[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 149 (Tuesday, December 9, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H8878-H8880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CHESAPEAKE BAY ACCOUNTABILITY AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2014

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (S. 1000) to require the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget to prepare a crosscut budget for restoration 
activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                S. 1000

       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 
     Accountability and Recovery Act of 2014''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Chesapeake bay state.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay 
     State'' or ``State'' means any of--
       (A) the States of Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, and 
     New York;
       (B) the Commonwealths of Virginia and Pennsylvania; and
       (C) the District of Columbia.
       (3) Chesapeake bay watershed.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed'' means all tributaries, backwaters, and side 
     channels, including watersheds, draining into the Chesapeake 
     Bay.
       (4) Chesapeake executive council.--The term ``Chesapeake 
     Executive Council'' has the meaning given the term by section 
     117(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1267(a)).
       (5) Chief executive.--The term ``chief executive'' means, 
     in the case of a State or Commonwealth, the Governor of the 
     State or Commonwealth and, in the case of the District of 
     Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
       (6) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.
       (7) Federal restoration activity.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Federal restoration activity'' 
     means a Federal program or project carried out under Federal 
     authority in existence as of the date of enactment of this 
     Act with the express intent to directly protect, conserve, or 
     restore living resources, habitat, water resources, or water 
     quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including programs 
     or projects that provide financial and technical assistance 
     to promote responsible land use, stewardship, and community 
     engagement in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
       (B) Categorization.--Federal restoration activities may be 
     categorized as follows:
       (i) Physical restoration.
       (ii) Planning.
       (iii) Feasibility studies.
       (iv) Scientific research.
       (v) Monitoring.
       (vi) Education.
       (vii) Infrastructure development.
       (8) State restoration activity.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``State restoration activity'' 
     means any State program or project carried out under State 
     authority that directly or indirectly protect, conserve, or 
     restore living resources, habitat, water resources, or water 
     quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including programs 
     or projects that promote responsible land use, stewardship, 
     and community engagement in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
       (B) Categorization.--State restoration activities may be 
     categorized as follows:
       (i) Physical restoration.
       (ii) Planning.
       (iii) Feasibility studies.
       (iv) Scientific research.
       (v) Monitoring.
       (vi) Education.
       (vii) Infrastructure development.

     SEC. 3. CHESAPEAKE BAY CROSSCUT BUDGET.

       (a) In General.--The Director, in consultation with the 
     Chesapeake Executive Council, the chief executive of each 
     Chesapeake Bay State, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission, 
     shall submit to Congress a financial report containing--
       (1) an interagency crosscut budget that displays, as 
     applicable--
       (A) the proposed funding for any Federal restoration 
     activity to be carried out in the succeeding fiscal year, 
     including any planned interagency or intra-agency transfer, 
     for each of the Federal agencies that carry out restoration 
     activities;
       (B) to the extent that information is available, the 
     estimated funding for any State restoration activity to be 
     carried out in the succeeding fiscal year;
       (C) all expenditures for Federal restoration activities 
     from the preceding 2 fiscal years, the current fiscal year, 
     and the succeeding fiscal year;
       (D) all expenditures, to the extent that information is 
     available, for State restoration activities during the 
     equivalent time period described in subparagraph (C); and
       (E) a section that identifies and evaluates, based on need 
     and appropriateness, specific opportunities to consolidate 
     similar programs and activities within the budget and 
     recommendations to Congress for legislative action to 
     streamline, consolidate, or eliminate similar programs and 
     activities within the budget;
       (2) a detailed accounting of all funds received and 
     obligated by each Federal agency for restoration activities 
     during the current and preceding fiscal years, including the 
     identification of funds that were transferred to a Chesapeake 
     Bay State for restoration activities;
       (3) to the extent that information is available, a detailed 
     accounting from each State of all funds received and 
     obligated from a Federal agency for restoration activities 
     during the current and preceding fiscal years; and
       (4) a description of each of the proposed Federal and State 
     restoration activities to be carried out in the succeeding 
     fiscal year (corresponding to those activities listed in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1)), including--
       (A) the project description;
       (B) the current status of the project;
       (C) the Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority, 
     program, or responsible agency;
       (D) the authorization level for appropriations;
       (E) the project timeline, including benchmarks;
       (F) references to project documents;
       (G) descriptions of risks and uncertainties of project 
     implementation;
       (H) a list of coordinating entities;
       (I) a description of the funding history for the project;
       (J) cost sharing; and
       (K) alignment with the existing Chesapeake Bay Agreement, 
     Chesapeake Executive Council goals and priorities, and Annual 
     Action Plan required by section 205 of Executive Order 13508 
     (33 U.S.C. 1267 note; relating to Chesapeake Bay protection 
     and restoration).
       (b) Minimum Funding Levels.--In describing restoration 
     activities in the report required under subsection (a), the 
     Director shall only include--
       (1) for the first 3 years that the report is required, 
     descriptions of--
       (A) Federal restoration activities that have funding 
     amounts greater than or equal to $300,000; and
       (B) State restoration activities that have funding amounts 
     greater than or equal to $300,000; and
       (2) for every year thereafter, descriptions of--
       (A) Federal restoration activities that have funding 
     amounts greater than or equal to $100,000; and
       (B) State restoration activities that have funding amounts 
     greater than or equal to $100,000.
       (c) Deadline.--The Director shall submit to Congress the 
     report required by subsection (a) not later than September 30 
     of each year.
       (d) Report.--Copies of the report required by subsection 
     (a) shall be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations, 
     Natural Resources, Energy and Commerce, and Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committees on Appropriations, Environment and Public Works, 
     and Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply beginning 
     with the first fiscal year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 4. INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--There shall be an Independent Evaluator 
     for restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 
     who shall review and report on--
       (1) restoration activities; and
       (2) any related topics that are suggested by the Chesapeake 
     Executive Council.
       (b) Appointment.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     submission of nominees by the Chesapeake Executive Council, 
     the Independent Evaluator shall be appointed by the 
     Administrator from among nominees submitted by the Chesapeake 
     Executive Council with the consultation of the scientific 
     community.
       (2) Nominations.--The Chesapeake Executive Council may 
     nominate for consideration as Independent Evaluator a 
     science-based institution of higher education.
       (3) Requirements.--The Administrator shall only select as 
     Independent Evaluator a nominee that the Administrator 
     determines demonstrates excellence in marine science, policy 
     evaluation, or other studies relating to complex 
     environmental restoration activities.
       (c) Reports.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     appointment and once every 2 years thereafter, the 
     Independent Evaluator shall submit to Congress a report 
     describing the findings and recommendations of reviews 
     conducted under subsection (a).

