[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 53 (Thursday, April 15, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H2595-H2609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      CLEAN ESTUARIES ACT OF 2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1248 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4715.

                              {time}  1404


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4715) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Cuellar in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) each will control 30 minutes.

[[Page H2596]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) deserve very special recognition and appreciation 
for their collaborative work taking the lead on this legislation to 
bring new focus and new energy and new legislative authorities to the 
National Estuary Program under the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010.
  Without that concerted effort, we would be losing an extraordinary 
opportunity to protect and to restore the Nation's estuaries, among our 
most valuable natural resources.
  This legislation was approved by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure by voice vote. We have solid support on both sides of 
the aisle on a bill that was carefully crafted over many months by 
participation, input, and recommendations from both sides, all of which 
suggestions have been incorporated into this final legislative product.
  Estuaries are very unique bodies of water. They are the places where 
fresh and salt water meet, the places where new forms of life are 
created, not just in the United States but all throughout the world. 
Estuaries are critical mixing points for the basic ingredients of life, 
including new life itself. Estuaries are the most ecologically diverse, 
the most economically productive natural resource areas on our entire 
planet.
  Estuaries and their associated coastal resources are major economic 
forces, as well, for our country. Commercial and recreational fishing 
annually accounts for $185 billion in revenue, 2 million direct jobs. 
Commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish species--
striped bass, shad, salmon, sturgeon, shrimp, crabs, lobster, clams, 
oysters, muscles, and bay scallops--all depend on the estuary for 
stages of their life cycle.
  Estuaries are habitat for three-fourths of all of the commercial fish 
catch and 80-90 percent of the recreational fish catch. And that is 
true not just for the fresh and salt water meeting places of estuaries, 
but also for the riverine and lake meeting places of estuaries on the 
Great Lakes.
  Beyond fishing, estuaries produce significant economic value for our 
fellow citizens in tourism, energy production, navigation, cultural and 
recreational opportunities, boating, fishing, swimming, surfing, 
birding. Ports and harbors are located in our estuaries, including our 
ports of Duluth Superior, which I share with my dear friend and 
colleague from across the water, Mr. Obey, in northwestern Wisconsin/
northeastern Minnesota.
  The University of California and the Ocean Foundation have reported 
that, annually, beach going generates $30 billion of economic value, 
and wildlife viewing generates up to $49 billion, also, in economic 
value.
  But, unfortunately, estuaries, by definition, are downstream. Each 
estuary is the repository for all of the pollution discharged into the 
rivers and other bodies of water that drain into estuaries from 
upstream. As the pollution loading increases, the estuary, the 
repository of those pollution deposits, deteriorates. The water becomes 
degraded. The animal and plant communities suffer. Chesapeake Bay is a 
powerful example of that degrading and deterioration. Only 1 percent of 
the historical oyster population remain in Chesapeake Bay.
  An impaired estuary is bad for commercial and recreational fishing, 
results in depleted fisheries, decreased tourism revenues, and 
deteriorated property values. In addition, because of deterioration of 
the estuary and the borderland around it, we've seen increased 
flooding, shoreline erosion, damaged infrastructure, particularly when 
storms occur, which happens every year.
  The Federal Government has a number of authorities at its disposal 
with which to control water pollution, and typically we have used a 
permit-based system to regulate pollution discharge into our waters. 
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act provided a new authority in 
the National Estuary Program. We are reauthorizing that program today 
in this bill. It's a nonregulatory program. It includes 28 separate 
estuaries, and each of these estuary initiatives is run by a non-
Federal entity. Some are run by States, others by nongovernmental 
organizations, and a few others by universities.
  A central feature of each program is a management plan developed on a 
consensual basis; not a top-down, not imposed, but a cooperative, 
inclusive initiative where all elements of government and private 
sectors and, sort of, stakeholders--a term I don't particularly like, 
but that's a good inclusive term covering all of those who have a share 
or a responsibility in the watershed--all develop a bottoms-up process 
to manage the discharges into and the use of the estuary. It has been 
very popular and it has been also very effective in improving the 
health of our estuaries.
  This bill does four things: increased transparency and accountability 
for each of the estuary programs; increased Federal coordination in 
restoration, protection of the estuaries; third, programmatic changes 
to the natural estuary program; and, fourth, increasing the 
authorization level for the program from $35 million to $50 million. 
Not very much. Not very much especially considering the erosion of the 
value of the dollar over the years since this program was established.
  We set the minimum level of $1.25 million a year for each of the 28 
approved estuaries. The program was last authorized in 2000 and erosion 
of the dollar would have required an increase over those years to an 
estimated $44 million. We take it just a little bit higher to $50 
million in order to account for other estuaries that are important that 
may be added in the coming management of this program.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4715 reauthorizes the National 
Estuary Program found in section 320 of the Clean Water Act and adds 
some important accountability provisions. These improvements require 
performance measures and goals in order to track implementation of 
management plans for estuaries. The EPA will evaluate every 4 years and 
report on the implementation of each management plan. In addition, 
after the EPA evaluates and reports on a plan, each management 
conference will be required to update their plans.
  I note that H.R. 4715 increases the authorized level of funding by 43 
percent from $35 million per year to $50 million a year. The average 
appropriation over the past 5 years for this program has been only 
$26.8 million. The President's recent budget requests $27.2 million.
  While I support the National Estuary Program and improvements made 
here in H.R. 4715, I know many of my colleagues, as well as myself, are 
concerned about increasing authorized levels of spending for programs 
when Congress has not been able to fund the program close to its 
current authorization.

                              {time}  1415

  Certainly in our current economic crisis we should carefully weigh 
any proposed increase in authorization levels. We must also consider 
the importance to estuaries. They are the nursery grounds for much of 
the planet's sea life and the source of the seafood that we enjoy. They 
are a unique habitat for a unique group of fish and wildlife.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to express my 
great appreciation to our subcommittee chair, Ms. Johnson of Texas, who 
has done a superb job of holding the hearings that led up to the 
creation of this legislation and bringing together the parties on both 
sides of the aisle; Mr. Boozman for his splendid participation in the 
deliberations of the subcommittee and then at the full committee level; 
and also my great appreciation to Mr. Mica, the ranking member of the 
full committee, with whom I have a splendid partnership in all of the 
work of our committee.
  Before I recognize and yield time to Ms. Johnson, I just wanted to 
say, it's true, as the gentleman from Arkansas pointed out, that the 
funding level has been well below the new authorization we propose, and 
I know these are tight budgetary times. Our job as an authorizing 
committee is to set what is the reasonable, responsible level of 
funding for programs under the jurisdiction of our committee, set that 
forth, put it

[[Page H2597]]

into law, and then we will have to fight with the rest of the budget 
for their fair share of the funding level.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 30 additional seconds.
  But if we don't raise that level from time to time to keep pace with 
inflation, keep a target out there, then they will continue to be 
underfunded. At least they can go in and compete and advocate with 
other Federal Government programs for the amount of funding and have to 
justify themselves to do that.
  And, furthermore, we have a half dozen programs that have a poor 
rating. The accountability provisions of that bill are targeted to 
raise their level of performance and to hold them up to public 
scrutiny. And I think that justifies us--and also they haven't had the 
funding level they have needed to do the right job. So if we believe in 
the program, we believe that estuaries are important for new forms of 
fish and shellfish and aquatic life, we ought to protect them and 
enhance----
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 30 additional seconds.
  Then we need to increase the funding level but also increase their 
accountability, also increase their responsibility to the public. 
That's, I think, a very important and new initiative in this 
legislation.
  I now yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank my committee chairman.
  I rise in very strong support of H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries Act 
of 2010.
  Estuaries are the bodies of water that receive both freshwater from 
rivers and saltwater from the sea. The mix of water makes a unique 
environment that is extremely productive in terms of its ecosystem 
values. Estuaries are rich in plant life, coastal habitat, and living 
species. The ecological productivity of these regions translates 
directly into important economic productivity. Government studies have 
found that estuaries provide habitat for 75 percent of the U.S. 
commercial and 80 to 90 percent of the recreational fishing catches.
  Perhaps the central problem in the protection and restoration of 
estuaries is that they ultimately lie downstream from all. Everything 
that enters the smallest stream, tributary, or headwater in a watershed 
eventually runs into its respective estuary, impacting, in some way, 
all the biological elements of that system and all of the commerce that 
revolves around that estuary.
  To address estuary impairments properly, we cannot look to the 
Federal Government alone. Indeed, we cannot necessarily look to the 
Federal Government as the lead. Instead, proper watershed management 
and estuary protection must be a process that involves all levels of 
government and all manner of stakeholders.
  Today's legislation, the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010, provides the 
resources and means to do just that. As the chair of the Subcommittee 
on Water Resources and Environment, the subcommittee charged with 
primary jurisdiction for protective water quality, I am pleased to 
support this bill. This legislation increases the authorization for 
appropriations, allows for increased and improved Federal coordination, 
increases accountability, and includes some necessary programmatic 
changes.
  The increase in authorized appropriation levels will not only provide 
more resources to localities and organizations on the ground, it will 
also enable more communities and estuaries to be involved in this 
important national program.
  I am well aware of the effectiveness and popularity of these 
nonregulatory, community-based programs. We should be seeking to 
encourage the use of these types of programs in order to address 
problems in a grassroots fashion. In this sense, by making cleaner 
estuaries, we hope to achieve healthier communities and stronger 
economies through collaborative processes. I ask all Members of this 
Chamber to join me in supporting communities and estuaries through the 
passage of this bill.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might desire to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Clean 
Estuaries Act.
  I want to particularly thank Chairman Oberstar for his continued 
leadership and for moving so very quickly on this important 
legislation. I would also like to thank Chairwoman Eddie Bernice 
Johnson, Mr. Mica, and Mr. Boozman for their help on this very 
important issue as well. Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Bishop for 
his leadership and once again allowing me to join with him on an issue 
that we both find important and that we can make a difference with on a 
critical bill to keep our waters clean and to do this for future 
generations.
  As we have heard, the bill would authorize the National Estuary 
Program for another 5 years, allow the program to expand protections to 
other watersheds and provide--and I think this is very important--
greater accountability on how taxpayer money is spent, something that 
we should be doing more of. The bill will improve transparency, also 
something very important, by establishing periodic reviews of 
management plans and by requiring partners to demonstrate results, 
something, again, that is very important that we see what the results 
are.
  Partners that fall out of compliance with their plans will lose grant 
funds, and that's as it should be, because they should have to produce 
results. These changes will improve the National Estuary Program and 
enhance the protection of our Nation's estuaries while ensuring that 
the taxpayer is getting a strong return on investment.
  In my district, the Delaware estuary is home to the second largest 
concentration of migrating shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere, which 
is pretty incredible when you think about it, as well as dozens of 
protected species and the largest population of horseshoe crabs in the 
world. The estuary is also home to over 5 million people and some of 
the largest refineries and chemical manufacturers on the east coast.
  The group charged with understanding how to manage the demands of 
these two forces is the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary. As one of 
the 28 designated NEP organizations, the Partnership has done an 
absolutely outstanding job, a tremendous job, to not only protect and 
enhance the Delaware estuary but also to raise the public awareness 
about the need to act responsibly and care for this unique ecosystem.
  I want to commend the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary and the 27 
other partnership organizations that have made the National Estuary 
Program so successful, and I urge all Members to support H.R. 4715.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) who coauthored this bill with the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Let me start by thanking Chairman Oberstar 
for his unwavering commitment to clean water issues, and we also thank 
Chairwoman Johnson for her leadership.
  Finally, let me thank my good friend, Congressman LoBiondo, for 
sponsoring this legislation with me. Congressman LoBiondo and I have 
worked together on several issues of mutual benefit to our constituents 
over the years. I think we have formed a very nice partnership.
  To those of us on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, it 
sometimes feels as if we are part of the last remaining bastion of 
bipartisanship in this institution, and I am always heartened by the 
way our committee works closely with each other to produce initiatives 
that improve our infrastructure, our environment, and the lives of the 
American people. I appreciate the way our committee has moved forward 
very quickly on this important legislation.
  My district encompasses 300 miles of coastline and includes two of 
the 28 estuaries of national significance, the Long Island Sound and 
Peconic Bay. I am very proud to represent some of this country's most 
popular and beautiful beaches and precious water bodies. Maintaining 
coastal estuarine health is an integral objective toward preserving the 
Nation's environment

