PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 30, 2009
Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act of 2009 - Requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Chesapeake Executive Council, the chief executive of each Chesapeake Bay state, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission, to submit to Congress a financial report containing: (1) an interagency crosscut budget for restoration activities that protect, conserve, or restore living resources, habitat, water resources, or water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed; (2) an accounting of funds received and obligated by all federal agencies for restoration activities; (3) an accounting from each state of all funds received and obligated from a federal agency for restoration activities; and (4) a description of each of the proposed federal and state restoration activities. Requires: (1) such report to describe only federal restoration activities that have funding amounts of at least $100,000 and state restoration activities that have funding amounts of at least $50,000; and (2) the Director to submit the report no later than 30 days after the submission of the President's annual budget to Congress.
Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and update every three years an adaptive management plan for restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay waterhsed that includes: (1) a definition of specific and measurable objectives to improve water quality, habitat, and fisheries; (2) a process for stakeholder participation; (3) monitoring, modeling, experimentation, and other research and evaluation practices; (4) a process for modification of restoration activities that have not attained or will not attain such objectives; and (5) a process for prioritizing restoration activities and programs to which adaptive management shall be applied. Sets forth reporting requirements. Requires the Administrator to report annually to Congress on the Plan.
Requires an Independent Evaluator for the Chesapeake Bay watershed, who shall review and report to Congress every three years on restoration activities and the use of adaptive management in such activities. Requires the Evaluator to be appointed by the Administrator from among nominees submitted by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
People & committees
Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 418 - 1 (Roll no. 745). (text: CR 9/29/2009 H10012-10013)
House roll call 745 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 418 - 1 (Roll no. 745).(text: CR 9/29/2009 H10012-10013)
House roll call 745 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H10122-10123)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1053.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10012-10013)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 153.
Committee on Transportation discharged.
Committee on Transportation discharged.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-272, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-272, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to House Transportation and Infrastructure
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Natural Resources
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1053 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1053 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1053 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1053 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.