[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 10, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H9956-H9960]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1215
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 729, TRIBAL COASTAL RESILIENCY ACT
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 748 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 748
Resolved, That any time after adoption of this resolution
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 729) to amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
to authorize grants to Indian Tribes to further achievement
of Tribal coastal zone objectives, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments
specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. An amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
116-40 shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the
Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered
as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill,
as amended, are waived.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended,
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution.
(b) Each further amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole.
(c) All points of order against the further amendments
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules or amendments
en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Natural Resources or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant
to this section shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Natural Resources or their designees, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole.
Sec. 4. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such further amendments as may have been adopted.
The previous question shall be
[[Page H9957]]
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my
friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 748, providing for consideration of
H.R. 729, the Coastal and Great Lakes Communities Enhancement Act,
under a structured rule.
This rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
The rule makes in order 29 amendments and provides en bloc authority.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, the Coastal and Great Lakes Communities Enhancement Act
brings together ten meaningful and bipartisan bills that have
comprehensive and necessary benefits for the American people, and I am
proud to add my voice in support of this much needed legislation.
Increased climate instability is an undeniable reality. All around
us, we see spikes in severe weather patterns, rising sea levels, and
destroyed ecosystems.
As natural disasters increase in frequency and devastation, our
communities pay the price through destroyed infrastructure, economic
instability, and even loss of life.
Coastal communities in particular are experiencing intense climate
impacts, including severe weather events, sea level rise, chronic
flooding, coastal erosion, and changing oceanic conditions.
Coastal communities and economies need to adapt for climate change.
My own district knows all too well the devastation that flood waters
can cause, as many of my neighbors are still rebuilding from the severe
flooding that we experienced in 2017 and again just this past spring.
Within 100 miles of shoreline that fronts directly on Lake Ontario or
nearby bays, rivers, and streams, my district is directly impacted by
lake fluctuations, and we are experiencing unprecedented flood waters
that erode beaches, devastate family homes, and cripple lakeside
businesses.
As a Member of this Congress, I know I am not alone in worrying about
whether my constituents are adequately prepared for the next natural
disaster, which is not a matter of if, but when.
So many of us in this body, in fact most of us, have communities that
are struggling to deal with climate impacts. Whether it is wildfires,
flooding, hurricanes, droughts, red tide in our oceans, harmful blue-
green algae in our lakes, the list seems to never end, but one thing is
clear: the situation is not going to get better on its own. We need to
act now.
H.R. 729 is an opportunity to help our constituents prepare and adapt
to our climate crisis. This coastal resiliency legislative package not
only tells the American people that we care about preserving coastal
communities and natural habitat, but proves we are willing to take the
necessary actions to protect coastal ecosystems and local economies.
The bill also sets in place mechanisms to improve ocean monitoring
and research and provides necessary tools and resources for coastal
communities to protect themselves from climate impacts.
It is critical that we support proactive initiatives to prepare for
and respond to our climate crisis, and this legislation takes those
necessary steps.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in support of this significant piece
of legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting
its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Morelle for yielding
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this week, Democrats have scheduled a series of bills on
the House floor in the name of combating climate change that are
actually retreads of the programs that are already authorized and
actions that are already being taken by the Federal Government.
H.R. 729 is clear proof that the Democrats have no agency and have no
priorities other than to impeach the President of the United States.
Most of the bills included in this package duplicate existing
authority that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife already have. Most authorizations of
appropriations in the bill package are, therefore, unnecessary and are
higher than current levels being spent.
NOAA, the agency that would be responsible for carrying out most of
this legislation, stated in testimony that it can do and is doing most
all of these functions under current law.
This package also creates a precedent of having a city, Washington,
D.C., and a non-coastal one at that, as participating in the Coastal
Zone Management Act. There is a real threat that this would give D.C.
veto power over Federal actions affecting its coastal zone once it
develops an approved coastal zone management program.
The loan guarantee program under the Working Waterfront program,
section 104, is problematic, because the American taxpayer will be on
the hook for any default.
The National Sea Grant program is popular amongst coastal members,
but the bill makes mandatory a fellowship program that provides free
graduate students to congressional offices at taxpayer expense.
Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about the bills included in this
package. For example, this land package addresses changes to the
Coastal Zone Management Act. The act signed by President Nixon into law
in 1972 provides Federal funds to States to develop plans to preserve,
protect, and develop the resources of our Nation's coastal zones.
This bill that we are debating today contains text from H.R. 2185,
which would allow Washington, D.C., to receive Federal funding to
develop and implement a coastal zone management plan of their own.
This is an odd way to appropriate Federal funds, as the District of
Columbia does not have a coast. Rather, Washington, D.C., borders the
Potomac River, which eventually feeds into the Chesapeake Bay, which
merges into the Atlantic Ocean.
The inclusion of Washington, D.C., in the Coastal Zone Management Act
would no doubt reduce the funding for existing participants. It also
raises the question of whether States that contain rivers that lead
into the ocean, such as Arkansas with the Mississippi River or my home
State of Arizona with the Colorado River, should get Federal funding to
create a coastal management plan.
This is a dangerous precedent to create and a poor use of precious
resources.
This package also authorizes funds to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration to perform tasks that they already do. For
example, this package contains text from H.R. 2189, which would
authorize NOAA to conduct the Digital Coast program. This program
supplies coastal communities and researchers with up-to-date mapping
information to address coastal issues, such as storm preparation, flood
management, ecosystem restoration, and coastal development.
It should be noted that NOAA has already been conducting this program
under the line item of Ocean and Coastal Management and Services since
2007. In other words, this bill would require Federal agencies to carry
out duties that they have already been doing.
Like I said earlier, this is really not a great use of the public's
time on the House floor.
Another example of this package directing Federal agencies to perform
tasks that they have already been doing can be seen in the text that is
[[Page H9958]]
drawn from H.R. 3541. This legislation would establish a coastal
climate change adaption preparedness and response program to assist
States in developing plans to minimize negative consequences of climate
change and implementation of those plans. NOAA, through the Coastal
Zone Management Act, already funds State programs relating to climate
change and has already been providing assistance to States that H.R.
3541 wants the agency to do.
H.R. 2189 and H.R. 3541 are just two of many examples in this bill
that duplicate existing authority that the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration already has under the Coastal Zone
Management Act.
Further, the cost of this land package to the American taxpayer is
immense. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the
cumulative cost of this package would cost as much as $1.4 billion more
than what is already being spent over the authorized periods.
Even worse, these bills have the potential for an additional cost of
$292 million outside of the bill's authorized windows if certain
conditions are met.
With over $22 trillion in debt, we should not be moving bills that
are duplicative, repetitive, and unnecessarily expensive.
{time} 1230
We need to be responsible with the hardworking taxpayers' money.
Why can't we discuss land packages that have more bipartisan support
and do not cost a fortune to the taxpayer?
Back in February 2019, we all voted on S. 47, the John D. Dingell,
Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act. The bill received
overwhelming support from Republicans and Democrats in both Chambers
and was signed into law by President Trump. This bipartisan legislation
permanently reauthorized the Land and Water Conservation Fund and
protected hunting and fishing rights while also reforming various
aspects of the Federal lands governance system.
The CBO estimated that S. 47 would decrease direct Federal spending
by $9 million over a 10-year period. I believe that effectively
balancing conservation practices, resource development, and recreation,
along with saving taxpayer dollars, is very important.
This land package that we are currently debating today does not even
come close to the success that this House had experienced with S. 47.
Ultimately, this package highlights the real opportunity cost of
impeachment. The Democrats have rallied and promised real, sweeping
policies to address what they call the climate crisis. However, they
have been so consumed with attacking our President and with impeachment
that they have nothing to show for it.
This bill is nothing more than an attempt by the majority to portray
themselves as doing something, anything, for the American people, when,
in fact, this bill underscores the truth: They have and are doing
nothing.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend. We serve on the
Rules Committee together, and I always appreciate hearing her thoughts.
But I do want to make a couple of points that I think bear being said.
This is not a duplicative effort, and the need does exist. For
instance, while NOAA may have the flexibility to create a program like
the working waterfronts program, they are not currently supporting
working waterfronts in the way that the bill envisions and continue to
propose the elimination of coastal zone management grants.
The amount of need for coastal zone management grants far exceeds the
amount made available for grants each year, so this bill would direct
NOAA to create a grant program and a loan program to support working
waterfront activities and would also authorize extra funding to make
that happen.
