 “This moment of crisis is also a moment of opportunity” --wrote OMB acting director, Shalanda Young in a letter to the House and Senate appropriations committees. Last week, we wrote an overview of the Federal Budget including its three major components - Mandatory, Discretionary, and National Debt (1). The discretionary portion of the budget is particularly important for science because it funds scientific research in Agencies and Departments. This week, we’re discussing an overview of the President’s proposed 2022 Discretionary Request, and specifically highlighting science funding specific items (2,3). President Biden released his discretionary request to Congress for fiscal year 2022 (FY2022) on April 9, 2021. Typically the budget is proposed by the first Monday in February, but is often delayed for years when there is a change in administration. The President is expected to release requests for mandatory programs as well as changes to the tax code later this spring.  The proposed partial budget has outlined a $118 billion dollar increase (8.4%) from the FY2021 budget, which does not include emergency funds for COVID-19 relief. The majority of the increased spending would be allocated to the non-defense part of the discretionary budget, increasing it by $106 billion. This is primarily focused on increasing the budgets of the Department of Education by 41%, the Department of Commerce by 28%, the Department of Health and Human Services by 23%, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 21%. The proposed budget acknowledges a number of crises the United States is facing, and the proposed increases highlight the President’s priorities on education reform, investment in public health, and addressing the climate crisis. Overall, the proposed budget for FY2022 shows a major increase to science funding. Highlights specific to science and environmental policy include (2):  Investments in Clean Energy and Resilience
In order to take steps to address the climate crisis, The discretionary request prioritizes transforming the energy sector through clean energy projects including retrofitting homes and buildings for energy efficiency and weatherizing low-income homes. Additionally, $2 billion will be allocated specifically to employ skilled laborers such as electricians and welders on clean energy projects across the country, which is directly in line with the President’s American Jobs Plan (3). Funds beyond the 2021 amount would be allocated to incorporate climate impacts into pre-disaster planning and increase resilience after natural disasters such as wildfires and floods. Additionally, the discretionary request would require collaboration and partnerships with rural America to grow rural economies and tackle rural poverty. Specifically, $300 million would be provided to support rural communities by investing in next generation agriculture, private land conservation, and renewable energy grants. The discretionary request also allocates funds to aid in reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally. The Green Climate Fund, which helps developing countries navigate climate change, would receive $1.2 billion. Additionally, $691 million would be set aside for the Department of State and US Agency for International Development to reach out internationally to support countries with clean energy production, emissions reduction, and climate change adaptation. Investments in Environmental Justice The discretionary request provides funds specifically geared towards addressing how environmental hazards disproportionately impact marginalized communities. The discretionary request invests more than $1.4 billion in the EPA. This would include $936 million for an Accelerating Environmental and Economic Justice initiative, which “...would create good-paying union jobs, clean up pollution, and secure environmental justice for communities that have been left behind.” Additionally, the discretionary request specifies that $100 million would be used to develop a community air quality monitoring and notification program so that places with the highest levels of pollution would be monitored in real-time. $400 million would be allocated to the HUDs Lead Hazard and Healthy Homes Grants, which will help reduce lead-based paint and other hazards in homes of low-income families. The discretionary request notes that this would help to hold polluters responsible, and work towards a cleaner future. Additionally, Tribal nations are among the marginalized communities that disproportionately feel the effects of climate change, which threatens their cultural and economic well-being. $450 million would be provided to help create climate mitigation, resilience, adaptation, and environmental justice projects in Indian Country. This will include a government supported transition of tribal colleges to renewable energy. Clean Water and Hazardous Waste Remediation The discretionary request highlights a priority to clean up hazardous sites such as oil and gas wells and abandoned mines ($550 million). This would include propelling an effort to create 250,000 jobs to undertake the remediation projects. Additionally, the discretionary request devotes $3.6 billion to water infrastructure improvement to ensure clean and safe drinking water for all communities regardless of economic status. Investments in Innovation and Science The FY2022 discretionary request provides a substantial portion of overall funding to climate science, sustainability research, and clean energy, which could greatly increase the nation’s competitiveness. Research across Agencies would receive $4 billion to better understand climate change and resilience strategies. Additionally, the discretionary request would allocate $10 billion to investing in clean energy technologies across non-defense agencies, which the document notes would help achieve net-zero carbon economy by 2050. Through this priority, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) budget would increase to $6.9 billion to expand climate forecasting work, support coastal resilience work, and provide better data to decision-makers. Benefits There are many historic increases proposed in this budget, geared towards creating a safer, more equitable, and environmentally conscious nation that would ultimately increase the United States global standing and competitiveness. There will be an increase to science funding compared to FY2021, which will boost scientific research and innovation. Communities disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards will receive aid, and clean energy initiatives will be funded and prioritized. Challenges The federal Budget is one way for a President to push their agenda. Due to the nature of Congress, passing bipartisan appropriations bills similar to the requests above will be difficult without reaching across the aisle and making compromises.The US has a lot of priorities and issues, and it is difficult to devote substantial funds to every area. If spending keeps pace with inflation, budget deficits would increase. Due to inflation, discretionary spending the US mandates for FY2022 will be even greater in the future (4). Want to advocate? Policy for science concerns the policies that address the conduct of science and the research enterprise (5). In fact, many scientists rely heavily on Federal funding in the form of grants to advance their research. Federal funding for Federal Agencies or Departments (NASA, EPA, NSF, NOAA, etc.) is determined by the yearly Federal Budget, and therefore it is important to continuously increase the awareness of the importance of science. Policy makers represent their constituents so the more people who are vocal about caring for science, the more likely it is that funding will remain steady or increase. Innovation that results from science will mirror allocations to scientific funding. If this interests you, that’s great! Everyone has a personal connection with science, and anyone can advocate. You do not need to be an expert. Share your stories, and explain why science is important to you. For more guidance on advocacy or finding your policymakers, visit our resources pages or reach out to us via email! Footnotes
