[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 137 (Wednesday, November 12, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7911-H7913]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAMS REAUTHORIZATION
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5266) to reauthorize the National Estuary Programs, and for
other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5266
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. COMPETITIVE AWARDS.
Section 320(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1330(g)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(4) Competitive awards.--
``(A) In general.--Of the amount made available under
subsection (i)(2)(B), the Administrator shall make
competitive awards under this paragraph.
``(B) Application for awards.--The Administrator shall
solicit applications for awards under this paragraph from
State, interstate, and regional water pollution control
agencies and entities, State coastal zone management
agencies, interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit
private agencies, institutions, organizations, and
individuals.
``(C) Selection of recipients.--In selecting award
recipients under this paragraph, the Administrator shall
select recipients that are best able to address urgent and
challenging issues that threaten the ecological and economic
well-being of coastal areas. Such issues shall include--
[[Page H7912]]
``(i) extensive seagrass habitat losses resulting in
significant impacts on fisheries and water quality;
``(ii) recurring harmful algae blooms, unusual marine
mammal mortalities;
``(iii) invasive exotic species which can threaten
wastewater systems and cause other damage;
``(iv) jellyfish proliferation limiting community access to
water during peak tourism seasons;
``(v) flooding which may be related to sea level rise or
wetland degradation or loss; or
``(vi) low dissolved oxygen conditions in estuarine waters
and related nutrient management.''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 320 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1330) is amended by striking subsection (i) and
inserting the following:
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to the Administrator $27,000,000, for each of fiscal years
2014 through 2018 for--
``(A) expenses relating to the administration of grants or
awards by the Administrator under this section, including the
award and oversight of grants and awards, except that such
expenses shall not exceed 5 percent of the amount
appropriated under this subsection; and
``(B) making grants and awards under subsection (g).
``(2) Allocations.--
``(A) Conservation and management plan.--The Administrator
shall provide not less than 80 percent of the amounts made
available for this section for each fiscal year referred to
in paragraph (1) for the development, implementation, and
monitoring of each conservation and management plan eligible
for grant assistance under subsection (g)(2).
``(B) Competitive awards.--The Administrator shall provide
not less than 15 percent of the amounts made available for
this section in each fiscal year to make competitive awards
described in subsection (g)(4).''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
General Leave
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5266.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I want to thank Mr. Shuster, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Bishop, and Mr.
Larsen for helping me bring H.R. 5266, the National Estuary Programs
Reauthorization, to the floor.
I also want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Posey and Mr. Murphy of
Florida, in helping me get this legislation drafted and ushered through
the committee in a bipartisan way.
This version of the National Estuary Programs Reauthorization is
fiscally responsible by reducing the authorization levels by $8
million, while ultimately increasing the amount of money each estuary
program will receive. This reauthorization will detail just how the EPA
is to spend the authorized and appropriated money.
Unlike many programs under the Clean Water Act, the National Estuary
Program is a nonregulatory program; instead, it is designed to support
the collaborative voluntary efforts of Federal, State, and local
stakeholders to restore degraded estuaries.
Unfortunately, National Estuary Programs have been losing money due
to the EPA administrative costs. By setting limits of 5 percent for
administrative costs for the EPA, we can guarantee 80 percent of the
funding goes to the end user and the NEP and not bureaucratic salaries
and red tape.
In this year's reauthorization, we have also set aside 15 percent of
the funding for a competitive award program. This program will seek
applications meant to deal with urgent and challenging issues that
threaten the ecological and economic well-being of coastal areas.
By structuring how the money is spent and lowering authorization
levels, this legislation strikes the right balance of fiscal and
environmental responsibilities. I urge all Members to support H.R.
5266.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 5266 to reauthorize appropriations for the
National Estuary Program.
First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my committee
colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), for introducing this
legislation.
Our Nation's coasts and oceans provide a wealth of resources for the
entire country, and among these areas, nowhere is more valuable than
estuaries. Estuaries are bodies of water that receive both water from
rivers and saltwater from the sea. This mix makes a unique environment
that is extremely productive in terms of its ecosystem values.
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. Everything that
enters the smallest stream, tributary, or headwater in a watershed
eventually runs into a single outlet, impacting in some way all the
biological elements of that ecosystem and all of the commerce that
revolves around the estuary.
The First Congressional District of New York, which I have had the
honor to represent, abuts two priority estuaries with the Environmental
Protection Agency's National Estuary Program, the Peconic Bay and the
Long Island Sound.
These unique waters are precious to the residents of Long Island, and
their continued health and vitality provide multiple benefits to the
residents of Long Island and to the economic and environmental health
of the region.
I am pleased that this legislation demonstrates the willingness of
this Congress to move legislation that protects our water-related
environment. The Federal seed money that comes from the EPA's National
Estuary Program, when combined with other State and local resources,
helps to implement locally-driven solutions to local water quality
challenges.
