[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 46 (Wednesday, April 12, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H2156-H2163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 470 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3039.

                              {time}  1454


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3039) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to assist 
in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Gillmor in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to commend the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Bateman) for his leadership on this legislation that is going to 
help protect one of our national treasures, the Chesapeake Bay.
  The Bay has a 64,000 square mile watershed and is home to over 15 
million people and more than 3,000 plant and animal species. Bay 
restoration efforts are working well. Striped bass, underwater grasses 
are back, toxic releases are down, more than 67 percent since 1988 in 
fact, and the nutrients have been reduced.
  However, parts of the Bay remain impaired. This legislation will 
strengthen cooperative efforts to address the remaining work to be done 
to restore and to protect the Bay.
  I would emphasize that this legislation passed the subcommittee and 
the full committee unanimously by a voice vote, and I know of no 
controversy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 3039, the Chesapeake Bay 
Restoration Act. The Chesapeake Bay is one of the great estuaries of 
the world, perhaps the greatest, the meeting place of salt and fresh 
water where new forms of life are created.
  Those forms of life, whether new forms or existing ones, are 
increasingly endangered in the world's estuaries by the pollution that 
we discharge into the waters and into the meeting places.
  In 1983, the Federal Government and the States of Virginia, Maryland, 
Pennsylvania, as well as the District of Columbia, signed the first 
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Four years later, the Federal Government and 
the Bay States and the communities within them reached agreement on the 
problems facing the Bay, the shared responsibility for deteriorating 
conditions, and on the joint actions that were needed to slow and 
reverse the destruction of this resource.
  In the past 17 years, the hard work of all those involved is 
beginning to bear fruit. The Bay is showing signs of improvement. But 
the work is never over.
  This legislation will take a further step toward improvement of water 
quality and improvement of the overall health of the Bay ecosystem.
  The legislation will reauthorize the Environmental Protection 
Agency's successful Chesapeake Bay Program for an additional 6 years, 
giving stability and strength to this very important initiative. It 
will increase the program funding level. The Program Office of EPA has 
been very successful in working collaboratively with the States and the 
communities adjacent to the Bay in identifying causes of pollution, 
building partnerships to restore the health of that enormous resource.
  Under this legislation, EPA will continue the cooperative 
collaborative approach of developing interstate management plans, 
control harmful nutrients, control the addition of toxins to improve 
water quality, and restore habitats to the ecosystem.
  In addition, the legislation will incorporate into the Chesapeake Bay 
Agreement those improvements jointly recommended by the participating 
States, including recommendations for the administrator and authority 
for the administrator to approve small watershed grants to fund local 
governments and nonprofit organizations for local protection and 
restoration programs.
  If we do not address the health of the Bay by including the 
watersheds that

[[Page H2157]]

drain into that Bay, we have not accomplished the purpose of 
preserving, restoring, and enhancing the quality of the waters of the 
Bay. That, I think, is the most important feature of this legislation, 
that it deals with the watershed and not just with the discharge 
points.
  I strongly support the legislation and urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Development.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for once again 
providing, along with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the 
ranking member, leadership on the full committee. I want to express my 
deep appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the 
ranking member of our Subcommittee on Water Resources and Development.
  Once again, this is time to highlight something that needs to be 
highlighted. We do not do it often enough. I know we do it in the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We do a lot of things 
exceptionally well. But we have the best professional staff anywhere on 
the Hill or in any governmental unit and they deserve a lot of praise.