[[Page H2598]]

and sustaining the economies of our coastal States.
  The Clean Estuaries Act of 2010 reauthorizes the popular and highly 
effective National Estuary Program originally designated as section 320 
of the Clean Water Act and makes four primary changes to the program.
  First, the bill increases the accountability for approved estuary 
programs by requiring evaluation and updating management of their plans 
on a periodic basis. This requirement increases transparency and 
encourages adaptive management of the programs by incorporating 
evaluation results into the period management plan updates.
  Secondly, approved programs must identify vulnerabilities and impacts 
due to climate change and prepare adaptation responses as well as raise 
public awareness of the issues facing the health of estuaries and 
performance measures and targets.
  The third important improvement to the program is provisions to 
enhance Federal agency coordination. As many Federal agencies oversee 
activities that impact estuaries, our bill requires they participate in 
the management planning process and incorporate local priorities when 
practicable.
  Finally, authorization is increased from $35 million to $50 million 
per year and requires that each program approved receive a minimum of 
$1.25 million. This increase in authorization allows the program to 
keep pace with inflation and provides for the entry of new programs 
into the NEP program where 38 sites have expressed interest in the past 
to become an approved program.
  Our coastal areas support more than 28 million jobs in the United 
States, and commercial and recreational fishing in these areas generate 
roughly $185 billion in sales and support nearly 2 million jobs. In 
fact, estuaries produce more food per acre than the most productive 
farmland.
  Approximately 75 percent of commercial fish species depend on coastal 
areas for their primary habitat, spawning grounds, and nursery areas. 
In my district, the Long Island Sound produces over $5.5 billion in 
revenue for State and local economies in the tourism, fishing, and 
boating industries each year.
  Setting aside the obvious and vital role that estuaries play to 
environmental ecosystems, the economic benefits of estuaries alone are 
reason enough to improve upon the investments Congress has made on 
behalf of the American people. Estuaries are proven job creators and 
provide a rate of return rarely seen on Wall Street.
  Let me once again thank Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, 
Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Boozman, Congressman LoBiondo, and 
both majority and minority staffs for their hard work and dedication to 
this issue.
  I hope my colleagues agree with the merits of this legislation. I ask 
for their vote today on H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries Act.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I do want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) for the very positive changes 
in the bill of accountability and transparency.
  Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve. We don't have anymore 
speakers.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support H.R. 4715, the Clean 
Estuaries Act of 2010. The reauthorization obviously provides 
opportunities to clean up our Nation's waterways.
  I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Boozman and the 
other cosponsors on a bipartisan basis. This is a good example of how 
we work together.
  In California, we have a lot of challenges with our own waterways. A 
persistent degradation of the largest estuary on the west coast is 
California's San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River 
Delta system. Unfortunately, in my opinion, two flawed biological 
opinions focus solely on exported water to the valley and southern 
California for the decline in this important estuary for both the bay 
and the delta, ignoring other significant contributing factors.
  Meanwhile, urban centers continue to pollute this bay-delta with 
toxic runoff, waste discharged from sewage facilities, refineries, city 
streets and power plants, significantly degrading the ecosystem and 
putting water supply to the valley and to southern California at risk. 
This single-minded view has resulted in the loss of jobs and endangered 
livelihoods of farmers, farm workers and farm communities in the San 
Joaquin Valley who rely on that water to grow half the Nation's fruits 
and vegetables.
  Enough is enough. It's time for other regions of California to share 
in the responsibility for the decline of water quality and fisheries. 
Playing the blame game and pointing fingers at our valley's economy and 
some of the hardest working people in the country will not solve our 
water crisis in California; however, working together will. Step one is 
reducing and preventing the longstanding pollution that is threatening 
the Sacramento-San Joaquin River systems and our region.
  Passing this measure will help our Nation's estuaries, and we must do 
more. I want to commend, once again, the chairman and the cosponsors of 
this measure and look forward to continuing to work with them.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps), who has made a splendid contribution to this 
bill, and thank her for her contribution.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Chairman Oberstar, for recognizing me.
  I rise today to express my support for H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries 
Act, a bipartisan bill to reauthorize and make improvements to the 
National Estuary Program.
  I wish to thank my colleagues, Tim Bishop and Frank LoBiondo, for 
introducing this bill. We each represent coastal districts that are 
home to amazing estuary systems of great importance to our communities.
  In my district, the Morro Bay National Estuary is an ecological 
treasure. Lagoons and wetlands that were once common along the southern 
California coast are now nearly all filled and developed, but the Morro 
Bay Estuary has survived largely thanks to local efforts and now the 
support of the estuary program.
  Like other national estuaries, the one in Morro Bay provides vital 
habitat for birds and fish. It is an important stopover for more than 
150 species of migratory birds and it acts as a nursery for more than 
75 percent of commercial fish species right in the immediate area.
  Since the Morro Bay Estuary was incorporated into the national 
program in 1995, the inspiring team of local staff and volunteers has 
spearheaded numerous efforts to preserve and restore the estuary. I 
particularly want to commend former program director Dan Berman, 
interim director Mike Multari and his staff, as well as the Bay 
Foundation of Morro Bay. Their accomplishments over the years are a 
reflection of the strong partnerships and community support that define 
the Morro Bay National Estuary Program. For example, partnering with 
local ranchers, the hardworking team in Morro Bay has installed 
riparian fencing along nearly 75,000 feet of creek to limit cattle 
access. This has protected water quality and improved habitat on seven 
creeks leading to the estuary.
  The estuary program has also been a source of funding for the city of 
Morro Bay's efforts to remove derelict marine vessels before they 
pollute local waters and damage habitat. And the Estuary Nature Center 
helps the public to understand the estuary's importance to water 
quality and conservation.
  Mr. Speaker, estuaries are among the richest habitats known on the 
Earth, providing immeasurable economic and ecological benefits, but 
they are threatened by climate change, by pollution, and other human 
activities. The Clean Estuaries Act helps to combat these problems and 
improves the efficiency of our National Estuary Program.
  First, the bill requires that each approved estuary program be 
evaluated every 4 years and the results be publicly released. Second, 
the bill increases Federal attention to local priorities and requires 
that Federal agencies participate in planning and coordinating the 
implementation of the site's own management plan.

[[Page H2599]]

