[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 21, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3239-S3241]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. MURRAY:
S. 2366. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch
Act to establish a permanent, nationwide summer electronic benefits
transfer for children program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I know that many students across the
country are waiting on the edge of their seats and looking forward to
school letting out shortly for their summer break. But for many of
those kids who participate in school meal programs, the summer can be a
pretty uncertain time--not knowing when or where they are going to get
their next meal. It can be a stressful time for those kids' parents as
well, who have to stretch every dollar they have to feed their family
today.
That is a struggle Nicole, a single mom from my home State of
Washington, knows all too well. She has been unemployed now for about a
year. She has two kids. She has a daughter who is finishing
kindergarten and a son who is just finishing fifth grade. They have
relied on SNAP benefits to help pay for their groceries and school
meals to get help during the school year. But Nicole says that last
summer, without school-provided meals, it was particularly difficult to
put enough food on the table to feed her kids.
Today I am here introducing a bill that will help families like
Nicole's and many across the country. It is a bill to make sure more
children can get the nutrition they need during the summer break. When
school is in session, millions of kids from low-income families can get
free or reduced-price meals through our National School Lunch Program.
But during the summer, hunger goes up in this country about 34 percent
for families with school-aged kids, according to a study.
Right now we do have a Federal congregate summer meals program, of
which I have long been supportive. It is called the Summer Food Service
Program. It is very successful in some areas of our country. I always
look forward to working with my colleagues to strengthen and expand
that program to make sure it is reaching as many children as possible.
But in a study from 2012, summer congregate meals programs only
reached about 14 percent of the students who qualified for free or
reduced-priced meals during the school year. That adds up to tens of
millions of kids across our country who do not have access to meal
programs in the summer.
In my home State of Washington, just 9.8 percent of those kids
participated in 2012. That means those kids are more likely to deal
with hunger or food insecurity. That is unacceptable to me. When it
comes to ensuring that our kids grow up with the nutrition they need to
learn and to thrive, there are no excuses.
We have to do more to fight summer hunger. That is why I am here
today introducing legislation called the Stop Child Summer Hunger Act.
The bill is pretty simple. It provides families with an EBT card that
will help them afford groceries during the summer months to replace the
meals those kids would otherwise have gotten at school. It is based on
a very successful pilot program that has proven now to decrease hunger
by 33 percent. Some of the demonstration projects had participation
rates as high as 90 percent. Scaling up that program with the Stop
Child Summer Hunger Act will help more children get the nutrition they
need in the summer months.
The bill is fully paid for. We do that by closing a tax loophole that
actually encourages U.S. companies to shift our jobs and profits
offshore. From my perspective, that is a pretty fair trade. It will
encourage companies to keep jobs and profits here in America. At the
same time, it will help kids get the nutrition they need during the
summer.
Fighting hunger, especially among kids, is an issue that is extremely
important to me. I have told this body before that when I was just a
teenager--15 years old--my dad, who fought in World War II, was
diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Within a few years he could not work
any longer. My mom had to go to work and find a job. It did not pay
anywhere near enough to support seven kids and a husband who had a
growing stack of medical bills. So for several months when I was young,
we had to rely on food stamps. It was not much, but I remember it
helping to get my family by during a very tough time. So I know how
hard it is for families who are struggling to put food on the table.
As adults, I believe it is our moral responsibility to take care of
our children, to make sure they can grow up healthy and to make sure
they have every opportunity to thrive and learn. I hope we can live up
to this responsibility by tackling this problem and helping more kids
get the nutrition they need to live healthy lives. I hope this body can
work with me to make sure that kids who are now looking forward to
their summer break can enjoy it free from hunger.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mrs.
Boxer):
S. 2379. A bill to approve and implement the Klamath Basin
agreements, to improve natural resource management, support economic
development, and sustain agricultural production in the Klamath River
Basin in the public interest and the interest of the United States, and
for other purposes; to the
[[Page S3240]]
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that would
authorize the implementation of the landmark agreements that settle
some of our country's most complex and contentious water allocation and
species preservation issues. Water management crises this century have
made the Klamath Basin nationally known, with all interests having
experienced devastating water years. Overcoming that adversity, the
parties in the basin have spent years coming together to hammer out
solutions--essentially giving up their right to obstruct in the name of
the greater good. With this bill the basin should now be known for the
dedicated and enduring collaborative efforts that have honed in on a
sustainable and more economically certain future for the basin--an
example that other regions can emulate for their watershed challenges.
It is time for Congress to place its seal of approval and set about
implementing these agreements to restore the basin by passing the
Klamath Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act of 2014.