0 Comments
 Similar to how people create a budget to keep track of their finances and manage spending, the United States federal government does too. Each year in early spring, the President will release their proposed federal budget for the upcoming year to Congress. The fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. This proposed budget, known as the federal budget, will be edited once it is sent to Congress, but it is important because it lays out the President’s priorities for the upcoming year. The budget can be broken down into three main categories: 1) Mandatory Spending. This category is the majority of the budget and is dominated by earned-benefit or entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. The spending levels for these programs are generally determined by eligibility rules, which include factors such as age, earnings or qualifying disability. The recommendation by the White House for mandatory spending therefore does not typically include binding funding limits. Congress decides this part of the budget separately from the following categories by reviewing eligibility rules of specific programs, which in turn can increase or decrease this part of the budget based on who is eligible (1). 2) Discretionary Spending.This category is broken into two smaller categories, Defense and Non-Defense Discretionary. The Discretionary Spending category is determined by Congress each year through the annual appropriations process, which is described in detail below. Appropriations refers to the sum of money the President and Congress agree upon for a specific part of the budget. Discretionary spending incorporates everything from military programs (Defense) to the amount of money that is put toward funding science (Non-Defense), among many other things. 3) Interest on National Debt. This category makes up the final percentages of the budget. This amounts to the interest the government pays on the country’s accumulated debt, minus the interest income received by the government on assets it owns. The current national debt is about $28 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the 2021 national debt will total $2.3 trillion for the year. Together, mandatory spending and discretionary spending account for ~90% of the overall budget each year (1). For the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, the federal budget totaled $4.8 trillion, and revenues brought in $3.4 trillion. FY2021 proposed budget totaled $4.8 trillion (2), and the percent originally allocated to each main category in the proposed budget is shown in the pie chart below. The FY2021 budget was ultimately passed as a $2.3 trillion consolidated spending bill on December 27, 2020 (3). This Bill contained $900 billion in COVID-19 relief in addition to an omnibus spending Bill, which we describe in more detail below. The FY2022 Discretionary Request was released by the White House on April 9, 2021 (4). The full budget request should be made public soon. Next week, we will highlight the main components of the Discretionary Request for some of the science-related Agencies. This is important for anyone interested in science because the budget directly impacts how much money will be available for directly funding scientific innovation. If you’re interested in reading more about funding for science and science-focused engagement, check out a great resource by Hetherington & Phillips 2018 (5)  The federal budget and appropriations process happens in three stages: 1) Budget formation by the White House (typically, July-February) 2) Legislative process in Congress (March-June) 3) Finalization of spending levels in Congress (July-October) The purpose of the proposed budget is to recommend amounts of government spending for public purposes, amount that should be received from tax revenues, and the surplus between the two (1). Typically, federal spending exceeds the amount taken in from tax revenues. This results in a deficit for the year and contributes to the overall national debt (6). The budget formation process begins in the Executive Branch with a collaborative effort between federal agencies and the Office of the President. The President’s Office of Management budget (often referred to as OMB) provides guidance for levels of funding and priorities to federal agencies, which in turn have to propose budgets within those guidelines. Using the proposed budgets from federal agencies, the OMB then makes final decisions to form a proposed, all-encompassing federal budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The budget request should be submitted to Congress by the first Monday in February. However, this process can be delayed if Congress has delayed action on the prior year’s budget or oftentimes when a new administration is transitioning. For example, the Biden Administration released their proposed FY2022 discretionary request on April 9 this year. Once Congress receives the budget request, the House of Representatives and the Senate independently review it. Each chamber creates a resolution to cap overall spending on the Discretionary portion of the budget. From there, a mixed bi-partisan committee of House and Senate members resolves differences between the two resolutions. The House and Senate then divide the resolved Discretionary budget outlined by the resolution among their 12 subcommittees. These 12 subcommittees draft their own appropriations bill which allows them to set the funding for each agency (NASA, USGS, NOAA, etc.) within their individual scope. For example, the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee would draft a bill to set the spending limit on NASA and other agencies within their scope, but would not set a limit on any agency in the Energy and Water Development subcommittee. The 12 subcommittees are:
Once each subcommittee creates their appropriations bill, it will undergo a vote by members of the House/Senate (wherever it was drafted). Once voted on and passed, all 12 bills from the House and 12 bills from the Senate will go back to the mixed bi-partisan committee of House and Senate members to consolidate and agree. The resolved appropriations bills then go to the President to be signed into law. Ideally, this all happens before October 1st. If it doesn’t, a government shutdown would begin.  Benefits
The budget has to be agreed upon by Congress regardless of political party, which requires collaboration and working across the aisle. Additionally, a balanced federal budget is essential for avoiding excessive spending, and allows Congress to target areas that are in need. Typically, the budget reflects the values and priorities of society. Challenges It can be very difficult to get the House and Senate to agree - since 2010 the two chambers haven’t easily come to a conclusion. If October 1 comes around and the President hasn’t signed a new budget into law for the coming year, many government services stop. If Congress can’t agree on a single budget to pass to the President, an Omnibus bill can be passed by Congress, which includes multiple funding areas. This can be passed into law and serve as a budget for the coming year. The national debt is extremely high and continues to grow as revenue is typically less than spending. Footnotes:
 The Green Vehicles, Green Spaces Act of 2021 was introduced in the Senate on March 1, 2021 by Senator Catehrine Cortez Masto [D-NV] on behalf of herself and Senators Tina Smith [D-MN], Debbie Stabenow [D-MI], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], Jacky Rosen [D-NV], Mazie Hirono [D-HI], Martin Heinrich [D-NM], and Ron Wyden [D-OR]. The Bill was read twice and then referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. This Bill was also introduced in the 116th Congress as S.2041, but did not receive a vote. An identical Bill was introduced in the House during the 116th Congress by Mike Levin [D-CA-49] as H.R.3681, but did not receive a vote and has not yet been reintroduced in the House for the 117th Congress.