  Third, the bill requires that estuaries identify and plan for 
vulnerabilities to climate change.
  And, finally, the bill increases the program's annual authorization 
to $50 million.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you.
  This modest funding increase will strengthen the capacity of our 
existing estuaries to protect these critical coastal and marine 
resources; and the proposed funding increase will allow for the 
responsible expansion of the program to incorporate new regions that 
are not currently served in the NEP.
  Mr. Chairman, we are at a critical juncture for our ocean and coastal 
resources, and the National Estuary Program is a vital part of that 
network. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to protect 
some of our Nation's most valuable and treasured natural resources, our 
national estuaries.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to express my 
great appreciation to the gentlewoman from California for her thorough 
elucidation of the specific benefits, point by point, of the estuary 
program in her Morro Bay area.
  I now yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer), a refugee from the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the chairman for his courtesy and keeping me 
in his thoughts.
  I rise in strong support of this outstanding piece of legislation. 
The National Estuary Program has been funding work around the country 
for 20 years to monitor and restore estuaries of national significance. 
It is really, I think, extraordinarily positive for us to hear the 
message repeated today here on the floor about the importance, the 
scope, the significance, and the progress that has been made.
  I have a special interest in one area in Oregon and Washington; the 
Lower Columbia River Estuary has been part of the program since 1995. 
This stretches 146 miles from the Bonneville Dam to the mouth of the 
Pacific Ocean. It supports hundreds of species of fish and wildlife and 
thousands of people's economy and their quality of life. It is the 
largest river in the Pacific Northwest, supplying fishermen with jobs, 
serving as a recreational resource, and providing power through the 
Pacific Northwest.
  I have been privileged to work for the Lower Columbia River Estuary 
Partnership, which heads our local estuary program. It is an 
unparalleled bi-State, public and private partnership involving 
collaborative efforts among key Federal partners, including EPA, NOAA, 
USGS, the Army Corps of Engineers. They work with government at all 
levels as well as a broad array of stakeholders that address these many 
challenges facing the estuary from habitat degradation, to wetland 
loss, to endangered species, to toxic contaminants. This is a model 
non-regulatory, community-based program that gets results. National 
Estuary Partners focuses on on-the-ground activities and involving 
local communities with technical support and base funding coming from 
the Federal Government.
  The accomplishments in the Columbia are impressive. The partners have 
restored 2,600 acres of habitat, opened more than 53 miles of stream, 
completed toxic and conventional pollutant water quality monitoring, 
and engaged the public in innovative cleanup efforts around the region 
such as ``drug take back'' days and working with volunteers to remove 
invasive plants.
  There are many challenges remaining in the Lower Columbia, and this 
legislation will provide important funding to further progress there 
and around the country. Each local estuary also leverages National 
Estuary Partnership funds. In 2009, in our community, we were able to 
bring in $14 for each dollar that was provided by the Federal 
Government. In addition to restoring the ecosystem, these dollars 
create jobs for construction, design, contractors, engineers, 
biologists, hydrologists, builders and educators, family-wage jobs in 
the community. And beyond today's economic impact, the restored area 
will support the recovery of a commercial fishing industry that was 
reduced 90 percent in the course of 20 years.
  Importantly, this legislation will also, for the first time, open the 
door to other estuaries to participate in the program. While funding 
goes to all estuaries, it will have benefits for the entire country. 
You have heard here on the floor repeatedly that healthy estuaries mean 
a healthy national economy. They cover a huge portion, 13 percent, of 
the land area of the United States where half the gross domestic 
product is produced, and almost 43 percent of the population.
  These coastal areas provide tens of millions of jobs, which means 
more people employed if we have healthy estuaries. It provides fresh 
seafood, it provides habitat for 75 percent of the United States 
commercial fish catch, and 80 to 90 percent of the recreational fish 
catch.
  These are also prime destinations for tourism. In any given year, 10 
percent of the population will visit coastal Florida, 12.5 percent will 
visit coastal California, and every coastal State will host over 1 
million out-of-state visitors.
  The benefits of clean and healthy estuaries are multiple. I want to 
thank my colleagues on the committee for this outstanding work and look 
forward to its support.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 10 seconds to thank the gentleman from 
Oregon for his constant attention to the work of our committee and to 
the water issues as well, and for his splendid presentation.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland, 
a member of the committee, Ms. Edwards, who has worked diligently as a 
guardian of the Chesapeake Bay Estuary.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Thank you especially to the leadership of 
Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Boozman, especially to our chairwoman of our 
Water Resources Committee, Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, and to our 
two leaders here, Mr. Bishop and Mr. LoBiondo.
  I rise today in support of the Clean Estuaries Act, H.R. 4715, 
because I have seen firsthand the positive ecological and economic role 
that conservation and protection--indeed, attention--can play in 
improving the health of our Nation's estuaries.
  We have only to take a look at today's headlines in The Washington 
Post highlighting the improvement of the blue crab in the Chesapeake 
Bay, largely due to the protection efforts that we've undertaken there, 
a Federal commitment, a State and regional commitment to improving the 
Nation's largest estuary, which happens to be a great partner for my 
State of Maryland.
  And so in the past year we have seen that, because of the commitment 
of the administration and many in the Congress and lawmakers, the 
Chesapeake Bay, our Nation's largest estuary, has actually made great 
strides. And it is highlighted by the return of the blue crab, the 
highest levels in 17 years. The return has a positive economic impact 
for all sectors: fishermen experience larger catches, the price of the 
crab will decrease for our family restaurants, tourism will expand, and 
the bay is now healthier than it has been in many years. But we have a 
lot of work to do.
  So what does that mean in terms of the Clean Estuaries Act? Well, it 
means, in fact, that if we pay the same attention to all of our 
Nation's estuaries in the way that we have with the Chesapeake Bay, we 
can also see improvements. And for those of us who don't live near an 
estuary, every time we flush, every time we drive, every time we have 
an impact--dropping a piece of trash on the ground has an impact on our 
Nation's estuaries. And so while we may not be able to see them, the 
impact is so great; and that's why we need this legislation, to produce 
a positive effect on estuaries across the country.
  This deserves our support because commercial and recreational fishing 
accounts for $185 billion in revenues every year. Estuaries provide 75 
percent of the catches for all of these revenues. And yet over the last 
20 years the health of our estuaries has degraded and the size of 
catches has decreased.

[[Page H2600]]

  The relationship between the health of an ecosystem and the economic 
output can't be overrated. The Clean Estuaries Act stands to reverse 
this troubling trend by adding additional estuaries and providing 
strong accountability measures in a way to ensure that conservation and 
protection are taken seriously.
  We need to take positive steps toward cleaning up our Nation's 
estuaries by passing this bill and continuing to also invest in green 
infrastructure and nonstructural alternatives to protect our 
ecosystems.
  I want to commend Chairman Oberstar for his leadership and thank all 
of our leaders for their commitment to combine environmental 
stewardship with economic development for the protection of the 
Nation's estuaries.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to protect America's 
estuaries by strengthening the management of the National Estuary 
Program, NEP, and to thank Congressman Oberstar, Congresswoman Johnson, 
Congressman Bishop, Congressman Boozman, and beyond for their 
excellent, excellent work.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a solemn responsibility to keep the vital 
habitats clean for the thousands of plants, fish, and wildlife that 
live, breed, and spawn there. That is why I am proud to support H.R. 
4715, the Clean Estuaries Act.
  Currently, there are 28 estuaries within the NEP. The NEP conducts 
long-term planning and management activities to restore and protect 
estuaries. There are 38 additional estuaries, including Tomales Bay in 
my district, which have wanted to join the NEP. With H.R. 4715, we can 
increase the authorization of the NEP to $50 million. Tomales Bay and 
the other estuaries that have a desire to be part of it will have the 
opportunity to become part of this important program.
  Tomales Bay supports a diverse group of wildlife, including seasonal 
populations of salmon and steelhead, more than 20,000 shorebirds and 
seabirds, and a wide variety of shellfish. Tomales Bay is considered a 
wetland of significant importance under the International Convention on 
Wetlands, so protecting the vibrant biological hotspot from pollution 
through the NEP will help to preserve this estuary for generations and 
generations to enjoy.
  I want to commend the hard work of the Tomales Bay Watershed Council, 
a multistakeholder group that has long championed restoring Tomales 
Bay. Additionally, the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary 
is working on a Tomales Bay management plan, covering the bay, itself.
  Extending this plan to the entire watershed through the NEP process 
would ensure better scientific understanding, and it would improve 
restoration projects. The Gulf of the Farallones would be a valuable 
and experienced stakeholder in developing a watershed-wide plan.
  Mr. Chairman, we must protect nationally significant estuaries like 
Tomales Bay through better accountability, management, and coordination 
with local partners. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
healthy and clean estuaries by voting for H.R. 4715.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself the remaining time to thank the 
gentleman from Arkansas for his generosity in yielding time, which had 
inadvertently run out on our side.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 4715, the 
Clean Estuaries Act. This Act reauthorizes the Environmental Protection 
Agency's National Estuary Program, which coordinates federal, state and 
local government efforts, as well as cooperation from private and 
nonprofit groups, to help protect estuaries.
  Estuaries support diverse habitats for a wide variety of species and 
provide significant economic and recreational benefits. Many fish and 
shellfish species depend on the sheltered habitat provided by 
estuaries, as well as the mix of saline and fresh water. The abundance 
of aquatic life supported by estuaries provides 75 percent of the U.S. 
commercial fish catch and 80 to 90 percent of the recreational fish 
catch.
  The Environmental Protection Agency already has accepted 28 estuaries 
into the National Estuary Program. The Clean Estuaries Act increases 
the annual authorization from $35 million to $50 million, an amount 
that, if fully appropriated, will allow the Environmental Protection 
Agency to add 12 new estuaries to the program. At present, 38 estuaries 
are candidates for the program, including two estuaries in the State of 
Hawaii--Kaneohe Bay and Hanalei Bay--that could benefit greatly from 
the support provided by the program. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this bill to protect the ecological, recreational, and 
economic benefits of our nation's estuaries.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my strong support for 
H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010. This bill would reauthorize 
for an additional five years, our nation's National Estuary Program 
(NEP).
  As home to one of the nation's most diverse national estuaries, the 
Indian River Lagoon, the residents of Florida's 15th Congressional 
District have seen the value of this program to this important estuary 
and how it has enhanced our community. The NEP has proven very 
successful in helping restore and enhance the quality of our lagoon.
  Specific NEP initiatives across our estuary included eliminating 
effluent discharges from more than 20 wastewater facilities, 
reconnecting impounded salt marshes, developing storm water treatment 
facilities, and reducing freshwater discharges into the lagoon.
  As one of the 28 designated national estuaries, the Indian River 
Lagoon receives an important funding set-aside within the annual 
National Estuary Program (NEP) budget. This will enable the Indian 
River Lagoon NEP to accomplish restoration and water quality 
improvements that are included in their 2010 lagoon work plan.
  The Indian River Lagoon was one of only two estuaries nationally to 
receive top quality ratings from the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) when considering water quality, sediment, benthic, and fish 
tissue culture. While this is good, we know that there is much more 
work that needs to be done. Passage of H.R. 4715 will help the Indian 
River Lagoon NEP move forward with their comprehensive restoration and 
water quality improvement plans and provides more funding for this 
purpose.
  I would also urge my colleagues to oppose an amendment by Rep. 
Schauer (D-MI), which would dilute the resources in the NEP and result 
in less funding for the 28 nationally recognized estuaries, including 
the Indian River Lagoon.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4715.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chair, estuaries, the coastal wetlands where fresh 
and salt water meet, are both a vital filter for urban runoff that 
would otherwise flow out of the river and into the ocean, and a cradle 
for marine and wildlife.
  We are not able to create new estuaries. We either restore and 
protect them, or we lose them.
  They are a foundation of our economy. The tourism industry needs 
estuaries to keep the sea clean and healthy. The fishing industry 
relies on them to replenish the oceans. Estuaries provide the habitat 
for 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fish catch and as much as 90 
percent of the recreational fish catch, according to the National 
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Research 
Council.
  Estuaries are critically important to human life. They filter our 
groundwater, and are a buffer from flooding. The phytoplankton nursed 
in estuaries remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and produce 
oxygen in its place. In fact, phytoplankton in estuaries and oceans 
produce about half the world's oxygen.
  So it is imperative that the House passes H.R. 4715, the Clean 
Estuaries Act of 2010.
  The bill protects and supports 28 estuaries with grants, including 
the Santa Monica Bay and the Ballona Wetlands in my district.
  Dozens of local groups fought for decades to acquire for the public's 
benefits 600 acres of Ballona Wetlands. They succeeded in 2003. Since 
then, the habitat has attracted more than 200 species of birds, some of 
which are now returning to nest after more than a 70-year absence. 
Ballona is home to many rare species, including the Belding's Savannah 
Sparrow and the recently discovered Orcutt's yellow pincushion.
  Citizens have similarly banded together to protect the Santa Monica 
Bay. Backed by the Clean Water Act--part of which this bill 
reauthorizes--my dear friend Dorothy Green worked with other citizens 
out of her living rooms for years to force the Hyperion Wastewater 
Treatment plant to update its filtering system. Since then, the plant 
has cut its waste by 95 percent, literally bringing life back to parts 
of Santa Monica Bay that were once declared dead zones.
  The stimulus bill in 2009 funded several innovative storm drain 
projects in the South Bay and a series of low impact development rain

