[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 110 (Monday, September 18, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    ESTUARY RESTORATION ACT OF 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 12, 2000

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the decline in estuary 
habitats nation-wide has been well-documented in the scientific and 
resource management literature for over 30 years. Worse, we are now 
finally seeing how ruinous this habitat loss has been to our coastal 
environment through degraded water quality, depleted commercial and 
recreational fisheries, and destructive shoreline erosion and 
subsidence.
  Within my own district, the baylands provide some form of food, 
shelter, or other benefits to over 500 species of fish, amphibians, 
reptiles, birds, and mammals. In addition, there are almost as many 
species of invertebrates in the ecosystem as all the other animals 
combined. This brings the total number of animal species that use or 
call the baylands ecosystem home to over one thousand. Unfortunately, 
this area has lost over 95 percent of its tidal wetlands and continues 
to be besieged by invasive and aquatic nuisance species.
  These impacts are real. Fortunately, we have an opportunity to begin 
the effort to reverse that trend. H.R. 1775, the Estuary Restoration 
Act, would provide a reasonable, balanced approach to both preserve 
remaining estuarine habitats and to facilitate effective, locally-
driven estuary restoration.
  I commend the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, Mr. Shuster, and the senior ranking Democrat member, Mr. 
Oberstar, as well as the Chairman of the Committee on Resources, Mr. 
Young, for their collaborative efforts and cooperation in developing 
this compromise legislation. I would also like to thank the bill's 
sponsor, Mr. Gilchrest, for his energy and persistence in pursuing this 
worthwhile and important bill.
  I am glad to see that the bill will include as eligible restoration 
plans any Federal or State plan developed with the participation of 
public and private stakeholders. This will mean that many innovative, 
collaborative plans developed for the San Francisco Bay estuary, such 
as the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Plan, the San Pablo Baylands 
Restoration Plan, and the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan will become 
eligible for project funding.
  I am also pleased that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will be 
eligible to participate in the program. NGOs, such as Save the Bay and 
The Bay Institute in the Bay Area, embody the locally driven focus of 
this legislation. In addition, NGOs contribute valuable matching funds, 
expertise and local support--all factors critical to the long-term 
success of estuary restoration projects. I share the concerns raised by 
my colleague, Mr. Oberstar, that the burden placed on these 
organizations to participate might be excessive. There is little need 
for further restrictions on NGO participation because the stringent 
review process within the bill will ensure that only the most 
outstanding projects are selected and funded. I hope that this will be 
addressed in conference with the Senate.
  I appreciate the willingness of the bill's sponsors to direct the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as the manager 
of monitoring data gathered within this program. NOAA has impressive 
scientific expertise and superb competence in environmental data 
management. In addition, NOAA programs such as the National Estuarine 
Research Reserves and Coastal Services Center, will be useful conduits 
for dissemination of estuary restoration data to coastal resource 
managers nationwide.
  The establishment of an Estuary Habitat Restoration Council within 
the bill is of paramount importance due to the largely experimental and 
innovative nature of many estuary restoration techniques. The science 
of estuary restoration, at present, is imprecise. It is important to 
recognize that we will have to learn from our mistakes; undoubtedly, 
not every project will meet expectations. I had hoped to include a more 
rigorous post-construction monitoring and evaluation process in the 
bill. In its absence, the Corps would be wise to work closely with the 
Council to prioritize and select projects based upon successes 
validated in the field.
  In lieu of the recent criticism that has been directed at the Corps, 
I retain some reservations about the wisdom of Congress authorizing the 
Corps to take on such a significant expansion of its mission at this 
time. I am sure we have all been closely following the series of 
articles that have appeared in the Washington Post this week. Since its 
inception, the Corps has launched tens of billions of dollars worth of 
public works projects around the country, many of which have severely 
damaged the environment because of a lack of oversight.
  I am encouraged by the efforts of several colleagues to address this 
issue, notably Congressman Ron Kind, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin and 
Congressman Earl Blumenauer. Public works projects will always be 
needed, but at the same time we also need to ensure the protection of 
the environment. Environmental considerations should be taken as 
seriously as economic ones when analyzing projects. Certainly, the 
Corps should not approve projects with severe ecological consequences.
  Once again, I strongly support this legislation.

                          ____________________