This Bill was introduced as part of a suite of 7 bills that promote a transition to clean transportation. The other Bills introduced as part of this initiative are: The Clean School Bus Act, The Electric Transportation Commission and National Strategy Act, The Electric Vehicles for Underserved Communities Act, The Greener Transportation for Communities Act, The Green Bus Tax Credit Act, and the More Access to ZEV Equipment (MAZE) in Transit Act. THE BILL: S. 504 What does the Bill do? The goal of this Bill is to promote zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) infrastructure on public lands such as national parks and national forests in order to help facilitate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. Zero emissions infrastructure refers to any infrastructure that can be used to charge or fuel vehicles that do not produce pollutants from exhaust emissions, or greenhouse gases from any operational modes or conditions. According to the EPA, this includes electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (1). The Bill requires the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the National Parks Service and the U.S. Forest Service to establish the Green Spaces, Green Vehicles Initiative, which will develop a strategy for installing ZEV infrastructure on public lands. This involves collaborating with public, private and nonprofit entities in order to secure and install publicly-accessible charging stations, and acquire ZEV shuttle buses and fleets for the National Parks and National Forest Services. All installations must be in compliance with any applicable laws relating to land management in each locale, which are variable. Additionally, installation information will be publicly available online and on maps so that it is easy to find places to charge vehicles, and so that anyone can see future plans for installation. Each of these steps supports the overarching goal of promoting clean transportation. Additionally, installation must consider and support both federal fleets as well as tourists to federal facilities, and will complement alternative fueling corridor networks. There are five alternative fuels to traditional regular, premium, or diesel gas including Electric Vehicles. The alternative fueling corridor refers to the map of alternative fueling stations across the country. For more information, maps of alternative fuel corridors, including state by state breakdowns, are provided through the Department of Energy (2). The Bill would enable the construction of the infrastructure to charge or fuel the vehicles and expand the US alternative fueling corridor network. The Secretaries of Energy, Agriculture and/or Interior will work to determine the land available for ZEV infrastructure and increase the number of ZEVs on Forest Service or National Park lands. $72 million would be available through this Bill each fiscal year. Of these funds, 20% can be used to acquire ZEVs for federal fleets, 30% can be used to acquire, install and operate ZEV infrastructure in urbanized areas, and 2% can be used for administrative costs. The hope is to increase the number of ZEVs used by federal fleets by 125% of the current operation by 2030. This will equate to 25% of all the vehicles in the fleet and shuttle operations of each agency. Why was it proposed? According to the EPA, emissions associated with the transportation sector are the largest contributor to greenhouse gases that are driving the climate crisis. Emissions also significantly contribute to smog and poor air quality, which drastically impacts human health. Pollution from transportation operations includes particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds (3). Specifically, the emissions that cars produce usually sits close to the ground and forms brown haze that is easily visible over cities in the summer (1). This haze can trigger health issues such as asthma and other lung issues (1). In National Parks, 30% of the annual greenhouse gases emissions from park operations are attributed to transportation (4). However, the National Parks funding is limited, and they are already struggling to address the backlog of important maintenance projects (see our post on the Great American Outdoors Act). Therefore, National Parks would not be able to install more energy efficient infrastructure without supplementary funds, studies and partnerships (5). This Bill is one of many that is part of a global push to reduce greenhouse gases and limit the global temperature increases that threatens communities and ecosystems. It falls in line with President Biden’s recently proposed infrastructure plan (6) and is geared towards expediting the transition to greener and more energy efficient technologies. Benefits Increased ZEV infrastructure will help the U.S. to meet the current and anticipated demands for charging and fueling stations across the country as more people turn towards ZEVs as a way to reduce their overall footprint. Additionally, the Bill would enable and accelerate construction that would be unlikely to be completed without explicit federal assistance. The federal support facilitates the construction of ZEV infrastructure and provides an opportunity for partnerships with electric vehicle experts who can help make this program successful. Since the 1970’s, EPA smog pollution emission standards have made the air cleaner and healthier. These standards apply to cars built when the standards were enforced, so older cars do not follow these rules. ZEVs move toward a cleaner and healthier future for transportation (1). Challenges It may be difficult to bring workers out to remote National Parks to install and maintain the equipment. It is also unclear the amount of funds that will be dedicated to this section, and therefore it is difficult to assess how many ZEVs the bill will purchase. The bill has limitations on how 52% of the total appropriated funds can be used, but is unclear about how the remaining 48% will be allocated. It may be difficult to collaborate and organize between lands operated by different groups. Want to advocate? Does this Bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The Bill is currently co-sponsored by Senators Catherine Cortez Masto [D-NV], Tina Smith [D-MN], Debbie Stabenow [D-MI], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], Jacky Rosen [D-NV], Mazie Hirono [D-HI], Martin Heinrich [D-NM], and Ron Wyden [D-OR] Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
The BLUE GLOBE Act: Improving monitoring of the Great Lakes, Oceans, Bays, Estuaries, and Coasts3/30/2021  The BLUE GLOBE Act, or the “Bolstering Long-term Understanding and Exploration of the Great Lakes, Oceans, Bays, and Estuaries Act”, was introduced in the Senate on January 28, 2021 by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI] which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], and Rob Portman [R-OH]. This bill was also introduced as S.933 in the 116th Congress, but did not receive a vote.
THE BILL: S.140 What does the Bill do? There are many goals of this Bill, all of which focus on improving the understanding of the Great Lakes, oceans, bays, estuaries, and coasts of the US by supporting monitoring, data collection, data sharing, and management efforts. The Bill would support international and domestic collaborations to better facilitate data collection and sharing between satellites, buoys, vessels, and other technologies. A major component of this Bill is to facilitate better coordination between agencies in order to improve data and monitoring. The Interagency Ocean Observation Committee, Federal Geographic Data Committee, National Geospatial Advisory Committee, and Interagency Committee on Ocean and Coastal Mapping would work with international partners to ensure continuous collection of data for the Great Lakes, oceans, bays, estuaries, and coasts. Additionally, the Federal Geographic Data Committee and the National Geospatial Advisory Committee would work to cross-check older data and archive it as necessary. The Interagency Committee on Ocean and Coastal Mapping would also provide input to how this data could be made more accessible to the public and other audiences, such as interactive maps and graphics. This Bill also requires that Section 3532 of the Maritime Security and Fisheries Enforcement Act (1) is amended with additional technologies that will be used to further prevent illegal and unregulated fishing. This includes satellite imagery, vessel location data, biological methods for tracking seafood, among others. Additionally, the Bill would support upgrades to and deployment of technologies such as research vessels and remote vehicles or sensors. Specifically, this would focus on biological techniques that can assess genetic data from environmental samples to advance technology. Data will be publicly and openly accessible, unless confidential or proprietary. The Bill calls for a workforce study to assess if there is a shortage of skilled workers in areas related to oceanic and atmospheric