Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 197 (Tuesday, December 10, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 10, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H9969-H10005]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TRIBAL COASTAL RESILIENCY ACT

General Leave

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to insert extraneous materials on H.R. 729.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Hawaii?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 748 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in

[[Page H9970]]

the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 729.
The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1430

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with Ms. Pingree in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified
in the resolution and shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Natural Resources.
The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Bishop) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, today I am truly honored to bring to the floor a
bipartisan bill championed by many colleagues from throughout the
country and many individuals and organizations passionately committed
to our oceans, lakes, and coastlines and to the ecosystems,
communities, and economies that depend on them.
I especially want to recognize my colleagues who introduced and
advocated the measures that are incorporated in this bill:
Representatives Kilmer, Huffman, Wittman, Quigley, Pallone, Pingree,
Norton, Carbajal, Ruppersberger, and Young.
This bill consolidates 10 bipartisan bills, cosponsored by a total of
24 of my minority colleagues, that tackle the crisis and challenge of
our time: climate change.
Climate change, of course, knows no partisan, country, or other
manmade boundaries. It indiscriminately threatens us all, but it is
especially insidious as it applies to our world's oceans, lakes, and
coastlines.
Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
issued a special report on ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate,
making crystal clear that our oceans and coasts are under mortal
threat.
Over 40 percent of Americans live in coastal counties right on our
oceans and lakes. These communities not only account for nearly half of
our U.S. gross domestic product, but they are on the front lines of
climate change and need resources today to help prepare for and respond
to the effects of climate change, including flooding, sea level rise,
severe weather, coastal erosion, and changing water conditions that
affect ecosystems and fish populations.
They need help, and as we help them, we help all of us. We know from
a generation of data now that every dollar invested in predisaster
mitigation saves at least $6 in recovery costs. H.R. 729 includes
bipartisan measures that will do this in four ways.
First, it will improve coastal resilience and economic enhancement by
making several important updates to the Coastal Zone Management Act, a
then-revolutionary law from 1972 to establish a partnership between the
Federal Government and coastal and Great Lakes States. It will also
help communities implement climate-resilient living shoreline projects
that use natural materials to protect communities and ecosystems
instead of hard or armored walls and infrastructure that we know are
less effective.
Second, it will reinforce fish habitat conservation and fisheries
research. It will also authorize steady funding for the U.S. Geological
Survey to conduct science and research activities to support fishery
management in the Great Lakes and to restore the loss of basic fishery
science capabilities and accelerate implementation of new technology.
Third, recognizing that responsible management of the oceans, coasts,
and Great Lakes relies on robust data, this bill will reauthorize the
integrated coastal and ocean observation system and, for the first
time, formally authorize the digital coast partnership, both of which
are led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Finally, H.R. 729 will update the National Sea Grant College Program
to ensure the United States has a strong marine and coastal science and
policy workforce so that we can continue to develop smart policy
solutions in the future.
This bipartisan bill is supported by a plethora of diverse
organizations across our country, including the Congressional
Sportsmen's Foundation, the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Project, the
American Sportfishing Association, and Ocean Conservancy.
It won't, in and of itself, solve climate change. That takes a much
larger, more focused, and deliberate international effort. But it will
move our Federal policy into the present and the future as to what
risks arise for our oceans, lakes, and coasts and their communities,
and this bill is an imperative step in the difficult process we face.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues' support, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology,
Washington, DC, December 6, 2019.
Chairman Raul M. Grijalva,
Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Grijalva: I am writing to you concerning H.R.
2405, the ``National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act
of 2019,'' which was referred to the Committee on Natural
Resources on April 30, 2019.
In the interest of expedience in the consideration of H.R.
2405 the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will
waive formal consideration of the bill. This is, however, not
a waiver of future jurisdictional claims by the Science
Committee over the subject matter contained in H.R. 2405 or
similar legislation.
Thank you for agreeing to include our exchange of letters
in the Congressional Record. Thank you for your cooperation
on this legislation.
Sincerely,

Eddie Bernice Johnson,

Chairwoman, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC, December 9, 2019.
Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Johnson: In recognition of the goal of
expediting consideration of H.R. 2405, the ``National Sea
Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2019,'' which was
referred solely to the Committee on Natural Resources, the
Committee on Natural Resources appreciates the decision by
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (``Science
Committee'') not to pursue its request for a sequential
referral of the bill as to any provisions that fall within
the Rule X jurisdiction of the Science Committee.
The Committee on Natural Resources acknowledges this action
with the mutual understanding that, in doing so, the Science
Committee does not waive any future jurisdictional claims
over the subject matter contained in this or similar
legislation, and the Committee on Natural Resources agrees to
include our exchange of letters in the Congressional Record.
I appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation.
Sincerely,
Raul M. Grijalva,
Chair, Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chair, as we approach this particular piece of legislation,
there are other issues that seem to be floating around at this time of
year that seem to have sucked all the air out of Congress. Everyone
seems to be talking about impeachment instead of this stuff. But I
realize it is important for the majority party to try and give the
illusion that we are actually doing something, and, therefore, we have
this bill before us.
If this bill is indeed the vision that the majority party wants to
say is their way of helping climate control or helping the costs and
the betterment of our seas and oceans, if this is their philosophy, if
this is their vision, and if this is their new, really big and giant
kind of really cool thing that they are

[[Page H9971]]

going to bring out here as their statement of what is going to happen,
then they ought to be embarrassed in some way.
This bill is like getting that Christmas package, and once you tear
off all the pretty wrapping paper and the satin bows, Madam Chair, you
will realize, and Americans will realize, this piece of legislation is
an empty box. There is nothing there.
There are 10 bills that we have here. Three would actually qualify to
go as suspensions. We have no qualms with those. But it is certainly
not groundbreaking new ideas that are coming up here.
In fact, one of those bills is the one from Mr. Kilmer. He has a
great bill. It has one small problem with it that could create a
problem in the future, and there was a Democrat amendment that was
proposed to the Rules Committee which would be a perfect solution.
Unfortunately, of all the 29-plus amendments the Rules Committee
decided to make in order, the one that actually fixes something that we
would support, they decided not to make that in order. It is great. It
is marvelous. We will try to fix it over in the Senate side.
Of the other bills, four of them do absolutely nothing. In fact, the
testimony we had in committee on those bills was they are presently
being done by the status quo. The agency said in their testimony that
they have the power and the authority to do this already. The only
thing you are going to add by combining these extra bills, Madam Chair,
is simply a $1.4 billion cost increase to it.
There are four of these bills that have no Senate counterpart, which
means we can pass them over here, but they are going nowhere in the
Senate.
So, once again, this is simply a lost opportunity to do something
when we have so many significant issues. In fact, in the Rules
Committee last night, they mentioned some of the things we need to do
before next Friday, like the NDAA, which should have been done in
September; or the USMCA, which was ready to go in August; or the
funding bill that we need to do, which we should have had done by June;
or even the backlog maintenance bill that Mr. Kilmer and I have, which
has 330 sponsors and cosponsors and still has yet to have a vote on
this floor.
Those actually solve problems. They do something. But we are not
scheduling that stuff. So we are sitting here with this illusion of
coming up with something.
Some of these bills will make amendments to the Coastal Zone
Management Act, an act that was signed into law by Richard Nixon, which
gives the Democrats kind of an ironic sense of humor in actually doing
that kind of amendment in the atmosphere of this particular time
period.
Then we also have a whole bunch of amendments that were made in
order. Four of those 29 amendments are actually bills that other people
have proposed.
Since nothing is really being done in the legislative process here,
this seems to be like the only game in town, so why not add your bill
on to it?
We saw the same thing happening on the NDAA when we did several
things that were in the purview of our committee that were added to
that bill having nothing to do with the military, but it was the only
thing going in town, so add your bill on top of it.
Of those bills, three of them had absolutely no hearings whatsoever;
they are just new. They have been added on here, and we are going to
try and do this and bypass the entire system which is supposed to be
the way you actually do legislating in this body.
One of them did have a hearing. Unfortunately, it was last Congress
when we were in charge. I guess that is close enough for government
work here.
But the problem that we do simply have is that there are so many
potential problems with this bill.
Now, two of these bills that have been added to this have some
specific issues which we will talk about in the course of the
discussion that we have around the bill: one of them dealing with, once
again, whether a city is the same thing as a State for coastal
management planning; one of them will be dealing with some of the
programs that are going to be mandatory under this particular folderol
of legislation that has been kind of cobbled together as if this were a
good, bright, and comprehensive approach to try and solve problems in
America.
Madam Chair, I don't want to be too critical because I realize one of
these bills in here is yours. At the same time, this package of bills
is not a great idea; it is not grand philosophy; and it doesn't solve
anything. In fact, for the majority of it, you already have the power
to do it. You don't need this stuff in here. There are better ways of
doing it, and this is certainly not one of those ways.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Kilmer), who is the introducer of the bill in chief.
Mr. KILMER. Madam Chair, I thank my friend from Hawaii for yielding
time.
Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 729, the Coastal
and Great Lakes Communities Enhancement Act, a package of 10 bipartisan
bills that will make significant strides to address the critical
challenges our coastal communities face as a direct result of climate
change and sea level rise.

