[Pages S1460-S1462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILIS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Tester, Mr. Begich,
Mr. Burris, Mr. Specter, Mr. Isakson, and Mr. Graham):
S. 3107. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for
an increase, effective December 1, 2010, in the rates of compensation
for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of
dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain
disabled veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today, as Chairman of the Senate Committee
on Veterans' Affairs, I introduce the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-
Living Adjustment Act of 2010.
This measure would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
increase, effective December 1, 2010, the rates of veterans'
compensation to keep pace with the rising cost of living in this
country, if such an adjustment is triggered by an increase in the
Consumer Price Index. This legislation, commonly referred to as the
COLA, would make an increase available to veterans at the same level as
a cost-of-living increase, if provided to those who receive Social
Security benefits.
My colleagues on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, including
Senators Burr, Rockefeller, Murray, Sanders, Brown of Ohio, Tester,
Begich, Burris, Specter, Isakson, and Graham join me in introducing
this important legislation. I appreciate their continued support of the
Nation's veterans.
Congress regularly enacts a cost-of-living adjustment for veterans'
compensation in order to ensure that inflation does not erode the
purchasing power of those veterans and survivors who depend upon this
income to meet their daily needs. Last year, Congress passed, and the
President signed into law, Public Law 111-37. While there was no cost-
of-living increase in 2010 due to a decline in the Consumer Price
Index, the 2011 adjustment has not yet been determined.
The COLA affects, among other benefits, veterans' disability
compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving
spouses and children. It is projected that over 3.5 million veterans
and survivors will be in receipt of compensation benefits in fiscal
year 2011. Many of these recipients depend upon these tax-free payments
not only to provide for their own basic needs, but those of their
spouses and children as well.
It is important that we view veterans' compensation, including the
COLA, and indeed all benefits earned by veterans, as a continuing cost
of war. It is clear that the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan
will continue to result in injuries and disabilities that will yield an
increase in claims for compensation.
Payment of disability compensation to those of our Nation's veterans
who have an illness or disability related to their service constitutes
one of the central missions of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It
is a necessary measure of appreciation afforded to those veterans whose
lives were forever altered by their service to this country.
I urge our colleagues to work together to ensure this benefit remains

[[Page S1461]]

available and is not diminished by the effects of inflation. I also ask
our colleagues for their continued support for the Nation's veterans.
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. 3107

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 ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-
of-Living Adjustment Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN RATES OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND
DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION.

(a) Rate Adjustment.--Effective on December 1, 2010, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall increase, in accordance
with subsection (c), the dollar amounts in effect on November
30, 2010, for the payment of disability compensation and
dependency and indemnity compensation under the provisions
specified in subsection (b).
(b) Amounts To Be Increased.--The dollar amounts to be
increased pursuant to subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Wartime disability compensation.--Each of the dollar
amounts under section 1114 of title 38, United States Code.
(2) Additional compensation for dependents.--Each of the
dollar amounts under section 1115(1) of such title.
(3) Clothing allowance.--The dollar amount under section
1162 of such title.
(4) Dependency and indemnity compensation to surviving
spouse.--Each of the dollar amounts under subsections (a)
through (d) of section 1311 of such title.
(5) Dependency and indemnity compensation to children.--
Each of the dollar amounts under sections 1313(a) and 1314 of
such title.
(c) Determination of Increase.--
(1) Percentage.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), each
dollar amount described in subsection (b) shall be increased
by the same percentage as the percentage by which benefit
amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 401 et seq.) are increased effective December 1, 2010,
as a result of a determination under section 215(i) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)).
(2) Rounding.--Each dollar amount increased under paragraph
(1), if not a whole dollar amount, shall be rounded to the
next lower whole dollar amount.
(d) Special Rule.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may
adjust administratively, consistent with the increases made
under subsection (a), the rates of disability compensation
payable to persons under section 10 of Public Law 85-857 (72
Stat. 1263) who have not received compensation under chapter
11 of title 38, United States Code.
(e) Publication of Adjusted Rates.--The Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall publish in the Federal Register the
amounts specified in subsection (b), as increased under
subsection (a), not later than the date on which the matters
specified in section 215(i)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(D)) are required to be published by
reason of a determination made under section 215(i) of such
Act during fiscal year 2011.
______

