Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding).

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 627 & 628, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both rollcall votes.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank both the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for his longtime support, as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who I'm sure will have a word to say about this as well, and also the work that the gentleman from North Carolina, the ranking member of the subcommittee that I chair--and he has done a good job as the ranking member on--for working with us to find ground here that we could reach agreement upon. I will also say that I have a great interest in looking at the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and other privacy issues that need to be reviewed and modernized, and I hope that, in my new capacity as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the next Congress, we'll have the opportunity to work together on issues of that nature. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today I am pleased that we are considering a bipartisan bill to update the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988. This bill will ensure that a law related to the handling of videotape rental information is updated to reflect the realities of the 21st century. The VPPA was passed by Congress in the wake of Judge Robert Bork's 1987 Supreme Court nomination battle, during which a local Washington, D.C., newspaper obtained a list of videotapes the Bork family rented from its neighborhood videotape rental store. This disclosure caused bipartisan outrage, which resulted in the enactment of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The commercial video distribution landscape has changed dramatically since 1988. Back then, the primary consumer consumption of commercial video content occurred through the sale or rental of prerecorded videocassette tapes. This required users to travel to their local video rental store to pick a movie. Afterward, consumers had to travel back to the store to return the rented movie. Movies that consumers rented and enjoyed were recommended to friends, primarily through face-to-face conversations. With today's technology, consumers can quickly and efficiently access video programming through a variety of platforms, including through Internet protocol-based video services, all without leaving their homes. This bill is extremely similar to H.R. 2471, which passed the House overwhelmingly a year ago. This newer version incorporates provisions suggested by the Senate that allows greater consumer flexibility in their video sharing habits. I support these enhancements to the bill. This bill updates the Video Privacy Protection Act to allow videotape service providers to facilitate the sharing on social media networks of the movies watched or recommended by users. Specifically, it is narrowly crafted to preserve the VPPA's protections for consumers' privacy, while modernizing the law to empower consumers to do more with their video consumption preferences, including sharing names of new or favorite TV shows or movies on social media in a simpler way. However, it protects the consumer's control over the information by requiring consumer consent before any of this occurs, and it makes clear that a consumer can opt in to the ongoing sharing of his or her favorite movies or TV shows without having to provide consent each and every time a movie is rented. It also makes clear that written affirmative consent can be provided through the Internet and can be withdrawn at any time. The bill we are considering today requires that the consent be distinct and separate from any other form setting forth other legal and financial obligations. Companies must provide consumers with the clear and conspicuous option to withdraw their consent to share at any time. Finally, a consumer's consent to share expires after 24 months unless the consumer chooses to opt in again. This bill is truly pro-consumer and places the decision of whether or not to share video rentals with one's friends squarely in the hands of the consumer. In fact, the cochairs of the Future of Privacy Forum correctly pointed out, in an opinion piece in Roll Call on November 29, 2011, that ``the antiquated law on the books is a hindrance to consumers.'' This legislation does not change the scope of who is covered by the VPPA or the definition of ``personally identifiable information.'' In addition, it preserves the requirement that the user provide affirmative, written consent. It's time that Congress updates the VPPA to keep up with today's technology and the consumer marketplace. This bill does just that. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important piece of legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6671, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6671) to amend section 2710 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that a video tape service provider may obtain a consumer's informed, written consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the Internet.