Madam Chair, this is Taholah, the lower village of the Quinault
Indian Nation. This photo doesn't show someone canoeing on a river or
on a lake. It shows someone canoeing through the streets of their
village after seawater flooded the area during a storm.
Far too often and far too many times, we have seen more severe storms
and rising sea levels threaten communities like this. In my region, we
have seen it in La Push, where the Quileute Tribal School is in the
crosshairs of a rising ocean.
We have seen coastal challenges threaten public safety, public
access, and cultural landmarks for these Tribes and others, including
the Hoh and Makah Tribes. These communities are seeing the impact of
climate change right now.
Breached seawalls, persistent flooding, mold damage, tsunami threats,
and coastal erosion put homes at risk. They put schools serving Tribal
youth at risk and community centers serving elders at risk, not to
mention important cultural sites that date back generations.
Unfortunately, these threats from changing landscapes and weather
events can't be adequately addressed by Tribal governments alone
because they don't have the resources. While the Federal Government has
resources to help coastal communities, there is no ability under
current law to make direct applications for this funding.
Madam Chair, I grew up on the Olympic Peninsula. I have seen,
firsthand, challenges faced by coastal communities; and, today, in the
face of these threats, with this bill, we say that we are not going to
tell these communities that they are on their own, because today's
proposal includes my bill, the Tribal Coastal Resiliency Act, which
aims to uphold Tribal sovereignty by modernizing NOAA's Coastal Zone
Management grant program to allow Tribal governments to directly
compete for these grants instead of requiring them to petition States
to prioritize these projects.

{time} 1445

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Washington.
Mr. KILMER. This is about helping communities that face more severe
storms and increased flooding in my region and around the country. This
is about the Federal Government upholding its trust responsibility.
This is about making a difference for coastal communities.
Madam Chair, let's pass this bill and help our communities.
Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
Madam Chair, the package before us represents the misguided partisan
nature of this majority infecting everything Congress touches. This
package highlights the real lost opportunities before us because of the
majority's insistence on impeachment all the time.

[[Page H9972]]

The Democrats have rallied and promised real sweeping policies to
create jobs, address our trade challenges, tackle our national energy
needs, and fight wildfires. Yet, they have been so consumed with
attacking our President and impeachment that they have nothing to show
for it.
So to save face, Speaker Pelosi loaded up her giant jumbo jet, wasted
taxpayer dollars gallivanting around Spain to simply talk about climate
change. This coming week, she has scheduled a series of bills on the
House floor in the name of ``combating climate change'' that are
actually retreads of 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 agenda and have no
plan other than to impeach President Trump. Most of the bills included
in this package before us today duplicate existing authority that the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, already has
under the Coastal Zone Management Act, CZMA. Also, under Tribal CZMA,
living shoreline and climate change, NOAA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service have for fishery research and management, like the Great Lakes
fishery, or NOAA has for Digital Coast data platforms. This package
represents deeply misguided priorities based off misguided efforts.
Now, let's start with the premise that we need to designate a city, a
noncoastal city, as a participating member of the Coastal Zone
Management Act. Why would we declare the District of Columbia a
``coastal city'' and give them veto power over Federal actions
affecting its coastal zone, once it develops an approved coastal zone
management program? Political partisan power.
What does this threaten?
What happens when the District of Columbia expresses concerns with
the impacts of expanded Federal operations at Naval Station Norfolk?
What happens when the Federal Government wants to expand the Wilson
Bridge and I-495? Does D.C. get veto authority? This bill could grant
them that authority.
Next, let's be clear, the loan guarantee program under the Working
Waterfront program will simply put the American taxpayer on the hook
for local defaults with little or no adequate oversight.
While the National Sea Grant Program is popular among coastal
members, this bill establishes a mandatory fellowship program that
provides free graduate students to staff, and, yes, Democratic
congressional offices, at taxpayer expense.
Finally, according to the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, the
cumulative cost of this package to the American taxpayers would be
upwards of $1.4 billion over the authorized periods, with the potential
for an additional cost of $292 million outside of the authorized
windows. Yet, here we are with massive new authorizations in the bill
package that are unnecessary, and like all things in this Congress, are
much higher than current levels of spending.
The agencies responsible for carrying out most of this legislation
stated that it can do, and is doing, most of these functions under
current law.
So why are we here? To create giant authorization slush funds that
future Democratic Congresses working with future Democratic Presidents
will have available to funnel money to their schemes to combat climate
change. We should reject this package before us. We should pass the
USMCA. We should focus on infrastructure permitting and reforming the
way we approve major projects in this country to create jobs and move
America forward.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 729, which
includes the text of my bill, the Great Lakes Fishery Research
Authorization Act.
The Great Lakes hold 18 percent of the world's fresh water supply,
and over 35 million people depend on the lakes for drinking water,
recreation, fish and wildlife-related activities, industrial water
supply, and commercial navigation.
The Lakes support more than 1.5 million jobs and generate $62 billion
in wages. Of those jobs, more than 50,000 are directly sustained by the
Great Lakes' $7 billion fishing industry.
The Great Lakes Science Center has field operations in 5 of the 8
Great Lake States and owns and operates a fleet of large research
vessels that monitor the Lakes and the fishery to ensure that these
crucial ecosystems stay healthy and productive.
The Center is the only agency that conducts multi-jurisdictional,
lake-wide scientific assessments in the Lakes, and is crucial for
protecting and preserving this incredible resource and economic driver.
Due to the unique governance structure of the Great Lakes, where
there is no Federal water, NOAA, which normally manages fishery
science, has no jurisdiction, and GLSC falls under the umbrella of the
USGS.
Unfortunately, unlike coastal fishery management agencies, the GLSC
has had to piece together funding from the USGS base appropriation
since it has no formal authorization or dedicated line item. It has
been forced to cobble together funding from three or four different
sources within USGS every year, and as a result, has lagged far behind
its peers in introducing 21st century technology to properly and
effectively monitor the Lakes. In fact, its funding has even been
raided and diverted to other projects, including to fossil fuel
extraction research.