                              {time}  1500

  I will defer to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), people who live in the zone 
who are just married to the Chesapeake Bay and who know so well the 
importance of that great resource and what we need to do to make 
certain we move forward to restore it.
  With that, let me thank all who have been partners to this venture. 
We have come a long way. We have got further to go. We are going to get 
there together.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, who has maintained a 
vigilant eye on the bay and on the water quality thereof.
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3039, the 
Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1999. This legislation would 
reauthorize the successful Chesapeake Bay program for an additional 6 
years. This program, operating with the Environmental Protection 
Agency, has been very effective at protecting and restoring the 
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem through workable partnerships among the 
Federal Government, the District of Columbia, and the States 
surrounding the bay watershed. I also want to acknowledge, Mr. 
Chairman, the outstanding work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Bateman) in developing and pursuing this legislation.
  H.R. 3039 builds upon the success of the Chesapeake Bay program by 
incorporating within it several improvements which have been 
recommended by the Federal Government and the other signers of the 1987 
Chesapeake Bay agreement: Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, 
and my home State of Pennsylvania. Included within this bill is 
authority for a new small watershed grants program. Funding for this 
new program would be available to local governmental and nonprofit 
organizations as well as individuals in the Chesapeake Bay region to 
implement local protection and restoration programs in the watershed to 
improve water quality and create, restore or enhance habitat within the 
ecosystem. Mr. Chairman, the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure 
struggling toward restoration. This legislation will add greatly in 
that restoration. I urge an aye vote on this legislation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), the principal author of this 
legislation.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for yielding me this time. I would like to say to him and to the 
ranking member and to all those who have addressed this subject matter 
today that I am proud to have lived near the shores of the Chesapeake 
Bay all but 5 years of my life. It is a very dear part of the world. I 
am proud to have been associated with the creation of the original 
Chesapeake Bay program and its original authorization and my role in 
convincing the then Reagan administration that it should be the 
bellwether of their environmental program, which even deserved mention 
in the President's State of the Union address.
  The Chesapeake Bay program is the unique regional partnership that 
has been coordinating the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay since the 
signing of the historic 1983 Chesapeake Bay agreement. As the largest 
estuary in the United States and one of the most productive in the 
world, the Chesapeake Bay was the Nation's first estuary targeted for 
restoration and protection. The Chesapeake Bay program evolved as the 
means to restore this exceptionally valuable resource. H.R. 3039 will 
continue the cooperative Federal, State, and local efforts that already 
have successfully achieved progress restoring the bay.
  Since its inception in 1983, the bay program's highest priority has 
been restoration of the bay's living resources. Improvements include 
fisheries and habitat restoration, recovery of bay grasses, nutrient 
and toxic reductions, and significant advances in estuarine science. 
However, parts of the bay remain impaired. Nutrients are still too 
high, oyster populations have been in severe decline, and water clarity 
still has a great deal that needs to be done to improve it. By passing 
H.R. 3039, the House will declare its commitment to saving the bay.
  The Chesapeake Bay program has not been reauthorized since the 
expiration of the Clean Water Act of which it was a component. Although 
the program has continued to receive funding annually since then, it is 
important that the Congress express its continued support for the 
cleanup and preservation of the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay 
Restoration Act would do just that, reauthorizing the program from 2000 
to 2005. In addition, the bill requires the submission of reports both 
to the Congress and the public describing the activities funded by the 
program and its accomplishments.
  The Chesapeake Bay is one of the most vital natural resources in the 
United States. Please join me in supporting the enhancement of a 
program that has done so much to preserve this wonderful resource.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who has been a vigilant participant in 
protecting the resources of the bay. I am grateful for his leadership.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Minnesota 
for yielding me this time, but more importantly let me thank the 
leadership on both sides of the aisle for bringing forward this very, 
very important bill. I think we all can be very proud of what we have 
been able to do in the Chesapeake Bay, the Federal Government being one 
of the major partners. I particularly want to acknowledge the work that 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) has done over his entire 
congressional career on the Chesapeake Bay.
  The constituents of my district and in Maryland, indeed the entire 
Nation, are very much gratified by what we have been able to accomplish 
through the leadership here in Congress. I see the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) who has been another one of the real leaders 
on the Chesapeake Bay issues. This has been one of the largest 
voluntary multijurisdictional water quality and living resource 
restoration programs in the history of our Nation, and it has been a 
model program that we can now use in many other multijurisdictional 
bodies of water.
  I was Speaker of the House in Maryland in 1983 when Governor Hughes 
on behalf of the State of Maryland joined with the governors of 
Virginia and Pennsylvania and the mayor of Washington and the 
administrator of EPA and signed a one-page 1983 agreement that started 
the Chesapeake Bay Restoration program with a Federal partnership. It 
has been a partnership of

[[Page H2158]]