I am pleased to be joined by three colleagues on this bill. Senator
Merkley has tirelessly worked to support the collaborative approach
undertaken by two states, four Tribes, multiple Federal agencies, and
countless stakeholders. Senators Feinstein and Boxer have answered the
call for communities reeling from unprecedented drought, and the
Klamath Basin--spanning Oregon and California--is yet another
illustration of their efforts to assist communities in need while
supporting fish and wildlife. Together, we are committed to working
with our colleagues in the Senate and House to advance this bill and
get it signed by the President.
The story of the Klamath Basin revolves around water. Congress
authorized a federal irrigation project for the basin in 1905. Now the
Klamath Project provides water service to roughly 210,000 acres of
productive farmland--producing such crops as potatoes, cereal grains,
sugar beets, alfalfa and other hay, and irrigated pastures for beef
cattle. The Klamath Hydroelectric Project supports power needs in the
basin with seven dams, the last of which was built more than 50 years
ago. Water needs for irrigation have increasingly come into conflict
with the needs of fish and wildlife. In 1908, President Teddy Roosevelt
established the nation's first waterfowl refuge, Lower Klamath National
Wildlife Refuge. The importance of the basin for migratory birds along
the Pacific Flyway saw the later creation of the Clear Lake, Tule Lake,
Upper Klamath, Bear Valley, and Klamath Marsh National Wildlife
Refuges. The basin is also home to 13 species of anadromous fish. Three
of these species are listed under the Endangered Species Act, including
the endangered listing of the Lost River and shortnose suckers in 1988,
the threatened listing of coho salmon in 1997, and the threatened
listing of bull trout in 1999. These fisheries--particularly salmon and
suckers--are important to the six federally recognized tribes in the
basin. Water demand often far exceeds the amount of water in a given
year, setting up a situation ripe for conflict.
That conflict grew to a head in the early 2000s. In 2001, biological
opinions about the water necessary for endangered fish resulted in the
Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior withholding
much of the water that would have normally gone to Klamath Project
irrigators. Researchers for Oregon State estimated that the water
curtailment would have, in the absence of public and private emergency
mitigation efforts, reduced agricultural output in the Upper Basin by
$82 million, about 20 percent, and regional employment by almost 2,000
jobs. Then in 2002, low water flows and poor water health caused the
death of as many as 70,000 fall chinook before they could navigate up
the Klamath and spawn, in an event known as the ``2002 fish kill.'' The
rancor and legal conflicts only intensified with these events, creating
uncertainty in the basin that has impeded overall growth and
prosperity.
Instead of accepting a future determined by acrimonious and costly
legal battles over the water, stakeholders in the basin came together
to chart a different path. They recognized that their respective
interests could be better met through cooperative efforts designed to
enhance species recovery, the certainty of agricultural operations, and
stability in the basin for economic growth and civic relations. Years
of complex and challenging work culminated in two historic agreements
in 2010--the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, KBRA, and the Klamath
Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, KHSA. The KBRA settles water
disputes in exchange for greater water certainty for farmers and
ranchers, water for fish and wildlife needs, reduced power costs for
irrigators, and restoration efforts for fisheries. The KHSA sets out a
process whereby four hydroelectric dams may be removed, at no federal
cost, should removal be in interest of fish restoration and the public
interest considering local community impacts. Together these
cooperative efforts can achieve more for the basin than asserting
individual interests could. The collective efforts will promote
economic stability and growth, while ensure a full suite of restoration
efforts are in place for the recovery of listed fish species.
The latest agreement in the basin became final just this year, the
Upper Basin Comprehensive Agreement, UBA. I am especially proud of the
work that produced the UBA, having helped convene the special task
force that worked mightily to find agreement on the key remaining
issues in the basin. The task force came about after a June 2013 Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on water issues in the
basin that I chaired. The Committee heard from 17 diverse witnesses and
received roughly 4,000 comments via email prior to the hearing. Most
acknowledged the clear impetus for a comprehensive solution given that
the Oregon Water Resources Department found in March 2013 that the
Klamath Tribes held a time immemorial water right, making them the most
senior water right holder in the basin. And after months of arduous
work on the task force, members including irrigators,
environmentalists, and tribes found common ground on habitat protection
and restoration and swallowed hard to reduce the federal expenditures
needed as I had called for in the Senate. The UBA lays out specific
water management and restoration measures for the Upper Basin,
including 30,000 acre feet of increased stream flows into Upper Klamath
Lake. The agreement provides crucial economic certainty to small
business in the basin who sell equipment to farmers growing the crops,
certainty for the cattle ranchers who manage their herds, certainty for
the tribes who want to pursue promising opportunities in forestry, like
biomass and other economic development.
The Klamath Basin Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act of 2014
authorizes these historic agreements and paves the way for the
restoration work needed to achieve their goals. In so doing, it sets
out a new cooperative management plan that the Bureau of Reclamation
will administer. For the first time, the Klamath Reclamation Project
will include fish, wildlife, and National Wildlife Refuges as
authorized purposes for the project. This will allow water managers to
increase in-stream flows and lake levels. Private landowners and others
will undertake permanent protections for riparian areas and other
enhancements that will help restore hundreds of miles of fish habitat.