The Great Lakes Fishery and Research Authorization Act would fix this
problem and give the GLSC the dedicated funding it needs. This
bipartisan bill, which, I will add, has more Republican than Democratic
cosponsors, will correct the authorization and funding deficiencies in
a transparent manner and in a way that puts the Great Lakes on par with
other maritime environments in the Nation.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, even though this is another
wonderful program that already has three different agencies that do the
same thing and they have the authority to do it, in the Christmas
spirit--maybe the gentleman from Michigan will find the error of his
ways--in the Christmas spirit, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I thank my good friend and I thank, too, Mr.
Quigley, who just spoke, as the two of us are the bipartisan sponsors
of the Great Lakes Fisheries Authorization Act, and we are glad that it
is part of this package.
And I rise, obviously, in support, Madam Chair, today for this
package of bills to help protect our coast and the Great Lakes.
You know, in the southwest there is a saying, ``Don't mess with
Texas.'' Well, as one that grew up on the shores of Lake Michigan,
there is a saying that we have, too, ``Don't mess with the Great
Lakes.''
This issue is deeply personal. It is one of great importance to the
Nation. Our Great Lakes hold 18 percent of the world's fresh water
supply, covers some 9,000 miles of shoreline, and this helps generate
over $7 billion a year in sport and commercial fishing industry alone.
This bill would authorize the U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes
Science Center to conduct science and research activities to support
fishery management decisions in the Great Lakes.
Funds are going to be used to restore the loss of basic fishery
science capabilities, accelerate the development of invasive species
controls and the restoration of native species, and implement advanced
autonomous and remote sensing technologies. Current authorizations for
the U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Center is confusing and
funding is often piecemeal. In the past, the funds have been diverted
to other unrelated purposes and disrupted ongoing research. That has
got to change.
With dedicated funding and clear authorization, the U.S. Geological
Survey Great Lakes Science Center will, in fact, be able to better
ensure the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. This is going to help
enhance our coastal resilience, restore fish habitat, and protect our
important coastal economies.
I support the legislation.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman), the chair of the Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Water, Oceans and Wildlife.

[[Page H9973]]

Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Chair, it is great to follow those warm,
bipartisan remarks from my friend from Michigan, because, after all,
even though you wouldn't know it from the ranking member's remarks, we
are here to consider a package of bipartisan bills that provide
commonsense, science-based solutions for issues facing our coastal
communities. These bills reflect putting aside our differences and
looking at the facts for the sake of our constituents in coastal
economies around this country.
Last week, I attended the U.N. Climate Conference in Madrid. We were
focused on international action on climate change, and specifically,
the role of the oceans.
Because of climate change, coastal cities will be devastated from
sea-level rise, and commercial fisheries could be either totally
collapsed or moved beyond the reach of our coastal communities, all in
my children's lifetimes.
So, yes, adaptation and mitigation will be costly, but the cost of
doing nothing is exponentially higher. And the cost of inaction
continues to increase every day that special interests concerned with
keeping the status quo are put ahead of our oceans, our coasts, and
future generations.
Now, this package of bills will provide tools and resources coastal
communities need to prepare for the impacts of climate change and to
protect local economies.
One section is based on my bill, the National Sea Grant College
Program Amendments Act. It updates the Sea Grant program to better
respond to the needs of the coastal communities through research,
education, and extension programs. It also helps develop the coastal
and marine research and policy workforce that our country needs to
respond to these challenges.
Reauthorizing this important program is critical. To date, the
program has improved the resilience of 462 coastal communities. It has
also been an incredibly successful program in terms of leveraging
Federal resources with State and local funds to meet the growing needs
of these communities.
Last year, Sea Grant's work supported over 7,000 jobs, over 1,500
businesses, and it resulted in $624 million in economic benefits. This
program consistently has bipartisan support because of its
effectiveness and importance to communities around this country.
So, again, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, even though it has been said, you
have already read it in some reports from the chairs of the committee
of jurisdiction as well as the committee that could have sequential
referral of this, that they approve adding some of the amendments we
are going to be talking about later into this package. I think the same
thing is actually having a hearing and allowing members of those
committees to have their will and say something.

The process is not to allow the chairman to determine what bills will
or will not be added--what bills will or will not be. It is to allow
the members of the committee to have that kind of input, and this
process is eliminating that kind of input.
Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McClintock). He knows more about this issue than the rest of us on the
floor combined.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this measure. A collection of
minor, flawed bills was presented to our Subcommittee on Water, Oceans
and Wildlife a few months ago, and instead of correcting the flaws,
they have simply been repackaged and rebranded as a landmark climate
change bill.
The net result is the climate is going to continue to change and our
country will be about $1.5 billion a year poorer for it.
Take, for example, H.R. 1023 included in this package, it creates a
new Federal fishery monitoring program for the Great Lakes Basin. Well,
the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service already conduct similar fishery studies right now. Instead,
this bill would task an agency that has little experience in fishery,
science, and management, the U.S. Geological Survey, to do basically
the same thing.
And this is especially baffling since we are currently paying NOAA
some $28 million a year for ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research,
and another $2.9 million for interjurisdictional fisheries grants,
which could be used for Great Lakes management and science.
Another measure is H.R. 2405, this reauthorizes NOAA's Sea Grant
Program, bumping it $10 million higher than currently appropriated, and
then increasing that authorization by nearly 5 percent annually
thereafter. This program is one that the President rightly sought to
eliminate in his budget in order to free up funding for NOAA to
complete its most important core functions.
Another bill in this package purports to modernize and enhance the
Coastal Zone Management Act. This is my favorite. What it actually does
is to place the seaside resort of Washington, D.C., into the Coastal
Zone Management Act. Now, I don't deny that Washington is a world-class
swamp, but it is not a coastal community, and placing it in a coastal
zone doesn't make it one. What it does do is to rob legitimate coastal
communities of funding and influence, and it opens the door to further
encroachments as more and more inland cities seek to claim coastal zone
status.
Another measure thrown into this package is H.R. 3115. This bill,
which never had a hearing and was rushed through markup, costs over
$631 million and inserts Federal priorities into coastal zone
management, which counters the CZMA's original intention of assessing
coastal management needs according to the unique and diverse conditions
and desires of the communities along our coast.

{time} 1500

Another measure thrown into this package is H.R. 1314, which
reauthorizes the Integrated Ocean Observing System. Now, this system is
good. It provides data to coastal communities and local fishermen on
weather conditions. It is critical. So far, so good.
But then it follows up on very good public policy with very bad
fiscal policy by providing open, limitless authorization of funds for
the program. It should be amended to set specific authorization limits,
as Senate versions of the measure have done.
Madam Chair, I fail to see how this package would provide new
benefits to coastal States other than, apparently, the coastal
community of Washington, D.C. Further, NOAA already does most of the
work that this package claims to authorize. This is duplicative and
wasteful of our resources at a time when the Nation is running
dangerously high deficits.
And, as I said, it is going to require another $1.4 billion of
Federal spending; that is about $11 from the earnings of every family
in the country. I think that is an expensive press release for
something that does so little that we are not already doing.
And, with that, I would ask that the bill be rejected.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Cunningham), a valued member of our Natural Resources
Committee.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chair, Americans depend on their oceans. In
Lowcountry, the ocean drives our tourism economy and is integral to who
we are, which is why we need bold action to protect our coastal
communities from the growing threats of sea level rise and storms,
increasing both in frequency and severity.
H.R. 729 is an important step in this direction and will empower
coastal communities to better prepare for and respond to our rapidly
changing coastlines. It will promote development of climate-resilient
shorelines that protect our coasts from storms and improve fish and
wildlife habitats. It will shore up working waterfronts, which face
their own challenges caused by a changing environment.
H.R. 729 will be a lifeline to our coastal communities at a time when
they need it most, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in
supporting this critical legislation.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

[[Page H9974]]