government, the Federal, State and local; it has been a partnership 
between government and the private sector; and it has worked.
  We set one of the most ambitious goals for reducing pollutants in 
nitrogen and in phosphorus by 40 percent by this year. Mr. Chairman, we 
have come very close to meeting those goals in a watershed the size of 
64,000 square miles. We have never attempted such a broad program in 
the past. I think we all can be proud. This reauthorization bill not 
only reauthorizes but expands it, increases the Federal Government's 
partnership in this effort, which gives us great hope for the future.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment 
requiring the administrator to commence a 3-year study to develop model 
water quality and living resource improvement strategies for areas 
impacted by development using work currently under way in the Patapsco/
Back River tributary in the Baltimore, Maryland, metropolitan area. My 
amendment would have specified that the administrator's study, 
conducted with the full participation of local governments, watershed 
organizations, and interested groups, develop a coordinated mechanism 
and make various determinations and recommendations to achieve water 
quality and living resource goals in areas impacted by development with 
particular reference to Gwynn Falls, Jones Falls, and Herring Run 
watersheds.
  Am I correct that the gentleman's intent is to encourage EPA, the 
Chesapeake Executive Council, and interested governmental and 
nongovernmental entities to work together on studies and strategies 
relating to water quality and living resources in areas impacted by 
development?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman certainly is correct. We want to 
acknowledge his strong interest in this particular issue. We appreciate 
his cooperation. We look forward to working with him and other 
colleagues on cooperative, consensus-based approaches to protecting the 
Chesapeake Bay.
  Mr. CARDIN. I want to thank the gentleman for those kind words and 
also thank my friend again from Minnesota for yielding.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we certainly share the view just 
expressed by the chairman on the gentleman's concerns and his intent, 
and we will look forward to working with the gentleman on a consensus-
based, cooperative approach to protecting the Chesapeake Bay.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), one of the champions of 
the Chesapeake Bay.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. This has been a bipartisan effort on both sides of the 
aisle, from the chairman of the committee to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). Certainly I would like to honor on this day 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), who has worked literally his 
entire career on these issues and his heart is in this greatest of 
estuaries, which the gentleman from Minnesota has so eloquently stated. 
I also want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for his 
efforts and all of us that have worked together on this particular 
issue.
  When John Smith came here well over 300 years ago, there were a few 
thousand people in the watershed. Now there are over 15 million people 
in the watershed. With this new census, there might be 16 or 17 million 
people in the watershed. So things are difficult. To manage this 
watershed, we need more than just one State doing their job. We need a 
multistate effort to ensure that human activity is in such a way that 
we certainly encourage economic development; but we encourage that 
economic development to be in harmony with the natural processes of 
nature so the bay can continue to be restored.
  I do not think we can ever get the bay back to the way it was when 
John Smith was here. We will never restore the bay to its original 
grandeur, and we will never solve the problem. From now until the end 
of time, the end of human habitation, this Chesapeake Bay program is 
going to be vital, because we continue to have development, we continue 
to have agriculture, we continue to have a whole range of issues, 
including air deposition from as far away as the Midwest causes about a 
third of the nutrient overload in the Chesapeake Bay.
  And so this multistate agreement is vitally important for us to learn 
how to reduce the nutrients, and we have found some key factors; and we 
are becoming successful in that. One of the other issues of the 
Chesapeake Bay program is to bring the bay grasses back that provides 
the necessary habitat for the resource, which is crabs and fish and a 
whole range of other things in this marine ecosystem. The bay was not 
intended to be a desert. Maybe the Sahara Desert has a good ecosystem, 
maybe the Antarctic has a good ecosystem; but the Chesapeake Bay was 
intended to have grass, subaquatic vegetation for the natural ecosystem 
to abound. The Chesapeake Bay program is figuring out, with our help, 
the relentless, sometimes tiring, effort to bring that resource back to 
the bay.
  Toxic pollution. With the Clean Water Act back in 1972 when they 
began to think about point source pollution, we began to solve that 
problem. We still have toxic pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, whether 
it still comes from chemical factories that we are trying to resolve 
and doing a good job at or point source pollutions like sewage 
treatment plants that need upgrades. Those are the kinds of issues that 
the Chesapeake Bay program deals with. It is vital.
  The Chesapeake Bay program also deals with the fisheries. The oyster 
population is down over 90 percent from what it was at the turn of the 
century. Now that we are in a new turn of the century, it is time to 
bring those oysters back and in a manner in which nature intended, by 
building oyster reefs, maybe 10 feet high, maybe 20 feet high, to 
perpetuate that particular species. Striped bass recovery we know is 
pretty successful. The fisheries is a part of the Chesapeake Bay 
program.
  I have one quick comment about a particular species called menhaden 
which also filters out certain nutrients in the bay like the oysters. 
The Chesapeake Bay program has recommended an ecosystem approach to 
that particular fisheries management plan where the menhaden, you give 
a few to the commercial watermen that use it for a variety of reasons, 
you give a few to the recreational fishermen, whoever wants to eat 
menhaden, pretty oily. But you also make sure that you give a certain 
number of menhaden to the rock fish that need it to sustain themselves, 
and you give a certain quantity of menhaden to the Chesapeake Bay so 
that a filtering action can occur.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Chairman, the Chesapeake Bay program is vital.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) for his 
efforts, and I want to thank all the members of this committee that 
have moved this program forward. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a fellow Pitt grad; the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), a Pitt grad; the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Bateman); the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), a leader on 
conservation issues; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), I 
am proud to support this, but I have had some of my companies call me 
and want to know if there will be any of this debris in the form of 
truckloads of polluted material needing abatement that will become part 
of an RFP, because my companies would certainly want to bid on it.
  I think that this legislation would require, if there is some 
polluted soil or some polluted sediment underneath the Bay, in the form 
of a colloquy, I will ask the chairman, would it require that perhaps 
some of this sediment be removed? Would this bill cover that?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H2159]]

