[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 15, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H2756-H2758]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION ACT

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 610) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
establish a grant program to support the restoration of San Francisco 
Bay, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 610

       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 ``San Francisco Bay 
     Restoration Act''.

     SEC. 2. SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION GRANT PROGRAM.

       Title I of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 124. SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION GRANT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Estuary partnership.--The term `Estuary Partnership' 
     means the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, designated as 
     the management conference for the San Francisco Bay under 
     section 320.
       ``(2) San francisco bay plan.--The term `San Francisco Bay 
     Plan' means--
       ``(A) until the date of the completion of the plan 
     developed by the Director under subsection (d), the 
     comprehensive conservation and management plan approved under 
     section 320 for the San Francisco Bay estuary; and
       ``(B) on and after the date of the completion of the plan 
     developed by the Director under subsection (d), the plan 
     developed by the Director under subsection (d).
       ``(b) Program Office.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Administrator shall establish in 
     the Environmental Protection Agency a San Francisco Bay 
     Program Office. The Office shall be located at the 
     headquarters of Region 9 of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       ``(2) Appointment of director.--The Administrator shall 
     appoint a Director of the Office, who shall have management 
     experience and technical expertise relating to the San 
     Francisco Bay and be highly qualified to direct the 
     development and implementation of projects, activities, and 
     studies necessary to implement the San Francisco Bay Plan.
       ``(3) Delegation of authority; staffing.--The Administrator 
     shall delegate to the Director such authority and provide 
     such staff as may be necessary to carry out this section.
       ``(c) Annual Priority List.--
       ``(1) In general.--After providing public notice, the 
     Director shall annually compile a priority list, consistent 
     with the San Francisco Bay Plan, identifying and prioritizing 
     the projects, activities, and studies to be carried out with 
     amounts made available under subsection (e).
       ``(2) Inclusions.--The annual priority list compiled under 
     paragraph (1) shall include the following:
       ``(A) Projects, activities, and studies, including 
     restoration projects and habitat improvement for fish, 
     waterfowl, and wildlife, that advance the goals and 
     objectives of the San Francisco Bay Plan, for--
       ``(i) water quality improvement, including the reduction of 
     marine litter;
       ``(ii) wetland, riverine, and estuary restoration and 
     protection;
       ``(iii) nearshore and endangered species recovery; and
       ``(iv) adaptation to climate change.
       ``(B) Information on the projects, activities, and studies 
     specified under subparagraph (A), including--
       ``(i) the identity of each entity receiving assistance 
     pursuant to subsection (e); and
       ``(ii) a description of the communities to be served.
       ``(C) The criteria and methods established by the Director 
     for identification of projects, activities, and studies to be 
     included on the annual priority list.
       ``(3) Consultation.--In compiling the annual priority list 
     under paragraph (1), the Director shall consult with, and 
     consider the recommendations of--
       ``(A) the Estuary Partnership;
       ``(B) the State of California and affected local 
     governments in the San Francisco Bay estuary watershed;
       ``(C) the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority; and
       ``(D) any other relevant stakeholder involved with the 
     protection and restoration of the San Francisco Bay estuary 
     that the Director determines to be appropriate.
       ``(d) San Francisco Bay Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Director, in conjunction with 
     the Estuary Partnership, shall review and revise the 
     comprehensive conservation and management plan approved under 
     section 320 for the San Francisco Bay estuary to develop a 
     plan to guide the projects, activities, and studies of the 
     Office to address the restoration and protection of the San 
     Francisco Bay.
       ``(2) Revision of san francisco bay plan.--Not less often 
     than once every 5 years after the date of the completion of 
     the plan described in paragraph (1), the Director shall 
     review, and revise as appropriate, the San Francisco Bay 
     Plan.
       ``(3) Outreach.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Director shall consult with the Estuary Partnership and 
     Indian tribes and solicit input from other non-Federal 
     stakeholders.
       ``(e) Grant Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director may provide funding through 
     cooperative agreements, grants, or other means to State and 
     local agencies, special districts, and public or nonprofit 
     agencies, institutions, and organizations, including the 
     Estuary Partnership, for projects, activities, and studies 
     identified on the annual priority list compiled under 
     subsection (c).
       ``(2) Maximum amount of grants; non-federal share.--
       ``(A) Maximum amount of grants.--Amounts provided to any 
     entity under this section for a fiscal year shall not exceed 
     an amount equal to 75 percent of the total cost of any 
     projects, activities, and studies that are to be carried out 
     using those amounts.
       ``(B) Non-federal share.--Not less than 25 percent of the 
     cost of any project, activity, or study carried out using 
     amounts provided under this section shall be provided from 
     non-Federal sources.
       ``(f) Funding.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2022 through 2026.
       ``(2) Administrative expenses.--Of the amount made 
     available to carry out this section for a fiscal year, the 
     Director may not use more than 5 percent to pay 
     administrative expenses incurred in carrying out this 
     section.
       ``(3) Prohibition.--No amounts made available under this 
     section may be used for the administration of a management 
     conference under section 320.
       ``(g) Annual Budget Plan.--For each of the budgets for 
     fiscal years 2023 through 2026, the President, as part of the 
     annual budget submission of the President to Congress under 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, shall submit 
     information regarding each Federal department and agency 
     involved in San Francisco Bay protection and restoration, 
     including--
       ``(1) a report that displays for each Federal agency--
       ``(A) the amounts obligated in the preceding fiscal year 
     for protection and restoration projects, activities, and 
     studies relating to the San Francisco Bay; and
       ``(B) the proposed budget for protection and restoration 
     projects, activities, and studies relating to the San 
     Francisco Bay; and
       ``(2) a description and assessment of the Federal role in 
     the implementation of the San Francisco Bay Plan and the 
     specific role of each Federal department and agency involved 
     in San Francisco Bay protection and restoration, including 
     specific projects, activities, and studies conducted or 
     planned to achieve the identified goals and objectives of the 
     San Francisco Bay Plan.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Rouzer) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.