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Chair, there is a reason that the Digital
Coast Act is bipartisan and bicameral: We all have a stake in
protecting our shorelines.
Our country's 95,000 miles of shoreline--not just our oceans, but our
rivers, streams, and lakes--are home to more than 42 percent of our
country's population and millions of businesses that supply most of our
gross domestic product.
Unfortunately, current coastal maps and geospatial data are woefully
inadequate, outdated, or even nonexistent.
My bill, the Digital Coast Act, which is part of this package, will
allow professionals at NOAA to begin a comprehensive mapping process of
our Nation's fragile shorelines.
Coastal communities will be able to use the data to better prepare
for storms, manage floods, restore ecosystems, and plan smarter
developments near America's coasts, harbors, ports, and shorelines.
NOAA will train decisionmakers at the local and State level on how to
use the datasets to answer questions about storm surge, erosion, and
water level trends. The data will also be available on NOAA's website
for free and easy public access, so every citizen can leverage the
expertise of the Federal Government.
Every day, planners in our hometowns are asking questions, such as,
what is the storm surge in this community, how much is the bluff going
to erode, or what are the water level trends at the marina where we
want to build a new dock?
I represent Maryland, home of the Chesapeake Bay, which provides $1
trillion to the economies of its watershed. So, protecting the shores
of the bay means protecting jobs.
The bill's Republican cosponsor, Mr. Don Young, represents Alaska,
a State with 44,000 miles of coastline. There, they rely on their
shipping channels for goods from the lower 48 States. They need mapping
for search and rescue operations and to support the fishing industry,
which is their largest private-sector employer.
The Digital Coast Act will arm local planners and managers with the
high-tech data they need to make smart decisions and investments that
could save people's lives.
In addition to the bill's Republican cosponsor, Congressman Young, I
would like to thank Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop for
their hard work on this package, even though I understand Ranking
Member Bishop has some issues. And I also would like to thank Senators
Tammy Baldwin and Lisa Murkowski for championing the bill in the
Senate.
I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman from
Maryland. He has got a good bill. It should be a suspension. We
wouldn't even ask for a vote for it. There is nothing wrong that.
Mr. Kilmer's H.R. 729 is a good, decent bill. What is so sad is the
Democrats have decided to take these two decent bills that should be
suspensions and hold them as hostage to tack a whole bunch of other
really crappy stuff on with them as well, and that is the sad part of
this.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii
for yielding the time.
I rise today in support of the Coastal and Great Lakes Communities
Enhancement Act, H.R. 729. I also rise as a proud Floridian and as the
chair of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. Our select
committee is tasked with developing a climate action plan in the coming
months.

Communities across America are grappling with the rising costs of the
climate crisis. Here in Congress, we are working to be good partners
with our neighbors and communities back home and provide the tools they
need to take care of America's diverse and vital coastal communities.
That is why, last month, I visited two of my colleagues in south
Florida, Congresswoman Donna Shalala and Congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-
Powell--they are in the Florida Keys and Miami Beach--to see how their
communities are responding to climate change. Here we are with Lad
Akins of the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation. They are doing a
lot, but we have to do more.
Across the Keys and Miami Beach, and all across this great country,
local officials are taking bold action to adapt to sea level rise and
make their communities more resilient, but they need our help.
That is why Congress must ramp up bold climate legislation, like this
bill, which includes 10 separate measures to help coastal communities
become more resilient.
One of these bills will create a grant program for coastal
communities to create living shorelines. Another will expand the use of
climate data, which is so vital to determining how we are going to
mitigate and how we are going to adapt.
This Congress will continue to act on the climate crisis. Next
spring, our select committee will release a bold climate action plan,
which will serve as a roadmap for committees to take additional action.
But Chairman Grijalva and the Natural Resources Committee are ahead
of the game, and I want to thank him and his committee members and
professional staff for their deep commitment to America and the places
we hold dear as we work to tackle the rising cost of climate.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern) so he can once again explain how there
are three good bills in this package and a whole lot of other bad ones.
Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma. Madam Chair, as we heard in the Rules
Committee debate yesterday, this package of bills before us is the
first major package put forth by House Democrats to solve the climate
crisis that we hear about daily.
Many House Democrats ran their last elections on the platform of
putting forth real, tangible solutions to this situation.
Unfortunately, they have not lived up to those promises and are letting
their constituents down with this package.
As Ranking Member Bishop mentioned, this package is a hodgepodge of
provisions that reinstate current Federal authorities, all to the tune
of nearly 1.4 billion taxpayer dollars.
Let's examine just a few of the provisions in this bill:
Section 102 authorizes a Living Shoreline Grant Program. According to
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``The agency
currently provides financial and technical assistance to coastal
communities for the use of living shorelines through existing
programs.'' CBO estimates that this provision will cost American
taxpayers $300 million.
Section 103 authorizes the Working Waterfronts Grant Program.
According to NOAA, ``Under the CZMA, coastal States have the discretion
to use funding for many of the purposes that would be addressed by the
Working Waterfronts Grant Program.'' The CBO estimates this provision
will cost American taxpayers upwards of $23 million.
Section 106 authorizes coastal climate change adaptation planning and
preparedness grants. According to NOAA, under the CZMA, coastal States
already have the discretion to use funding to develop and implement
adaptation plans. CBO estimates that this provision will cost American
taxpayers upwards of $114 million.
Subtitle A of title II authorizes the National Fish Habitat
Conservation Through Partnerships program, at a cost to American
taxpayers of nearly $40 million. Supporters of this provision have
stated its great success, which is very true. However, this program has
been successfully leveraging Federal and State funds since 2006, all
under existing Federal funding. That leads me to question why we are
now authorizing an additional $40 million for something that we have
already been spending on since 2006.
Ultimately, this package is a deceitful attempt to act on climate
policy. Democrats have promised sweeping policy reforms and under-
delivered in a major way. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this
misguided legislation.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise to support H.R. 729.
I thank Congressman Case for yielding to me and call attention to the

[[Page H9975]]

Great Lakes Fishery Research Authorization Act, which authorizes the
U.S. Geological Service Science Center for the Great Lakes and commend
Congressman Quigley for his hard work on the legislation.
This service protects the Great Lakes Fishery from voracious,
destructive, invasive species that threaten the integrity of our entire
Great Lakes system.
Today, in our district, the Geological Service is leading the charge
to identify and contain grass carp, a pernicious invasive whose
population threatens to explode but for the work of the Federal science
agencies.
Every day, our country sits in neutral with inadequate direction to
the Geological Service we allow invasive species to undermine the
multibillion-dollar Great Lakes Fishery.
The Great Lakes have come a long way since the Cuyahoga River caught
fire 60 years ago and since has healed, but we have a long way to go.
With this authorization, the Geological Service will be able to
conduct deepwater ecosystem science to help us better understand fish
movement and behavior; and, for my district, which contains the most
productive, shallowest, and warmest $7 billion fishery of the Great
Lakes, the western basin of Lake Erie, the service's work protects the
region's priceless ecological and economic future.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 729.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the chair of the full Natural
Resources Committee.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, last week, I was honored to attend the
United Nations Climate Change Conference with Speaker Pelosi and my
Democratic colleagues in Congress.
That conference focused on the urgent need to prevent climate change
from destroying our oceans. The consensus is clear: Oceans across the
planet are already being damaged, and coastal communities everywhere
are hurting.
At the conference, we were asked how we plan to respond to the
climate crisis. We could either plan now and build a sustainable future
or delay and pay a very, very heavy price. To me, that was an easy
choice.
While we need to end our dependence on fossil fuels, we also need to
plan for the impacts we already know are coming for millions of
Americans.
This package of bills does that. Forty percent of Americans live in
coastal counties. From fishing to shipping to recreation and tourism,
American jobs depend on healthy, resilient coasts. These communities
need the tools to protect themselves.
We need to support our coastal communities in their adaptation and
resilience planning, especially indigenous and disadvantaged
communities that are often most at risk. We need to support all these
communities and fund adaptation and coastal planning that will protect
these communities and their ways of life.
This bipartisan package, led by Members from across the country and
across the aisle, will help communities on the front lines of climate
change prepare for and respond to the impacts of climate change that
endanger livelihoods, communities, and ecosystems.
I commend the many sponsors on this important work and urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 729.