[[Page H2601]]

gardens along Ballona Creek, all of which help prevent polluted storm 
water runoff from entering Santa Monica Bay.
  The communities of Santa Monica Bay have been more than worthy 
partners for Washington. This bill will help to make sure the federal 
government lives up to its end of the deal. It will require that 
federal agencies participate in the management planning process for the 
estuaries that receive the grants, incorporate local priorities into 
their actions and increase coordination between the many federal 
agencies that either work in or impact estuaries.
  But the bill also looks forward. Estuary management programs will be 
required to identify their estuary's vulnerability to climate change 
and prepare adaptation responses, and will work to educate the public 
on estuary health issues.
  Over my eight terms in Congress I have worked to obtain federal 
grants and strongly supported efforts to preserve the Ballona wetlands 
and Santa Monica Bay. I again stand in support of those areas, vital 
both to our environmental and our economic health.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chair, I rise and ask unanimous consent to address the 
House for one minute.
  I support the reauthorization of the National Estuary Program, NEP, 
through the adoption of H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010.
  Estuaries are bodies of water that receive both outflows from rivers 
and tidal inflows from the ocean.
  They are transition zones between fresh water from rivers and saline 
water from the ocean. The mixing of fresh and salt water provides a 
unique environment that supports diverse habitats for a wide variety of 
living resources, including plants, fish, and wildlife.
  Estuaries provide habitat for 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fish 
catch and 80 to 90 percent of the recreational fish catch.
  Coastal counties for 40 percent of the employment and 49 percent of 
the economic output for the nation. Estuaries are also vital to the 
health of our beaches, which produce between $6 billion and $30 billion 
for coastal communities each year.
  We need this bill because many of the Nation's estuaries are 
currently in poor ecological health.
  This bill requires the Administrator of the EPA to undertake a 
programmatic evaluation of EPA's overall National Estuaries Program to 
asses its effectiveness in improving water quality, natural resources, 
and sustainable uses of included estuaries. In addition, the bill 
requires the EPA to submit a report to Congress on the results of this 
evaluation.
  H.R. 4715 includes evaluation and update requirements to ensure 
accountability.
  With this legislation, all approved estuary programs will be 
evaluated and will now update their management plans on a periodic 
basis, increasing program transparency and improving program 
performance.
  In addition this bill requires that Federal agencies participate in 
the management planning process, incorporate local priorities into 
their activities and actions and increase coordination within the 
estuary.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4715, Clean Estuaries Act.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, as a member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee I rise to lend my strong support to H.R. 4715 
``The Clean Estuaries Act of 2010.''
  This Act will not only improve the management of our current 
estuaries, but it will allow several other sites that have expressed 
interest in becoming a part of the National Estuaries program by 
significantly increasing the funding level for the National Estuaries 
program. The sites that are interested in inclusion in my area include 
the San Pedro Bay and Newport Bay, which join thirty six other sites 
that are also interested in inclusion.
  Supporting Estuaries is critical to our prosperity because of the 
importance of coastal areas to our Nation's economy. Coastal counties 
account for 40 percent of the employment and 49 percent of the economic 
output for the nation.
  Through the adoption of the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010, all approved 
estuary programs will be evaluated and will periodically update their 
management plans, increasing program transparency and improving program 
performance. Approved programs would have to identify the impact of 
climate change on estuaries and prepare adaptation responses, as well 
as work to educate the public on estuary health issues and develop 
performance measures and targets.
  This bill will help expand the program to protect and clean our 
estuaries and I thank Congressman Bishop for his hard work bringing 
this bill through the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and 
to the floor today. I ask that my colleagues today support this bill, 
and help protect our estuaries.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of protecting our 
Nation's estuaries by passing the Clean Estuaries Act (H.R. 4715).
  I am fortunate to represent a district that borders the San Francisco 
Bay. A healthy and clean bay is central to the economic prosperity and 
quality of life of my constituents. Since 1987, the National Estuary 
Program has promoted comprehensive planning efforts to clean up and 
preserve estuaries. The legislation before us today would reauthorize 
and strengthen the National Estuary Program, providing additional 
assistance to communities to protect their waterways.
  In my community, the National Estuary Program supports the San 
Francisco Bay Estuary Partnership. This partnership brings together 
diverse stakeholders and has created dozens of projects that support a 
thriving bay. For example, at the Eden Landing Ecological Reserve in 
Hayward, hundreds of adult and student volunteers are restoring 
shoreline habitat by removing invasive plants and planting native marsh 
grasses. In addition to improving water and habitat quality, this 
project is also teaching children about the bay and how to protect it. 
The Estuary Partnership is also working with local governments in my 
district to promote and replicate proven bay-friendly best management 
practices to decrease run-off pollution into the bay. By passing the 
Clean Estuaries Act, we can ensure that these initiatives and hundreds 
of similar efforts around the country will be continued and expanded. I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4715

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Clean Estuaries Act of 
     2010''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Purposes of Conference.--
       (1) Development of comprehensive conservation and 
     management plans.--Section 320(b)(4) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(b)(4)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(4) develop and submit to the Administrator a 
     comprehensive conservation and management plan that--
       ``(A) identifies the estuary and its associated upstream 
     waters to be addressed by the plan, with consideration given 
     to hydrological boundaries;
       ``(B) recommends priority corrective actions and compliance 
     schedules addressing point and nonpoint sources of pollution 
     to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 
     biological integrity of the estuary, including restoration 
     and maintenance of water quality, a resilient and diverse 
     indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and 
     recreational activities in the estuary, and assure that the 
     designated uses of the estuary are protected;
       ``(C) considers current and future sustainable commercial 
     activities in the estuary;
       ``(D) addresses the impacts of climate change on the 
     estuary, including--
       ``(i) the identification and assessment of vulnerabilities 
     in the estuary; and
       ``(ii) the development and implementation of adaptation 
     strategies;
       ``(E) increases public education and awareness of the 
     ecological health and water quality conditions of the 
     estuary;
       ``(F) identifies and assesses impairments, including 
     upstream impairments, coming from outside of the area 
     addressed by the plan, and the sources of those impairments; 
     and
       ``(G) includes performance measures and goals to track 
     implementation of the plan.''.
       (2) Monitoring and making results available.--Section 
     320(b)(6) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(b)(6)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(6) monitor (and make results available to the public 
     regarding)--
       ``(A) water quality conditions in the estuary and its 
     associated upstream waters, as identified under paragraph 
     (4)(A);
       ``(B) habitat conditions that relate to the ecological 
     health and water quality conditions of the estuary; and
       ``(C) the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to the 
     comprehensive conservation and management plan developed for 
     the estuary under this subsection;''.
       (3) Information and educational activities.--Section 320(b) 
     of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(b)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) provide information and educational activities on the 
     ecological health and water quality conditions of the 
     estuary; and''.
       (4) Conforming amendment.--The sentence following section 
     320(b)(8) of such Act (as so redesignated) is amended by 
     striking ``paragraph (7)'' and inserting ``paragraph (8)''.
       (b) Members of Conference.--Section 320(c)(5) of such Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1330(c)(5)) is amended by inserting after 
     ``institutions,'' the following: ``not-for-profit 
     organizations,''.

[[Page H2602]]

