```

[House Report 108-677]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     108-677

======================================================================

 
                 REAUTHORIZE THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM

                                _______
                                

 September 13, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

     Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Transportation and 
                Infrastructure, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 4688]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 4688) to amend the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay 
Program, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                       Purpose of the Legislation

    The purpose of H.R. 4688 is to amend section 117 of the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the Clean Water Act) to 
reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program within the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA).

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United 
States. It provides millions of pounds of seafood, extensive 
wildlife habitat, a wide variety of recreational opportunities, 
and is a major hub for shipping and commerce. Stresses on the 
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem have threatened the productivity and 
water quality of the Bay. Recognition of these problems led to 
the inception of the Chesapeake Bay Program in 1983.
    The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique regional partnership 
that directs and conducts the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay 
under the voluntary Chesapeake Bay Agreement, first adopted in 
1983. Additional Chesapeake Bay agreements were signed in 1987, 
1992, and 2000. The signatories to the Chesapeake Bay 
Agreements are Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District 
of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and EPA.
    Progress has been made in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. 
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office reports that nitrogen and 
phosphorous levels are decreasing in non-tidal portions of 
rivers that flow to the Bay. Sediment levels in some rivers are 
declining as well. However, the goals of the Chesapeake Bay 
Program have not yet been reached and more must be done to 
reduce pollutant loadings.
    EPA's participation in the Chesapeake Bay Program was 
authorized formally in P.L. 100-4, the 1987 amendments to the 
Clean Water Act, which added a new section 117 to the Act. 
Section 117 authorized $52 million in Federal assistance for 
the Chesapeake Bay Program: $3 million per year for each of 
fiscal years 1987 through 1990 for the Chesapeake Bay Program 
office and $10 million per year for each of fiscal years 1987 
through 1990 for grants to implement interstate development 
plan grants. In 2000, in P.L. 106-457, Congress reauthorized 
section 117 through 2005 and increased the authorization 
ceiling to $40 million per year.

                       Summary of the Legislation

Section 1. Reauthorization of Chesapeake Bay Program

    Section 1 of H.R. 4688 amends section 117 of the Clean 
Water Act to extend the authorization of appropriations of $40 
million per year in support for the Chesapeake Bay Program 
through fiscal year 2010.

            Legislative History and Committee Consideration

    The Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee held a 
hearing on H.R. 4688 and other pending legislation on July 8, 
2004. Testimony was presented by a representative of the 
Chesapeake Bay Commission.
    The Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee met on 
July 15, 2004, to consider H.R. 4688 and other legislation. The 
Subcommittee reported the bill favorably without amendment to 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, by voice 
vote. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in 
open session on July 21, 2004, and ordered the bill reported, 
without amendment, to the House by voice vote.

                             Rollcall Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report to include the 
total number of votes cast for and against on each rollcall 
vote on a motion to report and on any amendment offered to the 
measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for 
and against. There were no recorded votes taken in connection 
with ordering H.R. 4688 reported. A motion to order H.R. 4688 
reported to the House was agreed to by voice vote.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in this report.

                          Cost of Legislation

    Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the 
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is 
included in this report.

                    Compliance With House Rule XIII

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee 
references the report of the Congressional Budget Office 
included below.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goals and objective of this legislation are to 
restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and the living 
resources of the Bay through the cooperative efforts of the 
Chesapeake Bay Program.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 
4688 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 28, 2004.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4688, a bill to 
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize 
the Chesapeake Bay Program.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Susanne S. 
Mehlman (for federal costs) and Gregory Waring (for the state 
and local impact).
            Sincerely,
                                      Elizabeth M. Robinson
                               (For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 4688--A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
        reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program

    Summary: H.R. 4688 would extend the authorization of 
appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA's) Chesapeake Bay Program through 2010. Under current law, 
$40 million is authorized to be appropriated each year through 
2005, and enacting H.R. 4688 would maintain the same authorized 
annual funding level for subsequent years. Such funding would 
be used to restore the ecological health of the bay. CBO 
estimates that implementing this legislation would cost $129 
million over the next five years, assuming appropriations of 
the authorized amounts. (The additional amounts authorized 
would be spent after 2009.)
    The bill would not affect direct spending or receipts. H.R. 
4688 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 
as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would 
impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: For purposes of 
this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted this 
year and that the amounts authorized will be appropriated for 
each fiscal year, beginning with 2006. Estimated outlays are 
based on historical spending patterns for similar activities. 
The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 4688 is shown in the 
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
budget function 300 (natural resources and the environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                                                     2004    2005    2006    2007    2008   2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending under current law on Chesapeake Bay Program:
    Authorization level \1\.......................................      23      40       0       0       0   0
    Estimated outlays.............................................      23      30      21       6       1   0
Proposed changes:
    Authorization level...........................................       0       0      40      40      40  40
    Estimated outlays.............................................       0       0      16      34      39  40
Spending under H.R. 4688 on Chesapeake Bay Program:
    Authorization level \1\.......................................      23      40      40      40      40  40
    Estimated outlays.............................................      23      30      37      40      40  40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2004 level is the amount appropriated for that year to EPA to implement the Chesapeake Bay Program. The
  2005 amount is the level authorized to be appropriated under current law for the program.

    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 4688 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments. Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, local 
governments in those states, and the District of Columbia would 
benefit from the bill's extension of grants, technical 
assistance, monitoring, and restoration activities for the bay 
and affected areas. Any expenditures made by those governments 
to satisfy the matching requirements of the program's grants 
would be incurred voluntarily.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman. 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Gregory Waring. 
Impact on the Private Sector: Amina Masood.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint 
resolution of a public character shall include a statement 
citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the 
Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the 
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted 
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (Public Law 104-4).

                        Preemption Clarification

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint 
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the 
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local, 
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 4688 does not 
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                Applicability to the Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 
104-1).

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

         SECTION 117 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

SEC. 117. CHESAPEAKE BAY.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000 for each 
of fiscal years 2001 through [2005] 2010. Such sums shall 
remain available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  

```