[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 3, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1027-S1030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. HIRONO (for herself and Mr. Schatz):
S. 554. A bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a
study on the establishment of, and the potential land that could be
included in, a unit of the National Forest System in the State of
Hawaii, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that
requires the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a study on the
establishment of, and the potential land that could be included in, a
unit of the National Forest System in the State of Hawaii.
The U.S. Forest Service currently oversees more than 150 National
forests that receive Federal funding for watershed protection, wildlife
conservation, enhancement of recreational access, wildfire prevention,
among other things. Despite having unique forest ecosystems found
nowhere else in the Nation, Hawaii is currently among the few States
that do not have a National Forest. If warranted, a National Forest
designation in Hawaii could provide additional Federal research and
management resources.
This bill directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary,
acting through the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, to conduct a study
in coordination with the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural
Resources, and in consultation with the Hawaii Department of
Agriculture as well as other State and local stakeholders, on the
islands of Hawaii, Oahu, Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, and Maui.
This study would, among other things, assess unique vegetation types,
opportunities to improve and protect forest resources, secure favorable
water flows, and opportunities for visitor use.
The Secretary of Agriculture is given three years to conduct the
study and report the results to Congress. Information from that report
will then inform which lands in Hawaii, if any, would be suitable for
inclusion in a National Forest. This bill is supported by the Hawaii
Department of Land and Natural Resources.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 557. A bill to establish a pilot program for native plant species,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Native
Plant Species Pilot Program Act. I am pleased to be partnering with
Senator Cantwell on this initiative. Our bipartisan bill would create a
new pilot program at the National Park Service to support the use of
native plants, and would direct the Park Service to review existing
data and study the cost-effectiveness of using native plants.
Native plants are species found naturally in regions and can add
beauty and value to our National Park System. Benefits range from using
less water and pesticides, purifying the air, and recharging
groundwater in wetlands. By using native species, the Park Service can
also improve habitat for wildlife and restore important species of
birds and butterflies to their natural environment.
In Acadia National Park, native plants are an important part of the
ongoing conservation efforts undertaken by Superintendent Kevin
Schneider and all those who work to encourage the use of native plants.
Acadia National Park protects more than 900 plant species, including
some that are globally, nationally, and locally rare.
Acadia is home to the vibrant rhodoras that flower along wetland
edges in the spring and stunning wood lilies that bloom on the mountain
tops
[[Page S1028]]
in August, helping to attract the more than 3.5 million visitors a year
to the seventh most-visited national park in the United States. The
Wild Gardens of Acadia, located at Sieur de Monts, are a collection of
more than 400 native plants maintained almost exclusively by park
volunteers and represent the natural plant communities found within
Acadia National Park. This partnership project with Friends of Acadia
allows visitors to easily step through the park's myriad habitats and
learn about the splendor of Acadia's native plant species. The Wild
Gardens celebrates its 60th anniversary in 2021.
Native plants, however, face many threats, such as non-native pests,
non-native plants, diseases, and a changing climate. Today, almost one
quarter of Acadia National Park's species are non-native to the park.
The red spruce, iconic to Acadia, is projected to lose a substantial
amount of its habitat in coming decades because of climate change. In
addition, invasive pests, such as the Emerald Ash Borer and the hemlock
woolly adelgid are affecting northern forests and have expanded into
Maine. Hemlock woolly adelgid recently infested hemlock trees just
outside of the park on Mount Desert Island.
Our bipartisan bill has earned endorsements from the Garden Club of
America, Friends of Acadia, Scenic America, and the Native Plant Center
at Westchester Community College. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation to help protect the natural landscapes at our national
parks for years to come.
______
By Mr. THUNE (for himself and Mr. Rounds):
S. 569. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer
certain National Forest System land to the State of South Dakota, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. THUNE. 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. 569
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 ``Gilt Edge Mine Conveyance
Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
approximately 266 acres of National Forest System land within
the Gilt Edge Mine Superfund Boundary, as generally depicted
on the map.
