a significant public 
safety hazard, or non-powered dams whose removal would provide 
significant ecological value; and
  3) Consideration of the extent to which the dam provides critical 
beneficial uses, the magnitude of public benefits from dam removal, and 
the cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility of dam removal.
  Because dam removal can be a difficult issue, I believe it is 
critical to establish the framework in this bill for identifying which 
dams are appropriate for removal, and which are not. Within this 
framework, the bill authorizes $7.5 billion in funding over 5 years for 
multiple Federal agencies with dam removal authorities, including the 
Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
the Forest Service, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
  The broad goal of these provisions is to reconnect 10,000 river miles 
through the removal of 1,000 dams. In addition to ecological benefits 
that could transform the prospects for many endangered fish 
populations, these projects would also create over 100,000 jobs.
  I want to again congratulate the hydropower industry, environmental 
community, and dam safety advocates that have come together in the 
coalition proposing this bill. This is an historic coalition, and the 
coalition's proposal gives the Senate a remarkable opportunity to 
advance three critical goals:
  1) Rehabilitating aging dams that pose public safety risks and need 
major investments to withstand the extreme flooding events that are 
coming with climate change;
  2) Retrofitting our Federal and non-Federal dam fleets to increase 
clean energy generation and slow climate change, while reducing the 
dams' environmental impacts; and
  3) Removing unnecessary dams to open up critical habitat for 
endangered fish populations and restore the health of our precious 
rivers.
  Our colleague, Representative Annie Kuster (NH-02), has introduced 
this legislation in the House of Representatives together with 
Representatives Don Young (AK-AL), Kim Schrier M.D. (WA-08), Julia 
Brownley (CA-26), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Debbie Dingell (Ml-12), 
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Nanette Diaz Barragan (CA-44), Bonnie Watson 
Coleman (NJ-12), and Scott Peters (CA-52). I look forward to working 
with these House members to advance this important bill.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation. 
Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Klobuchar, 
        Mr. Padilla, Ms. Rosen, Mrs. Shaheen, and Ms. Smith):
  S. 2357. A bill to fight homelessness in the United States by 
authorizing a grant program within the Health Resources and Services 
Administration for housing programs that offer comprehensive services 
and intensive case management for homeless individuals and families; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
``Fighting Homelessness with Services and Housing Act,'' which would 
establish a new Federal grant program to increase support for 
comprehensive services paired with housing to address our Nation's 
current homelessness crisis.
  As we have seen with the growing diversity of our homeless 
populations--families with children, veterans, individuals with mental 
health conditions and struggling with addiction, people who simply 
could not keep up with increases in rent--our Nation's homelessness 
crisis is not going to simply resolve itself on its own.
  According to the most recent data available from the U.S. Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, there are more than 580,000 homeless 
individuals and families in the United States. More than 25 percent of 
this population is in California, with approximately 161,548 homeless 
people sleeping on the streets on any given night.
  In a Nation as prosperous as ours, we can and we must do better, 
especially as we address this crisis in the aftermath of the 
coronavirus pandemic. Our city, County, State, and Federal governments 
must work hand-in-hand with the non-profit and private sectors to 
establish collaborative efforts to significantly address the issue of 
homelessness.
  The good news is that we have seen a model that works: supportive 
housing, which helps meet homeless individuals and families where they 
are. This approach can help stabilize an individual or family and 
change their life. Supportive services such as mental and physical 
health care, substance abuse

[[Page S4929]]

treatment, education and job training, and life skills such as 
financial literacy are critical components. Paired with intensive case 
management, supportive housing models make a difference.
  One success story is the Downtown Women's Center in Los Angeles. This 
shelter allows homeless and formerly homeless women to transform their 
lives through a combination of permanent, supportive housing and 
workforce development. This would not be possible without the Center's 
partnerships with the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County 
Department of Health, and other critical stakeholders. I've visited the 
Center and encourage my colleagues to do the same to see why this model 
works.
  It is imperative that we support State and local efforts, as well as 
nonprofit service providers, as they work to get people into housing to 
both mitigate the spread of the coronavirus and address their long-term 
needs.
  Without a doubt, it will take a significant investment to solve the 
current homelessness crisis. That is why I am introducing the 
``Fighting Homelessness with Services and Housing Act,'' which would 
authorize a new Federal funding stream of $1 billion per year, subject 
to annual appropriations. Grantees must serve individuals or families 
who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless by providing housing 
paired with a comprehensive set of services and must provide a 25 
percent match for any Federal funds received.
  Because each individual and every community is unique, the grant 
program created by this bill would be flexible in order to work in any 
region or for any homeless population.
  This bill supports the great work already being done across the 
Country, allowing local governmental entities and non-profit 
organizations to expand their capacity and ensure a greater reach by 
putting Federal dollars where they will make the most effective impact.
  This legislation is supported by a wide coalition of local 
governments, housing, health, and child welfare organizations, 
including the Mayors and CEOs for U.S. Housing Investment, National 
Alliance to End Homelessness, Corporation for Supportive Housing, 
National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, National 
Low Income Housing Coalition, and the NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social 
Justice.
  I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting the bill and moving 
it through the Senate, especially as we continue to contend with the 
increase in homelessness amid the coronavirus pandemic.
  Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2361. A bill to reauthorize the budget-neutral demonstration 
program for energy and water conservation at multifamily residential 
units, to establish a green retrofit program, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am joining Senator Collins in 
introducing the Green Retrofits Act of 2021, which seeks to boost 
energy efficiency in multifamily residential homes across the Nation.
  The legislation would accomplish this goal through two complimentary 
paths. First, the bill would authorize a public-private partnership 
program to make energy efficiency upgrades to properties currently 
receiving assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD). Second, it would direct the Secretary of HUD to 
create a program to distribute grants and loans for energy efficiency 
and home health upgrades in multifamily homes.
  One of the most important investments we can make for our environment 
and our economy is in energy efficiency. Indeed, building a cleaner, 
more efficient energy system will increase America's global 
competitiveness, support job growth, and save families and businesses 
money through reduced energy consumption--all while reducing our carbon 
footprint. Further, investments in efficiency can be undertaken quickly 
and provide immediate benefits.
  According to the U.S. Energy Information Association, more than half 
of energy consumption in U.S. households is for two basic needs: 
heating and cooling. As our constituents in Maine and Rhode Island know 
all too well, these bills can get quite high during New England 
winters, and no one should be forced to choose between staying warm in 
the winter and buying groceries and medicine for their families. 
Improving the efficiency of building components such as heating, 
cooling, and lighting systems will help households lower their energy 
bills, reduce health and safety risks, and improve the quality of life 
for residents.
  Our legislation is supported nationally by the National Center for 
Healthy Housing, and in my state by the Rhode Island Office of Energy 
Resources and Rhode Island Housing. These state agencies have both made 
significant strides in clean energy and energy efficiency policy and I 
am glad this legislation will provide more resources to bolster those 
efforts.
  With our economy still recovering from the pandemic, and the threat 
of climate change continuing to mount, it is more important than ever 
that we take steps to reduce costs for American families and decrease 
energy consumption.
  I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Ms. Duckworth):
  S. 2362. 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 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. 2362

       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 2021''.

     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

[[Page S4930]]

     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.

                          ____________________