  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the gentleman's question 
will be found in each of the remedial action plans developed by the 
communities and the States and EPA in conjunction with each other. And 
those plans, depending on the nature of the problem to be addressed, 
may require sediment removal. Some of them, in fact, will require 
sediment removal, but we are not in a position to say which ones or how 
much.
  That information, by the way, would be available from each of the 
States and from the localities because it all has to be part of the 
public record, and the companies in the gentleman's district can 
certainly access that information through the appropriate State agency.
  I am quite certain that the remedial action plans for each community 
or council of governments or State will undoubtedly require some 
sediment removal in order to remove the toxics from the ecosystem.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, there is annual dredging that takes 
place in the Chesapeake Bay, millions of cubic yards behind the three 
hydroelectric power dams in the Susquehanna River that have right now 
over 200 million cubic yards of sediment that eventually within the 
next 15 years has to be removed, otherwise the U.S. geological survey 
said it would smother the entire Chesapeake Bay floor if something is 
not done.
  There are problems with the dredge material on an annual basis. There 
are problems with the dredge material behind the Susquehanna River 
damages. So if something could be worked out in the next few years to 
figure out where to put this stuff and if Ohio wants it, we would be 
more than glad to trade it out.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I know there has 
been some talk about possibilities of sediment, and when they start 
their remediation program, it will involve cleaning up those toxic 
polluted areas. The point I am making is exactly that, that there are 
some areas that do not have the capability of cleaning those soils, and 
I do have in my impoverished district companies that do, in fact, take 
soil and clean that soil and make it acceptable under EPA law.
  Mr. Chairman, we would certainly want to have our companies on notice 
so if there is any RFP that have an opportunity to bid. That is why I 
made the mention, and I want to commend the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest) because I know he is probably the biggest fighter in 
the House for conservation purposes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) 
for his leadership in bringing this bill before us on the floor, and 
thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member; 
obviously, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) for initiating 
this; and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), my colleague 
from Maryland, for his wonderful explication of some parts of it.
  The Chesapeake Bay, our Nation's largest estuary, is an incredibly 
complex ecosytem. The Bay is one of our Nation's most valuable natural 
resources. Its rich ecosytem with rivers, wetlands, trees, and the Bay 
itself supports and provides a national habitat for over 3,600 species 
of plants, fish, and animals.
  We know that over 15 million people now live in the Bay watershed, it 
includes parts of six States and the entire District of Columbia. These 
persons are, at all times, just a few steps from one of the more than 
100,000 stream and river tributaries ultimately draining into the Bay. 
Every person, plant, and animal depend on each other to help the 
Chesapeake Bay system thrive and function properly. These complex 
relationships are countless. The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique 
regional partnership of State and Federal Government agencies, and it 
has been encouraging and directing the restoration of the Bay since 
1983.
  I am pleased that important progress has been made in renewing the 
Bay since the Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed in 1983. Restoration 
efforts, led by the Chesapeake Bay Program, have had a profound effect 
on the health of the Bay. In addition, scientific research has led to a 
better understanding of the Bay, including how it works and what must 
be done to address problems.
  However, we still have a long way to go before we reach our goals for 
a restored Chesapeake Bay. Many questions about the future of the Bay 
remain unanswered. For example, blue crabs, perhaps the best known and 
most important resource of the Bay, have been below the long-term 
average level for several years. The oyster harvest has declined 
dramatically. Further efforts to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution 
are needed. I am pleased that this legislation today will help us 
address these concerns and allow us to move toward the goal of a 
restored Chesapeake Bay.
  You know, Mr. Chairman, in only 10 days we recognize and celebrate 
the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. Every year on this day, the people 
of our Nation and across the globe focus their attention on the 
environment. Both Earth Day and the legislation before us today offer 
us the opportunity to applaud our progress, but, more importantly, they 
allow us to renew our commitment to the challenges facing our planet 
and the Chesapeake Bay. We must preserve and protect this treasure.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act and urge 
its swift, unanimous passage.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Minnesota for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3039, the Chesapeake 
Bay Restoration Act. I want to commend my colleagues for the leadership 
they provided, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman); the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest); the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin); and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.  Hoyer); as well as the 
leadership on the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman 
Shuster); and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.  
Oberstar) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski).
  Mr. Chairman, this bill seeks to reauthorize Federal participation in 
the Chesapeake Bay Program. It will provide the Environmental 
Protection Agency with $30 million over 6 years to fund program 
activities that will prevent harmful nutrients and toxins from flowing 
into the Chesapeake, where they will degrade water quality and damage 
valuable fish and wildlife resources. It also mandates other Federal 
agencies to assist in the development of watershed planning and 
restoration activities.
  I strongly support the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act and the 
Chesapeake Bay Program, because they embody an approach to water 
quality and watershed management that I believe is truly the wave of 
the future. This approach is, first of all, proactive, rather than 
reactive, seeking to stop harmful nutrients and toxins from making it 
into the Bay in the first place, rather than relying on expensive 
clean-up and mitigation efforts afterwards.
  Secondly, this approach is basin-wide, rather than piecemeal, seeking 
to look at the entire ecosystem and to development management plans 
appropriate to the large scale physical system that it is.
  Finally, this approach relies on interagency and intergovernmental 
cooperation, attempting to coordinate the diverse, but sometimes 
fragmented, conservation efforts of Federal, State and local agencies, 
as well as non-governmental agencies.
  I want to compliment the Members from the Chesapeake Bay Basin States 
who have fashioned the bill and supported the Chesapeake Bay Program 
since its inception some 15 years ago.
  I also want to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to urge my 
colleagues

[[Page H2160]]

