[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.

                          ____________________