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON NEW FUNDING.

       No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from

[[Page H8879]]

Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend Congressman Wittman, the 
author of the House companion bill, H.R. 739, which has already passed 
the House earlier in this Congress. I would like to thank him for his 
work for this government efficiency bill for the Chesapeake Bay.
  Mr. Wittman is a true champion for the Chesapeake Bay, and this bill 
is another example of his effective leadership for the bay and his 
Virginia constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to this bill, and I will let Mr. 
Wittman explain that, but I would like to comment also that while 
section 3(d) of the bill does not require that a copy of the financial 
report be submitted to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
it is our intent that the director should also transmit a copy to that 
committee.
  Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster of the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee for his assistance in scheduling this bill 
for floor consideration. I include in the Record the exchange of 
letters on S. 1000 between our two committees.

         Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
           Representatives,
                                 Washington, DC, December 5, 2014.
     Hon. Doc Hastings,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning S. 1000, the 
     Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act of 2014. S. 
     1000 contains provisions that fall within the Rule X 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring S. 1000 
     before the House in an expeditious manner and, accordingly, I 
     will not seek a referral of the bill. However, this is 
     conditional on our mutual understanding that forgoing 
     consideration of the bill does not prejudice the Committee 
     with respect to any future jurisdictional claim over the 
     subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation 
     that fall within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     this understanding, and would request that you insert our 
     exchange of letters on this matter into the committee report 
     on S. 1000 and the Congressional Record during consideration 
     of this bill on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Shuster,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                 Washington, DC, December 8, 2014.
     Hon. Bill Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding S. 
     1000, the Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act of 
     2014.
       I appreciate your willingness to forego a referral of this 
     bill, and agree that by not exercising this authority for S. 
     1000, your committee is not prejudiced in any future 
     jurisdictional claim over the subject matter contained in the 
     bill or similar legislation that falls within the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure's Rule X jurisdiction.
       As the Committee on Natural Resources won't be filing a 
     report on S. 1000, I will instead be pleased to include this 
     exchange of letters in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Doc Hastings,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Chesapeake Bay is America's largest estuary, and 
restoration of the estuary will be an incredible conservation 
challenge. The Federal Government, States, localities, and conservation 
groups have spent billions of dollars to improve water quality, 
habitat, fisheries, recreational opportunities, and tributaries since 
the first Chesapeake Bay agreement was signed back in 1983; yet the 
water quality has continued to deteriorate.
  The efforts have yielded some impressive successes, but by many 
metrics, the bay is still in poor health. This is due in large part to 
the fact that since bay cleanup began in earnest in the eighties, the 
population of the watershed has increased dramatically by more than 
one-third.
  There is more wetland loss, more polluted runoff, and more nutrients 
in the wastewater and other sources entering the bay. In a sense, the 
bay is being loved to death by those who live near it.
  President Obama's 2009 executive order on Chesapeake Bay protection 
and restoration has refocused Federal efforts, and that is a good 
thing; however, taxpayers and bay advocates deserve to know more about 
how and how much money is being spent.
  S. 1000 would require the Office of Management and Budget to prepare 
a crosscut budget of Federal agency and State expenditures on bay 
restoration. This exercise will help identify areas where Bay partners 
can better coordinate or eliminate redundancy.
  Mr. Speaker, this is commonsense legislation that will help improve 
the efficiency and effectiveness of Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts. I 
would certainly congratulate the representative from Virginia (Mr. 
Wittman) for championing this cause and shepherding his version of this 
legislation through the House.
  I would note that today I did hear on the radio that the Governor-
elect of Maryland is proposing to further delay or undo some additional 
restrictions on the applications of chicken manure and other phosphate 