to take a close look at a bill that I recently introduce, H.R. 4013, 
the Upper Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act. Like H.R. 3039, my 
bill is comprehensive legislation to reduce nutrient and soil sediment 
losses in a large river basin. The Upper Mississippi River Basin, which 
encompasses much of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri, 
is a tremendously valuable natural resource.
  Forty percent of North America's waterfowl use the wetlands and 
backwaters of the river as a migratory flyway. In fact, it is North 
America's largest migratory route, with much of the waterfowl such as 
Tundra Swans ultimately going through the Mississippi corridor and 
ending up in the Chesapeake Bay area.
  The Upper Mississippi River provides $1.2 billion annually in 
recreation income and $6.6 billion to the area's tourism industry. 
Unfortunately, increasing soil erosion threatens this region and these 
industries. For instance, soil erosion reduces the long-term 
sustainability and income of the family farms, with farmers losing more 
than $300 million annually in applied nitrogen. Additionally, sediment 
fills the main shipping channel of the Upper Mississippi River, costing 
roughly $100 million each year for dredging costs alone.
  Relying on existing Federal, State, and local programs, H.R. 4013 
establishes a water quality monitoring network and an integrated 
computer modeling program. These monitoring and modeling efforts will 
provide the baseline information needed to make scientifically sound 
and cost-effective conservation decisions.
  The bill calls for an expansion of four U.S. Department of 
Agriculture land conservation programs. In addition, the bill includes 
language to protect personal data collected in connection with 
monitoring, modeling and technical and financial assessment activities.
  In trying to achieve these goals, this bill relies entirely on 
voluntary participation and already existing conservation programs. The 
bill will not create any new Federal regulations.
  The Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act and my bill, the Upper Mississippi 
River Basin Conservation Act, are basin-wide, comprehensive efforts to 
reduce harmful runoff and improve the overall health of these 
regionally and nationally significant ecosystems. I urge my colleagues 
to support H.R. 3039 today and to contact my staff and helping a sure 
passage of H.R. 3014.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express some concerns about H.R. 3039. 
I do so reluctantly, but for several reasons. My first concern is the 
role of the Department of Agriculture in this effort. A great deal of 
the focus and efforts involved in getting to a cleaner and healthier 
Chesapeake Bay are on its upstream tributaries, and a great deal of 
farmland is included in these watersheds. I am particularly concerned 
that it appears neither the Committee on Agriculture nor the USDA were 
consulted in regard to this reauthorization.
  We have heard how this bill simply puts into statute what is already 
taking place. I believe as it is part of a reauthorization, a thorough 
discussion should take place regarding the best ways to accomplish the 
goals of the program and whether the current structure is accomplishing 
that.
  That leads to my questions about why current authorized programs are 
not being utilized or modified, if necessary, to accomplish the 
outlined goals, as opposed to putting forward a new program or 
authority. This has led to a number of programs out there, and in the 
case of conservation and environmental protection, a number of 
authorities that are not interconnected and do not have adequate 
resources to meet the demands for assistance.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern 
with Agriculture not being consulted, the perception that they were not 
consulted about this piece of legislation. But I can tell the gentleman 
that with regard to the Chesapeake Bay Program, the biggest industry in 
my business is agriculture, and USDA and the Departments of Agriculture 
in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and Pennsylvania have all worked 
through a variety of existing programs to ensure the quality of water 
in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries via many agricultural 
programs that exist, for example, the Buffer Program, the Waterway 
Program, the program that provides habitat for wildlife, the CRP 
Program.

                              {time}  1530

  So there is a whole range of programs that the Chesapeake Bay 
program, which is EPA, consults with these other agencies to ensure 
water quality, and also the biggest thing I would like to say, I say to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), is to ensure that agriculture 
remains not only a viable industry but a profitable industry.
  Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for those comments.
  Just as I was about to say, I have no doubt that the USDA agencies 
and their partners, the conservation districts and resource 
conservation and development councils, are already taking an active 
role in many of the actions springing out of the Chesapeake Bay 
Agreement.
  I concur. In fact, one of the major roles of USDA in the conservation 
district is to provide technical assistance to whoever might need it. 
Whether it is technical assistance or other types of assistance, the 
USDA agencies and their partners have and will find ways to provide 
that assistance to whoever might be asking, whether they be a private 
individual, a nonprofit group, or a local government.
  I am also concerned about this legislation and similar bills that are 
targeted to specific geographic locations. I am certain they are all 
worthy pieces of legislation, and I support the gentleman and the 
others in the Chesapeake Bay's effort because they are right on target. 
My concern is the duplication.
  I appreciate the watershed approach. That is the way to go. I am 
joining today with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) in 
introducing the Fishable Waters Act, which would provide much needed 
guidance and funding to any and all States to address water quality 
problems that have led to fisheries habitat problems.
  My concern, though, is funding. When we continue to divide, issue 
after issue, when we continue to say USDA, that is doing a wonderful 
job, but not doing good enough, so therefore, we are going to take EPA 
and we are going to grant them money to provide technical assistance 
when we are already shortchanging, here.
  We talk about the environmental quality incentive program. It is 
funded at $200 million a year, but we only spend $174 million. 
Appropriations cut us short. We look at the Wildlife Habitat Incentives 
Program. The small watershed program is the one, though. We have 1,630 
projects right now approved, needing $1.5 billion in funding. We are 
funded at $91. I believe this bill further divides already scarce 
resources, and that is my concern.
  Mr. Chairman, CRP--Authorized at 36.4 million acres--currently 31 
million acres enrolled--up to 3.5 million acres in bids received in 
20th sign-up; WRP--Authorized at 975,000 acres--estimated to have 
935,000 acres enrolled by end of 2000; Wildlife Habitat Incentives 
Progam--Funded at $50 million in 1996 Farm Bill and funding already 
exhausted; PL-566 (Small Watershed Program)--1630 projects approved 
needing $1.5 billion in funding--funded at $91 million in FY00; and 
EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program)--Funded at $200 million 
per year in 1996 Farm bill--appropriators have limited funding to $174 
million in each of last three fiscal years--demand is three times 
greater than available funding.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a diligent member of the Committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, since being elected to Congress, I have been focusing 
attention on the issue of creating livable communities where families 
are safe, healthy, and economically secure. The