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Tester):
S. 3109. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to conduct levee
system evaluations and certifications on receipt of requests from non-
Federal interests; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural
Community Flood Protection Act of 2010.
We have all seen, and many of us have experienced firsthand, the
devastation that a flood can bring to any community. This devastation
is experienced equally, whether your home is in an area that is high or
low hazard, rural or urban, wealthy or poor. Flood control is a multi-
pronged effort involving structural and non-structural flood control
measures, hazard mitigation, emergency planning, and insurance. Our
Nation has a myriad of programs designed to address flood hazards. FEMA
produces flood maps to define the risk and operates hazard mitigation
programs to reduce risk. The National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP,
provides flood insurance to property owners in a mapped risk area. The
Army Corps of Engineers designs and constructs flood control projects.
This hodgepodge of responsibilities has always been a challenge for the
U.S., and it continues to be one today.
Nowhere is this challenge more evident than in the process of FEMA's
map modernization program, the Corps' levee certification
responsibilities, and NFIP program requirements. This issue has
lingered around the edges for years, and its impact is now being felt
in an enormous way in Montana where communities struggling to navigate
the maze of what seems to be an overwhelming Federal bureaucracy are
incredibly frustrated.
Let me begin by saying that it is important that we recognize the
risks we face before we make snap judgments about whether preventive
action should or shouldn't be taken. Specifically, it is a good idea
for FEMA to update our Nation's flood maps so that we can be honest
with ourselves about the risks we face. However, that process, must be
transparent and it must recognize the differences between Sacramento,
CA, and Saco, MT. It can be overwhelming for a small community in
Montana to participate in this process. That is why I have written to
FEMA Director Craig Fugate asking him to consider the needs of small,
rural communities as the Agency progresses with its map modernization
program.
Once flood hazards are accurately mapped, communities must work to
ensure that their flood control structures, if they have them, are up
to par and can actually provide protection for the hazards they face.
Without a levee ``certification'' by a professional engineer, those
portions of a community located behind the levee, believing for years
that they had adequate flood protection, are suddenly faced with a map
that depicts them as in the floodplain, unprotected, required to
purchase flood insurance.
It seems like it would be a simple process to get a levee
certification. Traditionally, the Army Corps has performed this work.
However, in 2008 the Army Corps of Engineers established a policy that
it would no longer perform levee certifications on non-Federally
operated levees. This policy has left communities like Great Falls,
Montana high and dry when it comes to a certification process. I wrote
to the Corps of Engineers on February 18, 2010, asking the Agency to
re-evaluate this policy.
I hope that the Corps will change their policy. But, Montana cannot
wait for that to happen. Great Falls, Vaughn, Miles City, Glendive,
Saco, Havre, Forsyth, Malta, Glasgow and others cannot wait for the
Corps deliberations. That is why I am introducing legislation today
that will give the Corps direct authority to perform levee
certifications. In addition, my bill includes special provisions for
small communities and for those levee districts that are operated by a
volunteer staff, allowing the Corps to perform these certifications at
100 percent Federal cost.
This bill is one step in what will be a long process for all of us as
we update and upgrade our knowledge of the risks posed by flooding, our
current level of protection, and additional steps we need to take to
ensure that lives and property are not unnecessarily lost. In the
process of that upgrade, we cannot lose sight of the impact of this
process and these decisions on our local communities.
We don't want the cost of staying in the NFIP to rise above the point
where small communities can participate. We don't want a burdensome
Federal bureaucracy to make it impossible for people to make good
decisions about their own safety and that of their community. In these
economic times, rural communities are struggling to come up with enough
money just to keep afloat, and a hefty certification fee can be an
undue burden.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, March 11, 2010.
Administrator W. Craig Fugate,
Office of the Administrator, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, C Street, S.W., Washington, DC.
Dear Administrator Fugate: I am writing to express concern
about the impact of FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map
Modernization on small communities across Montana. Let me
state up front that I fully support your agency's efforts to
provide the nation with digital flood hazard data and maps
that are more reliable, It is critically important that land
owners are protected against the risk to life and property
posed by flooding.
However, as your agency conducts the Map Modernization in
Montana, I urge you to take every possible step to
accommodate the unique circumstances small rural communities
face. For example, small towns often