nitrogen-rich fertilizers that are contributing to the dramatic 
deterioration of the bay.
  I would say this new Governor is being very shortsighted in terms of 
the benefits of the bay in total versus the small cost that would be 
imposed upon farmers to get these needed restrictions in place, and I 
would hope that he reconsiders and hears a lot about this from his 
constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I support passage of this bill, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman). He is the 
gentleman who sponsored the House version of this legislation.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend and thank 
Chairman Hastings for all of his efforts and his support in bringing 
this legislation to the floor. We would not be where we are today 
without his leadership, and it has been a true pleasure and honor to 
serve with him during his time as chairman of the House Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, you have been a tireless champion for preserving our 
Nation's bountiful natural resources. We thank you so much for the 
legacy that you have left in leadership, but also for the improvements 
that you have made in this Nation's natural resources, and I wish you 
all the best.
  Mr. Speaker, S. 1000 is the Chesapeake Bay Accountability and 
Recovery Act of 2014. I am the author of the House companion 
legislation, H.R. 739, which has already passed the House earlier this 
Congress and in previous sessions of Congress.
  The Chesapeake Bay is the economic and cultural backbone of our 
region, and it is one of our Nation's most prized natural resources. 
Many activities are currently underway to clean up the bay, but without 
a coordinated effort, it is impossible to ascertain the effectiveness 
of these programs or to accurately gauge their success.
  The restoration effort includes multiple Federal agencies and also 
includes six States and the District of Columbia, as well as more than 
1,000 localities and multiple nongovernmental operations.
  While the drive and determination to restore the bay is shared by all 
of these entities, the effort can be muddled due to the complexity of 
various participants. As we have seen, we have taken in some instances 
steps forward, but in some instances, those steps have not

[[Page H8880]]

been forthcoming with other efforts. We need to make sure that every 
effort is indeed making progress on restoring the bay.

                              {time}  1230

  At the same time as we look at those efforts, it is difficult to 
pinpoint exactly where and how much money is being spent across this 
wide scope of bay restoration activities. To remedy this, we must 
ensure that Federal, State, and local efforts are not working at cross-
purposes and that the restoration effort, as a whole, is coordinated 
and efficient. Today, when we are in a resource-challenged environment, 
we must get the most out of the dollars we spend to restore the bay.
  This simple legislation would require a crosscut budget to ensure 
Federal dollars currently spent on bay restoration activities produce 
results and ensure that we are coordinating how restoration dollars are 
being spent. That coordination at the local, State, and Federal level 
is critical to make sure that we demonstrate results and that we 
continue those efforts that have proven to be successful. It is also 
critical to make sure that we are not duplicating efforts or 
unnecessarily spending money in areas that are not producing results.
  Second, the bill would require the appointment of an independent 
evaluator to review restoration activities in the watershed. The 
Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act is a smart, commonsense 
piece of legislation that will lead to better spending decisions and 
better government, which will ensure that more resources are available 
to help restore the Nation's largest estuary, the Chesapeake Bay.
  This has been a truly cooperative effort, and I am very grateful for 
the leadership of Senator Mark Warner and Senator Tim Kaine as 
champions of Chesapeake Bay restoration. I would also like to thank my 
fellow Virginia Representatives Frank Wolf, Jim Moran, Bobby Scott, 
Gerry Connolly, and Scott Rigell--as well as Chris Van Hollen of 
Maryland--and Congressman Randy Forbes for their consistent support in 
getting this bill through the House.
  I first introduced this bill in 2008, and it has been a difficult 
road to get to where we are now, but the Chesapeake Bay, too, has had a 
difficult road. With the House passage today, Mr. Speaker, we will be 
one step closer to the next chapter of the Chesapeake Bay's long 
history of efforts to restore her to her previous bounty.
  Today, we see that the economic foundation of our region remains 
vested in the Chesapeake Bay, and it continues to be a national 
treasure. We hope that with today's efforts it will continue to be 
enjoyed for generations and generations to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Chesapeake Bay and 
this commonsense bill.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
adopt this very hard bill that went through arduous examination from 
all aspects, and I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) 
for his work on it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, S. 1000.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________