(2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Gilt
Edge Mine Conveyance Act'' and dated August 20, 2020.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest
Service.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means State of South Dakota.
SEC. 3. LAND CONVEYANCE.
(a) In General.--Subject to the terms and conditions
described in this Act, if the State submits to the Secretary
an offer to acquire the Federal land for the market value, as
determined by the appraisal under subsection (c), the
Secretary shall convey the Federal land to the State.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--The conveyance under subsection
(a) shall be--
(1) subject to valid existing rights;
(2) made by quitclaim deed; and
(3) subject to any other terms and conditions as the
Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of
the United States.
(c) Appraisal.--
(1) In general.--Before submitting an offer under
subsection (a), the State shall complete an appraisal to
determine the market value of the Federal land.
(2) Standards.--The appraisal under paragraph (1) shall be
conducted in accordance with--
(A) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions; and
(B) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice.
(d) Map.--
(1) Availability of map.--The map shall be kept on file and
available for public inspection in the appropriate office of
the Forest Service.
(2) Correction of errors.--The Secretary may correct any
errors in the map.
(e) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance
under subsection (a), the State shall pay to the Secretary an
amount equal to the market value of the Federal land, as
determined by the appraisal under subsection (c).
(f) Survey.--The State shall prepare a survey that is
satisfactory to the Secretary of the exact acreage and legal
description of the Federal land to be conveyed under
subsection (a).
(g) Costs of Conveyance.--As a condition on the conveyance
under subsection (a), the State shall pay all costs
associated with the conveyance, including the cost of--
(1) the appraisal under subsection (c); and
(2) the survey under subsection (f).
(h) Proceeds From the Sale of Land.--Any proceeds received
by the Secretary from the conveyance under subsection (a)
shall be--
(1) deposited in the fund established under Public Law 90-
171 (commonly known as the ``Sisk Act'') (16 U.S.C. 484a);
and
(2) available to the Secretary until expended, without
further appropriation, for the maintenance and improvement of
land or administration facilities in the Black Hills National
Forest in the State.
(i) Environmental Conditions.--Notwithstanding section
120(h)(3)(A) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9620(h)(3)(A)), the Secretary shall not be required to
provide any covenant or warranty for the Federal land
conveyed to the State under this Act.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Padilla):
S. 572. A bill to provide for the water quality restoration of the
Tijuana River and the New River, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the
``Border Water Quality Restoration and Protection Act.''
For over two decades, cleaning up the Tijuana River Valley has been
one of my top priorities for Southern California. The wastewater, trash
and sediment that continues to flow into San Diego and Imperial
Counties is an alarming danger to public health and our economy.
Although we have made recent strides in cleaning up this pollution,
there is much work remaining.
That's why I am proud to introduce this important legislation, once
again, to help address this decades-long issue. I am very pleased
Senator Padilla has joined me as an original cosponsor and I look
forward to working with him on this important issue.
Polluted water from the Tijuana and New Rivers flows north across the
border into the United States causing unsanitary water conditions,
pollution and beach closures across Southern California. It also
jeopardizes military training exercises for Navy Seals in Camp
Pendleton.
Three-quarters of the 1,700-square-mile Tijuana River watershed lies
in Mexico. However, the watershed, along with all its pollutants,
drains into San Diego County and the Tijuana River Valley.
In addition to jeopardizing human health and safety, two of the most
drastic effects from this cross-border water pollution are harm to
wildlife and damage to the tourism industry, integral to Southern
Californian communities. As the coronavirus pandemic continues to
threaten our nation's health and economy, it is critical we work to
address the pollution in the region so California can welcome visitors
back to their beaches when it is safe to do so.
The beaches in the region are central to San Diego's tourism economy.
In recent years, beaches in the communities of Coronado and Imperial
Beach were closed for more than 200 days in a single year due to
pollution.