       (c) Administration of Plans.--Section 320(f) of such Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1330(f)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Administration of Plans.--
       ``(1) Approval.--Not later than 120 days after the date on 
     which a management conference submits to the Administrator a 
     comprehensive conservation and management plan under this 
     section, and after providing for public review and comment, 
     the Administrator shall approve the plan if the Administrator 
     determines that the plan meets the requirements of this 
     section and the affected Governor or Governors concur.
       ``(2) Implementation.--Upon approval of a comprehensive 
     conservation and management plan under this section, the plan 
     shall be implemented. Funds authorized to be appropriated 
     under titles II and VI and section 319 may be used in 
     accordance with the applicable requirements of this Act to 
     assist States with the implementation of the plan.
       ``(3) Evaluation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, and every 4 years thereafter, 
     the Administrator shall complete an evaluation of the 
     implementation of each comprehensive conservation and 
     management plan developed under this section to determine the 
     degree to which the goals of the plan have been met.
       ``(B) Review and comment by management conference.--In 
     completing an evaluation under subparagraph (A), the 
     Administrator shall submit the results of the evaluation to 
     the appropriate management conference for review and comment.
       ``(C) Report.--
       ``(i) In general.--In completing an evaluation under 
     subparagraph (A), and after providing an opportunity for a 
     management conference to submit comments under subparagraph 
     (B), the Administrator shall issue a report on the results of 
     the evaluation, including the findings and recommendations of 
     the Administrator and any comments received from the 
     management conference.
       ``(ii) Availability to public.--The Administrator shall 
     make a report issued under this subparagraph available to the 
     public, including through publication in the Federal Register 
     and on the Internet.
       ``(D) Special rule for new plans.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (A), if a management conference submits a new 
     comprehensive conservation and management plan to the 
     Administrator after the date of enactment of this paragraph, 
     the Administrator shall complete the evaluation of the plan 
     required by subparagraph (A) not later than 4 years after the 
     date of such submission and every 4 years thereafter.
       ``(4) Updates.--
       ``(A) Requirement.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     on which the Administrator makes an evaluation of a 
     comprehensive conservation and management plan available to 
     the public under paragraph (3)(C), a management conference 
     convened under this section shall submit to the Administrator 
     an update of the plan. The updated plan shall reflect, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, the results of the program 
     evaluation.
       ``(B) Approval of updates.--Not later than 120 days after 
     the date on which a management conference submits to the 
     Administrator an updated comprehensive conservation and 
     management plan under subparagraph (A), and after providing 
     for public review and comment, the Administrator shall 
     approve the updated plan if the Administrator determines that 
     the updated plan meets the requirements of this section.
       ``(5) Probationary status.--The Administrator may consider 
     a management conference convened under this section to be in 
     probationary status if the management conference has not 
     received approval for an updated comprehensive conservation 
     and management plan under paragraph (4)(B) on or before the 
     last day of the 3-year period beginning on the date on which 
     the Administrator makes an evaluation of the plan available 
     to the public under paragraph (3)(C).''.
       (d) Federal Agencies.--Section 320 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1330) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (g), (h), (i), (j), and 
     (k) as subsections (h), (i), (j), (k), and (m), respectively; 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
       ``(g) Federal Agencies.--
       ``(1) Activities conducted within estuaries with approved 
     plans.--After approval of a comprehensive conservation and 
     management plan by the Administrator, any Federal action or 
     activity affecting the estuary shall be conducted, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, in a manner consistent with the 
     plan.
       ``(2) Coordination and cooperation.--The Secretary of the 
     Army (acting through the Chief of Engineers), the 
     Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, the Director of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, the Chief of the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service, and the heads of other appropriate 
     Federal agencies, as determined by the Administrator, shall, 
     to the maximum extent practicable, cooperate and coordinate 
     activities related to the implementation of a comprehensive 
     conservation and management plan approved by the 
     Administrator. The Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     serve as the lead coordinating agency under this paragraph.
       ``(3) Consideration of plans in agency budget requests.--In 
     making an annual budget request for a Federal agency referred 
     to in paragraph (2), the head of such agency shall consider 
     the responsibilities of the agency under this section, 
     including under comprehensive conservation and management 
     plans approved by the Administrator.
       ``(4) Monitoring.--The heads of the Federal agencies 
     referred to in paragraph (2) shall collaborate on the 
     development of tools and methodologies for monitoring the 
     ecological health and water quality conditions of estuaries 
     covered by a management conference convened under this 
     section.''.
       (e) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--Section 320(h) of such Act (as 
     redesignated by subsection (d) of this section) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Effects of probationary status.--
       ``(A) Reductions in grant amounts.--The Administrator shall 
     reduce, by an amount to be determined by the Administrator, 
     grants for the implementation of a comprehensive conservation 
     and management plan developed by a management conference 
     convened under this section if the Administrator determines 
     that the management conference is in probationary status 
     under subsection (f)(5).
       ``(B) Termination of management conferences.--The 
     Administrator shall terminate a management conference 
     convened under this section, and cease funding for the 
     implementation of the comprehensive conservation and 
     management plan developed by the management conference, if 
     the Administrator determines that the management conference 
     has been in probationary status for 2 consecutive years.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 320(i) of such Act (as 
     redesignated by subsection (d) of this section) is amended by 
     striking ``subsection (g)'' and inserting ``subsection (h)''.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 320(j) of 
     such Act (as redesignated by subsection (d) of this section) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Administrator $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2011 through 2016 for--
       ``(A) expenses related to the administration of management 
     conferences under this section, except that such expenses 
     shall not exceed 10 percent of the amount appropriated under 
     this subsection;
       ``(B) making grants under subsection (h); and
       ``(C) monitoring the implementation of a conservation and 
     management plan by the management conference, or by the 
     Administrator in any case in which the conference has been 
     terminated.
       ``(2) Allocations.--Of the sums authorized to be 
     appropriated under this subsection, the Administrator shall 
     provide--
       ``(A) at least $1,250,000 per fiscal year, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, for the development, 
     implementation, and monitoring of each conservation and 
     management plan eligible for grant assistance under 
     subsection (h); and
       ``(B) up to $5,000,000 per fiscal year to carry out 
     subsection (k).''.
       (g) Technical Amendment.--Section 320(k)(1)(A) of such Act 
     (as redesignated by subsection (d) of this section) is 
     amended by striking ``paramenters'' and inserting 
     ``parameters''.
       (h) National Estuary Program Evaluation.--Section 320 of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 1330) is amended by inserting after 
     subsection (k) (as redesignated by subsection (d) of this 
     section) the following:
       ``(l) National Estuary Program Evaluation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, and every 4 years thereafter, 
     the Administrator shall complete an evaluation of the 
     national estuary program established under this section.
       ``(2) Specific assessments.--In conducting an evaluation 
     under this subsection, the Administrator shall assess the 
     effectiveness of the national estuary program in improving 
     water quality, natural resources, and sustainable uses of the 
     estuaries covered by management conferences convened under 
     this section.
       ``(3) Report.--In completing an evaluation under this 
     subsection, the Administrator shall issue a report on the 
     results of the evaluation, including the findings and 
     recommendations of the Administrator.
       ``(4) Availability to public.--The Administrator shall make 
     a report issued under this subsection available to the 
     public, including through publication in the Federal Register 
     and on the Internet.''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill is in order except those printed 
in House Report 111-463. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in 
the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Oberstar

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 111-463.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H2603]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Oberstar:
       Page 4, strike lines 13 through 15 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(E) increases public education and awareness with respect 
     to--
       ``(i) the ecological health of the estuary;
       ``(ii) the water quality conditions of the estuary; and
       ``(iii) ocean, estuarine, land, and atmospheric connections 
     and interactions;
       Page 8, line 15, insert ``the implementation of'' before 
     ``the plan''.
       Page 8, line 22, insert ``the implementation of'' before 
     ``a comprehensive''.
       Page 10, line 25, insert ``, including monitoring 
     activities,'' after ``activities''.
       Page 11, after line 18, insert the following:
       (1) Recipients.--Section 320(h)(1) of such Act (as 
     redesignated by subsection (d) of this section) is amended by 
     striking ``other public'' and all that follows before the 
     period at the end and inserting ``and other public or 
     nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and 
     organizations''.
       Page 11, line 19, strike ``(1) In general.--'' and insert 
     ``(2) Effects of probationary status.--''.
       Page 11, line 21, insert ``further'' before ``amended''.
       Page 12, line 17, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 15, after line 8, insert the following:
       (i) Convening of Conference.--Section 320(a)(2) of such Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1330(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(2) Convening of conference.--'' and all 
     that follows through ``In any case'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Convening of conference.--In any case''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1248, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes technical changes to 
the underlying bill. It ensures the continued competitive nature of the 
National Estuary Program.
  We ensure that the program evaluations will assess whether the 
implementation of a comprehensive conservation and management plan is 
achieving its stated goals.
  The amendment will enhance public education on the connections 
between air, land, water, and the potential impacts of those factors on 
the health of the estuary.
  It will strike the existing statutory priority list of estuaries.
  It will remove individuals from the list of approved recipients for 
grants under this program.
  First, the technical changes will ensure that program evaluations 
determine whether the implementation of a management plan is reaching 
its stated goals. It will ensure that not only the plan but the 
implementation of the plan is achieving improvements in water quality 
and habitat in the estuary.
  Second, the amendment ensures that the public education component of 
any management plan will include and will highlight the connections 
within the estuary between air, land, and water and the potential 
impacts of those interactions. Estuaries will be able to highlight to 
citizens living within the boundaries of the estuary how their actions 
will affect the health of the estuary and how they can change their 
habits or how they can change their actions to improve the quality of 
the estuary.
  Third, the amendment strikes existing statutory language that lists a 
number of States and regions to receive priority consideration under 
the program. That historical prioritization does not reflect estuaries 
that are part of the National Estuary Plan. Some estuaries on the list 
do not now participate in the program. The 12 estuaries that do 
participate are not included on the list, so that prioritization is 
superfluous.
  This change does not mean that estuaries now in the NEP will be 
removed. It means that existing programs must continue to meet their 
obligations under the program and meet the performance requirements of 
the legislation to continue to be part of the National Estuary Program. 
It will be a competitive program. That is the purpose of the changes 
that I've just cited.
  Finally, we strike statutory language that now allows individuals to 
be eligible grant recipients under the program. No individual has ever 
received a grant under the program, according to the EPA, so there is 
no need to have that language in the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, though 
I am not opposed to the bill.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Again, I just rise to say that we are very much in 
support of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for those remarks.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of 
the manager's amendment offered by the Chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Oberstar.
  This amendment makes a few technical changes to the underlying 
legislation and to the existing National Estuaries Program.
  First, the amendment clarifies that the increased accountability 
called for in the bill includes a review of the implementation of 
existing comprehensive conservation and management plans, and not just 
of the plans, themselves.
  Second, the amendment ensures that the public is provided with 
additional information on the relationship between air quality, water 
quality, and land use, and their potential impacts on the overall 
health of local estuaries.
  Oftentimes, locally developed solutions are the most cost-effective 
and long-lasting way to improve the environment. This has been the 
basis of success for many of the existing national estuary programs.
  Following this model, the manager's amendment includes language to 
encourage public education on the interconnectivity of local air, 
water, and land resources.
  With more information, the average citizen can be more aware of how 
his or her actions affect the environment around them, and how small 
changes in an individual's everyday life can have substantial positive 
impacts on the local environment.
  Third, the manager's amendment addresses one of the legacies of the 
initial authorization for the National Estuaries Program by deleting 
the outdated, statutory priority list of estuaries.
  All but one of the estuaries on the existing list already have 
recognized estuary program offices.
  The intent of this change is not to eliminate any of the existing 28 
estuary programs, but to clarify that estuaries are not simply entitled 
to remain in the program. If an estuary program continues to meet its 
obligations under the Clean Water Act, and the enhanced accountability 
called for in this legislation, they will continue to remain in the 
program.
  However, the intent of this legislation is also to ensure that 
individual program offices are reaching their goals of improving water 
quality and the overall ecological health of the estuary.
  The final change proposed by this amendment is to eliminate the 
eligibility of individuals for grant assistance under this program. 
According to EPA, no individual has ever received a grant under this 
program, so this is unused authority.
  Mr. Chair, I support the amendment and urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Oberstar

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 111-463.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that I 
offer on behalf of Ms. Pingree and yourself.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Oberstar:
       Page 14, strike lines 17 through 23 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(2) Specific assessments.--In conducting an evaluation 
     under this subsection, the Administrator shall--
       ``(A) assess the effectiveness of the national estuary 
     program in improving water quality, natural resources, and 
     sustainable uses of the estuaries covered by management 
     conferences convened under this section;
       ``(B) identify best practices for improving water quality, 
     natural resources, and sustainable uses of the estuaries 
     covered by management conferences convened under this 
     section, including those practices funded through the use of 
     technical assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency 
     and other Federal agencies, and assess the reasons why such 
     practices result in the achievement of program goals; and
       ``(C) identify any redundant requirements for reporting by 
     recipients of a grant under

