Freight Priorities Act

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

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.

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.

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.

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.