Health and safety of residents and workers are also at risk. In
recent years, local Border Patrol union officials reported that 80
officers suffered from contamination, rashes, infections, chemical
burns and lung irritation due to toxic cross-border flows.
In addition, pollution from Mexico harms sensitive areas that provide
critical habitat for more than 300 species of birds as well as marine
animals like leopard sharks and bottlenose dolphins. The region is home
to multiple parks and public lands, including the Tijuana River's
National Estuarine Research Reserve, the River Mouth State Marine
Conservation Area and River Valley Regional Park Preserve.
The harmful effects of pollution in the Tijuana River Valley on our
residents, businesses, economy and environment are simply unacceptable.
In February 2020, the Government Accountability Office issued a
comprehensive report, ``International Boundary Water Commission:
Opportunities Exist to Address Water Quality Problems.'' My office
worked closely with the GAO to utilize their findings to craft
meaningful change through this legislation.
[[Page S1029]]
Simultaneously, we were able to secure $300 million in the U.S.-
Mexico-Canada trade agreement to address pollution in the Tijuana River
Valley Watershed.
With significant funding and detailed findings by the GAO
investigation, we developed this legislation in concert with federal,
state and local agency input. As beaches in both the United States and
Mexico continue to close due to high levels of pollution, it is as
imperative as ever to advance a solution that engages all stakeholders.
The Border Water Quality Restoration and Protection Act includes key
reforms to advance concrete solutions.
One of the problems is that no one agency is in charge of this
problem. A whole range of agencies--EPA, International Boundary and
Water Commission, State Department, Department of Homeland Security,
Customs and Border Protection, Defense Department--all have
jurisdiction or interest in this international issue.
What we need is one agency in charge, taking input from the others so
decisions can be made. This approach is similar to other large,
regional environmental challenges like the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico,
Everglades and Chesapeake Bay. Here in California, we have also seen
great success with this model of interagency coordination at Lake
Tahoe.
Here's how the bill would work:
The EPA would be officially named the agency with overall control of
this effort.
The EPA, along with its federal, state and local partners, would be
directed to identify a list of priority projects. It also would be
authorized to accept and distribute funds to build, operate and
maintain those projects.
The bill would permanently authorize the Border Water Infrastructure
Program to manage storm water runoff and water reuse projects.
State and local authorities would also be authorized to contribute
funding to federal projects, which is currently not allowed.
The International Boundary and Water Commission would be authorized
to mitigate storm water from Mexico and the pollution that comes with
it and is required to construct, operate and maintain projects on the
priority list developed by the agencies within the U.S. that improve
water quality.
We need a new and comprehensive approach to this issue that has
plagued border communities for too long. This bill creates a formal
process to consider effective, long-term solutions and additional
wastewater infrastructure to mitigate cross-border pollution and I hope
the Senate can move on this bill quickly.
I want to thank California Environmental Protection Agency,
California Natural Resources Agency, San Diego and Imperial counties,
cities of Imperial Beach and Coronado, Mayor of Chula Vista, Mary
Casillas Salas, the City of San Diego and the Port of San Diego for
supporting this legislation. These communities, and others, have been
negatively impacted by this issue for far too long.
It's past time that we finally solve this problem to safeguard local
health and economic growth.
Once again, I thank Senator Padilla for his cosponsorship. Thank you,
Mr. President. I yield the floor.
______
By Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Murphy, Ms.
Collins, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms.
Baldwin, Mr. Marshall, and Mr. Warnock):
S. 578. A bill to improve the health and safety of Americans living
with food allergies and related disorders, including potentially life-
threatening anaphylaxis, food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome,
and eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases, and for other purposes;
considered and passed.
S. 578
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 ``Food Allergy Safety,
Treatment, Education, and Research Act of 2021'' or the
``FASTER Act of 2021''.
SEC. 2. FOOD ALLERGY SAFETY.