[[Page H2604]]

     this section, and develop and recommend a plan for limiting 
     reporting redundancies.
       Page 15, line 4, strike ``to public''.
       Page 15, line 6, insert ``management conferences convened 
     under this section and'' before ``the public''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1248, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time so the distinguished 
ranking member of the committee may speak at this moment.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although 
I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MICA. I think we've reached a bipartisan accord. I support the 
gentlewoman from Maine and also the gentleman from Texas who have 
offered this amendment.
  I did not have an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to speak during the 
general debate. I was delayed.
  After saying that our side does support this pending amendment, 
which, in the absence of the sponsors is being offered by the chair of 
the committee, I do want to take this opportunity to, first of all, 
thank Mr. Oberstar, our chair, and the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Arkansas, who has conceded time and is doing an incredible job in 
heading up our side of the aisle on a very important issue, which is 
water resources for the Nation.
  So, Mr. Boozman, thank you for your cooperation, and thank you to the 
chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Johnson from Texas.
  A lot of times when I go back home and people say, Well, Congress 
doesn't work well, and Congress does this and Congress does that or 
they are always fighting and bickering, it's good to be a part of the 
committee, of the largest committee in Congress, I might add--
Transportation and Infrastructure--which has six subcommittees and a 
very important one here, Water Resources. Water Resources controls all 
of the major water projects in the country--dams, levees. In this case, 
we are the stewards for the Nation and, really, for what the good Lord 
gave us, which is our estuaries.
  Most people don't know much about estuaries, but we do have that 
responsibility to make certain that they are preserved, that they are 
protected, and that we do the best with the money that is given to us 
on behalf of the taxpayers to protect that part of nature and our 
ecological system that, again, is so vital.
  I do want to thank Mr. Boozman and the chairs of the full committee 
and subcommittee for their work because we are here together to pass 
this in a bipartisan manner. So, on a day when many people are coming 
here to protest some of the things that do go on in Washington--big 
spending and taxation on the day we just are all paying out to the 
Federal Government--this is an example of a cooperative effort.
  Let me also say, too, as the Republican leader of the Transportation 
Committee, many people have been coming to me in the last hours and 
have been saying, Mr. Mica, how are you going to vote on this bill? 
This bill does represent an increase in funding.
  Now, you are probably looking at one of the most conservative Members 
of Congress. They listed 435 Members, and I was listed as No. 58 in the 
last week or so as far as fiscal conservative voting, and I take great 
pride in that because I worked hard for my money. I know people out 
there have worked hard to make a living and have struggled to feed 
their families and to just make ends meet. At this time, we have got to 
be particularly mindful of taxpayer dollars.

                              {time}  1500

  From time to time, there are areas in which we need to spend a few 
more dollars, and we are talking about a few dollars. We're not talking 
about billions. I do know millions add up to billions, but in this 
instance we have invested very little, and in this instance this is a 
very clear Federal responsibility. This is where seawater and 
freshwater meet. And certainly if there is an area of responsibility, 
that is a Federal responsibility. The States cannot nationally be 
responsible for waters that flow through many jurisdictional 
boundaries.
  So here is an arch fiscal conservative coming before Congress on a 
day in which we are all concerned about government spending and saying, 
yes, we should invest a few dollars more in something that, again, is 
God given, the fragile ecosystem that has been handed to us and we have 
to be good stewards of.
  So I am going to vote ``yes'' for this amendment; and when the bill 
comes up you are going to see me vote ``yes'' for the bill, even though 
it does increase spending from $35 million to $50 million.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Taylor). The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the distinguished cosponsor of the amendment, the gentlewoman from 
Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries Act, is an important 
step towards restoring our Nation's most critical estuaries. This bill 
will create jobs and strengthen communities. I strongly support the 
bill and want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), for 
their hard work in crafting this legislation.
  One way to improve the efficiency and ensure the program is 
functioning at its highest level is to share information. The local 
estuary partnerships work closely with the Federal Government, but all 
too often the detailing of what works well in one estuary is not 
formally shared with the other estuaries.
  That is why Representative Cuellar and I are offering an amendment 
that requires the EPA to collect best practices and then share them 
with the estuaries. The amendment improves efficiency and smooth 
operation of the NEPs by helping them connect with other estuaries and 
build on work that has already been done.
  Like many of you, in my district I have a mall, the largest mall in 
the State. It is built around a stream that flows into Casco Bay. And 
when it rains, the water runs off the roofs and parking lots, washing 
the oil, salt, and other contaminants on the pavement into Long Creek. 
Because of all this development, Long Creek is an urban-impaired 
watershed, and this means until the water quality is improved, the 
mall, businesses around the mall, as well as State and local government 
who own the roads face tougher storm water management restrictions.
  This amendment will keep the businesses and local governments in the 
Long Creek watershed from having to start over when faced with 
questions on how to manage storm water. By using tested, known best 
practices, the businesses will save money and water quality in Long 
Creek will improve faster. The amendment reduces the costs of improving 
water quality and saves these important businesses real money.
  The amendment helps to ensure that all of our estuary stakeholders, 
including those in Long Creek, have access to the very best tools and 
methods for protecting and restoring water quality.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I now yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Oberstar; the 
subcommittee chairwoman also, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson); Ms. Pingree also for the work she has done; and, of 
course, our ranking members, Mr. Boozman, for the work that you and Mr. 
Mica have done.
  This particular amendment is to support government efficiency. We 
both believe this amendment will eliminate waste and redundancies in 
the programs and will improve the effectiveness and cut back wasteful 
spending.
  This amendment authorizes the Administrator of the EPA to identify, 
number one, best management practices for allocating resources in an 
efficient and effective manner. It would outline key reasons why such 
practices will result in positive outcomes and disseminate the best 
practices to the management conferences. Also, this amendment 
identifies redundant rules,

[[Page H2605]]

regulations, and requirements for reporting by grant recipients and 
instructs the EPA Administrator to develop a plan to eliminate those 
redundancies in the future.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, will make our government more 
efficient, more effective, and more accountable by conducting this type 
of evaluation. I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
chair of our subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  This amendment makes two important changes to the underlying bill 
that should benefit the overall effectiveness of the National Estuary 
Program.
  First, the amendment requires the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to conduct an assessment of best practices for 
improving water quality, natural resources, and sustainable uses of the 
estuary as part of the Agency's periodic evaluation of the National 
Estuary Program.
  Following this assessment, the Administrator would be required to 
disseminate information on these best practices to other estuary 
management conferences convened under section 320, as well as to the 
public.
  I support this provision because it will provide a good, centralized 
resource on successful, locally produced practices for improving the 
overall health of estuarine areas.
  This clearinghouse should provide valuable information to other 
management conferences and the general public on what practices are 
being successfully implemented in the field so that each management 
conference does not have to ``reinvent the wheel'' each time they are 
looking for creative ideas to benefit their local environment.
  While what works in one area of the country may not necessarily work 
in another, I would suspect that simply sharing success stories on 
management practices will have an overall benefit to local restoration 
efforts.
  The second change proposed by this amendment is to require the 
Administrator to identify potential redundant reporting requirements 
for grant recipients, and to propose a plan for reducing such 
redundancy.
  It would seem common sense that where efficiencies in reporting 
requirements can be achieved in such a way that reduces the overall 
burden on grant recipients, but does not impact the overall operation 
of the program or its accountability to taxpayers, such an effort 
should be undertaken.
  I support this amendment, and urge its adoption.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kagen

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 111-463.
  Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Kagen:
       Page 4, line 19, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 4, line 21, strike the first period through the final 
     period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 4, after line 21, insert the following:
       ``(H) includes a coordinated monitoring strategy for 
     Federal, State, and local governments and other entities.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1248, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KAGEN. I thank Chairman Oberstar for allowing me to move this 
amendment forward. And, Ms. Johnson, thank you very much. And it's good 
to see Mr. Boozman on the floor.
  This is a very simple and straightforward amendment that includes 
language for measuring the outcomes. The coordination and cooperation 
between State, local, and Federal agencies will be necessary to 
guarantee that our dollars are well spent and that we have a very 
efficient operation as we protect our estuaries.
  So I would submit this amendment and hope that I would have 
bipartisan support for it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I rise to support the amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of 
the amendment from the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).
  This amendment requires a monitoring effort on the part of National 
Estuary Program partners.
  A coordinated monitoring program is very important to ensure the 
success of these programs.
  Monitoring is a key piece of any restoration plan. This amendment 
will help to increase efficiencies, save money and reduce duplicative 
activities by requiring the partners to coordinate their monitoring 
activities.
  Also, requiring monitoring by the partners will mean that the 
management conference, and the appropriate Federal, State and local 
agencies will be able to measure the accomplishments of the management 
conference. Without monitoring, the management conference will not be 
able to determine if the plan has succeeded or failed at improving 
water quality and the habitat of the estuary.
  I commend our Committee colleague for offering this amendment, and 
urge its approval.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KAGEN. I thank the kind gentleman for agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in the true spirit of a very efficient operation, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Schauer

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 111-463.
  Mr. SCHAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Schauer:
       Page 15, after line 8, add the following:
       (i) Great Lakes Estuaries.--Section 320(m) of such Act (as 
     redesignated by subsection (d) of this section) is amended by 
     striking the subsection designation and all that follows 
     through ``and those portions of tributaries'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(m) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `estuary' 
     and `estuarine zone' have the meanings such terms have in 
     section 104(n)(4), except that--
       ``(1) the term `estuary' also includes near coastal waters 
     and other bodies of water within the Great Lakes that are 
     similar in form and function to the waters described in the 
     definition of `estuary' contained in section 104(n)(4); and
       ``(2) the term `estuarine zone' also includes--
       ``(A) waters within the Great Lakes described in paragraph 
     (1) and transitional areas from such waters that are similar 
     in form and function to the transitional areas described in 
     the definition of `estuarine zone' contained in section 
     104(n)(4);
       ``(B) associated aquatic ecosystems; and
       ``(C) those portions of tributaries''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1248, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Schauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SCHAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The amendment before you would define ``estuary'' under the Clean 
Water Act to include Great Lakes near shore waters and connecting 
waters that are similar to traditional estuaries covered by the 
National Estuary Program. The amendment would allow Great Lakes 
estuaries eligible to apply on a competitive basis for inclusion in the 
National Estuary Program.
  The Great Lakes and surrounding waters are a valuable natural 
resource of national importance, and it makes sense that they are 
eligible to apply for inclusion in this competitive grant program. 
Again, my amendment would clearly define ``estuary'' to include Great 
Lakes waterways and connecting waterways.
  The Great Lakes hold 90 percent of the United States surface 
freshwater, 20 percent of the world's freshwater, and are the largest 
system of fresh surface water on Earth. The Midwest relies on the Great 
Lakes for commerce,