Also, I wanted to make a point as it relates to the District of
Columbia, which sits at the confluence of the Potomac and the Anacostia
Rivers and lies mostly in the coastal plain. It is also bordered by the
coastal States of Virginia and Maryland, whose adjoining waterways are
included in their States' coastal zones. The shorelines of Arlington
and Alexandria, Virginia, and Prince George's County, Maryland, are
included in their States' coastal zones programs.
To clarify, the Virginia side of the Potomac is eligible, while the
District of Columbia side is not. Inclusion of the District of Columbia
would simply connect this gap and subject it to submission and approval
of the coastal zone management plan. Coastal floods do not recognize
State borders, and the District of Columbia is at risk of continued and
increasing flooding.
Since 1950, NOAA reports a 343 percent increase in nuisance flooding
in the District of Columbia, and a single 100-year flood event could
cost over $1.2 billion in damages, including damages to Federal
property.
I also want to note that in addition to consolidating 10 bipartisan
bills, the legislation also includes a range of bipartisan amendments.
I am proud that my own amendment will be included. It ensures 5 percent
of funds for the working waterfronts grant program will be used for
technical assistance, and this will help States and local governments
with early-stage resources, planning assistance, and additional
expertise.
Additionally, I would like to highlight two other amendments led by
my friend and colleague Representative John Katko, who represents
Syracuse, New York, just to the east of my district. Both of those
amendments I am pleased to cosponsor.
These amendments make meaningful improvements that will advance
research on harmful algal bloom development and open opportunities to
assess the impact of water level regulating practices on the Great
Lakes.
These amendments further demonstrate the bipartisan work that went
into this legislative package, and I thank my colleagues on the other
side who contributed to this bill.
Policy is always better when we work together, and I look forward to
ensuring our constituents get access to the key provisions included in
this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my friend Mr. Morelle,
Washington, D.C., does not have a beach on the ocean. Virginia does.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to consider H. Res. 750, which expresses the
sense of the House that it is the duty of the Federal Government to
protect and promote individual choice and health insurance for the
American people and prevent any Medicare for All proposal that would
outlaw private health insurance plans, such as employer-based coverage
and Medicare Advantage plans.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I hear from my constituents regularly--and I
have a lot of senior citizens--that they are afraid of a Medicare for
All approach.
They understand that a one-size-fits-all, government-run healthcare
system will not work. That is because whether it is called a single-
payer system or a socialist system, Medicare for All constitutes a
complete government takeover of healthcare in America.
Medicare for All will end, eliminate, private health insurance plans.
It will eliminate the current Medicare. It will eliminate all Medicare
Advantage plans like my mother is on, and replace it, instead, with a
one-size-fits-all, government-controlled healthcare plan. Just like
ObamaCare, even if you like your plan, you will not be able to keep it.
Passage of Medicare for All would push over 150 million Americans off
their health insurance plans and into government health insurance
plans.
Further, while no version of Medicare for All has yet received a
budget score, Senator Bernie Sanders' version of Medicare for All did
receive estimated scores from two outside groups.
In 2016, the Urban Institute calculated that Senator Sanders'
healthcare proposals would increase Federal funding by a whopping $32.6
[[Page H9959]]
trillion over 10 years. Separately, in June 2018, the Mercatus Center
estimated that Medicare for All would increase Federal spending by $32
trillion over 10 years.
Our national debt is a national security crisis, and we must work
together to combat it, not increase costs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess), my good friend.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 750 expresses the sense of Congress
that individual choice in health insurance should be protected. Almost
160 million Americans under 65 years of age are enrolled in employer-
sponsored health insurance, and another 14 million Americans under 65
have purchased their own private health insurance.
Additionally, an increasing number of Americans are taking advantage
of the robust choices in Medicare Advantage plans. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, the number of individuals with employer-
sponsored insurance has increased by 3 million since President Trump
took office, largely an effect of our great economy.
Right now, the Energy and Commerce Committee is holding a hearing on
one-size-fits-all healthcare. Being discussed are nine bills that serve
to lay the groundwork toward socialized medicine in the United States.
I fear that if House Democrats declare this their north star, as they
did in the hearing today, it abandons the health insurance options that
Americans have said are working for them.