[[Page H2161]]

quality and quantity of our water supply is going to be the primary 
shaper of our communities in the next century.
  This is one of the reasons why I am here today, pleased to join in 
rising in support for the fine work that the committee has done, and 
thanking the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and others in focusing attention and 
making sure that we are able to continue the great work that has been 
done in the Chesapeake Bay area.
  It has been documented already on the floor of the Chamber today the 
vast sweep of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the 64,000 square miles 
covering parts of six States talking about the problems that are faced 
here that are serious but not unique to the Chesapeake Bay system, and 
how the Chesapeake Bay is a great example of watershed-wide management; 
how we are excited about the multijurisdictional involvement of many 
shareholders dealing with the EPA, dealing with State and local 
authorities, and other disciplines, and the legislative bodies of three 
States, bringing into involvement a vast coalition of people outside 
the government sweep, of agencies, nonprofits, and private citizens; 
the tributary teams in Maryland, divided into ten major tributaries and 
teams made up of citizens, farmers, business interests, 
environmentalists, and others, who determine the primary issues in 
their watersheds, and how to go about educating and involving citizens 
based on the idea that the problems are different depending on where 
you are.
  The good news is that through all of this effort, the Bay is 
improving, albeit slowly. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has put 
together a report card on the Bay. The score was up to 28 last year, up 
from the historic low of roughly 23 in 1983, on their way towards a 
goal or a rating of 70.
  I appreciate the elements that are included in H.R. 3039 to support 
the EPA Bay program and its activity in the watershed, the pollution 
prevention, restoring activities, monitoring, grants to States, and 
other stakeholders and citizen involvement.
  I am here, though, not just to commend my colleagues on the committee 
and the others who are involved. I do hope that we are able as a 
committee and as a Congress to incorporate the lessons that we have 
learned with the Chesapeake Bay clean-up, and perhaps even in this 
Congress have a comprehensive piece of legislation that we could 
advance to our colleagues to make sure that the important approach that 
has been taken with the Chesapeake Bay clean-up is not an exception, 
but in fact it is the rule governing how we will approach these 
important areas across the country.
  Under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert), with concerned members of the committee, with others in 
Congress, we can make sure that these lessons that have been learned, 
the dollars we are able to stretch, the engagement that we can have 
with our citizens, become an important part of Federal policy.
  If we are able to do that, Mr. Speaker, we will have given an 
important gift to American citizens for Earth Day, not just one or two 
models of an exemplary clean-up that hold a lot of potential for the 
future, but a template that will guide the authorizing committee, a 
template that will guide the appropriating committee, a template that 
will guide across jurisdictions in the Federal government to show how 
we can achieve a more livable community, looking at the way we can 
manage our water resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to greater progress in the future.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 3039 is as follows:

                               H.R. 3039

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Chesapeake Bay Restoration 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure and a 
     resource of worldwide significance;
       (2) over many years, the productivity and water quality of 
     the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed were diminished by 
     pollution, excessive sedimentation, shoreline erosion, the 
     impacts of population growth and development in the 
     Chesapeake Bay watershed, and other factors;
       (3) the Federal Government (acting through the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency), the 
     Governor of the State of Maryland, the Governor of the 
     Commonwealth of Virginia, the Governor of the Commonwealth of 
     Pennsylvania, the Chairperson of the Chesapeake Bay 
     Commission, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia, as 
     Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories, have committed to a 
     comprehensive cooperative program to achieve improved water 
     quality and improvements in the productivity of living 
     resources of the Bay;
       (4) the cooperative program described in paragraph (3) 
     serves as a national and international model for the 
     management of estuaries; and
       (5) there is a need to expand Federal support for 
     monitoring, management, and restoration activities in the 
     Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries of the Bay in order to 
     meet and further the original and subsequent goals and 
     commitments of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to expand and strengthen cooperative efforts to restore 
     and protect the Chesapeake Bay; and
       (2) to achieve the goals established in the Chesapeake Bay 
     Agreement.

     SEC. 3. CHESAPEAKE BAY.

       The Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended by 
     striking section 117 (33 U.S.C. 1267) and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 117. CHESAPEAKE BAY.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Administrative cost.--The term `administrative cost' 
     means the cost of salaries and fringe benefits incurred in 
     administering a grant under this section.
       ``(2) Chesapeake bay agreement.--The term `Chesapeake Bay 
     Agreement' means the formal, voluntary agreements executed to 
     achieve the goal of restoring and protecting the Chesapeake 
     Bay ecosystem and the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay 
     ecosystem and signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
       ``(3) Chesapeake bay ecosystem.--The term `Chesapeake Bay 
     ecosystem' means the ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay and its 
     watershed.
       ``(4) Chesapeake bay program.--The term `Chesapeake Bay 
     Program' means the program directed by the Chesapeake 
     Executive Council in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay 
     Agreement.
       ``(5) Chesapeake executive council.--The term `Chesapeake 
     Executive Council' means the signatories to the Chesapeake 
     Bay Agreement.
       ``(6) Signatory jurisdiction.--The term `signatory 
     jurisdiction' means a jurisdiction of a signatory to the 
     Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
       ``(b) Continuation of Chesapeake Bay Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake 
     Executive Council (and as a member of the Council), the 
     Administrator shall continue the Chesapeake Bay Program.
       ``(2) Program office.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall maintain in the 
     Environmental Protection Agency a Chesapeake Bay Program 
     Office.
       ``(B) Function.--The Chesapeake Bay Program Office shall 
     provide support to the Chesapeake Executive Council by--
       ``(i) implementing and coordinating science, research, 
     modeling, support services, monitoring, data collection, and 
     other activities that support the Chesapeake Bay Program;
       ``(ii) developing and making available, through 
     publications, technical assistance, and other appropriate 
     means, information pertaining to the environmental quality 
     and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
       ``(iii) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and 
     local authorities, assisting the signatories to the 
     Chesapeake Bay Agreement in developing and implementing 
     specific action plans to carry out the responsibilities of 
     the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement;
       ``(iv) coordinating the actions of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency with the actions of the appropriate 
     officials of other Federal agencies and State and local 
     authorities in developing strategies to--

