PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 7, 1997
New Jersey Marine and Estuarine Ecosystem Protection Act of 1997 - Prohibits the transport of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters at the New York Bight Dredged Material Disposal Site (Mud Dump Site), other than for remediation pursuant to this Act, on and after September 1, 1997. Prohibits, after the date of this Act's enactment, the transport of: (1) dredged material for such purpose, other than Category I or II dredged material; and (2) Category II dredged material for such purpose unless the affected States or ports were requested to provide alternate disposal sites and failed to provide a reasonable alternative site and the dumping at the Mud Dump Site will not increase the elevation of the ocean bottom beyond a certain point. Requires a remediation and restoration plan, designation of the Mud Dump Site and areas that have been used for disposal of contaminated material as the Historic Area Remediation Site, and modification of environmental assessment activities. Prohibits the transport of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it in ocean waters in the New York Bight Apex outside the Historic Area Remediation Site, or in waters of the New York-New Jersey Harbor, on and after September 1, 1997. Prohibits designation of any new site for ocean dumping of dredged material within the Apex and issuance of any permit for transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it in the Apex, except in accordance with this Act. Prescribes violation penalties. Directs the Secretary of the Army to establish, operate, and maintain a confined dredged material disposal facility or facilities within the Port of New York and New Jersey (Port). Prohibits the Secretary from constructing sediment containment islands in the Port if such construction would result in the loss of shellfish or other fisheries habitat. Requires that, if the Secretary determines that upland disposal of dredged material is necessary in that port, the disposal site be designated within close proximity of the actual dredging site. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Pallone, Frank, Jr. [D-NJ-6] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.244 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.244 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.244 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.244 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.