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…
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.
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. Chairman, I yield such time as he might desire to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, though I am not opposed to the bill.
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. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
I rise to support the amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
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.
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. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
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.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, we do not oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, again, we do not oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.