{time} 1515

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maine (Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii for
yielding. I thank Chairman Grijalva for his work on this committee, and
I thank the ranking member even though we don't seem to agree on too
much about this bill.
I rise today in support of H.R. 729, which includes my bipartisan
bill to protect America's working waterfronts at a time when
environmental pressures and rapid development threaten their future.
More than 30,000 Mainers rely on marine-related industries for their
livelihoods. Yet out of 5,000 miles of coastline, just 20 miles of
workable waterfront remain in our State.
Coastal communities across the country are feeling that same squeeze.
Further reducing our usable coastline will adversely impact everything
from aquaculture and boatbuilding to coastal tourism and commercial
fishing.
My bill will help to reverse this disturbing nationwide trend of
shrinking waterfronts. It will protect jobs and preserve the character
of coastal communities. It establishes a working waterfronts grant
program and a 5-year loan fund pilot program for waterfront
preservation. It sets up a task force within the Department of Commerce
to identify and prioritize critical needs for the Nation's working
waterfronts.
Through the task force, the bill will also help communities identify
and mitigate the impacts of the climate crisis. At a time when 42
percent of Americans live in coastal communities, this task force is
not only a vital planning measure for today, it will support the
generations who will follow us.
For 8 years, House leadership on the other side stalled critical
initiatives like this one to address the climate crisis. The scope and
severity of this crisis require comprehensive action. Though my bill
addresses just one small piece, it will make all the difference for
communities in my State and across the country.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of working waterfronts and
vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 90 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii for
yielding.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Coastal and Great Lakes
Communities Enhancement Act, which includes legislation to improve
ocean data collection and information sharing between Federal agencies
and coastal observation partners.
Our coastal communities rely on accurate ocean data and monitoring
for information about ocean acidification, harmful algal blooms and
hypoxia forecasting, tsunami preparedness, navigation, and port
security.
I worked with my fellow co-chair of the House Oceans Caucus, Don
Young, to reintroduce the Integrated Coastal Ocean Observing System
Act, which is included in this bill and will allow the Integrated Ocean
Observing System to strengthen its work using satellites, buoys,
underwater gliders, and tide gauges to deliver accurate and continuous
data on our oceans and coasts.
Mapping the ocean floor is expected to be a top priority as the
United Nations' Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development
begins in 2021. We must strengthen investments in the Integrated Ocean
Observing System and ocean monitoring so we can meaningfully contribute
to these efforts.
I thank my colleague from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his leadership on
this issue, and I thank Chairman Grijalva for his support. I encourage
my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Chair, one of the things that the other side has been talking
about is how we need a vision and need to plan for the future, which is
true. The only problem is that the stuff we have before us isn't it.
This is a collection of minor programs that already exist and changing
them in ways that sometimes make no difference but sometimes have some
negative counterpoints.
There is one bill that was just talked about here that if there is a
default on that bill, all of the sudden now, the Federal Government is
on the hook to pay for that. It was never that way before.
Those are minor changes that if we were handling these bills
separately, if they were actually being done in an appropriate way, we
could talk about those minor changes in there. But once you put them
all together in a package with a couple of really good things to lead
the way, everything kind of falls in place.
Let me give you another example. One of the issues that comes in the
folderol of bills that are underneath this is the Sea Grant Fellowship
Program, which is currently discretionary. This bill would make it
mandatory. Sounds kind of nice.
The program places fellows in the executive branch. We have no
problem with that whatsoever, but what this bill would do, one of the
things in the weeds of this concoction of bills that has been cobbled
together, is it would use taxpayer dollars to supply free staff for
Members of Congress. That concept is just plain wrong.

[[Page H9976]]

The underlying program is not bad. Reauthorizing is not bad. That one
change in there is wrong. If we were doing these bill-by-bill, talking
about them one-by-one instead of trying to add them all together in a
big package of nothing, if we were dealing with that, we could be
talking about those specific issues and making those kinds of
decisions.
That is the way legislation ought to be done. This is not the way
legislation ought to be done.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Madam Chair, I thank my good friend for yielding, and I
want to assure the ranking member that the program I am discussing does
not already exist, but it should.
I rise today to express my strong support for the Coastal and Great
Lakes Communities Enhancement Act, which includes the text of my bill,
the District of Columbia Flood Prevention Act of 2019. I thank my
friend Natural Resources Committee chair Raul Grijalva and Water,
Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee chair Jared Huffman for including my
bill in this legislation.
This legislation would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
to include the Nation's capital in the definition of ``coastal state.''
Our bill would correct an apparent oversight in the omission of the
District of Columbia from the CZMA and would make the District eligible
to receive Federal coastal zone management funding, including flood
mitigation and prevention funds for the Nation's capital.
Importantly, the District is located on two rivers, the Anacostia and
the Potomac, which are tidally influenced and show tangible salt water
effects and fish and are a part of an intertidal-zone existing between
high and low maritime tides. D.C. has suffered substantial coastal
floods in the past and has also experienced numerous instances of
riverine and interior flooding, such as the massive flood of 2006,
which flooded Constitution Avenue and caused millions of dollars in
damage to the National Archives, the Internal Revenue Service, and
other Federal buildings.
Despite these factors, D.C. was omitted from the list of eligible
States and territories in the CZMA. The oversight probably occurred
because the CZMA was passed in 1972 before the District achieved home
rule. Because territories are included in the definition of ``coastal
states'' under the CZMA, it appears that the District omission is a
mistake which only Congress can correct.
I appreciate the gentleman for including my bill in this bill.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 729, the Coastal
and Great Lakes Communities Enhancement Act. This strong, bipartisan
package is a combination of months of work in the Natural Resources
Committee. It includes many key priorities for the Great Lakes region,
including Representative Quigley's Great Lakes Fishery Research
Authorization Act.
This bipartisan legislation will strengthen our understanding of
Great Lakes fisheries and provide additional resources for research
into the Great Lakes Basin's fisheries and biology.
Cutting-edge technologies authorized by the Great Lakes Fishery
Research Reauthorization Act will enable scientists to deliver near-
real-time data on quickly emerging crises, such as potential fisheries
crashes or new and very unwelcome invasive species like the Asian carp.
Additionally, the package includes key sportsmen's priorities like
the National Fish Habitat Conservation Through Partnerships Act, which
builds off State- and locally led joint ventures to better conserve
wildlife and fish habitats.
As one of the co-chairs of the Great Lakes Task Force here in
Congress, I urge all of my colleagues to support these important
provisions and vote in favor of the Coastal and Great Lakes Communities
Enhancement Act.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Utah
for yielding.
Madam Chair, I was sitting in my office in a meeting and looked up at
the TV screen on C-SPAN, and I watched our distinguished chairman put
up a chart that said that for every $1 you invest in proactive
predisaster mitigation, you get $6 in cost savings.
I was somewhat shocked because I have used that statistic over and
over again, and I have also used the statistic that the Congressional
Budget Office has a study that says you get $3 in cost savings for
every $1 you invest. The Corps of Engineers has a study that says you
get $7.92 for every $1 you invest. The National Institutes for Building
Standards says you get $11 in cost savings for every $1 you invest.
You know what? Every single time I have tried to do this, my good
friend has voted against me--every single time.
This bill is designed to send out press releases. Let me be clear:
Right now, we have well over $100 billion in resiliency projects that
are needed across the Nation. Just last year, under a Republican
Congress, we put tens of billions of dollars into funding those
resiliency projects through the Corps of Engineers, through FEMA. So
taking an existing program that manages our coastal resources and
expanding the eligibility, expanding the uses of funding without adding
new funds, all that is doing is further complicating the very mission
that the majority is trying to achieve.
The bill goes on further to give USGS permanent authority, or at
least authorizing them over the long-term, for fisheries management--
you know, USGS, our fisheries agency. No, they don't manage fisheries.
That would be NOAA.
This program also takes funds and does a set-aside of authorization
for Tribes under a coastal zone. We have learned over and over again
that the way that you manage your coastal resources is by integrated
management, not by breaking it up further and further into smaller and
smaller pieces.

