[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.
____________________