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank my colleagues for coming together on this legislation. I believe that it is very good legislation that modernizes the use of the Internet and the use of information that people want to share with each other. It makes it feasible to do that now in ways that newer users of the Internet have become used to with music and other things they share, and now they'll be able to do that with video, television, and movies and other things like that. So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the committee, for his fine work on this legislation, and I rise in support of it. You know, this House has twice passed through the entire House legislation eliminating the visa lottery program--55,000 visas, not given based upon family reunification needs, not given based upon job shortages in the United States, but based upon pure luck. And it's unfair to people from more than a dozen countries around the world that stand in long lines, on waiting lists, and then watch somebody have their name drawn out of a computer at random, with no particular job skills, no ties in this country, and they get to go right past them into a green card in the United States. So, if you're from Mexico, you're not eligible for the visa lottery program. If you're from Canada, you're not eligible for the visa lottery program. If you're from China or India or the Philippines or from more than a dozen countries, you are not eligible for this program at all. Let me just say that far more people with far greater contributions to make to our economy, to our system, will benefit from using those visas for STEM--for science, for technology, for engineering, and math. In fact, most African immigrants to the U.S. do not come through the diversity program, and many will benefit from a STEM visa program. There are more than 3,000 students from Nigeria alone who are studying in STEM fields in the United States. They will be able to stay in the U.S. because of the STEM Jobs Act. This is a good proposal that is fair to people who want to come to this country to better their lives for themselves but to also help the United States in these difficult economic times find people who are needed here or who have legitimate family reunification needs, not simply based on pure luck. Our immigration system is in need of more reform than this, but this is great reform, and I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 583 and 584, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the Motion to Recommit and ``aye'' on final passage of H.R. 6213.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank Chairman Lucas for his leadership on this issue and Ranking Member Peterson for his support of this effort to take action to help livestock producers who are being devastated by the drought. Livestock farmers in the Sixth District of Virginia have been hit hard by the heat and the derecho that swept through the Shenandoah Valley last month. This disaster relief was included in the 2008 farm bill but, unfortunately, did not last the full length of the farm bill. I am pleased that the Congress has found a way to provide relief for these livestock farmers; and not only do we provide the relief, but we pay for it. And not only do we pay for it, but we also achieve additional savings that are applied to the deficit. If every bill passed by the Congress reduced spending overall, we would be in much better fiscal condition in the Federal Government. While the Congress is taking an important first step in providing relief for drought-stricken livestock farmers, the administration has at hand a tool that they should use right now to provide drought relief as well. The Obama administration has at its disposal an easy relief valve that would provide drought relief, if only temporarily--a reduction in the government-mandated Renewable Fuel Standard. I have long been a critic of the RFS that has increased food and feed stocks being diverted into fuel, leading to diminished supplies for livestock and food producers. In fact, last year, 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop was used for ethanol production. There is no doubt that this policy has driven up the price of corn, which today is hovering around $8 a bushel. This, in turn, drives up the cost of food. Unfortunately, because of the drought, we no longer have the luxury of being just worried about the price. This drought is so devastating that we have to be increasingly worried we do not have a large enough corn supply to meet all of our competing demands. As we confront the reality of the tightening corn supplies, there are real concerns about having enough to satisfy the RFS and the needs of our food producers. We should not be in a position where we are choosing between fuel and food. In fact, the government has chosen: they've chosen fuel over food with a policy that mandates a certain amount of corn production going to ethanol production each year. As the drought further shrinks the corn supply, we are unfortunately also going to see livestock herds shrink. This shrinking herd will affect consumers' grocery bills, resulting in consumers having to spend more in the grocery store. Rural communities that depend on livestock will be hit hard as producers affected by both the availability and high price of corn are being forced to limit their production or are being squeezed out of business. The law allows the Administrator of the EPA to reduce the required volume of renewable fuels in any year based on severe harm to the economy or environment of a state, a region or the United States, or in the event of inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel. This drought and the shrinking corn crop are causing severe economic harm in the countryside and on grocery store shelves. The Administrator of the EPA has already received a petition to waive the RFS for a year. Today, over 150 bipartisan members, from coast to coast, joined in calling for Administrator Jackson to waive the RFS. The Congress is acting today to help drought stricken livestock farmers, but now the Obama Administration must act to use their authority to help these same farmers. This relief is not only desperately needed, but I believe is required by the law. I urge all members to join today in supporting this bill to help provide much needed drought relief, and I urge the Administration to join the Congress in acting to provide drought relief by waiving the RFS. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a first start toward addressing a longer-term problem that requires other action.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would like to thank Chairman Walden for his great work in this area and for his leadership on this issue. I rise to strongly support House Concurrent Resolution 127. Mr. Speaker, several hostile countries continue to pursue a U.N. takeover of the Internet through an organization known as the International Telecommunication Union, or ITU, which is an agency within the United Nations. In fact, a push is being made to negotiate international control of the Internet in Dubai this December. The U.N. is the absolute last entity that should have anything to do with managing the functioning of the Internet. Currently, the private, nonprofit ICANN, which is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, performs this function. While ICANN is far from perfect, having this responsibility rest with a private entity helps foster market principles and is the most efficient way to administer the Internet's domain name system and root servers. We must remain vigilant against efforts by foreign governments to consolidate the control of the Internet into a U.N.-centered body, which would lead to free speech and access restrictions and abuses. House Concurrent Resolution 127 will show Congress' unity behind this concept, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3803 would prevent abortions of unborn children who are more than 20 weeks after fertilization--the age at which scientific evidence shows that they can feel great pain. This bill will prevent brutal, late term abortion procedures, including one in which unborn children are mutilated and dismembered while they are still alive. Only the most calloused among us can hear the description of these types of procedures and not react with disgust. I strongly believe that life begins at conception, and that we should protect the lives of innocent unborn children. I wish this bill went even further, but the absolute least we can do is ban abortion when we know the unborn children experience great pain. I urge support of this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, for yielding me this time and for his leadership in combatting this terrible bill in the aftermath of a very disappointing Supreme Court decision, ruling that sometimes what we all thought and were told was a penalty is now a tax, but sometimes it's not a tax, it's a penalty. First time in the history of the United States Supreme Court, in over 200 years of decisions, that a device has been called both a penalty and a tax at the same time. Very disappointing, and here's what it leaves American citizens with. This is your new health care system: more than 150 new government agencies and programs. I was called by PolitiFact a couple of months ago, and they said, Where do you get that 150 new government agencies and programs? We sent them a list of 158 new government agencies and programs with the page number of the bill and the section number of the statute, and we've never heard back from PolitiFact. I'm disappointed. I thought we were going to see one of those arrows pointing all the way over to the far right saying, ``True.'' And it is true. Not only do we get 150 new agencies and programs, we get 400 new authorities for the Secretary of Health and Human Services and other bureaucrats here in Washington to dictate to families and businesses, large and small, to local governments and State governments, to insurance companies, to health care providers what your insurance policy is going to look like, which means you won't be able to keep the insurance that you like now and that you were promised you could keep by the President once upon a time. No, no, siree. We already have 12,000 pages of new regulations that have been written, and they haven't even covered about half of those 400 new mandates, new regulatory authorities that they can write regulations on. It's going to cost $2 trillion over 10 years, a half a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare, over $800 billion in new taxes, including a quarter of a trillion dollars in taxes on middle-income Americans. The fact of the matter is this monstrosity needs to be repealed. Vote for this legislation and repeal it today.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, When Juliette ``Daisy'' Gordon Low gathered 18 girls together in Savannah, GA, on March 12, 1912, she aimed to offer a hand to the youngsters by helping them to develop physically, mentally, and spiritually. Since that first meeting of what would become known as the Girl Scouts, millions of girls and young women have grown in courage, confidence, and character and made countless contributions to the world. The Girl Scout leadership program exists to help girls learn more about themselves, their values, and people. Those who have made extraordinary contributions as Girl Scouts receive the Gold Award for making a difference in their communities. Through leadership in the scouting tradition, Girls Scouts are changing our country and the world. The organization continues to operate on a strong foundation of volunteers who dedicate themselves to offering their time and talents in the interest of guiding tomorrow's leaders. Thanks to them, over 10,000 girls from kindergarten through grade 12 across 36 counties in western Virginia are enjoying the Girl Scouts program. They are among over 3 million girls and volunteers who are active members along with 50 million women in the United States who are Girl Scouts alumnae. As the Girl Scouts celebrate their centennial with a special event in Roanoke, VA, on June 30, I applaud the organization for its long history of leadership as the voice for its many devoted members, past and present. Let us all commend the special women whose experience in Girl Scouts is influencing our communities. We look forward to today's Girl Scouts becoming our next generation of leaders.