We already have 35 coastal States and territories. We need to have
integrated management. We don't need to have Louisiana doing something
to mess up Mississippi or Texas. We need to make sure that we are
looking at it holistically as a Nation.
I have been one of the biggest advocates in this Congress for being
proactive and making investments in our communities. I represent south
Louisiana, one of the most disaster-impacted areas in our entire
Nation. The people I represent have been through it all, Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, Isaac. We have had high water on the
Mississippi River 4 years of the last 6, record high water draining
from Montana to New York to Canada on down.
This is not the right approach. This is a flawed approach.
I can't even believe I am standing here. My friends have voted
against me every single time we have tried to do thoughtful, integrated
approaches to protect our coastal communities, protect our ecological
resources. To come in and do this in a partisan manner and do it in a
way that is totally hypocritical over previous actions is ridiculous.
Madam Chair, I urge rejection of this bill and ask that we sit down
in a bipartisan manner and work out bipartisan solutions.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
What the gentleman from Louisiana was saying is exactly right.
Actually, he had an amendment that could have helped with that problem
that was not made in order by our crack Rules Committee. I am sure if
he would promise to shave next time he speaks, they probably would make
it in order the next time we have this bill.

{time} 1530

Not only are there a lot of bills that are basically meaningless
because the authority is already there, there are a few situations
simply when the new additions to it do not make sense.
One of the speakers in here was talking about one of the coastal zone
management amendments to add Washington, D.C., to the coastal zone
management plan, which would be good except that, first of all,
Washington, D.C., is not a State, and, secondly, it is not even a
coastal State.

[[Page H9977]]

It would actually make more sense to have my hometown, because at
least we are on the Great Salt Lake and have brackish water that could
be included in part of this thing.
It also would make a problem of simply reducing the total amount of
funds that go to the 35 States that actually have their programs
already here. It is not a problem for Utah. We are not part of it. But
those States that have coasts, they will have their programs reduced
because of this.
More importantly, it provides jurisdictional problems in how the city
of Washington, D.C., would interface with the Federal Government.
Now, those are not insurmountable problems, but they should have been
worked out, and they could have been worked out if you are actually
dealing with these things in a logical, sequential way instead of
lumping them all together into some kind of overall program that
actually doesn't necessarily meet the guidelines of what we are trying
to accomplish.
But, as I said, there are three of these bills that are in here that
could easily have gone in suspension. We would have done it.
There is another bill in here that, had one amendment been made, it
would have easily solved the problem, and it should have been done.
But for the bulk of these bills--minor changes in here, but the bulk
of these bills can actually be done under current statutory authority.
As we had testimony from NOAA, on one of the bills, they simply said
the agency already provides financial and technical assistance through
existing programs. There was no reason to add that particular bill to
this list.
Another one that was on this list that tries to do the CZMA, under
their authority, States have discretion to use funding for many of the
purposes of the working waterfronts grant program that were proposed by
this particular bill. They can do it now. There is no additional
authority that is needed.
Then, another one of the bills that is part of this falderal of
legislation under one umbrella said that the coastal States already
have discretion to use funding to develop and implement adoption plans,
and they gave a specific example of how one of the States that does use
that, NOAA gave the example of how that flexibility already exists.
But we are saying over and over again, one of the problems we have
with this is that you have taken one really decent bill by Mr. Kilmer,
a couple of others that should have easily been in suspensions, and
have used them as a hostage to add up a whole bunch of other stuff to
it.
Then, if you look at some of the amendments that were made in order,
obviously, when you take other bills that have not had hearings, they
haven't gone through the process, we are going to try and now add them
on to this, well, why would anyone want to do that, except we are
giving the illusion of getting something done.
And this is the only game in town that is going through, so why not
try and put as many bills as you can? That way, somebody could stand up
and say, ``Look, we just passed 16 bills. Wouldn't it be nice if the
Senate picked them up?''
Well, that is not the way we are doing it. We are adding 16 bills.
Most of them have no Senate counterpart. Most of them will never be
done in the Senate. If the Senate actually deals with this issue at
all, they are going to separate it and divide it up and do it
piecemeal, which is the way we should have done it in the first
particular place.
If this package of bills is really a philosophy, a vision of the
future of what we are going to do to make either the air better or the
climate safer or water more drinkable, it doesn't happen in this bill.
These things are simply a retread of ideas that, in reality, the
authority they are trying to develop is actually already in existence.
They are doing it. Except that every once in awhile, in one of these
bills, you will add a little tweak here or a little tweak there that
basically is something that is wrong, that it should not be doing:
Creating a program to provide interns for our offices without having
it come out of our own budgets, that is not a great idea, but it is in
here;
Creating new areas for something that is not a State, that is not
even a coastal State, so they can get part of that money, that is not a
great idea, but it is part of it that is in here.
Those are the things that, if we did things per regular order, if we
actually tried to be logical about taking a bill and discussing it and
then coming up with a solution to some of the problems, we could easily
do that in a bipartisan way.
But we don't do that. Instead, we just lump everything together in
one package in an effort to say, ``Look, we are being productive.'' But
we are not solving a problem. We are not doing anything that is moving
the ball forward. All we are doing is checking a box, saying, yes, we
were here on this particular day, and giving the illusion of some kind
of activity.
What we really need is activity. What we really need is to get on
with things that are of significance that should have been done well
before now, like the NDAA and the trade treaty and our budget and the
backlog maintenance bill. All of those things should be done, but they
are not being scheduled.
And still we are coming up with a series of bills that don't make the
case; they are not ready for prime time.
This is a package that we will send over to the Senate, if indeed it
is passed in here, and it will be ignored or it will be stripped apart;
and we will be asking the Senate to do what we should have done in the
first place: taking these things in a logical, sequential way, trying
to solve some of the major problems that are there.
And reauthorizing something that is already in existence doesn't need
to actually be something we spend our time doing that particular thing.
So, actually, in the spirit of Christmas, you'll be sorry if you are
actually going to vote for this. Only if you spell ``you'll,'' Y-U-L-E,
and then it can be a pun.
Is the gentleman satisfied?
Madam Chair, this is fun.
This is not a solution. This is not a vision. This is not anything
that really moves us forward. This is something that should have and
could have been done in a much, much better way.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, first of all, I thank the members of my majority who
rose in favor of this bill as well as the few members of the minority
who did as well.
And I again thank the 24 Republicans who supported a portion of this
bill that is at least a start on the challenge of our time: climate
change and the impacts on our oceans, on our coastlines, and on our
lakes.
The ranking member complains on several fronts. The first front he
complains on is that this is just an illusion, that this is just moving
the ball nowhere at all.
I completely reject that. I completely reject the notion that
strengthening our Federal programs that are directly related to
resiliency of our coastlines, that are directly related to good science
applied to our oceans and lakes, that are directly related to finding
good, solid public-private partnerships to address the incredible
negative impacts of climate change and other causes on our oceans and
coastlines is not moving the ball forward.
In fact, I would suggest that the illusion we are talking about is
the illusion that the ranking member cares at all about these issues
because, if you look at the record of addressing these issues under the
Republican majority, that record is zero. They have not moved any balls
forward whatsoever.
And further, pardon me for distrusting the current administration,
because the ranking member complains that NOAA and other Federal
agencies are already exercising flexibility on many of these programs--
fine. Administrative flexibility is one thing, and all power to good
people and NOAA who are trying to do the right thing, but that is
different from a congressional mandate to do something.
The reason for the concern is staring us in the face. Every year of
this administration, there have been proposed disastrous budget cuts to
NOAA and other ocean-related programs. For the current fiscal year,
2020, a cut of 18 percent was restored by the House majority: cuts to
eliminate or severely decrease funding to our critical ocean