data collection or satellite functions. This specifically includes determining the level of diversity present in the current scientific workforce, and taking actions to take to increase diversity equity and inclusion. The Bill also incentivizes rapid development and deployment of novel data collection and monitoring technology by awarding at least one Ocean Innovation prize. This will go to an applicant working on topics such as plastic pollution detection, satellite data advancement, coral reef monitoring, water quality monitoring, carbon sequestration, and others. Through 2024, the Bill would reauthorize National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) exploration programs, which include nautical mapping and charting. NOAA would work with the National Academy of Sciences to determine the feasibility of an Advanced Research Projects Agency - Oceans (ARPA-O). Finally, the Bill directs the heads of various Federal agencies to assess the value and impact of industries such as marine transportation, tourism, recreation, and offshore mineral extraction. Why was it proposed? As stated by Senator Whitehouse, “we know more about the surface of the moon than we do our own oceans” (2), even though water covers 71% of Earth’s surface (3). Here he highlights a major gap in the fundamental understanding of Earth and its natural processes. Additionally, oceans in particular are one of Earth’s most valuable resources, and the growth of the global ocean economy (the sum of ocean industries (4) combined with assets, resources and services provided by the ocean) is expected to double in size from 2010 to 2030, reaching 3 trillion USD (5). The growth of the ocean economy is likely to outpace that of the global economy, and therefore, gaining a better understanding of the natural processes at play by investing in technology to collect more reliable data and produce more accurate observations is essential. This Bill was proposed to increase awareness and knowledge of the Great Lakes, oceans, bays, estuaries, and coasts. Changing climatic conditions are drastically impacting these areas, but we do not have the scientific understanding required to respond effectively. Better observations and increased monitoring will provide the foundation to increase our understanding of the changes that are occurring. This would ultimately lead to new discoveries, and spark the innovation of new products and development of policies in these water-focused areas. More efficient data collection and robust repositories would provide better data accessibility long-term, and international collaboration would bring key stakeholders together. The data would help to identify the impact of cargo transported across water bodies, infrastructure along shorelines, populations along the coasts, and water-dependent economic activities. Additionally, the value of the collected data to businesses involved with agriculture or weather prediction would be assessed. Benefits Science and technology focused on the oceans is critical to ensuring that the ocean is healthy, which in turn is vital to protecting our public health, safety, food, water, and energy (5). Expanding our knowledge of water-focused areas through advanced data collection techniques improves the US’ economic competitiveness, strengthens national and ecological security, protects the environment and promotes prosperity (6). BLUE GLOBE efforts will directly contribute to increasing our gross domestic product and provide employment opportunities. The work described in this Bill incentivizes new discoveries and technologies to mitigate environmental issues like harmful algal blooms, pollution, and ocean acidification. Mapping efforts particularly in coastal areas will help efforts to reduce illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activity, and international collaborations can be helpful for sharing the task and spreading out costs. ARPA-O would identify best practices and metrics for research programs and consolidate Federal oceanic programs so overlap and duplication doesn’t occur. Challenges The ocean economy itself is a challenge because the ocean based industry is typically derived from marine ecosystems, but also industrial practices typically harm these same ecosystems. This results in significant controversy among lawmakers, conservationists, the fishing industry, etc., and slows the process of technology deployment. Additionally, conflicts continue today over the rights to sea exploitation across international waters, which may make it difficult to collaborate with many countries. The United States is already behind with respect to investment in ocean data, technology and education compared to the UK, EU, Indian Ocean States and China. These countries have already invested in catalyzing scientific advancement and understanding of the oceans because they recognize the importance oceans play in economic security, international trade, sustainable development, connection, livelihoods and military development (7). The BLUE GLOBE Act provides incentives and directives for the US to overcome this challenge and rise to also be a global leader in ocean technology, data, and education. Want to advocate? Does this Bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], and Rob Portman [R-OH]. Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
The Offshore Wind Jobs and Opportunities Act: Creating Opportunities to Support a Renewable Future3/23/2021  The Offshore Wind Jobs and Opportunities Act was introduced in the House on February 11, 2021 by Rep. William Keating [D-MA-9] on behalf of himself and 21 co-sponsors*. The Bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on Education and Labor. This Bill was introduced in the 116th Congress as H.R.3068, but was reintroduced in the 117th Congress as H.R.998 (1). A bipartisan identical Bill to H.R.3068 was also proposed in the Senate in 2019, S.1769, but did not receive a vote. Currently, there is not an identical bill in the Senate.
*The 21 co-sponsors are: Reps. Chellie Pingree [D-ME-1], Chris Pappas [D-NH-1], Paul Tonko [D-NY-20], Salud O. Carbajal [D-CA-24], Rashida Tlaib [D-MI-13], Jerry McNerney [D-CA-9], Donald Norcross [D-NJ-1], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Nanette Diaz Barragan [D-CA-44], Yvette D. Clarke [D-NY-9], Nydia M. Velazquez [D-NY-7], Stephen F. Lynch [D-MA-8], Donald McEachin, A. [D-VA-4], Katherine M. Clark [D-MA-5], Ro Khanna [D-CA-17], Richard E. Neal [D-MA-1], Ann M. Kuster [D-NH-2], Alan S. Lowenthal [D-CA-47], Lori Trahan [D-MA-3], Albio Sires [D-NJ-8], Andy Kim [D-NJ-3]. THE BILL: H.R.998 What does the Bill do? The goal of this Bill is to establish a training grant program for offshore wind careers by adding an amendment to the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act (2). The purpose of the training grants is to allow entities to develop or improve curriculum and training programs to provide essential skill sets for employment opportunities in the growing offshore wind industry. This includes specific needs such as manufacturing, construction, installations, operation, engineering, education and maintenance. Grants for training will be awarded one year after the enactment of this Bill. At least 25% of the grants will be given to eligible community colleges that apply. As a lead applicant, groups are limited to one grant that is no more than $2,500,000. They can also partner with another eligible entity, state or local government, or a nonprofit organization. With the Secretary of the Interior’s guidance, those awarded grants must annually report the following data: the number of participants enrolled and completed, the services provided, the amount of money spent per participant, the rate of job placement and employment retention. The Bill would provide $25 million every fiscal year from 2022-2026 for this program. It would also require the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the Secretaries of Energy, Education and Labor, provide a report every two years to various House and Senate Committees (3) describing how different grantees are using the funds. Why was it proposed? Offshore wind development is a growing industry world wide as the push towards renewable energy has increased, and cost for wind development has declined making it more competitive with traditional energy sources. Additionally, wind speeds tend to be faster and steadier offshore than they are on land, yielding more energy per turbine (4). If 1% of the nation’s potential offshore wind capacity was used, that would be enough energy to power 6.5 million homes (5). The Block Island Wind Farm by Deepwater Wind was the first commercial offshore wind project to be completed. Five wind turbines (6 megawatt) were installed off the coast of Rhode Island, and will provide energy to the mainland (9). For more information about wind energy and training programs nation-wide, check out the US Department of Energy’s WINDExchange interactive map (10). The Department of Energy’s (DOE) 2018 Distributed