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with Representatives Morgan Griffith and Robert Hurt, to honor the memory of a constituent, a World War II veteran, a community leader, and a friend, John Robert ``Bob'' Slaughter. On May 29, 2012, southwest Virginia lost one of its great American heroes. A passionate advocate for veterans and a driving force behind the National D-day Memorial in Bedford, it is only fitting that we honor Bob's memory as we mark the 68th anniversary of D-day this week. Born on February 3, 1925 in Bristol, Tennessee, Bob's family later moved to Roanoke, Virginia. In 1941, at the age of 15, he joined the Virginia Army National Guard, Company D, 116th Infantry, 29th Division. A short time later, the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor and entered the war. On September 27, 1942, the 29th Division set sail for England. On D-day, June 6, 1944, Bob waded ashore to battle the foes of democracy at Omaha Beach. He was just 19 years old. His life was forever impacted by the memories of that day. Mr. Speaker, I have stood on Omaha Beach in Normandy at low tide, which was the circumstances when these brave men landed there on June 6, 1944. The width of that beach, the distance that they had to come out of those landing boats through withering machine gun fire, bombs, and mines, is absolutely a remarkable demonstration of the courage of those men to liberate Europe. Despite being wounded twice in combat following D-day, Bob remained in the field until the end of the war in 1945. After the war, Bob returned to Roanoke, where he had a long career with the Roanoke Times & World-News. He was dedicated to his family and was also active in the community, coaching a basketball team for local youth. Bob showed great determination by working to ensure that there was a proper memorial to the countless men who took part in the D-day invasion. On June 6, 1994, the 50th anniversary of D-day, Bob walked Omaha Beach with President Bill Clinton. On June 6, 2001, Bob's dream became a reality when the National D-day Memorial in Bedford was dedicated by President George W. Bush. Thanks in large part to his efforts, the National D-day Memorial now stands in Bedford, where it serves as a constant reminder of those who paid the ultimate price to protect the freedoms that we hold so dear. The life of Bob Slaughter is a true testament to the ``Greatest Generation.'' We are honored to have known Bob and pay tribute to this great man's many contributions. We pray for his family--his wife of 65 years, Margaret Leftwich Slaughter; his two sons; two grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren--during this difficult time. We join the entire community in mourning the loss of this American hero.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 3523. This amendment is the result of a series of long discussions between Members of the bipartisan coalition supporting this bill and various privacy and civil liberties groups. As many know, I have long worked with these outside groups and with industry to make sure that where Congress acts with respect to technology, it does so in a way that is thoughtful, intelligent, and shows a strong respect for privacy and civil liberties. I am a firm believer that Congress can craft legislation that addresses technology issues and allows the private sector to flourish while also protecting the rights of Americans. This amendment seeks to move the legislation further down that path. To do so, this amendment carefully narrows the definitions of the key terms in the bill--``cyberthreat information,'' ``cyberthreat intelligence,'' ``cybersecurity purposes,'' and ``cybersecurity systems''--and adds in three new definitions from the existing law. Together, these new definitions ensure that companies in the private sector can protect themselves against very real cyberthreats. At the same time, they limit what information the private sector can identify, obtain, and share with others, and they do so in a way that is technology neutral so that the definitions we write into law today do not become obsolete before the ink is dry. Specifically, these new definitions remove language from prior versions of the bill that could have been interpreted in broad ways. They remove or modify definitions that could have been thought to cover things that the bill did not intend to cover, like unauthorized access to a system or network that purely involves violations of a terms of service. These revised definitions also rely in part on existing law to cover the appropriate set of threats to networks and systems without being overly broad. I would note that these definitional changes are important on their own for the narrowing function they serve. In the view of groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Constitution Project, this amendment represents ``important privacy improvement.'' Specifically, the change to the definitions addresses a number of key issues raised by a variety of groups, and many in the Internet user community. As such, these amendments move an already important bill in an even better direction. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I am not aware of any other speakers on this amendment, so I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. It is, as the chairman indicated and the ranking member indicated, bipartisan legislation that will improve the underlying bill in significant ways and protect the civil liberties of American citizens in a more clear fashion. I thank all of those in the Chamber and outside who contributed ideas to help us craft this amendment and urge all of my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman for yielding and for his good work on this budget. Thomas Jefferson once wrote: To preserve the independence of the people, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. In this choice of two futures, unfortunately, Congress has all too often chosen the latter path of out-of-control spending and expansion of government power. There is a spending addiction in Washington, D.C., and it has proven to be an addiction that Congress has not controlled on its own. The Nation has gone, in a few short years, from a Federal deficit of billions of dollars to a deficit of trillions of dollars. The government is printing money at an unprecedented pace, which presents significant risks of inflation. Our debt is currently an unfathomable $15.5 trillion and mounting rapidly, as is the waste associated with paying the interest on that debt. Yet Congress has done little to address this crisis. Families all across our Nation understand what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford. Yet far too often, this fundamental principle has been lost on a Congress that is too busy spending to pay attention to the bottom line. Americans must exercise restraint with their own funds, then government officials must be required to exercise an even higher standard when spending other people's hard-earned money. While I believe that the House budget we are considering today is a good budget and I support it, it is dependent on fiscally minded Congresses being elected for the next 28 years who will be committed to upholding this budget, as well as a President who will sign fiscally responsible appropriations measures into law. That is why I am also a supporter of the Republican Study Committee budget. While this RSC budget is bold and some say drastic, these measures are needed to solve our Nation's fiscal crisis. Mr. Chairman, unless each Congress--regardless of party affiliation-- is forced to make the decisions necessary to actually set a budget-- unlike the U.S. Senate--and create a balanced budget, the temptation will always be there for Congress to spend more than it receives in revenues. And that is the advantage of a constitutional balanced budget amendment which would ensure that the principle of fiscal responsibility is forced upon all future Congresses. The balanced budget amendment is a commonsense approach to ensure that Congress is bound by the same fiscal principles that America's families face each day. I am pleased that the Republican Study Committee proposal seeks to balance the budget in 5 years and puts us on a path to save Medicare. Finally, I urge this Congress to demonstrate leadership and make the tough but bold decision to stop the government spending spree. We cannot continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with debt that is not their own. I support the Republican Study Committee budget. I support fiscal responsibility.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 139, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act with my colleague Tim Holden from Pennsylvania. The Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the U.S., is an incredibly complex ecosystem that includes important habitats and is a cherished part of our American heritage. The Bay Watershed includes all types of land uses, from intensely urban areas, spread out suburban development and diverse agricultural practices. I have worked hard during past negotiations on the Farm Bill to ensure that critical resources are in place to help restore the Bay. While the goal from all involved is the same, restoring the health and vitality of the Bay, the path to that health and vitality is being strongly debated. It is a clear choice, overregulation and intrusion into the lives and livelihoods of those who choose to make the Bay watershed their home, or commonsense incentive-based efforts that help restore and protect our natural resources. Unfortunately, proposals like the Presidential Executive Order and the Environmental Protection Agency's Total Maximum Daily Load, TMDL, forces more mandates and overzealous regulations on all of those who live, work, and farm in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The EPA's TMDL is a power grab that sets strict limits on the amount of nutrients discharged into the Chesapeake Bay and each of its tributaries by different types of sources. These limits will dramatically restrict land usages for everyone who lives and works in the Watershed. Although the Clean Water Act requires the EPA to establish a TMDL, the power is currently reserved to the states to determine how to improve water quality, including determining nutrient reduction allocations among different types of point and non-point sources. In the proposed TMDL, the EPA has exceeded its authority in the Clean Water Act by setting specific nutrient reduction