In my view, if there are limits in the success of these programs,
they are closely related to the availability of adequate restoration
funds.
In the 111th Congress, I was the lead sponsor of another bill, H.R.
4715, the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010, that would have also authorized
the National Estuary Program, however, at higher levels than contained
in the current bill.
That legislation passed the House on a bipartisan basis and by an
overwhelming margin; however, the Senate failed to ever act on that
bill.
While H.R. 5266 does represent a significant reduction in the
authorization of appropriations for this important program, I commend
the bipartisan sponsors of this legislation for ensuring that the new
authorization shows some room to increase the funding of these locally-
driven restoration efforts, rather than simply cutting those efforts.
Too often these days, we seem driven to cut Federal spending for
programs that provide real benefit to our Nation without an awareness
of the consequences of these actions.
{time} 1630
I can only hope that in the years to come this Chamber will recognize
that there are places where the Federal Government can help and should
be making increased investments, such as to repair our crumbling
infrastructure or to protect our fragile natural environment.
These are only some of the ongoing challenges that face this Nation,
and we need a Congress that is serious about taking on the hard
questions and about making the right investments, not only for our
lives and livelihoods, but for those generations of Americans to come.
Mr. Speaker, again, I support the passage of H.R. 5266, and I urge my
colleagues to also support this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
Mr. POSEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I, again, want to thank Congressman LoBiondo for his work on this
National Estuary Program and this legislation to reauthorize this
important program for another 5 years.
Thank you also for working with me on provisions for my bill, which I
introduced with Representative Murphy of Florida--H.R. 5117, the
Estuary Urgent
[[Page H7913]]
Needs Priority Program. Our provision establishes a competitive awards
program for estuaries to help prioritize funding to estuaries facing
urgent needs. It does so without spending any additional money. We
simply reprioritize and require all money appropriated from Congress
for estuaries to actually be spent on estuaries.
Mr. Speaker, the National Estuary Program encourages communities to
work toward having healthy estuaries by providing annual base grants
for projects to improve and to monitor the quality of their water and
the species that live in them. Healthy estuaries provide a diverse home
for flora and fauna. Estuaries also provide for countless hours of
recreational enjoyment and billions of dollars in economic impact.
My congressional district is home to one of the most diverse
estuaries in the country, if not in the world--the Indian River Lagoon.
Our lagoon's natural beauty has always been central to our community as
a key to improving our quality of life, as a recreational area for
fishing and boating with friends and family, and as a significant
contributor to our local economy. I raised my family along this 156-
mile lagoon, and I know firsthand how important this legislation is to
making our local estuary program a success.
We have all seen the adverse consequences of sea grass loss and
harmful algae blooms. The opportunity to compete for additional
funding, which this bill provides, would be a valuable tool in
combating the types of issues we have seen in our estuary. The bill
before us redirects money away from the EPA's Washington bureaucracy
and toward actual projects and initiatives across the Nation's
estuaries.
I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation so that we can
continue the great work that the NEP provides as it facilitates estuary
protection and restoration initiatives.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), my friend.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
5266, the reauthorizing of the National Estuary Program.
I want to thank Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Bishop on the subcommittee and, of
course, my colleague whom I share the Aviation Subcommittee with, Mr.
LoBiondo, for their leadership on getting this bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, estuaries are a critical habitat for salmon, birds, and
many other species in the Pacific Northwest, where we know that
protecting our natural resources is good for our environment and good
for our economy.
My district borders on Puget Sound, which is our country's second
largest estuary and is a key driver of our economy in Washington State.
Trade, fishing, tourism, and outdoor recreation in our region create
and sustain thousands of jobs, and all of these activities are
dependent on a healthy Puget Sound. I have long supported estuary
restoration in the Puget Sound region, including projects like the
Qwuloolt Estuary Restoration Project, which will be the largest tidal
marsh restoration project ever completed in Washington State.
Estuary restoration can also be a key component for absorbing carbon
emissions and increasing resiliency to the effects of climate change. A
recent study of the Snohomish Estuary, in my district, found that
currently planned and in-construction restoration projects will result
in at least 2.55 million tons of CO2 sequestered from the
atmosphere over the next 100 years. That is the equivalent of a year's
worth of emissions from a half a million automobiles. This bill is
important. It is important for all of us.
I want to thank my colleague again, Mr. LoBiondo, for his hard work
on this legislation. I look forward to continuing our productive
bipartisan relationship on this and on many other issues. I urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 5266.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time, but I do not have any more speakers.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thought I had one more
speaker, but he is not here, so I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleagues Mr. Bishop,
Mr. Larsen, Mr. Shuster, and Mr. Gibbs. I urge all of my colleagues to
join me in supporting this important legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5266, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________