Wind Market Report notes that there are 83,000 turbines across the nation with 1,127 megawatts of energy capacity (6)--for comparative purposes, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that the U.S. energy capacity at the end of 2019 was 1.1 Million megawatts (7). Distributed wind is used by residential customers, manufacturers, car dealerships, restaurants, cities, municipal facilities, schools, and universities (8). Trained workers are an essential part of this industry for maintaining and manufacturing these wind farms. In order to capitalize on the opportunity that offshore wind provides, and the shift to renewable energies, more trained people are needed to sustain these initiatives. Benefits Wind energy is an inexhaustible resource that is now the largest source of renewable power in the US (11). Unlike fossil fuels, wind energy is a clean fuel source, and does not consume water in order to run. Acid rain, smog, and greenhouse gases are not produced during energy generation. Additionally, half of the US population lives along the coast, and nearly 80% of the nation’s electricity demand occurs in the coastal and Great Lakes states. Offshore wind farms would help meet the high energy needs from renewable, nearby sources. According to the DOE, land-based winds are stronger at night, and offshore winds are stronger during the day. This difference would allow offshore wind development to fill a gap in wind energy production (9). Additionally, wind power is one of the cheapest energy sources available (1-2 cents/ kilowatt hour; 11) and is sold at a fixed price over 20+ years, which provides stable rates. While fossil fuel energy sources add a price uncertainty due to fuel costs, wind energy does not because wind is free (11). The US wind sector currently employs >100,000 workers and with the more wind turbines built, more jobs related to manufacturing, installation, and maintenance will be needed (11). The demand for renewable energy will continue to increase the need for wind power and trained workers. Challenges Offshore wind farms can be more expensive and more difficult to maintain then their on land counterparts (12), due to stabilizing turbines in deep water and manufacturing power cables to transmit energy back to shore. The larger offshore turbine components can be logistically difficult to transport, such as relocation to the sea via narrow roadways (9). The effects offshore wind farms have on birds and marine animals are also not completely understood, and can be harmful (12). Additionally, wind farms built within 26 miles of the coastline are often unpopular among residents who enjoy natural views. Hurricanes and strong offshore storms present their own set of unique challenges to the wind industry, such as powerful wind and waves (13), but ongoing research is designing hurricane-resilient systems. Want to advocate? Does this bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? There are 21 current co-sponsors of this Bill: William Keating [D-MA-9], Chellie Pingree [D-ME-1], Chris Pappas [D-NH-1], Paul Tonko [D-NY-20], Salud O. Carbajal [D-CA-24], Rashida Tlaib [D-MI-13], Jerry McNerney [D-CA-9], Donald Norcross [D-NJ-1], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Nanette Diaz Barragan [D-CA-44], Yvette D. Clarke [D-NY-9], Nydia M. Velazquez [D-NY-7], Stephen F. Lynch [D-MA-8], Donald McEachin, A. [D-VA-4], Katherine M. Clark [D-MA-5], Ro Khanna [D-CA-17], Richard E. Neal [D-MA-1], Ann M. Kuster [D-NH-2], Alan S. Lowenthal [D-CA-47], Lori Trahan [D-MA-3], Albio Sires [D-NJ-8], Andy Kim [D-NJ-3]. Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
 The Environmental Justice Mapping and Data Collection Act of 2021 was introduced in the House on January 28, 2021 by Representative Cori Bush (D-MO-1) on behalf of herself and 32 original co-sponsors*. The Bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on Natural Resources to determine which has jurisdiction over the legislation. In the Senate, an identical Bill was introduced by Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) on January 28, 2021 and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
THE BILLS: H.R.516 S.101 These Bills are focused on environmental justice (EJ), which in the Bill is defined as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, culture, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.“ This is important for ensuring equal protection from environmental health hazards and equal access to actions relating to environmental regulations. What do these Bills do? The purpose of these Bills are to take a step towards connecting environmental justice communities with policy outcomes by providing layered maps depicting which communities experience environmental injustices. EJ communities are those with a substantial representation of Indigenous, low-income, or communities of color that experience more frequent or more adverse human health or environmental effects compared to other communities. Congress identified that EJ communities are more vulnerable to climate change and environmental hazards that impact human health due to systemic injustices such as race or income. The Bill would establish the Environmental Justice Mapping Committee, led by the Environmental Protection Agency and composed of relevant offices (1). The Committee will create, consult, and regularly engage with an advisory council of relevant stakeholders (2). At a minimum, half of these stakeholders will represent EJ communities, and will be led by a stakeholder with experience in environmental justice. The plan created will consider barriers to public engagement, including language, transportation, economic, and internet access, and will incorporate feedback from EJ advocates and communities. For this Bill, $20,000,000 will be set aside in 2021 and 2022, and $18,000,000 will be designated each year for 2023-2025. The Committee would formalize and develop a tool for mapping environmental justice communities. This tool would be interactive, transparent, and used throughout the Federal government, with all the impacts of environmental justice combined into the tool. The tool will integrate: demographics (3), public health (4), pollution burdens (5), environmental effects (6). The tool would also investigate how the impacts of climate change affect the vulnerability of the EJ communities. The tool will also be customizable in order to address policy needs and permitting processes, and allow communities to self-identify as EJ. Additionally, it would identify access to services including safe drinking water, sanitation, stormwater services, and access to green space, healthy food, affordable energy and water, internet, and transportation, among many others. The tool will be created at the national level but will implement regional indicators as well, such that the tool will be effective at a more local scale. This will allow states to expand and collect data to understand specific EJ issues in their area, and address them accordingly. The development process will be ground-truthing, meaning that technical information collected, will be supplemented with local knowledge in order to create the most inclusive and best policy and project decisions. This is important for engaging with EJ communities in a meaningful way to address critical EJ issues. The Bill specifically notes that care must be taken to not exacerbate current issues or create new issues. The Committee will identify gaps in data, and assign a federal agency to conduct an audit and collect data to address these gaps. A report will be made public 180 days after the audit to describe findings and conclusions. Finally, an Environmental Justice Data Repository will be created to maintain and update the data collected by the Committee as described in the Bill, and updated as often as possible but not less than once every 3 years. The repository will be made available to every regional, state, local, and Tribal governments, and each could collaborate to include pre-existing EJ data into the repository. Why were they proposed? Environmental racism, a form of systemic racism whereby individuals or communities face significant health disparities due to disproportionately shouldering unfair policies and practices based on race. This results in these communities often living in closer proximity to toxic sources and pollutants such as landfills, power stations, mines and sewage works (7). Environmental racism can take many different forms, and is a global scale problem that needs to be addressed. Some EJ communities have already been identified, such as a part of Louisiana nicknamed “Cancer Alley”, where communities have been exposed to extremely high levels of contaminants. However, the Federal Government lacks a consistent strategy to address environmental injustices in minority and low-income populations. The Bill notes that this is due to a deficiency of high quality environmental justice data in the US, and no consistent method to identify the environmental justice communities