Medicare for All would eliminate private insurance, eliminate
employer-sponsored health insurance, eliminate Medicaid, and eliminate
the Children's Health Insurance Program, upon which many Americans
depend. I am concerned about the consequences for existing Medicare
beneficiaries, as this policy would more rapidly deplete the Medicare
trust fund, which is already slated to be insolvent in 2026.
The practical effect of that is no doctor, no hospital, could be
reimbursed by Medicare under law once that trust fund is exhausted.
Our Nation's seniors depend on the existence of Medicare for their
health needs in retirement. More than 70 percent of Americans are
satisfied with their employer-sponsored health insurance. It provides
robust protections for all individuals, and since 1996, it has provided
protections for preexisting conditions.
This is why it is so important that we protect individuals' employer-
sponsored insurance for the majority of Americans who would like to
keep it. According to one study by America's health insurance plans,
consumers prefer greater market competition rather than greater
government involvement.
Medicare for All is a complete government takeover of the healthcare
industry. This same study found that consumer satisfaction is driven by
comprehensive coverage, affordability, and choice. A one-size-fits-all
health program results in no choice for Americans.
Consumers value discounts for good health, flexible spending
accounts, and health savings account programs that would all but
disappear in a Medicare for All world.
The New York Times reported rural hospitals are saying that they
would virtually close overnight, while others have said they would try
to offset the steep cuts by laying off hundreds of thousands of workers
and abandoning lower paying services, such as services for mental
health.
Other countries with socialized medicine have seen increased wait
times. In Canada, the wait time for a specialist consultation is over 9
weeks. Americans deserve to have better access to healthcare than the
long waiting lists and lower quality care found in other nations.
Single-payer healthcare would be another failed attempt at a one-
size-fits-all approach to healthcare. Single-payer is not one size fits
all. It is one size fits no one. It is critical that this Congress
maintain access to healthcare choices and build upon what is working in
our healthcare system.
I urge my fellow Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so
that we can support H. Res. 750.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and to
move on to a vote on the rule.
Even if the previous question was defeated, the amendment would not
be able to move as the gentlewoman suggests. The amendment is not
germane to the bill on natural resources.
Obviously, this is an attempt to obscure what we are attempting to
do, which is, we can either help coastal communities plan and prosper
for a resilient future, or we can continue to delay and pay.
Forty-two percent of Americans live in coastal communities. Working
waterfronts employ more than 2 million people. Great Lakes fisheries
alone support more than 75,000 jobs, and healthy fish habitats support
a recreational fishing industry that provides more than 800,000 jobs to
American citizens.
Coastal communities around the country are experiencing intense
climate impacts, including severe weather events, sea level rise,
chronic flooding, coastal erosion, and changing ocean conditions.
Coastal communities and economies need to adapt for climate change,
and H.R. 729 will help communities do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers. However, I do want to say that
I believe that the amendment, if the previous question is defeated, is
germane because it applies to the rule and not to the bill itself.
In closing, I want to emphasize to my friends across the aisle that
we should be bringing legislation to this floor that showcases how we
can work together. However, this package ultimately highlights the real
opportunity cost of impeachment.
The Democrats have rallied for months now and promised real, sweeping
policies to address what they call the climate crisis. However, they
have been so consumed with attacking our President and impeachment that
they have nothing to show for it. In an attempt to satisfy their base
that they are doing something about climate change, they are, instead,
in this package, just repeating things already being done, but it is at
a higher cost.
Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the
underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the next devastating flood or natural disaster is not
if, but when, and we have a choice to make here today: We can either
help our communities prepare and prosper for years to come or continue
to drag our feet and face the dire consequences.
We owe it to ourselves, to our constituents, and to future
generations to get this right, and I, personally, want to be on the
right side of history when we look back on this climate crisis. The
work we are doing here is not duplicative or onerous; it is smart,
meaningful, and bipartisan, and I look forward to its passage.
I would like to thank all my colleagues for their support of H.R.
729, the Coastal and Great Lakes Communities Enhancement Act.
I especially would like to thank Chairman Grijalva for his leadership
and the commitment of his committee on this effort.
I applaud and thank the sponsor, Mr. Kilmer, for his leadership on
this important legislation and Chairman McGovern for his work to move
this legislation to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on
the previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 748
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
resolution (H. Res. 750) expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives that individual choice in health insurance
should be protected. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of House Resolution 750.
[[Page H9960]]
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. LESKO. 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 question will be postponed.
____________________