[[Page H2606]]

tourism, and drinking water. Unfortunately, the health of the Great 
Lakes has been threatened by pollution, invasive species, and water 
withdrawals. Failure to protect the Great Lakes now could result in 
more serious consequences. Conservationists, environmental stewards, 
hunters, fishermen, and outdoorsmen from all over the country share my 
sentiment.
  Including the Great Lakes waterways in the National Estuary Program 
will help create long-term planning and management of both point and 
nonpoint sources of pollution and protect areas of commercial 
importance from ecological risks.
  Mr. Chair, we need to do everything we can to protect Great Lakes 
waterways. We can make another step in the right direction by expanding 
the definition of ``estuary'' to include the Great Lakes waterways and 
allow these waterways to be eligible for funding in the National 
Estuary Program. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will pull money out of the 
National Estuary Program and send it to address the needs of the Great 
Lakes.
  The National Estuary Program is meant to assist those in important 
ecological areas in our country where the freshwater of rivers meets 
and mixes with seawater. By any scientific definition, there are no 
estuaries in the Great Lakes.
  Over the years, Congress has created and funded a number of programs 
to address the needs of the Great Lakes. We have established an entire 
office in the EPA to work on the Great Lakes issue. While there are 
many worthy projects that could be done in the Great Lakes, I believe 
we should use existing Great Lakes programs to address those needs and 
not dilute the National Estuary Program. If the gentleman believes that 
more should be done for the Great Lakes, then we should have the debate 
on whether or not to modify the existing Great Lakes program. Members 
who have true estuaries in their States which are very coastal in 
nature should be concerned about this amendment diluting the intent and 
the dollars associated with this important program.
  To my colleagues in the Great Lakes States who understandably might 
be tempted to a support this amendment, I would say this amendment 
makes about as much sense as suggesting that the Great Lakes Legacy Act 
dollars should be used to address the needs of the Chesapeake Bay. The 
Great Lakes and the Nation's estuaries are both important areas. Let's 
address them in the context of their own separate legislation and not 
make one complete with the other.
  With that, I urge Members to oppose the Schauer amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. SCHAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have great respect for my colleague's comments. My amendment would 
merely bring this National Estuary Program into compliance and 
consistency with the 2000 Estuaries and Clean Waters Act. For purposes 
of that act, Congress's definition of estuaries included Great Lakes. 
So in substance, this definition would be exactly the same as the 2000 
Estuaries and Clean Waters Act.
  I now yield to the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  While I respect the remarks of the gentleman from Arkansas, we 
specify in this amendment, Mr. Schauer does, that the meeting place of 
the rivers and the lakes is not a traditional estuary, is not a meeting 
place of fresh and saltwater, but that these points would be treated as 
estuaries. As an example, the lamprey eel lays its eggs in the 
discharge point of the rivers that contribute to and discharge into the 
Great Lakes. That is a meeting place of river water and lake water 
where a destructive, nonindigenous, invasive species multiplies.
  Including the Great Lakes in the estuary program will provide 
additional authority for the Great Lakes to work to control this 
monster that destroys the fishery of the Great Lakes. This is not an 
allocation, this is not an earmark, it is not a specific designation. 
It simply allows the Great Lakes to compete for available dollars 
authorized under this program.
  We think that this body of the greatest repository of freshwater on 
the earth ought to have standing among the others that have designation 
as estuaries. Those meeting places on the Great Lakes are every bit as 
important as the meeting places of the freshwater rivers and the 
saltwater repositories of a traditional estuary definition.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again having great respect for our chairman, the point that I am 
trying to make is that I understand the problems that we face in the 
Great Lakes. And this is a body of such significance. And yet, again, 
my feeling is that we should take care of that problem within the 
structure that we have within the Great Lakes program. I see no need to 
expand the estuary program to take care of the Great Lakes.
  If we need additional moneys, if we need additional infrastructure in 
fighting the battles with the invasive species and things that were 
mentioned, then I feel like the place to do that is within the Great 
Lakes programs rather than diluting the moneys, a relatively small 
amount of money, diluting the money from the estuary program.
  With that, I reserve my balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHAUER. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points in closing.
  The Federal Government's Web site on this topic of estuaries, it 
refers to the Great Lakes as freshwater estuaries that are, quote, 
``affected by tides and storms, just as estuaries along the oceanic 
coasts are.'' In fact, there is currently a federally-recognized 
freshwater estuary in Ohio located on Lake Erie.
  My final point, there is a group called Healthy Lakes--Healthy Lives 
that wrote in support of this amendment. They state that, 
``Traditionally, estuaries are transition zones along our coasts 
between fresh water from rivers and saline water from oceans. 
Regardless of whether it is a traditional mix of fresh and saltwater 
areas that are similar, all estuaries provide a unique environment that 
supports diverse habitats.''
  I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I have been married for 38 
years. I have a wonderful wife. I fell in love with her almost at first 
sight. We have been together for three, almost four decades. Probably 
the one I spend the most time with other than my wife is Mr. Oberstar 
in my work on the committee. We have been together on the committee for 
my 18 years. He has been there for 32, a lot longer. Now, with my wife 
from time to time I do have disagreements, like just about every day on 
some issue. This happens to also be with Mr. Oberstar sort of like that 
marital relation, that I would disagree both with my good friend and 
colleague Mr. Oberstar and also my colleague from Michigan.
  I think that on this, this isn't worth burning the house over, and I 
think the gentleman is offering an amendment that is well intended, and 
he has a sincere interest in protecting freshwater estuaries. A 
definition was cited about freshwater estuaries. And yes, there are 
probably thousands, maybe millions of freshwater estuaries. That is the 
whole point here is we are expanding a limited definition of marine 
estuaries that have saltwater. And one of the justifications for this 
whole program at the Federal level is the sea does encompass the entire 
perimeter of our coastal areas, particularly Florida, which we have 
some of the biggest coastline. We have many places where fresh and 
saltwater mix. And that is the importance of this particularly 
important but very small Federal program.

[[Page H2607]]

  The argument here isn't increasing this billions, we are going from 
$35 to $50 million in a program. And it is important that the 
additional money not be so diluted. So while I support the gentleman in 
what he would like to do with freshwater estuaries, I don't think that 
this expansion is appropriate when we are looking at including the body 
of freshwater estuaries. We do have a disagreement on this. And I do 
support the bill in general. I do take deference with this particular 
amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Does it help that the Merchant Marine Act of 1970 
designates the Great Lakes as the fourth seacoast?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of 
the amendment from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schauer).
  This amendment would define the term ``estuary'' for the purposes of 
this bill to include Great Lakes waters, including those near shore 
waters and connections that are similar to traditional estuaries.
  Currently, coastal estuaries are the only estuaries that are eligible 
to apply for competitive grants under the National Estuary Program. The 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schauer) would 
authorize interested management conferences in Great Lakes waters to 
apply for competitive grants under the National Estuary Program.
  I support the amendment.
  The CHAIR. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Schauer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
House Report 111-463.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin:
       Page 14, strike lines 3 through 6 and insert the following:
       (g) Research.--Section 320(k)(1)(A) of such Act (as 
     redesignated by subsection (d) of this section) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``paramenters'' and inserting 
     ``parameters''; and
       (2) by inserting ``(including monitoring of both pathways 
     and ecosystems to track the introduction and establishment of 
     nonnative species)'' before ``, to provide the 
     Administrator''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1248, the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the most destructive threats to the ecological 
integrity and health of estuaries across our Nation, as well as other 
water bodies such as rivers and lakes, are invasive species. Invasive 
species destroy ecosystems and have a devastating effect on the health 
and balance of these systems, including the estuaries that we are 
trying so hard to protect through the National Estuary Program. For 
example, the San Francisco Estuary has been called one of the most 
invaded estuaries in the world.
  Once these species are established, Federal and State authorities 
spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to eliminate them, and 
failing that, to manage them and repair the enormous ecological and 
economic damage they have done and are doing to these important 
ecosystems. As I speak, the Army Corps of Engineers is undertaking 
efforts to prevent the latest of these threats to Lake Michigan in my 
district, the Asian carp, from overrunning this ecological and national 
treasure.
  This amendment would include assessments of the pathways by which 
these unwelcome guests are getting into estuaries in the long term 
monitoring and assessment efforts authorized through the National 
Estuary Program. For example, one pathway of introduction for nonnative 
species in an estuary is the ballast water in ships that they may 
discharge as they move through these bodies of water. By strengthening 
monitoring of this threat in the estuaries, it is my hope that it will 
help improve data available to the various stakeholders, to EPA's 
national program office and Congress on how nonnative species are 
affecting our estuaries, track whether this problem is getting better 
or worse, and guide the development of targeted and effective solutions 
to help address and defeat these invaders.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  April 15, 2010 on H2607 the following appeared: to the various 
stakeholders, to EPS's
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: to the various 
stakeholders, to EPA's


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. We just want to go on the record as supporting this 
amendment and urge its adoption.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman. I also want to thank 
the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, for 
his support of this amendment as well. I know he shares my concerns 
about the problem of invasive species in ballast water, and I sure look 
forward to working with him on another bill to address those concerns 
more specifically.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of 
the amendment from the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  This amendment would add a new focus area to the existing list of 
research programs the Environmental Protection Agency administrator can 
implement under the National Estuary Program.
  In the existing statutory language for the National Estuary Program, 
there is a list of research programs the administrator is authorized to 
coordinate and implement with other Federal agencies. This amendment 
would allow for a research program related to nonnative species.
  Nonnative or invasive species continue to be a threat to many of our 
waterbodies, including estuaries.
  Adding a new research focus that looks at the potential impacts of 
nonnative species and the pathways for introduction in estuaries would 
be very helpful in better understanding the potential impacts of these 
species to the water quality, natural resource benefits, and 
sustainable uses of the estuary.
  The programs that experience threats from nonnative species in their 
estuaries could incorporate any information obtained from this research 
into their plans in the future.
  I support the amendment.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Shea-Porter

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
House Report 111-463.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Ms. Shea-Porter:
       Page 4, line 10, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 4, line 12, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 4, after line 12, insert the following:
       ``(iii) the impacts of changes in sea level on estuarine 
     water quality, estuarine habitat, and infrastructure located 
     in the estuary;

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1248, the gentlewoman from 
New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Hampshire.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Bishop, and Mr. 
LoBiondo for their work on this bill. I have the honor of representing 
the First Congressional District of New Hampshire, which is home to the 
Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership. PREP, as it is known, has been 
a part of the National Estuaries Program since 1995. PREP works to 
protect two estuarine systems in New Hampshire, Great Bay/Little Bay 
and Hampton Harbor. The partnership has included the entire Great Bay 
watershed in their area of focus, which includes 42 communities in New 
Hampshire and 10 communities in Maine. The National

[[Page H2608]]

Estuaries Program has been a significant source of funding and 
resources, assisting PREP in their valuable work. This reauthorization 
we are considering today will make the program stronger and allow for 
more estuaries to be included.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the threats facing our estuaries is sea level 
change. As the sea level rises, it pushes the water further inland, 
changing the makeup of our estuaries and wetlands. In some cases, the 
effect may be that the wetlands move further inland. However, in areas 
like the Northeast, where our land is highly developed, this may not be 
possible.

