[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7991-7993]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION

  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 944) to reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 944

       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.--Using the amounts 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--
       ``(i) extensive seagrass habitat losses resulting in 
     significant impacts on fisheries and water quality;
       ``(ii) recurring harmful algae blooms;
       ``(iii) unusual marine mammal mortalities;
       ``(iv) invasive exotic species that may threaten wastewater 
     systems and cause other damage;
       ``(v) jellyfish proliferation limiting community access to 
     water during peak tourism seasons;
       ``(vi) flooding that may be related to sea level rise or 
     wetland degradation or loss; and
       ``(vii) 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 
     2016 through 2020 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 may not exceed 5 percent of the amount appropriated 
     under this subsection for a fiscal year; and
       ``(B) making grants and awards under subsection (g).
       ``(2) Allocations.--
       ``(A) Conservation and management plans.--Not less than 80 
     percent of the amount made available under this subsection 
     for a fiscal year shall be used by the Administrator for the 
     development, implementation, and monitoring of each of the 
     conservation and management plans eligible for grant 
     assistance under subsection (g)(2).
       ``(B) Competitive awards.--Not less than 15 percent of the 
     amount made available under this subsection for a fiscal year 
     shall be used by the Administrator for making competitive 
     awards described in subsection (g)(4).''.


[[Page 7992]]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 944, introduced by my colleague, Representative LoBiondo, 
reauthorizes the National Estuary Program found in section 320 of the 
Clean Water Act. Estuaries are unique and highly productive waters that 
are important to the ecological and economic basis of our Nation.
  Congress first authorized the National Estuary Program in 1987, 
amendments to the Clean Water Act to promote the protection of the 
national significant estuaries in the United States that are deemed to 
be threatened by pollution, development, or overuse.
  Unlike many of the programs under the Clean Water Act, the National 
Estuary Program is a nonregulatory program. Instead, it is designed to 
support collaborative, voluntary efforts of Federal, State, and local 
stakeholders to restore degraded estuaries.
  Using consensus building in a collaborative decisionmaking process 
instead of a top-down regulatory approach, the National Estuary Program 
has been effective at promoting locally based involvement. In addition, 
it leverages non-Federal money for restoration activities by providing 
funding for the program.
  In reauthorization of the National Estuary Program, H.R. 944 makes 
prudent fiscal adjustments. The bill reauthorizes section 320 of the 
Clean Water Act through 2018 in the amount of $27 million a year. This 
amount is consistent with appropriations over the past 5 years, and, in 
recognition of the fiscal realities of today, decreases the authorized 
level of funding by $8 million a year.
  H.R. 944 also directs more funds to where they need to be in the 
individual estuaries in the program. The bill achieves this by reducing 
the amount of discretionary funds made available to the EPA.
  Finally, the bill allocates a portion of eligible program funds for 
competitive awards to Federal, State, and local stakeholders to address 
certain high priority estuary needs, including algae blooms, hypoxia, 
flooding, and invasive species. This is identical to a bill that passed 
the House by voice vote in the last Congress.
  I urge all Members to support H.R. 944, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 944.
  I am pleased the House is considering H.R. 944, a bill that I 
introduced along with Congressman LoBiondo and Congressman Murphy to 
reauthorize the National Estuary Program through 2020.
  I want to thank my colleagues for their hard work in pulling this 
legislation together.
  Estuaries are critically important to the health of our Nation's 
environment and our economy. Their waters are a unique mixture of 
freshwater, drainage from the land, and salty seawater. Estuaries 
provide vital nesting and feeding areas for many aquatic plants and 
animals. They also help maintain healthy ocean environments by 
filtering out sediment and pollutants from rivers and streams before 
they flow into the ocean.
  In addition to improving habitat for critical wildlife like salmon, 
restoring estuaries can have important carbon sequestration effects.
  For example, a report last year on the Snohomish Estuary in my 
district found that currently planned and in-progress 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.
  Over half of the U.S. population lives in coastal areas, including 
along the shores of estuaries. These areas provided 69 million jobs and 
contributed $7.9 trillion to the economy recently. These gains come 
from commercial and recreational fishing, as well as tourism and other 
forms of regulation recreation. By one estimate, restoring our estuary 
areas could create more than 30 jobs for every $1 million invested.
  In the Pacific Northwest and across the country, healthy estuaries 
like the Puget Sound support fish, birds, and other wildlife, and 
sustain important economic and recreational activities like trade, 
fishing, tourism, and many other forms of outdoor recreation.
  Estuaries in the Pacific Northwest also serve as habitat and spawning 
areas for salmon, another critical driver for our regional economy.
  Unfortunately, human activities have led to a decline in the health 
of estuaries, threatening them in many coastal parts of the country. 
Population growth in areas abutting estuaries have led to an increase 
in storm water runoff and sewage discharges, ultimately polluting the 
waters with toxins.
  Fortunately, the National Estuary Program, which would be authorized 
by H.R. 944, is an important part of remedying these problems facing 
our Nation's estuaries. Since 1987, the program has operated 
successfully at the EPA in partnership with other State and local 
entities and has fostered innovative solutions to local water quality 
programs.
  Funding from the program helps create solutions to nurture estuaries 
back to health, like the comprehensive plan we have for the Puget Sound 
recovery.
  This bipartisan legislation that we have today will ensure that local 
organizations across the country, in partnership with the EPA, can 
protect and restore estuaries for the benefit of future generations.
  I support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it as 
well.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank Chairman 
Gibbs and Chairman Shuster and Ranking Members DeFazio and Napolitano 
for helping bring H.R. 944, the National Estuary Program 
Reauthorization, to the floor.
  I would also like to thank my colleagues Mr. Posey and Mr. Murphy of 
Florida, and especially Mr. Larsen, who has been great to work with on 
a number of issues.
  This version of the National Estuary Program Reauthorization is 
fiscally responsible by reducing the authorization levels by $8 million 
while ultimately increasing the amount of money each estuary program 
will receive. It is a very commonsense approach that helps get the job 
done.
  This reauthorization will detail just how the EPA is to spend the 
authorized and appropriated money.
  Unlike many of the programs under the Clean Water Act, the National 
Estuary Program is a nonregulatory program. That was mentioned before, 
but I think it bears repeating: it is a nonregulatory program.
  Instead, it is designed to support collaborative, voluntary efforts 
of Federal, State, and local stakeholders to restore degraded 
estuaries. I think this is exactly the approach that will get results, 
and an approach that will encourage people to be working together for 
something that really can actually see a very positive result with our 
estuaries.
  Unfortunately, the National Estuary Program has been losing money due 
to 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, the NEP, and not bureaucratic salaries 
and red tape.

                              {time}  1800

  In this year's reauthorization, we have 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

[[Page 7993]]

balance of fiscal and environmental responsibility.
  I urge all Members to support H.R. 944.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, 
so I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 944.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H.R. 944, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 944.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________