that currently exist. The method created would specifically account for historic and current racist and unjust practices. Removal and reduction of pollution within these communities is essential to creating equitable access to a cleaner environment. Benefits The Bill would be a systematic and inclusive collaboration through community engagement and intergovernmental agencies to identify public health concerns that are related to environmental injustice. It would be a crucial first step in identifying communities that are experiencing environmental injustices, and where help is most needed. The data collected will be used to build an interactive, layered map that would document existing EJ communities in the US and create a repository of data for long-term tracking to assess progress. Additionally, as described in the Bill, this information will help the current and future Administrations in directing at least 40% of the funds to clean energy, transportation, housing, and water quality infrastructure specifically in EJ communities. This is important for addressing the climate crisis in an equitable way by providing resources to communities that have been harmed by persistent unjust practices. Challenges The Bill will provide the framework to begin correcting critical environmental justice issues, but it may have some logistical challenges in identifying all EJ communities in the US. Each EJ issue is unique, and while resources and guidance can be federally implemented, the full issues will require local government involvement and community support. Additionally, there is no timeline created for how long it will take to create this map, and the Bill only provides funding through 2025. Future Bills will need to be created to continue this work to address the climate crisis in an environmentally just way. The Bill designates $18-20 million per year, but does not designate specifically how to spend the funds, so there is flexibility in design, but it is unclear if funding can be transferred from the previous fiscal year if there is any balance remaining. Want to advocate? Does this Bill resonate with you? Do you want to see them become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The Senate Bill has 1 cosponsor: Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL). The House Bill has 41 cosponsors: *Original co-sponsors: Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia (D-IL-4), Alcee L.Hastings (D-FL-20), Ro Khanna (D-CA-17), Adriano Espaillat (D-NY-13), Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS-2), Alan S. Lowenthal (D-CA-47), Nanette Diaz Barragan (D-CA-44), Terri A. Sewell (D-AL-7), Gwen Moore (D-WI-4), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL-23), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-10), Mondaire Jones (D-NY-17), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC-At Large), Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA-11), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-13), Grace F. Napolitano (D-CA-32), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ-12), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO-5), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY-16), Juan Vargas (D-CA-51), Chellie Pingree (D-ME-1), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3), Ritchie Torres (D-NY-15), Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA-11), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE-At Large), Doris O. Matsui (D-CA-6), Henry C. "Hank," Johnson Jr. (D-GA-4), A. Donald McEachin (D-VA-4), Diana DeGette (D-CO-1), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA-7), Jim Cooper (D-TN-5). Additional co-sponsors: Nydia M. Velazquez (D-NY-7), Andy Levin (D-MI-9), Matt Cartwright (D-PA-8), Ilhan Omar (D-MN-5), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA-40), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA-7), Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ-3), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR-1), Nikema Williams (D-GA-5) Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
 The Climate Emergency Act of 2021 was introduced in the House on February 4, 2021 by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, on behalf of himself and 28 original co-sponsors, and the bill now has 44 Democrat co-sponsors. It was referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management on February 5, 2021. The 28 original co-sponsors are: Representatives: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [D-NY-14], Nanette Diaz Barragan [D-CA-44], Grace F. Napolitano [D-CA-32], Grace Meng [D-NY-6], Peter Welch [D-VT-At Large], Adriano Espaillat [D-NY-13], Jerrold Nadler [D-NY-10], Mike Quigley [D-IL-5], Andy Levin [D-MI-9], Nydia M. Velazquez [D-NY-7], Alan S. Lowenthal [D-CA-47], Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-DC-At Large], Mike Levin [D-CA-49], Doris O. Matsui [D-CA-6], Mark DeSaulnier [D-CA-11], Ayanna Pressley [D-MA-7], Yvette D. Clarke [D-NY-9], Mondaire Jones [D-NY-17], Janice D. Schakowsky [D-IL-9], Steve Cohen [D-TN-9], Jimmy Gomez [D-CA-34], John A. Yarmuth [D-KY-3], Suzanne Bonamici [D-OR-1], Joe Neguse [D-CO-2], Ro Khanna [D-CA-17], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Jamaal Bowman [D-NY-16], Pramila Jayapal [D-WA-7] THE BILL: H.R.794 What does the bill do? The goal of this Bill is to require that the President declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act (1) with respect to climate change. This would ensure that the Federal Government allocates money and resources to mitigation and resiliency projects, particularly for public systems, to upgrade infrastructure to expand access to affordable, clean energy, transportation, high-speed broadband and water. These projects should enable a transition to a clean energy economy that must be racially and socially just, actively combat environmental injustice, create sustainable jobs with liveable wages, and prioritize local and equitable hiring that provides opportunities. Additionally, the bill will ensure that the Federal Government avoids solutions that increase inequality, violate human rights laws, or harm the environment. Each year after its enactment, the Bill requires the President to submit a report to Congress that describes the actions taken that align with the requirements laid out by the bill in direct response to the climate emergency. Why was it proposed? Congress found the years 2010-2019 to be the hottest on record, and are accompanied by a 40% increase of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial times, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 415 ppm. They also note a 1.5 degree C global temperature increase. All of these increases are primarily due to human activities. Carbon dioxide is the primary global warming pollutant, and concentrations in the atmosphere continue to rise at a rate of 2-3 ppm annually. Global concentrations of other global warming pollutants (methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons (2)) have also increased significantly due to human activities including burning fossil fuels. We are already seeing the harmful impacts of increased levels of greenhouse gases including ocean warming and acidification, and increased duration and severity of droughts, wildfires and extreme weather events. Climate-related disasters have increased exponentially over the past decade, and cost the U.S. alone ~$1 billion per year. The public health consequences from climate change are also expansive, and will lead to temperature related deaths and illness, decreased air quality, vector borne diseases, water borne illnesses, food safety complications and mental health and well-being concerns. Congress notes that communities of color, indigenous communities and low-income communities will be disproportionately impacted due to existing environmental injustices (3). Additionally, the intelligence community identifies that climate change is a national security threat multiplier due to an increasing scarcity of resources and the spread of infectious diseases, among others. Climate scientists indicate that addressing the climate crisis must include phasing out fossil fuels in order to greatly reduce the amount of carbon being released in the atmosphere. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that mitigation and transition to clean energy needs to happen immediately. This will require urgent governmental action in the United States, and will require public awareness, engagement, and deliberation to develop and implement equitable policies. The United States has a powerful history of collaborative, constructive, large-scale Federal mobilizations of resources and labor to address challenges (e.g. the Interstate Highway System, Apollo 11 Moon landing, the New Deal and World War II). Many other countries including the UK, Ireland, Portugal and Canada have already declared a climate emergency, as have some local governments such as New York City and Los Angeles.  Benefits