                              {time}  1530

  There may be no place for the plants and animals that depend on the 
unique make-up of these estuaries to go. They may, literally, hit a 
roadblock, and those ecosystems would collapse. Mr. Chairman, the 
threat of that happening should worry us all.
  Estuaries are essential habitats. They support countless species of 
plants, animals, and sea life. They act as nursery grounds for oceanic 
species and are the pathways for many species of fish that migrate from 
the oceans into our rivers. In fact, estuaries provide habitat for 75 
percent of the commercial fishing catch and up to 90 percent of the 
recreational fishing catch in this country.
  Estuaries and wetlands also act as buffers to the storms that batter 
our coasts. I volunteered in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and I 
can tell you firsthand the devastation that the storm caused. Many 
scientists have attributed the significant loss of coastal lands and 
salt marshes outside of New Orleans as a factor in the severity of the 
damage that the storm caused.
  Mr. Chairman, sea levels are changing. Whether you agree or disagree 
that global climate change is the cause, we should all be alarmed by 
the potential impact rising sea levels could have on these important 
habitats. It has been estimated that sea level rise could convert as 
much as 33 percent of the world's coastal wetlands to open water. That 
right would be a devastating loss for our coastal community.
  Mr. Chairman, this straightforward amendment would simply ensure that 
sea level change is taken into account when the comprehensive 
conservation and management plans are constructed. These estuaries are 
important parts of our coastal communities and their economies, and we 
need to help them survive.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying 
bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, we do not oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Yes, I will yield.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in support 
of the amendment. It does not add cost. It does not add any burden on 
the process, but it does add an element of review in the evaluation of 
these plans and that is to take into consideration sea level rise 
that's already happening on our sea coasts, on our salt water coasts. 
And the addition of this factor, I think, will make all of the planners 
sensitive to the effects, the erosions, shore line erosion effects of 
rise of water levels and their consequential effects on the health of 
the estuaries.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of 
the amendment from the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-
Porter).
  This amendment would require that individual comprehensive 
conservation and management plans evaluate the impacts of changes in 
sea level as they apply to the surrounding estuarine region.
  Changes in sea level are likely in the future and it is without 
question that our coasts are vulnerable to the impacts of these 
changes.
  For example, water quality and habitat in the estuaries would be 
affected by changes in sea level. In addition, those wildlife and fish 
that make the estuaries their home could be affected by these changes.
  And last, public infrastructure along the coasts and in estuaries 
will likely be affected by changes in sea level.
  In particular, roads, bridges and water-related infrastructure could 
be potentially harmed, inundated, or rendered ineffective by changes in 
sea level.
  Therefore, it is important that the management plans assess the 
potential impacts caused by sea level rise and include potential 
responses to these threats.
  Again, I support the amendment and applaud the gentlewoman for 
offering it.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank Chairman 
Oberstar, Mr. Bishop and Mr. LoBiondo for their work and leadership on 
this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the 
underlying bill, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Hampshire will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Kratovil

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in 
House Report 111-463.
  Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Kratovil:
       Page 6, strike line 3, and insert the following:
       (b) Members of Conference; Collaborative Processes.--
       (1) Members of conference.--Section 320(c)(5)
       Page 6, after line 6, insert the following:
       (2) Collaborative processes.--Section 320(d) of such Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1330(d)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(d)'' and all that follows through ``In 
     developing'' and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Utilization of Existing Data and Collaborative 
     Processes.--
       ``(1) Utilization of existing data.--In developing''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Utilization of collaborative processes.--In updating 
     a plan under subsection (f)(4) or developing a new plan under 
     subsection (b), a management conference shall make use of 
     collaborative processes to--
       ``(A) ensure equitable inclusion of affected interests;
       ``(B) engage with members of the management conference, 
     including through--
       ``(i) the use of consensus-based decision rules; and
       ``(ii) assistance from impartial facilitators, as 
     appropriate;
       ``(C) ensure relevant information, including scientific, 
     technical, and cultural information, is accessible to 
     members;
       ``(D) promote accountability and transparency by ensuring 
     members are informed in a timely manner of--
       ``(i) the purposes and objectives of the management 
     conference; and
       ``(ii) the results of an evaluation conducted under 
     subsection (f)(3);
       ``(E) identify the roles and responsibilities of members--
       ``(i) in the management conference proceedings; and
       ``(ii) in the implementation of the plan; and
       ``(F) seek resolution of conflicts or disputes as 
     necessary.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1248, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Kratovil) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 
4715, the Clean Estuaries Act, and voice my support also for the 
underlying bill.
  Let me begin by thanking the chairman, Mr. Oberstar, who, as the 
Chair knows, has the finest voice of all in Congress; and should he 
ever leave Congress, could certainly go forward in doing commentating 
somewhere.
  But, in any event, Mr. Chairman, Maryland's First Congressional 
District is defined by the Chesapeake Bay and its waterways. Although 
not directly part of the National Estuary Program, the program was 
developed from efforts to protect our Nation's largest estuary, the 
Chesapeake Bay.
  Estuaries are bodies of water, as you've heard, that receive both 
outflows from rivers and tidal inflows

[[Page H2609]]

from the ocean. They are transition zones between fresh water from 
rivers and salt water from the ocean. The mixing of fresh and salt 
water provides a unique environment that supports diverse habitats for 
a wide variety of living resources, including plants, fish, and 
wildlife.
  Estuaries are critical economic engines that generate billions of 
dollars in revenue each year from fishing and tourism. The sad truth is 
that along with many of the Nation's estuaries, the Chesapeake is in 
poor ecological health as well, although we did have, Mr. Chairman, 
some good news yesterday in terms of the blue crab population which I'm 
happy to report is rebounding.
  Unhealthy estuaries impact not only the commercial and recreational 
fishing industries, but threaten industries such as tourism, 
restaurants and charter boats, among others, that generate revenue and 
create good-paying jobs.
  This bill includes effective reforms to that program that will 
bolster the health of estuaries, as well as the economy and 
infrastructure of affected communities by increasing transparency, 
requiring establishment of performance measures and goals, and 
introducing much needed accountability to the program.
  This legislation will support and maintain the Maryland Coastal Bays 
program as one of the most effective estuary programs in the Nation and 
ensure that taxpayer dollars are used effectively in the fight to do 
so.
  I have introduced an amendment that I believe will bolster the 
oversight and accountability of these programs by ensuring a 
collaborative process involving all stakeholders.
  The National Estuary Program is comprised of initiatives across the 
country that, under my amendment, will now be subject to a streamlined 
management plan that will ensure all stakeholders play a role in the 
implementation.
  My amendment calls for the equitable inclusion of all relevant 
estuary stakeholders, the use of neutral facilitators and processes to 
resolve any conflicts, and the inclusion and use of up-to-date 
information. Included among these stakeholders will be the region's 
farming and agricultural representatives, as well as environmental 
groups, so that all parties will come to the table and reach a 
consensus agreement about our mutual interests and goals.
  While some programs may have used collaborative processes in the 
past, this amendment will ensure that all new programs and all existing 
programs undergoing management plan updates will collaborate going 
forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, as well 
as the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, again, we do not oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Chairman, I'll yield to the chairman, Mr. Oberstar, 
as much time as he may consume.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the distinguished gentleman for this amendment, 
a very thoughtful, well-crafted amendment to resolve conflicts. That is 
really what the Congress should be doing, resolving conflicts and 
creating structures within our programs within which conflict can be 
resolved. And that is particularly important in development of 
management plans. There are so many different parties, some at 
loggerheads over the management of the watershed.
  This idea will ensure that we bring the development of these 
management plans to a reasonable and productive conclusion. And so I 
thank the gentleman for this amendment. Perhaps if it works, we can 
apply it to our work with the other body.
  Mr. KRATOVIL. I thank the Chair. I also thank the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) for his support of the amendment.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of 
the amendment from the Gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil).
  This amendment is essentially a reminder to the new programs of the 
National Estuary Program that collaborative processes should be used 
when developing the management plan.
  Many of the estuary programs are currently using collaborative 
processes to develop their plans and this amendment encourages these 
processes to continue in the future.
  The gentleman's amendment ensures that all relevant stakeholders in 
an estuary be given an equal voice. This concept is fundamental for 
developing a broad-base of support for restoration efforts, and for 
increasing the overall likelihood of success.
  The amendment would also require the use of a neutral party to 
resolve conflicts that arise during the development of a plan. The use 
of neutral parties can be an effective way to resolve differences 
other, more engaged stakeholders may encounter when developing a 
management plan.
  Finally, this amendment requires the inclusion of up-to-date 
information in the plans.
  As the management plans are updated, they should include the most 
recent information possible so that they are useful in helping achieve 
the long-term goals of improving the water quality and habitat in the 
estuaries.
  I commend the gentleman for offering this amendment, and urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. KRATOVIL. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Moore of Wisconsin) having assumed the chair, Mr. Cuellar, Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4715) to 
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
National Estuary Program, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________