[[Page S1462]]

cannot afford to challenge FEMA's preliminary flood insurance
study. These communities are left in the untenable position
of paying thousands of dollars for an engineering firm to
develop the revised flood insurance study required to appeal
FEMA's preliminary study, or to accept FEMA's preliminary
flood insurance study as is, even if there are valid grounds
to dispute the study's findings. It is clear that an improved
appeals process could help correct errors made during FEMA's
map modernization and thus prevent unneeded flood insurance
expenses.
Please provide a detailed list of the steps your agency is
taking to accommodate the special needs of rural communities
during the map modernization process. Specifically, detail
how your agency accommodates appeals to a preliminary flood
insurance study by small communities with small budgets.
Thank you for your prompt response to this request.
Sincerely,
Max Baucus.
____

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, February 18, 2010.
Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, G Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Dear Assistant Secretary Darcy: I am writing to you
regarding the January 23, 2008 memo establishing priorities
for Fiscal Year 2008 Levee Safety Program Inspection Funds.
Specifically, I would like you to provide additional
justification for your policy determination that levee
certification is a non-Federal responsibility and that these
certifications will not be funded using Federal funds.
Throughout Montana and the rest of the country, non-Federal
sponsors for Federally-constructed levees are struggling to
work through the FEMA floodplain re-mapping process and the
associated requirements for levee certification. I recognize
the need to ensure that accurate information is provided to
property owners and decision-makers regarding the residual
risk of flooding that exists behind a flood control structure
and to ensure that such properties are adequately insured to
prevent excessive disaster payments by the Federal
government, I understand that FEMA's map updates will portray
a floodplain area protected by a certified levee as an area
with 1 in 100 year flood protect and a floodplain area that
is protected by an uncertified levee as unprotected.
Therefore, the levee certification process is a critical
step in the nation's efforts to ensure that our existing
flood control system offers viable protection for life and
property. First and foremost, from an engineering
perspective, it is important that any flaws or shortcomings
in our existing levees are identified and repaired before a
disaster, not after. Second, because the certification of a
levee is the determining factor in how a particular
floodplain will be mapped and what insurance requirements
will apply, it is important that communities have access to a
clear, reasonable process to obtain this certification,
Prior to January 2008, the Corps performed levee
certifications for Federally-constructed levees. On January
23, 2008, a memorandum regarding prioritization of fiscal
year 2008 funds was released by your office, which precluded
the Corps from using fiscal year 2008 funds to perform levee
certifications and stated that levee certification is a non-
Federal responsibility. Please provide your justification for
this abrupt change in policy, in addition to a cost analysis
of the impact of this change to non-Federal sponsors. Please
describe the outreach that was performed prior to and after
this decision to ensure that levee managers throughout the
country were properly informed. Please articulate, in detail,
the options available for levee districts seeking
certification of their Federally-constructed levee. In
determining the effective date of your new policy, was a
transition plan considered and/or implemented for those
levees that were already moving through the remapping process
and were anticipating that the certification process would be
conducted by the Corps? Was consideration given to the
differing technical and financial capabilities of levee
districts throughout the country to ensure that small, rural
communities are not adversely impacted by this policy change
when compared to large communities? Has the Corps considered
the lack of engineering resources in certain parts of the
country as a planning factor for implementing the new January
2008 policy? The January 23 memo states that the Corps can
perform levee certification on a reimbursable basis. How do
the limitations adopted in 31 U.S.C. 6505, as amended, affect
the ability of the Corps to perform these certifications?
Have levee districts in small, rural communities elected to
pay the Corps to perform levee certifications since January
2008? Please describe how this decision was and continues to
be coordinated with the FEMA remapping process. Thank you for
your attention to this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Max Baucus.

____________________