       ``(I) improve the water quality and living resources in the 
     Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
       ``(II) obtain the support of the appropriate officials of 
     the agencies and authorities in achieving the objectives of 
     the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and

       ``(v) implementing outreach programs for public 
     information, education, and participation to foster 
     stewardship of the resources of the Chesapeake Bay.

[[Page H2162]]

       ``(c) Interagency Agreements.--The Administrator may enter 
     into an interagency agreement with a Federal agency to carry 
     out this section.
       ``(d) Technical Assistance and Assistance Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake 
     Executive Council, the Administrator may provide technical 
     assistance, and assistance grants, to nonprofit 
     organizations, State and local governments, colleges, 
     universities, and interstate agencies to achieve the goals 
     and requirements contained in subsection (g)(1), subject to 
     such terms and conditions as the Administrator considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Federal share.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the Federal share of an assistance grant provided under 
     paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Administrator in 
     accordance with guidance issued by the Administrator.
       ``(B) Small watershed grants program.--The Federal share of 
     an assistance grant provided under paragraph (1) to carry out 
     an implementing activity under subsection (g)(2) shall not 
     exceed 75 percent of eligible project costs, as determined by 
     the Administrator.
       ``(3) Non-federal share.--An assistance grant under 
     paragraph (1) shall be provided on the condition that non-
     Federal sources provide the remainder of eligible project 
     costs, as determined by the Administrator.
       ``(4) Administrative costs.--Administrative costs shall not 
     exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award.
       ``(e) Implementation and Monitoring Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a signatory jurisdiction has approved 
     and committed to implement all or substantially all aspects 
     of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, on the request of the chief 
     executive of the jurisdiction, the Administrator--
       ``(A) shall make a grant to the jurisdiction for the 
     purpose of implementing the management mechanisms established 
     under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, subject to such terms and 
     conditions as the Administrator considers appropriate; and
       ``(B) may make a grant to a signatory jurisdiction for the 
     purpose of monitoring the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
       ``(2) Proposals.--
       ``(A) In general.--A signatory jurisdiction described in 
     paragraph (1) may apply for a grant under this subsection for 
     a fiscal year by submitting to the Administrator a 
     comprehensive proposal to implement management mechanisms 
     established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
       ``(B) Contents.--A proposal under subparagraph (A) shall 
     include--
       ``(i) a description of proposed management mechanisms that 
     the jurisdiction commits to take within a specified time 
     period, such as reducing or preventing pollution in the 
     Chesapeake Bay and its watershed or meeting applicable water 
     quality standards or established goals and objectives under 
     the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and
       ``(ii) the estimated cost of the actions proposed to be 
     taken during the fiscal year.
       ``(3) Approval.--If the Administrator finds that the 
     proposal is consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and 
     the national goals established under section 101(a), the 
     Administrator may approve the proposal for an award.
       ``(4) Federal share.--The Federal share of an 
     implementation grant under this subsection shall not exceed 
     50 percent of the cost of implementing the management 
     mechanisms during the fiscal year.
       ``(5) Non-federal share.--An implementation grant under 
     this subsection shall be made on the condition that non-
     Federal sources provide the remainder of the costs of 
     implementing the management mechanisms during the fiscal 
     year.
       ``(6) Administrative costs.--Administrative costs shall not 
     exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award.
       ``(7) Reporting.--On or before October 1 of each fiscal 
     year, the Administrator shall make available to the public a 
     document that lists and describes, in the greatest 
     practicable degree of detail--
       ``(A) all projects and activities funded for the fiscal 
     year;
       ``(B) the goals and objectives of projects funded for the 
     previous fiscal year; and
       ``(C) the net benefits of projects funded for previous 
     fiscal years.
       ``(f) Federal Facilities and Budget Coordination.--
       ``(1) Subwatershed planning and restoration.--A Federal 
     agency that owns or operates a facility (as defined by the 
     Administrator) within the Chesapeake Bay watershed shall 
     participate in regional and subwatershed planning and 
     restoration programs.
       ``(2) Compliance with agreement.--The head of each Federal 
     agency that owns or occupies real property in the Chesapeake 
     Bay watershed shall ensure that the property, and actions 
     taken by the agency with respect to the property, comply with 
     the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the Federal Agencies Chesapeake 
     Ecosystem Unified Plan, and any subsequent agreements and 
     plans.
       ``(3) Budget coordination.--
       ``(A) In general.--As part of the annual budget submission 
     of each Federal agency with projects or grants related to 
     restoration, planning, monitoring, or scientific 
     investigation of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, the head of 
     the agency shall submit to the President a report that 
     describes plans for the expenditure of the funds under this 
     section.
       ``(B) Disclosure to the council.--The head of each agency 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) shall disclose the report 
     under that subparagraph with the Chesapeake Executive Council 
     as appropriate.
       ``(g) Chesapeake Bay Program.--
       ``(1) Management strategies.--The Administrator, in 
     coordination with other members of the Chesapeake Executive 
     Council, shall ensure that management plans are developed and 
     implementation is begun by signatories to the Chesapeake Bay 
     Agreement to achieve--
       ``(A) the nutrient goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement 
