The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Senate section on pages S2263-S2266 on April 18, 2018.
The State Department is responsibly for international relations with a budget of more than $50 billion. Tenure at the State Dept. is increasingly tenuous and it's seen as an extension of the President's will, ambitions and flaws.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
(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 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 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.
____________________