Fish biologists estimate that these efforts will boost annual
production of adult Chinook salmon by 80 percent. Additional water and
flexible releases for the National Wildlife refuges means greater
numbers of migratory waterfowl, non-game water birds, wintering bald
eagles, and other sensitive species.
Achieving these benefits for fish and wildlife correspond to economic
benefits to the basin. The restoration efforts will also produce jobs.
The Department of the Interior calculates that more than 4,000 farming,
ranching, commercial and recreational fishing, construction, and other
jobs will be created or preserved. The water management plan provides
for more predictable water for farmers and ranchers to ensure irrigated
agriculture continues in the basin. A drought management plan assists
in navigating the challenges created by drought and climate change in
the basin. To deal with the escalating electric costs faced by
irrigators, the bill lays out a path to
[[Page S3241]]
affordable power including renewable energy development. There are also
economic benefits to tribes, beyond what a water right alone can
achieve. The legislation sets up an economic development fund for the
Klamath Tribes so they can create tribal jobs while sustainably
managing their natural resources. By modifying some parties' interests
for the greater good, the basin can move beyond years of polarizing
debate and create a stable future from which to plan and prosper.
These historic agreements didn't happen by osmosis. They represent
years of hard work among parties who have stood up to incredible
pressures and made very real sacrifices to better their communities and
the associations they represent. I have thanked many parties for their
dedication over the course of these agreements and want to again
express my deepest thanks to the members of the task force and those
who went before them to tee up the work for Congress. With this bill,
it is now time for Congress to step up and deliver on this package of
agreements. The spirit of compromise on these thorny water issues has a
message for not just Congress, but provides an example of how other
vexing water situations across the Nation can sit down to work out
their differences.
______
By Mr. BOOKER:
S. 2380. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to improve the
national freight policy of the United States, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Freight
Priorities Act, which takes an all-of-the-above approach to addressing
our
Nation's freight needs. We must improve the movement of freight and
strengthen our economic competitiveness by examining a comprehensive,
multimodal, national network that includes not just our major highways,
but our rail, seaports, local roads and intermodal facilities. This
bill would authorize the Department of Transportation to broaden our
approach to freight policy, set goals for reducing air pollution, and
creates a pilot program to study the disproportionate impacts on urban
communities that can be caused by the movement of freight.
In 2011, 17.6 billion tons of goods were transported throughout the
United States, valued at more than $16.8 trillion. The Federal Highway
Administration estimates there will be a 60 percent increase of freight
being moved over the next 30 years.
In New Jersey, hundreds of millions of tons of freight are annually
shipped through our ports, by rail, and highways. The port of New York
and New Jersey, as of 2012, supported over 296,000 jobs and 28.9
billion in business income. This major economic engine drives New
Jersey's economy and boosts U.S. economic competitiveness. 1However,
too often, our lack of investment and our limited focus on the highway
network causes our freight to get stuck in congested, heavily
trafficked urban areas. Extended truck, rail and ship idling negatively
impacts the health and air quality of local urban communities. With a
slight adjustment of our priorities and a strong national commitment to
investing in our infrastructure, we can dramatically reduce congestion,
improve the health of American communities, make sure goods get where
they need to go faster and cheaper, strengthen our economy and create
jobs.
The Freight Priorities Act sets goals for increasing efficiencies. It
outlines goals to reduce air pollution and congestion, and requires the
inclusion of port authorities in freight infrastructure investment
decisions. The bill requires DOT to meet performance measures for all
modes of freight movement, and establishes a pilot program that will
help find ways to reduce the impact on local communities and help
create access to jobs at ports and other multimodal facilities.
By refocusing our priorities, we will ensure that the smartest, most-
cost effective projects secure funding. In New Jersey this could mean
investing in the Raritan intermodal hub project in Essex, Union and
Middlesex counties, which would create a direct connection for freight
cars to access the port of New York and New Jersey. The project would
relieve congestion on the roads and shift freight off of Amtrak's
passenger lines. This bill would also prioritize investments that
reduce air pollution, such as shore power technology at the port of
Newark, which would help reduce emissions by allowing major cargo
vessels to plug into the electric grid while at port.
Rather than finding ways to merely skate by on the limited
infrastructure funds we have each year, the conversation we should be
having in Congress is how we can dramatically increase investments in
our infrastructure and improve the safety and functionality of our
entire network that transports both people and goods. This bill is a
strong step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this important piece of legislation, and look forward to
working with my colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee to carry
these priorities as we draft our portion of the Surface Transportation
Reauthorization bill.
____________________