     for the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the 
     Chesapeake Bay and its watershed;
       ``(B) the water quality requirements necessary to restore 
     living resources in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
       ``(C) the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxins Reduction and 
     Prevention Strategy goal of reducing or eliminating the input 
     of chemical contaminants from all controllable sources to 
     levels that result in no toxic or bioaccumulative impact on 
     the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem or on 
     human health;
       ``(D) habitat restoration, protection, creation, and 
     enhancement goals established by Chesapeake Bay Agreement 
     signatories for wetlands, riparian forests, and other types 
     of habitat associated with the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
       ``(E) the restoration, protection, creation, and 
     enhancement goals established by the Chesapeake Bay Agreement 
     signatories for living resources associated with the 
     Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
       ``(2) Small watershed grants program.--The Administrator, 
     in cooperation with the Chesapeake Executive Council, shall--
       ``(A) establish a small watershed grants program as part of 
     the Chesapeake Bay Program; and
       ``(B) offer technical assistance and assistance grants 
     under subsection (d) to local governments and nonprofit 
     organizations and individuals in the Chesapeake Bay region to 
     implement--
       ``(i) cooperative tributary basin strategies that address 
     the water quality and living resource needs in the Chesapeake 
     Bay ecosystem; and
       ``(ii) locally based protection and restoration programs or 
     projects within a watershed that complement the 
     tributary basin strategies, including the creation, 
     restoration, protection, or enhancement of habitat 
     associated with the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
       ``(h) Study of Chesapeake Bay Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than April 22, 2000, and every 
     5 years thereafter, the Administrator, in coordination with 
     the Chesapeake Executive Council, shall complete a study and 
     submit to Congress a comprehensive report on the results of 
     the study.
       ``(2) Requirements.--The study and report shall--
       ``(A) assess the state of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
       ``(B) compare the current state of the Chesapeake Bay 
     ecosystem with its state in 1975, 1985, and 1995;
       ``(C) assess the effectiveness of management strategies 
     being implemented on the date of enactment of this section 
     and the extent to which the priority needs are being met;
       ``(D) make recommendations for the improved management of 
     the Chesapeake Bay Program either by strengthening strategies 
     being implemented on the date of enactment of this section or 
     by adopting new strategies; and
       ``(E) be presented in such a format as to be readily 
     transferable to and usable by other watershed restoration 
     programs.
       ``(i) Special Study of Living Resource Response.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall 
     commence a 5-year special study with full participation of 
     the scientific community of the Chesapeake Bay to establish 
     and expand understanding of the response of the living 
     resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem to improvements in 
     water quality that have resulted from investments made 
     through the Chesapeake Bay Program.
       ``(2) Requirements.--The study shall--
       ``(A) determine the current status and trends of living 
     resources, including grasses, benthos, phytoplankton, 
     zooplankton, fish, and shellfish;
       ``(B) establish to the extent practicable the rates of 
     recovery of the living resources in response to improved 
     water quality condition;
       ``(C) evaluate and assess interactions of species, with 
     particular attention to the impact of changes within and 
     among trophic levels; and
       ``(D) recommend management actions to optimize the return 
     of a healthy and balanced ecosystem in response to 
     improvements in the quality and character of the waters of 
     the Chesapeake Bay.
       ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2000 through 2005.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. During consideration of the bill for 
amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that he has printed in the

[[Page H2163]]

designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be 
considered as read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment, and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for the voting on the 
first question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. . SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE

       (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided under 
     section 117 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. It is 
     the sense of the Congress that entities receiving such 
     assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase only 
     American-made equipment and products.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under such section, the head of each 
     Federal agency shall provide to each recipient of the 
     assistance a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.
       (c) Notice of Report.--Any entity which receives funds 
     under such section shall report any expenditures on foreign-
     made items to the Congress within 180 days of the 
     expenditure.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the same as the 
amendment offered on the last bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand this is the new and improved 
version of the amendment which we have previously accepted. We are 
pleased to accept this, as well.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the gentleman's 
amendment. It is in conformity with the rules of the House, and it is a 
sense of Congress buy American amendment. We are happy to support Mr. 
Buy America.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I urge an aye vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to the bill.
  If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the Committee 
rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Crane) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gutknecht, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
3039) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to assist in the 
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, and for other purposes, pursuant to 
House Resolution 470, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________