                             General Leave

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 610, as amended.

[[Page H2757]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I will include in the Record a letter from Chairman   
John Yarmuth of the House Committee on Budget agreeing to waive 
consideration of H.R. 610, as amended, as well as Chair DeFazio's 
response to Mr. Yarmuth expressing appreciation for his willingness to 
work cooperatively on this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Midpeninsula 
Regional Open Space District in support of H.R. 610.

                                             Midpeninsula Regional


                                          Open Space District,

                                     Los Altos, CA, June 10, 2021.
     Re H.R. 610--San Francisco Bay Restoration Act--SUPPORT.

     Hon. Jackie Speier,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Speier: On behalf of the Board of 
     Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 
     (Midpen), I write to express our support for your 
     legislation, H.R. 610, the San Francisco Bay Restoration Act. 
     Comprised of over 65,000 acres of acquired and protected open 
     space on the San Francisco Peninsula, Midpen is one of the 
     largest regional open space districts in California. Our 
     braided mission is to acquire and preserve in perpetuity open 
     space and agricultural land of regional significance, to 
     protect and restore the natural environment, to preserve 
     rural character and encourage viable agricultural use of land 
     resources, and to provide opportunities for ecologically 
     sensitive public enjoyment and education.
       As you know, the legislation would prioritize funding for 
     the San Francisco Bay, a vital resource to our District, the 
     regional community, and the entire state of California. The 
     $250 million authorized in the bill would provide critical 
     federal investment to restoring the Bay's wetlands and 
     estuaries, assist in the recovery of endangered species, and 
     help to alleviate the impacts of climate change. We greatly 
     appreciate the legislation's establishment of this federal 
     partnership to improve the Bay Area and protect our coastal 
     community and economy.
       For these reasons, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space 
     District greatly supports the San Francisco Bay Restoration 
     Act (H.R. 610). Thank you for your leadership and continued 
     work on improving the Bay Area. If you have any questions or 
     would like to further discuss our support, please do not 
     hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ana M. Ruiz,
                                                  General Manager.

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 610. This 
legislation would create a stand-alone program for the San Francisco 
Bay within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in essence 
elevating restoration efforts of a water body that has been part of the 
national estuary program since 1993.
  This legislation responds to an August 2018 Government Accountability 
Office report that found a centralized program would improve the 
existing efforts to restore and protect the San Francisco Bay.
  This legislation would authorize $25 million annually for fiscal year 
2022 through 2026, with a cap on Federal funding for eligible projects 
and a cap on administrative expenses. H.R. 610 is supported by the 
delegation representing the bay and surrounding area, including our 
committee colleagues Jared Huffman, Mark DeSaulnier, and   John 
Garamendi.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 610, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                     Washington, DC, June 2, 2021.
     Hon. John Yarmuth:
     Chair, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Yarmuth: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R 
     610, the San Francisco Bay Restoration Act. I appreciate your 
     decision to waive formal consideration of the bill.
       I agree that the Committee on the Budget has valid 
     jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
     legislation, and I further agree that by forgoing formal 
     consideration of the bill, the Committee on the Budget is not 
     waiving any jurisdiction over any relevant subject matter. 
     Additionally, if requested I will support the appointment of 
     conferees from the Committee on the Budget should a House-
     Senate conference be convened on this legislation. Finally, 
     this exchange of letters will be included in the 
     Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the 
     floor.
       Thank you again, and I look forward to continuing to work 
     collaboratively with the Committee on the Budget on this 
     important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Peter A. DeFazio,
                                                            Chair.