The bill acknowledges that climate change is human-induced, which requires the United States to take action on catastrophic and harmful events that will affect the entire country. Limiting the warming of Earth to not more than 1.5 degrees C would avoid climate change that’s catastrophic and irreversible. By declaring a national climate emergency through this bill, upgrades to public infrastructure will happen so that access to clean and affordable energy, water, and internet is available to all. The bill would support farmers and agricultural workers by investing in local and regional food systems to ensure healthy soil and regenerative agriculture. The bill takes a major step toward addressing major environmental justice issues by focusing on mitigating pollution, removing health hazards, and fixing the health and environmental impacts of climate change on communities. The bill specifically emphasizes a focus on communities of color and Indigenous communities that have systemically been denied equitable access to public health resources. Challenges The bill notes a lot of broad actions that could be taken, but does not provide guidance on any specific, actionable steps to take in the immediate future. Additionally, this bill does not address funding or expenses for such tasks, but notes that the President will ensure that the Federal Government invests in climate change mitigation and resiliency projects, of which 40% of those go to historically disadvantaged communities. Want to advocate? Does this bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The House bill has 44 cosponsors: Representatives Earl Blumenauer [D-OR-3], Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [D-NY-14], Nanette Diaz Barragan [D-CA-44], Grace F. Napolitano [D-CA-32], Grace Meng [D-NY-6], Peter Welch [D-VT-At Large], Adriano Espaillat [D-NY-13], Jerrold Nadler [D-NY-10], Mike Quigley [D-IL-5], Andy Levin [D-MI-9], Nydia M. Velazquez [D-NY-7], Alan S. Lowenthal [D-CA-47], Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-DC-At Large], Mike Levin [D-CA-49], Doris O. Matsui [D-CA-6], Mark DeSaulnier [D-CA-11], Ayanna Pressley [D-MA-7], Yvette D. Clarke [D-NY-9], Mondaire Jones [D-NY-17], Janice D. Schakowsky [D-IL-9], Steve Cohen [D-TN-9], Jimmy Gomez [D-CA-34], John A. Yarmuth [D-KY-3], Suzanne Bonamici [D-OR-1], Joe Neguse [D-CO-2], Ro Khanna [D-CA-17], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Jamaal Bowman [D-NY-16], Pramila Jayapal [D-WA-7], Raja Krishnamoorthi [D-IL-8], Thomas R. Suozzi [D-NY-3], Brendan F. Boyle [D-PA-2], Gerald E. Connolly [D-VA-11], Alcee L. Hastings [D-FL-20], Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia [D-IL-4], Raul M. Grijalva [D-AZ-3], Emanuel Cleaver [D-MO-5], Judy Chu [D-CA-27], Ilhan Omar [D-MN-5], Brad Sherman [D-CA-30], Dwight Evans [D-PA-3], Jahana Hayes [D-CT-5], Chellie Pingree [D-ME-1], Rashida Tlaib [D-MI-13], Bennie G. Thompson [D-MS-2]. Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes:
 The Protecting Firefighters from Adverse Substances Act (PFAS)* was introduced in the Senate on February 4, 2021 by Senator Gary Peters (D-MI), on behalf of himself and Senators Sullivan (R-AK), Hassan (D-NH), Tillis (R-NC), Carper (D-DE), Murkowski (R-AK), and Collins (R-ME). The bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. *PFAS in this scenario stands for both the title of the bill (Protecting Firefighters from Adverse Substances Act), and the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances that are addressed in the Act. Moving forward, when discussed, PFAS will refer to the toxic chemicals. THE BILL: S. 231 What does this bill do? The goal of this bill is to prevent the release of and exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) specifically from firefighting foam, which is a common tool used for fire suppression. The bill would also develop and publish guidance for emergency response personnel, such as firefighters, to reduce their exposure to materials that contain PFAS. Specifically, this would be achieved by identifying and using alternative firefighting foams, personal protective equipment, and other tools that do not contain PFAS. These items would be uploaded to an online public repository and updated regularly for workers to limit their exposure to and the release of PFAS to the environment. Guidance will be developed in collaboration with key stakeholders including emergency response personnel, communities dealing with PFAS contamination, scientists, state fire marshals, and manufacturers of firefighting tools. Review of this guidance will be performed within 3 years of enactment, and every 2 years after that by the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in consultation with the Administrator of the United States Fire Administration, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Why was it proposed? PFAS are human-made, toxic chemicals that are extremely difficult to break down and therefore persist both in the environment and in the body (1), leading to their nickname of the “forever chemicals.” There are more than 5,000 substances in this class of chemicals, and they are known for providing a grease- water- or stain- resistant barrier when applied to a product. They can be found in food, especially where the item was packaged in PFAS containing materials or grown in PFAS-contaminated water or soil. They can also be found in household products, such as non-stick products (Teflon), polishes, waxes, and cleaning products (2). PFAS can enter drinking water if it’s associated with a wastewater treatment plant, landfill, or firefighter training facility where PFAS is present. Specifically related to this bill, places where firefighter training occurs, such as airports and military bases, are a major source of groundwater contamination due to the fire fighting foams that are used (1). PFAS exposure can lead to adverse health effects in humans, such as reproductive and developmental issues, liver and kidney concerns, cancer, and thyroid hormone disruption (1). Currently, only a handful of states have adopted or proposed limits to PFAS in drinking water (3) Benefits According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 95% of the United States population has PFAS in their bodies, and therefore, any mitigation of PFAS in the environment is beneficial (4). Contaminated water is a main route of exposure to PFAS, and firefighting foam is one of the two main sources of PFAS contamination in water (5, 6). Therefore, federal legislation for developing alternative foams that do not contain PFAS would greatly reduce the amount of PFAS being released into the environment. Education and best practices for understanding PFAS and how to avoid it will aid in keeping it out of the environment long-term. Challenges PFAS are extremely difficult to break down in the environment. They can persist for decades, and be detected in substantial levels in blood for 8 years after exposure. This bill only addresses limiting or preventing PFAS from entering the environment in the future, but does not discuss cleanup of current PFAS in the environment, which will continue to pose major health concerns. This bill does not provide financial assistance required for building and maintaining the database and training efforts, so it is currently unclear who would be responsible for this, nor does it address the cost of identifying and shifting to equipment that does not contain PFAS. This bill is specifically geared towards PFAS release from firefighting foam and PPE. However, PFAS are found in many common items as well, such as food packaging, household items, non-stick cookware, and outdoor gear. Future legislation would need to address these concerns. Want to advocate? Does this bill resonate with you? Do you want to see them become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The Senate bill has six cosponsors: Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI), Sullivan (R-AK), Hassan (D-NH), Tillis (R-NC), Carper (D-DE), Murkowski (R-AK), and Collins (R-ME). Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Additionally, if you are worried about PFAS in everyday items, consumers can contact brands to stop using PFAS in their products. Some larger companies like Ikea, H&M, and Crate & Barrel are already eliminating PFAS from their product lines, and others like Chipotle and Taco Bell have pledged to do so (3). The more people who speak out, the more likely change is to happen. Your voice matters! Footnotes
 The Restoring Resilient Reefs Act of 2021 was introduced in the Senate on January 26, 2021 by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), on behalf of himself and Senators Scott (R-FL), Hirono (D-HI), and Schatz (D-HI). The bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. An identical bill was introduced in the House by Representative Darren Soto (R-FL) and referred to the Subcommittee on Natural Resources.The bill had unanimously passed the Senate in December 2020, but was stalled in the House. It has been reintroduced with the 117th Congress.
