[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16399-16401]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         CHESAPEAKE BAY ACCOUNTABILITY AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2013

                                 ______
                                 

                     FEDERAL DUCK STAMP ACT OF 2014

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, in a moment I am going to be asking a 
unanimous consent request on some legislation that combines some work I 
have been doing and work the ranking member of the EPW Committee, my 
friend, the Senator from Alaska, has been doing. I want to make a brief 
statement first and then I am going to turn the floor over to the 
Senator from Louisiana.
  I start by thanking Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter for 
working with me on this important legislation. I also thank the 
bipartisan Virginia delegation on both sides of the Capitol, especially 
my friend Congressman Rob Wittman. He and I have worked on this 
initiative now for more than 4 years.
  As we all know, the Chesapeake Bay, while located around Virginia and 
Maryland and Delaware, is actually a national treasure. It is the 
centerpiece of the culture and economy of many coastal communities in 
Virginia and in several neighboring States.
  Restoring the health of the Chesapeake Bay must be a national 
priority. Virginia and five other States, the District of Columbia, 10 
Federal agencies, and more than 1,000 local governments have spent 
decades on this shared priority.
  We have joined together over the years in a shared commitment to the 
Bay. We have worked across jurisdictional lines, across the political 
aisle, across every level of government in partnership with the private 
sector and with nonprofit groups such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
  This important bipartisan legislation that we are going to be moving 
on shortly ensures that we maintain a Federal commitment to the 
partnership to restore the Chesapeake Bay. It also makes sure that 
during these challenging fiscal times every dollar spent on improving 
the health of the Bay produces real results.
  The Chesapeake Bay accountability bill requires the U.S. Office of 
Management and Budget to prepare a crosscut budget. That means we will 
actually track where and how Federal and State restoration dollars are 
being spent throughout the entire Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
  This will allow us to track costs and match them to results. It means 
more accountability and it means more transparency to our combined 
efforts to restore this national treasure.
  This bipartisan legislation is an important step forward in ensuring 
that the Chesapeake Bay restoration and preservation efforts remain 
effective, accountable, responsible, and transparent. In a moment I am 
going to urge all my colleagues to join us in approving it.
  At this moment, I yield the floor to the ranking member, the Senator 
from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I am truly honored to join my colleagues 
on the floor, Senators Warner and Begich. I am pleased to support 
Senator Warner's bill that he just described and also a second bill 
Senator Begich and I have been working very diligently on that will be 
part of the unanimous consent request. That is H.R. 5069, the Federal 
Duck Stamp Act of 2014. This bipartisan legislation is a real victory 
for sportsmen and for conservation. It is a straightforward bill that 
updates the fee paid by duck hunters for a duck stamp for the first 
time since 1991, and that is a big win for the hunters, it is a big win 
for conservation because the cost of the duck stamp goes directly 
toward conservation of waterfowl habitat. In fact, 98 cents on every $1 
generated goes directly to purchase or lease wetland habitat for ducks, 
and where you have more habitat, you have more ducks and you have

[[Page 16400]]

