James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to express my great appreciation to the gentlewoman from California for her thorough elucidation of the specific benefits, point by point, of the estuary program in her Morro Bay area. I now yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a refugee from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 10 seconds to thank the gentleman from Oregon for his constant attention to the work of our committee and to the water issues as well, and for his splendid presentation. I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland, a member of the committee, Ms. Edwards, who has worked diligently as a guardian of the Chesapeake Bay Estuary.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself the remaining time to thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his generosity in yielding time, which had inadvertently run out on our side.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes technical changes to the underlying bill. It ensures the continued competitive nature of the National Estuary Program. We ensure that the program evaluations will assess whether the implementation of a comprehensive conservation and management plan is achieving its stated goals. The amendment will enhance public education on the connections between air, land, water, and the potential impacts of those factors on the health of the estuary. It will strike the existing statutory priority list of estuaries. It will remove individuals from the list of approved recipients for grants under this program. First, the technical changes will ensure that program evaluations determine whether the implementation of a management plan is reaching its stated goals. It will ensure that not only the plan but the implementation of the plan is achieving improvements in water quality and habitat in the estuary. Second, the amendment ensures that the public education component of any management plan will include and will highlight the connections within the estuary between air, land, and water and the potential impacts of those interactions. Estuaries will be able to highlight to citizens living within the boundaries of the estuary how their actions will affect the health of the estuary and how they can change their habits or how they can change their actions to improve the quality of the estuary. Third, the amendment strikes existing statutory language that lists a number of States and regions to receive priority consideration under the program. That historical prioritization does not reflect estuaries that are part of the National Estuary Plan. Some estuaries on the list do not now participate in the program. The 12 estuaries that do participate are not included on the list, so that prioritization is superfluous. This change does not mean that estuaries now in the NEP will be removed. It means that existing programs must continue to meet their obligations under the program and meet the performance requirements of the legislation to continue to be part of the National Estuary Program. It will be a competitive program. That is the purpose of the changes that I've just cited. Finally, we strike statutory language that now allows individuals to be eligible grant recipients under the program. No individual has ever received a grant under the program, according to the EPA, so there is no need to have that language in the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for those remarks.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that I offer on behalf of Ms. Pingree and yourself.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time so the distinguished ranking member of the committee may speak at this moment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished cosponsor of the amendment, the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. OBERSTAR. I now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished chair of our subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. While I respect the remarks of the gentleman from Arkansas, we specify in this amendment, Mr. Schauer does, that the meeting place of the rivers and the lakes is not a traditional estuary, is not a meeting place of fresh and saltwater, but that these points would be treated as estuaries. As an example, the lamprey eel lays its eggs in the discharge point of the rivers that contribute to and discharge into the Great Lakes. That is a meeting place of river water and lake water where a destructive, nonindigenous, invasive species multiplies. Including the Great Lakes in the estuary program will provide additional authority for the Great Lakes to work to control this monster that destroys the fishery of the Great Lakes. This is not an allocation, this is not an earmark, it is not a specific designation. It simply allows the Great Lakes to compete for available dollars authorized under this program. We think that this body of the greatest repository of freshwater on the earth ought to have standing among the others that have designation as estuaries. Those meeting places on the Great Lakes are every bit as important as the meeting places of the freshwater rivers and the saltwater repositories of a traditional estuary definition.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Does it help that the Merchant Marine Act of 1970 designates the Great Lakes as the fourth seacoast?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in support of the amendment. It does not add cost. It does not add any burden on the process, but it does add an element of review in the evaluation of these plans and that is to take into consideration sea level rise that's already happening on our sea coasts, on our salt water coasts. And the addition of this factor, I think, will make all of the planners sensitive to the effects, the erosions, shore line erosion effects of rise of water levels and their consequential effects on the health of the estuaries. I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the distinguished gentleman for this amendment, a very thoughtful, well-crafted amendment to resolve conflicts. That is really what the Congress should be doing, resolving conflicts and creating structures within our programs within which conflict can be resolved. And that is particularly important in development of management plans. There are so many different parties, some at loggerheads over the management of the watershed. This idea will ensure that we bring the development of these management plans to a reasonable and productive conclusion. And so I thank the gentleman for this amendment. Perhaps if it works, we can apply it to our work with the other body.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I move the resolution be referred to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, this is a matter that belongs to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I object. I only just received the amendment. I want to read it.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am sorry the gentleman from Ohio doesn't have an estuary in his district, but his State is a Great Lakes State. The Great Lakes, as the Nation's fourth seacoast, designated by an act of Congress in 1970, are also designated in this bill as a place of estuaries, of freshwater estuaries. I am sorry that the gentleman doesn't understand that a great many people do understand what an estuary is. Three-fourths of our population live along areas that are designated as estuaries. Estuaries, the meeting place of fresh and salt water--where new forms of life are created, where new forms of fish and aquatic plants are created--are the richest places on Earth for the creation of maritime life. Estuaries are the common heritage of all Americans. There is a national interest in their protection and in their enhancement. I am quite surprised at this amendment because in committee consideration no issue was raised about the funding level. Make no mistake about it. The purpose of this amendment is to cut $15 million out of the authorization level.