THE BILLS: S. 46 H.R. 160 What do these bills do? The goal of these identical, bipartisan bills is to reauthorize and modernize the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, and establish the United States Coral Reef Task Force. The Coral Reef Conservation Act expired 15 years ago, and was implemented to protect our nation’s reefs. The new bill directs five years of federal funding and technical assistance to states feeling the impact of reef degradation. The goal is to preserve, sustain and restore the United States coral reef ecosystems that have been stressed by human-accelerated changes (e.g. increased temperatures, increased acidity, coral bleaching, coral diseases, water quality degradation, invasive species, poor fishing practices). Additionally, the bill requires the development of scientific information to assess threats, monitor conditions, and propose innovative science-based management solutions to reef degradation. The bill also incentivizes state and local investment in coral reef management capacity and conservation projects through Coral Reef Stewardship Partnerships. A Coral Reef Task Force will be established to lead, coordinate and strengthen Federal Government actions and initiatives to conserve, preserve and restore our coral reef ecosystems using mapping, monitoring, research, conservation, mitigation, and restoration strategies. It will be made up of voting (1) and non-voting (2) members. The task force will work in coordination with state, tribal, local government, nongovernmental and academic partners as appropriate. The task force will provide a report to appropriate Congressional committees each year summarizing recent management and restoration activities in each State as well as updated estimates of economic activity. The report will be made publicly available. The Act also establishes the National Coral Reef Management Fellowship program, specifically to provide year long fellowship funds and guidance to those with an intent to pursue a career in marine services, have leadership potential, hold a college degree or have equivalent experience in biological sciences or marine management, and is proficient with writing and speaking skills. The goal is to encourage future leaders to provide management. Why were they proposed? Coral reef systems are invaluable. They provide natural coastal protection, along with billions of dollars in food, jobs and recreational opportunities world wide (3). Additionally, although they occupy <0.1% of the world’s ocean area, they host ~25% of all marine life, and over 500 million people rely on them for food, revenue and protection. They are the rainforests of the sea. The diversity of these ecosystems is dependent on the corals. Reef building corals occur due to a symbiotic relationship between the coral and an algae called zooxanthellae. The algae live in the coral polyps and create oxygen for the coral, and the coral provides the essential protection needed for the algae to live by a process called photosynthesis (4, 5). This process is slow, and on average, corals only grow 0.3-2 cm a year. Live corals are often vibrantly colored, due to the algae, and attract diversity by providing food and shelter for other organisms. Increased water temperatures by 1-2 degrees can cause corals to expel their algae, a process called coral bleaching (6). In this scenario, the coral loses its color, and ultimately starves without the algae. As a result, the entire ecosystem can collapse. Benefits The bill reauthorizes existing federal programs to continue the essential efforts to halt reef degradation. It calls for scientific research and expertise into monitoring and protecting coral reefs, which will help to expand maps of reef areas and where the most at-risk areas are. It also calls for coral reef emergency plans and best response practices for outbreaks of disease, invasive species, and natural or human-made disasters, so that responders are prepared to immediately handle any emergency. The bill provides funding for state and local community conservation and restoration projects, so that through this bill, activities will also include making sure Federal laws related to the management of coral reef systems are upheld. This includes the taking of corals or surrounding organisms. A benefit of this bill is that it will attempt to identify reef-safe anchors and advance public awareness of reefs to prevent damage to reef systems from boats and other vessels. Challenges Reef degradation is a challenge for warmer coastal areas of the United States like Florida and Hawaii, but it is also a global challenge. Unfortunately, degradation is happening at an unprecedented speed. Scientists predict that without significant changes, we could see 90% of the world’s reefs disappear by 2050. Tropical coral reef coverage has declined 30-50% since the 1980s, and ~75% of the world's reefs are currently facing significant stress (7). Bleaching events have become increasingly more severe, with the worst occurring from June 2014-May 2017. The Great Barrier Reef (Australia) lost half of its coral to bleaching, and other reefs lost >90% of their coral (7). While bleaching events used to be rare, they are now becoming common, and reefs do not have time to recover between bleaching events. Additionally, the bill only provides funding for five years, and would have to be reassessed after this timeline. Want to advocate? Do these bills resonate with you? Do you want to see them become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The Senate bill has three cosponsors: Brian Schatz [D-HI], Mazie Hirono [D-HI], and Rick Scott [R-FL]. The House bill has five co-sponsors: Ed Case [D-HI-1], Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen [R-AS-At Large], Brian Mast [R-FL-18], Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon [R-PR-At Large], and Stacey Plaskett [D-VI-At Large]. Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
 Enacting laws is an incremental process (most of which occurs in the background) that takes place in a consensus-driven environment. We, as constituents, can and should be involved at any stage. Our Congresspeople represent us, but they can only do so if we voice our values, and share our expertise.
In order to advocate for legislation, though, it is important to understand how the process works. Congress is the Legislative branch that is responsible for crafting and enacting federal laws. The two legislative bodies within the Congress are the Senate (50 elected members, 2 from each state) and the House of Representatives (435 elected members, 1 from each Congressional district allocated to each state based on population as defined by the U.S. Census). A bill, which is a proposal for a new law, can be introduced by any member of Congress to their respective chamber. A bill must be introduced by a member of Congress, but the idea for a bill can start with anyone! Policy can be in the developmental stage for years prior to being introduced in either of the Chambers. Once a bill is introduced, it is placed in a wooden box called the bill hopper where it is assigned a legislative number before the Speaker of the House assigns it to a subcommittee (1). Numbers are assigned based on when the bill is introduced, and at the beginning of each new Congress (every 2 years), the group starts fresh and bill numbers are reset to 1. Even if a bill was already in debate by the House or Senate, it will have to be reintroduced at the start of each new Congress and assigned a new number. Once in a subcommittee, Representatives or Senators debate and amend the bill before voting on it. A vote can either defeat the piece of legislation, table it for later, or pass it to the House or Senate Floor for a debate. If it is passed within the subcommittee, members of the full House or Senate then read it and propose changes or amendments before holding a floor vote. If a simple majority (over 50%) votes to pass the bill, then it is sent to the other chamber, where it undergoes the same process, and both chambers have to agree on an identical version of the bill before it goes to the President. The bill can fail at any point during this process when a vote is held. Once (if) a bill is agreed on by both chambers, it is sent to the President. The President can 1) veto the bill, 2) decide to take no action 3) pocket veto the bill, and 4) sign the bill into law. A veto is when the President rejects the bill, and it is returned to Congress with the reasons for rejection detailed. At this time, Congress can override the veto with a supermajority (⅔) vote, and still pass the bill into law. If the President chooses to take no action and Congress is in session, after 10 days the bill automatically becomes law. A pocket veto occurs when the President decides to take no action and Congress is adjourned (out of session). After 10 days in this scenario, if the President does not sign it, the bill does not become law. Just to highlight the complexity of this process, during the 116th Congress (2019-2021), out of 16,601 pieces of legislation that were introduced, only 2% of bills and 4% of resolutions that were introduced were adopted (2). In addition to bills becoming laws through the process described above, the President can also take actions such as Executive Orders, Presidential Memoranda, and Presidential Proclamations (3). Of these, Executive Orders (EOs) hold the power of a law, and can be used to create organizations or issue other federal directives. They must cite the specific authority the President has to make the EO, and must be published in the Federal Register. Presidential Memoranda are similar to EOs in that they also hold the power of law, but don’t require publishing in the Federal Register. They are typically used to delegate tasks, start a regulatory process, or direct an agency to action. Through Presidential Proclamations, communication of information about holidays, special observances, trade, and policy occurs. Proclamations from 1994 to the present are available for download online (4). It is important to note that while the process detailed above highlights the federal legislative process, the same process occurs at the state level, and advocacy is still an essential component. Interested in advocating? Learn more about legislation you care about and what stage it’s at by checking out congress.gov and govtrack.us, and check out our Resources page to learn more about easy ways to voice your values to your legislators! Footnotes: (1) Subcommittee: A smaller group within a Senate or House committee that takes on some of the work from the main committee. https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/subcommittee.htm#:~:text=subcommittee%20%2D%20Subunit%20of%20a%20committee,for%20more%20than%203%20days (2) https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics (3) https://www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-made#item-35862 (4) https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/proclamations |