     
                                  ____
                                         House of Representatives,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                     Washington, DC, May 27, 2021.
     Hon. Peter A. DeFazio,
     Chair, Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chair DeFazio: I write to confirm our mutual 
     understanding regarding H.R. 610, the San Francisco Bay 
     Restoration Act. H.R. 610 contains provisions that fall 
     within the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
     Budget. However, the committee agrees to waive formal 
     consideration of the bill.
       The Committee on the Budget takes this action with the 
     mutual understanding that we do not waive any jurisdiction 
     over the subject matter contained in this or similar 
     legislation, and the committee will be appropriately 
     consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation 
     moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues 
     within our jurisdiction. The committee also reserves the 
     right to seek appointment to any House-Senate conference 
     convened on this legislation or similar legislation and 
     requests your support if such a request is made.
       Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter 
     confirming this understanding, and I ask that a copy of our 
     exchange of letters on this matter be included in the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill. 
     I look forward to continuing to work with you as this measure 
     moves through the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John Yarmuth,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. ROUZER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Last Congress we worked together to ensure bipartisan support for 
several regional water bills, including this one.
  H.R. 610 codifies the Environmental Protection Agency's existing 
restoration work in the San Francisco Bay estuary and establishes a San 
Francisco Bay program office.
  I urge support of this legislation and reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, this bill is something I have been working 
on for 10 years and have introduced in every Congress since I came to 
Congress. It provides $25 million a year for 5 years.
  Over the last 200 years, 90 percent of the bay wetlands have 
disappeared. They are gone. What is even worse is that in less than 9 
years, sea level rise in that region will effectively drown out all of 
the marshes. The damage will be irreversible.
  Over the last 8 years the EPA has invested only $45 million in San 
Francisco Bay. However, even though it is the largest estuary on the 
West Coast, Puget Sound received more than $260 million and the 
Chesapeake Bay received $490 million. That is an unbelievable 
difference in funding opportunities.
  We can't afford to keep pushing this off. The San Francisco Bay 
supports 4 million jobs and provides 20 million Californians with clean 
drinking water.
  It is the lifeblood of the region and a worthy investment of taxpayer 
dollars. Every dollar spent on restoration efforts generates $2.10 in 
economic activity. More funding for the bay is a win-win. It would, in 
fact, be the right thing to do, the only fair thing to do considering 
how much more has been spent on other estuaries.
  Mr. ROUZER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership 
and recognition on this important issue.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
  I am so proud of Representative Jackie Speier, with whom I have the 
privilege of corepresenting San Francisco. Jackie Speier has been our 
champion on San Francisco Bay, and this San Francisco Bay Restoration 
Act is a vital step to restoring our cherished bay.
  It is an honor to be joined in this legislation with other bay area 
colleagues, Jared Huffman,   John Garamendi,   Mike Thompson, Jerry 
McNerney, Mark DeSaulnier, Barbara Lee, Ro Khanna, Anna Eshoo, and Zoe 
Lofgren. I also thank Senators Dianne

[[Page H2758]]

Feinstein and Alex Padilla, who have introduced a Senate companion 
bill.
  Madam Speaker, Members may not know, but the San Francisco Bay is an 
icon of California and a national treasure: inspiring us with its 
beauty and its might, enriching our lives with world-class recreation, 
tourism, and jobs.
  The bay area delta, of which it is a part, is also the economic 
lifeblood of our coast, contributing over $370 billion to our economy 
each year and supporting more than four million jobs.
  As part of the bay-delta estuary, it is a vital part of public 
health, providing drinking water for millions of Californians, a key 
force in combating the climate crisis.
  But, for centuries, this magnificent estuary has been overexploited 
and underprotected. Today, 90 percent of the bay area's wetlands have 
been destroyed, undermining the strength of our coastal economies and 
communities.
  The San Francisco Bay Restoration Act--sponsored and championed by 
Congresswoman Jackie Speier over many years--would make a long overdue 
$125 million investment in restoration efforts. It improves 
coordination from San Francisco to Washington, as it revives our 
wetlands to protect our coastal communities, improves our water 
quality, strengthens our climate resilience, including by combating sea 
level rise.
  In 2018, the GAO concluded that a centralized initiative providing 
improved coordination and communication across efforts, along with 
dedicated Federal funding, would be the best chance for long-term 
restoration and protection of this vital geographic area on the West 
Coast. And this bill introduced by Congresswoman Jackie Speier provides 
exactly that.
  Californians have fought to increase appropriations for the bay area 
for years, and we are grateful for the support of then-chair Nita Lowey 
of the Appropriations Committee and the chair of the Subcommittee on 
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Betty McCollum. We secured 
an increase of $3 million in funding for the bay.
  Last year, with the support of Transportation and Infrastructure 
chair Peter DeFazio and, hence, the committee of Congresswoman Eleanor 
Holmes Norton, and Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee chair 
Grace Napolitano, the House passed this Bay Restoration Act by a voice 
vote, and then again as part of our infrastructure bill, H.R. 2, the 
Moving Forward Act. Now we want to make it the law of the land.
  Our communities and our lives are heavily enriched by the bay-delta 
estuary. This investment is an economic, health, environmental, and 
moral imperative.
  I urge Members to support it with strong bipartisan support, and I 
hope that it will be bipartisan on the part of our colleagues on the 
West Coast, who know the value of the quality of life that the bay 
estuary project brings to us. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. ROUZER. Madam Speaker, in closing, I urge support of this 
bipartisan legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 610, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion 
are postponed.

                          ____________________