a healthier environment. It is as simple as that.
  I am very pleased to say our work on this bill is exactly how this 
place and American democracy is supposed to work. I first heard about 
this real need from duck hunters, from sportsmen who live this and 
breathe this every day. I am an occasional hunter, but these folks 
absolutely live it and breathe it every day and understand the critical 
need.
  I immediately got very involved. I reached out to allies such as 
Senator Begich, who had a great interest in it. I met with the House 
sponsor, Representative John Fleming, also from Louisiana. We met with 
the House Natural Resources chairman, Doc Hastings. We got a strong 
version of the bill that passed through the House recently and that now 
comes to the Senate. Today, by this consent, we will pass that House 
bill through the Senate and send it to the President.
  As I said, that is the way the process is supposed to work, and this 
is a real win for hunters, for conservation, for the environment.
  I thank my colleague and partner on this, Senator Begich, and yield 
the floor to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I thank my colleague, Senator Vitter, 
for this incredible work. For several years we have been focused on 
this piece of legislation for two reasons; one, not only is it 
important for the hunters, the duck hunters, but a provision in there 
is also important for subsistence users in my State of Alaska.
  This is an important bill. As has been mentioned, 98 cents of every 
$1 that goes into a duck stamp goes back into habitat protection for 
hunters currently and into the future.
  Along with that, since 1934, almost $1 billion--three-quarters of a 
billion dollars--has been spent in protecting wetland habitat, again 
for the purpose of ensuring that we have this habitat protected not 
only for hunters but in my case for subsistence users.
  I agree with Senator Vitter, this is the kind of legislation we want 
to see done, where Democrats and Republicans, the House and the Senate, 
are working together. My colleague, Congressman Young, a Republican on 
the House side from Alaska, worked on his side of the equation, working 
with other House Members, to figure out how to move a bill. We had a 
Senate version over here we were working on. At the end of the day, it 
is not about whose name is on the bill; it is about getting the job 
done.
  Here we have a piece of legislation that will finally correct the 
pricing on duck stamps to ensure that we keep up with inflation, to 
ensure that the continued preservation of wetlands is done for our 
hunters and our sportsmen. But on top of that, for my State of Alaska, 
this recognizes the needs of subsistence hunters. Millions of acres in 
Alaska are set aside as refuge and others are in protected status. Our 
subsistence users live off the land--not for extra gain for their 
household, but literally for food for the winter in order to survive. 
So this allows a waiver to be put into place that will have minimal 
impact on the duck stamp program, but will ensure that subsistence 
users--people who live off the land in Alaska--can continue to do that 
without the threat of a Federal agency fining them or even dealing with 
them in some way because they didn't have the stamp. This allows them 
to go for a waiver and ensure they will be able to do their subsistence 
hunting they have been doing for generations before the government came 
along and locked up their land they have been hunting. And we will make 
sure this happens not only now but into the future.
  Again, I wish to thank Senator Vitter for his work and his efforts 
not only in this body but on the other side of the Capitol, working 
with House Members to make sure we could all work together and do this 
by unanimous consent. Along with them, Senator Boxer and the EPW staff 
did an incredible job. It is an honor to be here today.
  The last thing I will say to Senator Warner is this: My son just had 
an opportunity to go to the bay. He did an incredible field study there 
with some of his staff. It was a great experience. He was able to go 
into the mud. I am not sure what that is exactly, but he was able to go 
chest deep, and then he decided not to do that, but to be there to help 
people. But it was an incredible experience, to experience that bay, 
which is a national treasure. So having that bill at the same time as 
this other one is not only good for Senator Warner's community but good 
for this whole country. And for folks from my State who come to visit 
this community, it is another opportunity for them to see a national 
treasure. So it is an honor to have two pieces of legislation that will 
pass by unanimous consent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his 
comments and I will be happy to take the Senator and his whole family 
out to the bay again. I thank the Senator from Louisiana and the 
Senator from Alaska for working together. That is the way this is 
supposed to work. There are duck hunters in Virginia as well and they 
firmly support this legislation. I appreciate also the special 
considerations that need to be addressed in terms of the State of 
Alaska.
  I ask unanimous consent that the EPW Committee be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 1000, and the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration and the consideration of H.R. 5069, which is at 
the desk, en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bills, 
en bloc.
  Mr. WARNER. I further ask unanimous consent that the Warner 
substitute amendment to S. 1000, which is at the desk, be agreed to; 
the bills, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and passed en 
bloc; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3965) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to, 
as follows:

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     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.

[[Page 16401]]

       (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 bill (S. 1000), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a 
third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
  The bill (H.R. 5069) was ordered to a third reading, was read the 
third time, and passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. VITTER. Did that unanimous consent agreement cover both bills?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

                          ____________________