(a) In General.--Section 201(qq)(1) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(qq)(1)) is amended by
striking ``and soybeans'' and inserting ``soybeans, and
sesame''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to any food that is introduced or delivered for
introduction into interstate commerce on or after January 1,
2023.
SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
(a) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'')
shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that
includes--
(1) descriptions of ongoing Federal activities related to--
(A) the surveillance and collection of data on the
prevalence of food allergies and severity of allergic
reactions for specific food or food ingredients, including
the identification of any gaps in such activities;
(B) the development of effective food allergy diagnostics;
(C) the prevention of the onset of food allergies;
(D) the reduction of risks related to living with food
allergies; and
(E) the development of new therapeutics to prevent, treat,
cure, and manage food allergies; and
(2) specific recommendations and strategies to expand,
enhance, or improve activities described in paragraph (1),
including--
(A) strategies to improve the accuracy of food allergy
prevalence data by expanding and intensifying current
collection methods, including support for research that
includes the identification of biomarkers and tests to
validate survey data and the investigation of the use of
identified biomarkers and tests in national surveys;
(B) strategies to overcome gaps in surveillance and data
collection activities related to food allergies and specific
food allergens; and
(C) recommendations for the development and implementation
of a regulatory process and framework that would allow for
the timely, transparent, and evidence-based modification of
the definition of ``major food allergen'' included in section
201(qq) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
321(qq)), including with respect to--
(i) the scientific criteria for defining a food or food
ingredient as a ``major food allergen'' pursuant to such
process, including recommendations pertaining to evidence of
the prevalence and severity of allergic reactions to a food
or food ingredient that would be required in order to
establish that such food or food ingredient is an allergen of
public health concern appropriate for such process; and
(ii) opportunities for stakeholder engagement and comment,
as appropriate, in considering any such modification to such
definition.
(b) Publication.--The Secretary shall make the report under
subsection (a) available on the internet website of the
Department of Health and Human Services.
______
By Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mr. Coons, Mr. Cotton, and Mr.
Whitehouse):
S. 579. A bill to make a technical correction to the ALS Disability
Insurance Access Act of 2019; considered and passed.
S. 579
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RETROACTIVE ACCESS TO SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY
BENEFITS INDIVIDUALS WITH AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL
SCLEROSIS (ALS).
(a) In General.--Section 2(b) of the ALS Disability
Insurance Access Act of 2019 (Public Law 116-250) is amended
by striking ``applications for disability insurance benefits
filed after the date of enactment of this Act'' and inserting
``applications for disability insurance benefits approved
after the date that is 5 months before the date of enactment
of this Act''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the ALS
Disability Insurance Access Act of 2019 (Public Law 116-250).
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 580. A bill to reauthorize the Neighborhood Stabilization Program,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Ms. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the
``Affordable Housing Redevelopment Act,'' which I introduced today.
I want to thank Senator Padilla for joining me on this important
bill, and Representatives Jared Huffman and Mike Thompson for leading a
companion measure in the House of Representatives.
Established in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program was created by Congress to help
provide assistance to communities hit hard by the recession by funding
the acquisition and rehabilitation of troubled residential properties.
[[Page S1030]]
The program helped States, local governments, and nonprofit
organizations acquire properties and rehabilitate or repurpose them as
long-term affordable housing.
Between 2008 and 2019, Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds have
facilitated the construction or rehabilitation of more than 50,000
homes, and the program has generated $1.8 billion in return income,
allowing communities to stretch Federal investments even further.
Today, more than 7.4 million units of affordable housing are needed
across the U.S. to meet the needs of low-income renters. In my home
State of California, more than 1.4 million units are needed to address
the State's affordable housing shortage.
Due to financial burdens and loss of income resulting from the COVID-
19 pandemic, millions of people in the United States are at risk of
eviction or foreclosure, and the need for more affordable housing is
expected to increase dramatically.
In addition to making long-term investments in building new
affordable housing in the United States, it is also critically
important to focus resources on more immediate solutions, such as
acquiring and rehabilitating existing buildings.
