[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 178 (Tuesday, December 3, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H6268-H6269]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1600
FISHERY IMPROVEMENT TO STREAMLINE UNTIMELY REGULATORY HURDLES POST
EMERGENCY SITUATION ACT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5103) to require the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget to approve or deny spend plans within a certain amount of
time, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5103
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 ``Fishery Improvement to
Streamline untimely regulatory Hurdles post Emergency
Situation Act'' or the ``FISHES Act''.
SEC. 2. SPEND PLANS.
Section 312(a)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(a)(6)) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), to read as follows:
``(D) Spend plans.--
``(i) In general.--To receive an allocation from funds
available under paragraph (9), a requester with an
affirmative fishery resource disaster determination shall
submit a spend plan to the Secretary, not more than 120 days
after receiving notification that funds are available, that
shall include the following information, if applicable:
``(I) Objectives and outcomes, with an emphasis on
addressing the factors contributing to the fishery resource
disaster and minimizing future uninsured losses, if
applicable.
``(II) Statement of work.
``(III) Budget details.
``(ii) Review.--
``(I) In general.--The Secretary shall review a spend plan
submitted under clause (i) to determine if it is complete and
provide notice within 10 days.
``(II) Incomplete spend plan.--If the Secretary determines
that a spend plan submitted under clause (i) is not complete,
when providing the notice required by subclause (I), the
Secretary shall provide a detailed description of the
information that is necessary for the spend plan to be
determined complete.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (F)(i), to read as follows:
``(i) Availability.--
``(I) Timeline.--Funds shall be made available to grantees
not later than 90 days after the date the Secretary receives
a complete spend plan.
``(II) Review of completed spend plan and apportionment of
funds.--If so requested, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget may review a completed spend plan
concurrently with the Secretary. The Director of the Office
of Management and Budget may not delay the timeline described
in subclause (I).''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs.
Dingell) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
General Leave
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on H.R. 5103, the bill now under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5103, the Fishery Improvement
to Streamline untimely regulatory Hurdles post Emergency Situation, or
the FISHES, Act.
This legislation, sponsored by the gentleman from Florida,
Congressman Byron Donalds, will protect States and fishing communities
from unnecessary delays in the disaster recovery process.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, States and communities affected by
fishery disasters can petition for funding to assist in response and
recovery efforts. However, affected States and communities have
experienced delays in obtaining the approvals needed to access these
funds. H.R. 5103 requires the Secretary of Commerce to review disaster
spending plans submitted by requesters within 10 days.
Additionally, while the legislation allows the Office of Management
and Budget to review spending plans, it makes it clear that they may
not, and I repeat may not, delay the statutory timelines. This will
ensure accountability and consistency in the fishery disaster response
process, providing certainty to States and fishing communities in times
of recovery.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the legislation, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5103 would speed up the timelines for providing
funding to communities affected by fishery disasters.
Coastal communities rely on fisheries for jobs and economic
development. However, a fishery's health often depends on environmental
conditions. Hurricanes, oil spills, and other disasters can severely
impact fisheries and harm coastal economies.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
Congress can appropriate funds for disaster assistance, which the
Department of Commerce can then provide in the form of a grant,
cooperative agreement, loan, or contract.
After the Secretary of Commerce declares a fishery disaster and
Congress appropriates disaster funding, the Office of Management and
Budget must approve spend plans before any money can be distributed to
recipients. These reviews can also be lengthy.
Delays in processing mean longer wait times for fishers, Tribes, and
coastal communities needing relief.
Allowing the Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of
Commerce to review spend plans concurrently, as this bill proposes,
will increase efficiency and speed up the allocation of disaster relief
funds, ensuring faster support for impacted communities and more
efficient recovery efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Donalds), who is the lead sponsor of the bill.
Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill,
the FISHES Act.
I represent Florida's 19th Congressional District in southwest
Florida, which has a significant coastal presence.
In southwest Florida, hurricanes are common, which often bring about
significant damage to critical infrastructure, businesses, and
communities alike.
When people think about disaster relief, FEMA and the SBA often come
to mind. However, we must not forget about the critical disaster relief
that NOAA provides in the aftermath of a federally declared fishery
disaster.
For background, during the fishery disaster relief process, States
must
[[Page H6269]]
submit a spend plan to NOAA which lays out how the State will spend
disaster relief it receives from the Federal Government.
Currently, the Office of Management and Budget can voluntarily decide
to insert itself into the Federal fishery disaster relief process,
which it often does, to review a State's spend plan.
Unlike most other aspects of the process, OMB has no deadline to
review a spend plan. Predictably this has led to unnecessary delay in
allocating crucial Federal relief post disaster. For example, the State
of Florida alone has requested fishery disaster relief on seven
different occasions since 2012, however, for each occasion, over 2
years had lapsed from the time of approval to when fishery disaster
relief funds were ultimately made available. This is simply
unacceptable.
We must throw coastal communities and businesses a life raft to help
them stay afloat post disaster. As we saw firsthand in southwest
Florida, time is of the essence once a disaster hits.
We, as legislators, must continue to find ways to cut self-induced
red tape and streamline the disbursement of relief to communities
devastated by a natural disaster.
That is where the FISHES Act comes in.
This simple bill expedites the allocation of Federal fishery disaster
relief by requiring OMB to review a State spend plan concurrently with
NOAA, while also requiring that funds be distributed to grantees within
90 days after a complete spend plan is received. Time is of the essence
when it comes to disbursing relief post disaster.
This isn't just a Florida issue. It is a nationwide issue. This fact
is illustrated by the diverse coalition of nationwide organizations
that endorse the FISHES Act, along with the vast number of bipartisan
Members across the country who have decided to cosponsor this bill.
Specifically, the FISHES Act is cosponsored by 48 of my colleagues,
and this bill is currently endorsed by 107 organizations of all kinds
representing the environmental community, fishing community, boaters,
hospitality industry, retail and restaurant industries, and so on.
The overwhelming support my bill has received speaks for itself, and
it really highlights how vital it is for the FISHES Act to be signed
into law as soon as possible.
Time is of the essence once a disaster hits, and we as Congress have
the ability to expedite the disbursement of Federal relief to
communities in need.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
commonsense bill and pass the FISHES Act.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. In closing, Mr. Speaker, many times in recent years
this body has taken steps to help communities recover in the wake of
natural disasters. Programs designed to help communities recover from
these disasters must work effectively and help communities to recover
in a timely manner. Too often government bureaucracy can act as an
impediment to recovery efforts.
We can improve this process by ensuring the Office of Management and
Budget does not unnecessarily delay it.
Once again, I thank Congressman Byron Donalds for his work on this
issue and the many Members and stakeholders who have supported this
effort.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this legislation, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cline). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5103, 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.
____________________