allocations by sector, a power currently reserved to the states. Beyond the fact that the EPA lacks the authority in the Clean Water Act to take the majority of the actions that it is taking, I have serious concerns about this approach to Bay restoration. EPA has increased its federal actions in the Watershed while relying on modeling data that does not adequately include nutrient reductions that have been made in the Watershed to guide its decisions. This raises serious concerns about the ability of the agency to measure and assess restoration efforts. Further, it is clear by reports of the communities and industries affected, that these new regulations will be devastating during our current economic downturn. This will result in many billions of dollars in economic losses to states, cities and towns, farms and other businesses large and small. This strategy limits economic growth and unfairly over regulates our local economies. Mr. Holden and I recognized that we must form a proposal that does not pit the health of the bay against the strength and vitality of our local communities and that is why we rise today to introduce the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act Instead of overregulation and intrusion into the lives and livelihoods of those who choose to make the Bay Watershed their home, our legislation allows states and communities more flexibility in meeting water quality goals so that we can help restore and protect our natural resources. Our bill sets up new programs to give farmers, homebuilders, and localities new ways to meet their water quality goals. This includes preserving current intrastate nutrient trading programs that many Bay states already have in place, while also creating a voluntary interstate nutrient trading program. Additionally, this bill creates a voluntary assurance framework for farmers. The program will deem farmers to be fully in compliance with their water quality requirements as long as they have undertaken appropriate conservation activities to comply with state and federal water quality standards. Our bill makes sure that the agencies are using common sense when regulating water quality goals for localities. Our legislation requires the regulators to take into account the availability, cost, effectiveness, and appropriateness of practices, techniques, or methods in meeting water quality goals. This will ensure that localities are not being mandated to achieve a reduction in nutrient levels by a prescribed date, when no technology exists to achieve that reduction within that timeline. Additionally, the bill contains language that reaffirms and preserves the rights of the states to write their own water quality plans. This role has been traditionally reserved to the states but that is being threatened by the Obama Administration's policies. The Obama Administration is seeking to expand their regulatory authority by seizing authority granted to the states and converting the Bay Cleanup efforts to a process that is a top down approach with mandatory regulations. I believe that each state knows best how to manage their water quality goals; not the bureaucrats at the EPA. This legislation would restore the original intent of the Clean Water Act and reaffirm the role of the States to write their own water quality plans. While our bill does a lot to improve water quality, we also call for more oversight over the Chesapeake Bay Program. For over 3 decades Congress has been working to preserve and protect the Chesapeake Bay. Despite the efforts of the federal, state, and local governments the health of the bay is still in peril. The participants in restoring the Bay include 10 federal agencies, six states and the District of Columbia, over one thousand localities and multiple nongovernmental organizations. This legislation would fully implement two cutting-edge management techniques, crosscut budgeting and adaptive management, to enhance coordination, flexibility and efficiency of restoration efforts. Neither technique is currently required or fully utilized in the Bay restoration efforts, where results have lagged far behind the billions of dollars spent. Further, this bill calls for a review of the EPA's Bay model. We often hear complaints from those who make good faith efforts to restore the Bay that their efforts are not being recognized by EPA's Bay model. EPA's model does not account for any voluntary measures being undertaken on farms to control nitrogen and phosphorous nor does it even account for some of the nitrogen and phosphorous reductions that are being achieved through government programs like USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Effectively, EPA is ignoring nutrient reductions that have already been achieved. Our legislation requires that an independent evaluator assess and make recommendations to alter EPA's Bay model, so that we can develop a model that will capture all of the nutrient reductions that are happening in the Bay. Mr. Speaker, the people who call the Bay Watershed home are the ones who are the most concerned about protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Unfortunately, too often these hardworking individuals are cast as villains and placed in a position where restoring the Bay is pitted against the economic livelihoods of their communities. We can restore the Bay while also maintaining the economic livelihood of these communities. The Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act is the way we can do both. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress, so that we can pass this important legislation and work to restore the Chesapeake Bay.