Acquisition and rehabilitation provides two distinct advantages: it
lowers per-unit construction costs and makes affordable housing units
available to low-income households much faster.
The ``Affordable Housing Redevelopment Act'' would reauthorize and
expand the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to help State and local
governments purchase blighted, vacant, abandoned, foreclosed, or
surplus properties, and convert them into affordable housing. Eligible
projects would include mixed-use development and conversions of non-
residential office and retail properties.
All new units would have to serve households whose income does not
exceed area median income, and at least 25 percent of units would serve
households whose income does not exceed 50 percent of area median
income. Long-term affordability requirements would apply in all cases.
The bill would authorize $1.5 billion in discretionary appropriations
to be allocated as a competitive grant program administered by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
This bill provides a targeted and cost effective way for the Federal
government to help communities build more affordable housing, while
also stimulating local economies and creating jobs.
I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. Thank you,
Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Booker, Mr. Markey,
Mr. Murphy, Ms. Warren, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine,
Ms. Smith, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown, Mr. Schatz, Ms.
Klobuchar, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Ossoff, and Ms. Baldwin):
S. 582. A bill to prohibit the imposition of the death penalty for
any violation of Federal law, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
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. 582
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 ``Federal Death Penalty
Prohibition Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF DEATH SENTENCE.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no person may be sentenced to death or put to death on
or after the date of enactment of this Act for any violation
of Federal law.
(b) Persons Sentenced Before Date of Enactment.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person
sentenced to death before the date of enactment of this Act
for any violation of Federal law shall be resentenced.
______
By Mr. KAINE (for himself, Mr. Young, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Lee, Mr.
Coons, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Paul, and Mr. Durbin):
S.J. Res. 10. A joint resolution to repeal the authorizations for use
of military force against Iraq, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce in the
Senate, with my colleagues Senators Young, Duckworth, Lee, Coons,
Grassley, Durbin and Paul a bipartisan resolution to repeal the 1991
and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq.
This legislation will formally end the authorizations for the Gulf and
Iraq wars--30 and 19 years, respectively, after these AUMFs were first
passed, reasserting Congress' vital role in not only declaring wars,
but in ending them. The repeal of these authorizations also recognizes
the strong partnership the United States now has with a sovereign,
democratic Iraq.
The United States is no longer at war with Iraq and our legal
frameworks should reflect this reality as much as our policy
frameworks, to include the Strategic Framework Agreement that Iraq and
the United States signed in November 2008, which affirms the
establishment of a long-term relationship of cooperation and
friendship, based on the principle of equality in sovereignty and the
rights and principles that are enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
Since 2014, U.S. troops have been in Iraq, alongside Iraqi forces, at
the Government of Iraq's request for assistance in combating the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Current Administration
officials, including President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken,
Secretary of Defense Austin and Commander of the United States Central
Command, General McKenzie, have routinely emphasized that United States
military forces remain in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of
Iraq and in respect to its sovereignty. Recent presidential
administrations have maintained that the 2002 AUMF only serves to
``reinforce'' any legal authority to combat ISIS provided by the 2001
AUMF and is not independently required to authorize any such
activities. As such, repealing the 1991 AUMF and the 2002 AUMF would
not affect ongoing United States military operations. It would however,
prevent the future misuse of the Gulf and Iraq War authorizations and
strengthen Congressional oversight over war powers.
It is past time to repeal both AUMFs and formally mark the end of the
Iraq War that resulted in a devastating loss of life and wounded tens
of thousands of our troops. It makes no sense that two AUMFs remain in
place against a country that is now a close partner. They serve no
operational purpose, run the risk of future abuse by the President, and
help keep our nation at permanent war.
I am proud to join this group of Senators in introducing a bill to
repeal these outdated and unnecessary authorizations. I hope we can
continue to find bipartisan compromise on these tough war power issues
to include revising and replacing the 2001 AUMF.
____________________