[[Page H9978]]

and coastal programs, Sea Grant, coastal zone management, National
Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, hydrographic surveys and ocean
observing, climate change research, programs that manage coral reefs
and marine mammals and sea turtles, and many more.
So pardon me if we are distrustful of this administration or of
future administrations on severely restricting the flexibility that
these programs have to administer critical needs for not only our
country, but our world.
Pardon me, but it is a congressional mandate in these areas that is
really necessary.
The ranking member and his colleagues complain that we are not
advancing climate change by a step. If they want to advance climate
change with us, then join us in a major climate change initiative; join
us in returning to the Paris climate accord; join us across the board.
The ranking member complains that no due consideration was given to
these many bills. In fact, these bills were heard; they were discussed;
and, with the exception of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves),
there were no Republican amendments offered to any of these bills.
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern) complains that we should
not spend more on our oceans, lakes, and coastal cities; we should not
anticipate disaster mitigation. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Graves) argues that, in fact, there is not a positive cost benefit in
these programs and their funding going forward.
The citation for that information is the National Institute of
Building Sciences, based on 23 years' worth of data from FEMA, the
Economic Development Administration, and HUD.
Investments upfront for the impacts of climate change and other man-
made causation to our oceans and lakes and coastlines is, in fact, a
major return to not only our communities, but to all parts of our
country.
The gentleman complains, and the minority would have you believe,
that this is a mandatory increase of over $1 billion in Federal
funding. It is not. It is discretionary, in large part, to the
Appropriations Committee.
So, as we go into the amendment process, I appreciate my colleagues'
support, and I truly hope that this can be a bipartisan bill.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROUDA. Madam Chair, I commend my colleagues on the Natural
Resources Committee and the authors of the bill's various provisions
and amendments for their work on H.R. 729, the Coastal and Great Lakes
Communities Enhancement Act. I am proud to support this critical bill
aimed at equipping coastal and great lakes communities with the tools
they need to enhance resiliency planning efforts; implement forward-
thinking solutions to address intense climate impacts; and ensure a
cleaner, safer, and more sustainable future.
Orange County is ground zero for the climate crisis. Families living
on the coast know that rising sea-levels, frequent flooding, coastal
erosion, and increasingly severe weather events are a clear and present
danger to our lives and livelihoods. This legislation protects and
preserves coastline, helps communities create and enact resiliency
measures, and improves ocean monitoring and research. Climate change is
here, and we must continue to take bold and swift action to protect
coastal communities.
The first of my two amendments to the Coastal and Great Lakes
Communities Enhancement act authorizes a prize competition to stimulate
innovation to advance coastal risk and resilience measures. My second
amendment requires the development of a catalog of research on
applicable coastal risk reduction and resilience measures to evaluate
effectiveness, eliminate redundancies, encourage cooperation, and make
research findings available to the public. These amendments strengthen
the underlying bill, and I appreciate the opportunity to offer to
advocate for the millions of Americans who live and work in coastal
communities.
I urge adoption of my amendments to this important piece of
legislation and final passage of the Coastal and Great Lakes
Communities Enhancement Act.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Chair, I rise to express my strong support for the
Coastal and Great Lakes Communities Enhancement Act (H.R. 729), which
contains a number of important provisions, including the text of my
bill, the District of Columbia Flood Prevention Act of 2019 (H.R.
2185). I thank my friend, Natural Resources Committee Chair Raul
Grijalva, and Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee Chair Jared
Huffman, for including my bill in this legislation. This legislation
would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) to include
the nation's capital in the definition of ``coastal state.'' Our bill
would correct an apparent oversight in the omission of the District of
Columbia from the CZMA and would make the District eligible to receive
federal coastal zone management funding, including flood mitigation and
prevention funds.
Importantly, the District is located on two rivers, the Anacostia and
Potomac Rivers, which are tidally influenced and show tangible salt
water effects (and fish) and are part of an ``intertidal-zone''
existing between high and low maritime tides. D.C. has suffered
substantial coastal floods in the past and has also experienced
numerous instances of riverine and interior flooding, such as the
massive flood of 2006 which flooded Constitution Avenue and caused
millions of dollars in damage to the National Archives, the Internal
Revenue Service and other federal buildings.
Despite these factors, D.C. was omitted from the list of eligible
states and territories in the CZMA. This oversight probably occurred
because the CZMA was passed in 1972--before the District achieved home
rule. Because territories are included in the definition of ``coastal
states'' under the CZMA, it appears that D.C.'s omission is a mistake,
which only Congress can correct.
A member of the other side complained that the District should not be
included in the bill. However, scientists have predicted that the tides
on the Atlantic Coast could rise two to four feet by the year 2100,
causing private and federal property worth as much as $7 billion in the
District to be routinely under threat by floodwaters. Because of these
factors, the District should be eligible under the CZMA, just like the
states and territories already listed in the CZMA.
I urge support for this bill.
The CHAIR. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-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 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 729

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FRONT MATTER.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Coastal
and Great Lakes Communities Enhancement Act''.
(b) Determination of Budgetary Effects.--The budgetary
effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects
of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing
in the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the House
Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been
submitted prior to the vote on passage.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Front matter.

TITLE I--COASTAL RESILIENCE AND ECONOMIC ENHANCEMENT

Sec. 101. Grants to further achievement of Tribal coastal zone
objectives.
Sec. 102. Living Shoreline Grant Program.
Sec. 103. Working Waterfronts Grant Program.
Sec. 104. Working Waterfronts Preservation Fund; grants.
Sec. 105. Eligibility of District of Columbia for Federal funding under
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
Sec. 106. Climate change preparedness in the coastal zone.

TITLE II--FISHERY RESEARCH AND CONSERVATION

Subtitle A--National Fish Habitat Conservation Through Partnerships

Sec. 201. Purpose.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. National Fish Habitat Board.
Sec. 204. Fish Habitat Partnerships.
Sec. 205. Fish Habitat Conservation Projects.
Sec. 206. Technical and scientific assistance.
Sec. 207. Coordination with States and Indian Tribes.
Sec. 208. Interagency Operational Plan.
Sec. 209. Accountability and reporting.
Sec. 210. Effect of this subtitle.
Sec. 211. Nonapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Sec. 212. Funding.
Sec. 213. Prohibition against implementation of regulatory authority by
Federal agencies through Partnerships.

Subtitle B--Great Lakes Fishery Research Authorization

Sec. 214. Definitions.
Sec. 215. Findings.
Sec. 216. Great Lakes monitoring, assessment, science, and research.
Sec. 217. Authorization of appropriations.

[[Page H9979]]

TITLE III--MEETING 21ST CENTURY OCEAN AND COASTAL DATA NEEDS

Subtitle A--Digital Coast

Sec. 301. Findings.
Sec. 302. Definitions.
Sec. 303. Establishment of the Digital Coast.

Subtitle B--Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System

Sec. 304. Staggered terms for National Integrated Coastal and Ocean
Observation System Advisory Committee.
Sec. 305. Integrated coastal and ocean observation system cooperative
agreements.
Sec. 306. Reauthorization of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation
System Act of 2009.

TITLE IV--NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS

Sec. 401. References to the National Sea Grant College Program Act.
Sec. 402. Modification of Dean John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship.
Sec. 403. Modification of authority of Secretary of Commerce to accept
donations for National Sea Grant College Program.
Sec. 404. Repeal of requirement for report on coordination of oceans
and coastal research activities.
Sec. 405. Reduction in frequency required for National Sea Grant
Advisory Board report.
Sec. 406. Modification of elements of National Sea Grant College
Program.
Sec. 407. Direct hire authority; Dean John A. Knauss Marine Policy
Fellowship.
Sec. 408. Authorization of appropriations for National Sea Grant
College Program.
Sec. 409. Technical corrections.

TITLE I--COASTAL RESILIENCE AND ECONOMIC ENHANCEMENT

SEC. 101. GRANTS TO FURTHER ACHIEVEMENT OF TRIBAL COASTAL
ZONE OBJECTIVES.

