Alyce Wilson

A couple weeks ago, I sent some letters about environmental issues that had been written by the Environmental Defense fund, including one expressing concerns about Scott Pruitt as the new Environmental Protection Agency administrator. Here is Senator Robert Casey (D-PA)’s response. I appreciate how detailed it is!

Dear Mrs. Wilson:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding environmental policy under the Trump Administration and the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

President Trump’s statements denying the reality of climate change are short-sighted and threaten to undermine the progress that Pennsylvania and the Nation have already made to address environmental issues. His statements ignore the growing evidence that indicates that adding large amounts of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide or methane, to the atmosphere is a leading cause of climate change. Greenhouse gas pollution poses a threat to public health and the environment, particularly for vulnerable populations like children with asthma or the elderly, and failing to act on climate change could lead to, among other things, disruptions in food production, malnutrition, water scarcity and childhood stunting.

We as a Nation have a moral obligation to address this issue. I believe that we must rise to the challenge and revitalize our economy by increasing our efforts in the areas of energy efficiency; developing and adopting cleaner ways of producing electricity; and creating jobs. I support the need for a comprehensive climate change plan and EPA’s Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon pollution from new and existing power plants.

As Pennsylvania transitions to clean energy, there must also be a strategy to maintain multiple forms of electricity generation including clean coal, nuclear energy, natural gas and hydropower. In addition, I believe that we should be encouraging the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies, which will enable fossil fuel power plants across the world to dramatically reduce carbon pollution. Finally, it is critical that the Administration and Congress focus on policies that help those workers in the energy sector who have been adversely affected by changes in the energy economy.

On December 8, 2016, President Trump announced he would nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be the next EPA Administrator. Mr. Pruitt’s record is clear: he fought to dismantle the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, anti-pollution programs that target ozone and mercury in the air, the agreement to clean up the Chesapeake Bay watershed and denied the science of climate change. Attorney General Pruitt is also leading the effort to overturn the Clean Power Plan, which is vital to getting control of our energy future and creating clean energy jobs. I do not have confidence, based on Attorney General Pruitt’s record, that the EPA under his leadership would enforce our environmental laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. Therefore, I have determined that I will vote to oppose the confirmation of Attorney General Pruitt to be Administrator of the EPA.

Please be assured that I will remain committed to defending sound environmental policies while cultivating new clean energy jobs, re-energizing the manufacturing sector in Pennsylvania and revitalizing the national economy. I will keep your views in mind as the U.S. Senate considers Cabinet nominations, as well as legislation related to climate change.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,

Bob Casey

United States Senator

Yesterday, I was pleased to receive a response from my congressman, Patrick Meehan, regarding my concerns over possible cuts to the school lunch program and, specifically, to those programs, such as CEP, designed to fund school meals for low-income communities. You can read my letter in my previous post. Now, while his letter doesn’t specifically mention CEP, it does indicate that he shares the concerns about funding for school lunches for needy children. Hopefully, he will continue to vote in line with what he says in this letter.

I have now signed up for his newsletter and am also following him on Twitter, so I can keep up to date with news about what he’s doing in Congress.

February 21, 2017

Dear Mrs. Wilson,

Thank you for contacting me regarding childhood nutrition. I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.

I share your concerns about America’s youth and ensuring at-risk kids do not go hungry. I voted against cutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) because I felt the proposed bill would hurt many of the families and children who the program is intended to help in the first place. Compromise legislation was later reached to ensure taxpayer dollars are used wisely and appropriately while meeting our responsibility to needy families. It passed on a bipartisan basis and became law.

As Congress works on Child Nutrition Reauthorization this year, please know that I will keep your concerns in mind as we work to ensure no child in America goes hungry.

Again thank you for contacting me regarding this issue. I appreciate hearing from you. For more information on my work in Congress on your behalf, please visit my website www.meehan.house.gov, where you can sign up for my e-newsletter. Please follow me on Twitter @RepMeehan.

Sincerely,

Patrick Meehan
Member of Congress

Recently, I read an excellent article in the Huffington Post about the School Lunch Program and how important it is to continue a little-known aspect of the program, the Community Eligibility Program, established by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. The article also referred to high-profile comments from some congressmen about the possibility of defunding the program.

Doing my own research on the program, I learned that roughly 6 million children received free lunches in impoverished school districts back in the 2014-15 school year and, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, that number was expected to increase.

Our legislators will be actively discussing the budget soon. Now is a good time to make certain they understand their constituents’ priorities. Following is a letter I sent to both my senators and to my congressman. You can find out how to contact your legislators at at USA.gov.

Feel free to use my letter as a starting point, and to share it with your friends!

Dear Legislator:

As the mother of a first grader, I know the importance of proper nutrition to a child’s health. That’s why I urge you to look out for low-income children through continued funding of the Community Eligibility Program, established by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-296), which provides free lunches to the most poverty-stricken eligible school districts.

You are no doubt aware that the CEP benefits more than 14,000 high-poverty schools in more than 2,200 school districts across the country, serving more than 6 million children. Because of this program, eligible schools have greatly increased access to healthy meals while reducing paperwork for parents/guardians and administrators alike.

Thanks to the nutrition provided by the CEP, students whose schools use the program benefit from stronger thinking skills, behavior and health, all of which impact academic performance. According to the 2014 paper, “Nutrition and Student’s Academic Performance” by Wilder Research, multiple studies have demonstrated the academic benefits of healthy eating, while other studies have shown the negative impacts of junk food on academic performance.

Reducing the funding for CEP would create a hardship for the school districts and children who have come to depend on it. In contrast, continuing full funding of CEP will lead to countless benefits for the children, their schools, and by extension, our nation. Please keep CEP in mind while assessing priorities in upcoming budget discussions in Congress.

Sincerely,
Alyce Wilson