|
(Washington, DC) - The following is U.S. Rep. Henry E. Brown, Jr.’s (R-SC) statement from today’s hearing on the “Oceans Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for the 21st Century Act”.
Brown is the Ranking Member on the U.S. House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, which conducted the hearing.
“Madam Chairwoman, we are here today to discuss H.R. 21 - the Oceans Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for the 21st Century Act - which was sponsored by our colleague Congressman Sam Farr from California.
“While better coordination is certainly needed with regard to the management of our ocean and its vital resources, H.R. 21 mandates far too many regulatory requirements in one piece of legislation.
“One area of concern is the creation of a national ocean policy and standards. The national policy and standards would apply to any Federal actions authorized (including the issuance of Federal licenses and permits), carried out, or funded by a Federal agency, affecting U.S. waters. Even if there are existing legislative authorities authorizing the Federal agency actions, H.R. 21 would require the Federal agency to certify that the action in question would be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the protection, maintenance, and restoration of healthy ecosystems.
“In addition, the bill requires the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to make a determination on the action, including a detailed assessment of the effects the action will have on the marine environment, and recommendations to remedy any identified deficiencies.
“We currently have a law governing environmental impacts of Federal actions on the environment - the National Environmental Policy Act. I find it unnecessary to create an overarching new law which would duplicate existing statutes.
“I support better coordination to ensure the conservation and best management practices for our coastal areas, the ocean and its resources, but we should be able to do so without creating a new overly burdensome process.
“Another area of concern with H.R. 21 deals with the creation of an Ocean and Great Lakes Conservation Trust Fund. While I find the creation of a special stamp an interesting way to allow the public to show its support for ocean conservation activities, based on the outcome of previous semi-postals it will not generate enough revenue to support even some of the myriad of activities prescribed in H.R. 21.
“The authors of the bill must have also recognized this limitation, since the bill would direct the Secretary of Treasury to deposit $1.3 billion in general revenues every year after fiscal year 2007 into the Trust Fund. General revenues in the Treasury are allocated to existing programs. As we all know, the House reinstated the pay-as-you-go rule this Congress which would require a budget offset for the use of these general revenues. Existing programs would have to be reduced or the American taxpayer would be hit with a staggering new tax bill to raise the money to be transferred into the Ocean Trust Fund.
“Madam Chairwoman, I do not agree with the approach taken in H.R. 21, which is subjectively over-prescriptive. Instead, I would recommend looking at each chapter of the Ocean Commission report and the specific piece of legislation it references to develop specific changes to each law instead of creating a new overarching bill that supersedes existing authorities.
“Congress initiated the review of our ocean policies when we passed the Oceans Act of 2000. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its report in September, 2004, and the Congress started its deliberations on its recommendations in the 109th Congress. I would be pleased to work with you, Madam Chairwoman, as we develop ocean legislation that will benefit your constituency in Guam, mine in South Carolina, and the nation.
“I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and deliberating further on what actions Congress should take with regard to the Ocean Commission recommendations.”
|