(a) Grants Authorized.--The Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``SEC. 320. GRANTS TO FURTHER ACHIEVEMENT OF TRIBAL COASTAL
ZONE OBJECTIVES.

``(a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary may award
competitive grants to Indian Tribes to further achievement of
the objectives of such a Tribe for its Tribal coastal zone.
``(b) Cost Share.--
``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of any
activity carried out with a grant under this section shall
be--
``(A) in the case of a grant of less than $200,000, 100
percent of such cost; and
``(B) in the case of a grant of $200,000 or more, 95
percent of such cost, except as provided in paragraph (2).
``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the application of
paragraph (1)(B) with respect to a grant to an Indian Tribe,
or otherwise reduce the portion of the share of the cost of
an activity required to be paid by an Indian Tribe under such
paragraph, if the Secretary determines that the Tribe does
not have sufficient funds to pay such portion.
``(c) Compatibility.--The Secretary may not award a grant
under this section unless the Secretary determines that the
activities to be carried out with the grant are compatible
with this title and that the grantee has consulted with the
affected coastal state regarding the grant objectives and
purposes.
``(d) Authorized Objectives and Purposes.--Amounts awarded
as a grant under this section shall be used for one or more
of the objectives and purposes authorized under subsections
(b) and (c), respectively, of section 306A.
``(e) Funding.--Of amounts appropriated to carry out this
Act, $5,000,000 is authorized to carry out this section for
each fiscal year.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Indian land.--The term `Indian land' has the meaning
that term has under section 2601 of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (25 U.S.C. 3501).
``(2) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian Tribe' means an
Indian tribe, as that term is defined in section 4 of the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25
U.S.C. 5304).
``(3) Tribal coastal zone.--The term `Tribal coastal zone'
means any Indian land of an Indian Tribe that is within the
coastal zone.
``(4) Tribal coastal zone objective.--The term `Tribal
coastal zone objective' means, with respect to an Indian
Tribe, any of the following objectives:
``(A) Protection, restoration, or preservation of areas in
the Tribal coastal zone of such Tribe that hold--
``(i) important ecological, cultural, or sacred
significance for such Tribe; or
``(ii) traditional, historic, and esthetic values essential
to such Tribe.
``(B) Preparing and implementing a special area management
plan and technical planning for important coastal areas.
``(C) Any coastal or shoreline stabilization measure,
including any mitigation measure, for the purpose of public
safety, public access, or cultural or historical
preservation.''.
(b) Guidance.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall
issue guidance for the program established under the
amendment made by subsection (a), including the criteria for
awarding grants under such program based on consultation with
Indian Tribes (as that term is defined in that amendment).
(c) Use of State Grants To Fulfill Tribal Objectives.--
Section 306A(c)(2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(16 U.S.C. 1455a(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``and'' after
the semicolon at the end of subparagraph (D), by striking the
period at the end of subparagraph (E) and inserting ``;
and'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(F) fulfilling any Tribal coastal zone objective (as that
term is defined in section 320).''.
(d) Other Programs Not Affected.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to affect the ability of an Indian Tribe
to apply for, receive assistance under, or participate in any
program authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) or other related Federal laws.

SEC. 102. LIVING SHORELINE GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--The Administrator shall make grants to
eligible entities for purposes of--
(1) designing and implementing large- and small-scale,
climate-resilient living shoreline projects; and
(2) applying innovative uses of natural materials and
systems to protect coastal communities, habitats, and natural
system functions.
(b) Project Proposals.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this section, an eligible entity shall--
(1) submit to the Administrator a proposal for a living
shoreline project, including monitoring, data collection, and
measurable performance criteria with respect to the project;
and
(2) demonstrate to the Administrator that the entity has
any permits or other authorizations from local, State, and
Federal government agencies necessary to carry out the living
shoreline project or provide evidence demonstrating general
support from such agencies.
(c) Project Selection.--
(1) Development of criteria.--The Administrator shall
select eligible entities to receive grants under this section
based on criteria developed by the Administrator, in
consultation with relevant offices of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, such as the Office of Habitat
Conservation, the Office for Coastal Management, and the
Restoration Center.
(2) Considerations.--In developing criteria under paragraph
(1) to evaluate a proposed living shoreline project, the
Administrator shall take into account--
(A) the potential of the project to protect the community
and maintain the viability of the environment, such as
through protection of ecosystem functions, environmental
benefits, or habitat types, in the area where the project is
to be carried out;
(B) the historic and future environmental conditions of the
project site, particularly those environmental conditions
affected by climate change;
(C) the ecological benefits of the project; and
(D) the ability of the entity proposing the project to
demonstrate the potential of the project to protect the
coastal community where the project is to be carried out,
including through--
(i) mitigating the effects of erosion;
(ii) attenuating the impact of coastal storms and storm
surge;
(iii) mitigating shoreline flooding;
(iv) mitigating the effects of sea level rise, accelerated
land loss, and extreme tides;
(v) sustaining, protecting, or restoring the functions and
habitats of coastal ecosystems; or
(vi) such other forms of coastal protection as the
Administrator considers appropriate.
(3) Priority.--In selecting living shoreline projects to
receive grants under this section, the Administrator shall
give priority consideration to a proposed project to be
conducted in an area--
(A) for which the President has declared, during the 10-
year period preceding the submission of the proposal for the
project under subsection (b), that a major disaster exists
pursuant to section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) because
of a hurricane, tropical storm, coastal storm, or flooding;
or
(B) that has a documented history of coastal erosion or
frequent coastal inundation during that 10-year period.
(4) Minimum standards.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall develop minimum
standards to be used in selecting eligible entities to
receive grants under this section, taking into account--
(i) the considerations described in paragraph (2); and
(ii) the need for such standards to be general enough to
accommodate concerns relating to specific project sites.
(B) Consultations.--In developing standards under
subparagraph (A), the Administrator--
(i) shall consult with relevant offices of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, such as the Office of
Habitat Conservation, the Office for Coastal Management, and
the Restoration Center; and
(ii) may consult with--

(I) relevant interagency councils, such as the Estuary
Habitat Restoration Council;
(II) State coastal management agencies; and
(III) relevant nongovernmental organizations.

(d) Use of Funds.--A grant awarded under this section to an
eligible entity to carry out a living shoreline project may
be used by the eligible entity only--
(1) to carry out the project, including administration,
design, permitting, entry into negotiated indirect cost rate
agreements, and construction; and
(2) to monitor, collect, and report data on the performance
(including performance over time) of the project, in
accordance with standards issued by the Administrator under
subsection (f)(2).
(e) Cost-Sharing.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an
eligible entity that receives a grant under this section to
carry out a living shoreline

[[Page H9980]]

project shall provide, from non-Federal sources, funds or
other resources (such as land or conservation easements or
in-kind matching from private entities) valued at not less
than 50 percent of the total cost, including administrative
costs, of the project.
(2) Reduced matching requirement for certain communities.--
The Administrator may reduce or waive the matching
requirement under paragraph (1) for an eligible entity
representing a community or nonprofit organization if--
(A) the eligible entity submits to the Administrator in
writing--
(i) a request for such a reduction and the amount of the
reduction; and
(ii) a justification for why the entity cannot meet the
matching requirement; and
(B) the Administrator agrees with the justification.
(f) Monitoring and Reporting.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall require each
eligible entity receiving a grant under this section (or a
representative of the entity) to carry out a living shoreline
project--
(A) to transmit to the Administrator data collected under
the project;
(B) to monitor the project and to collect data on--
(i) the ecological benefits of the project and the
protection provided by the project for the coastal community
where the project is carried out, including through--

(I) mitigating the effects of erosion;
(II) attenuating the impact of coastal storms and storm
surge;
(III) mitigating shoreline flooding;
(IV) mitigating the effects of sea level rise, accelerated
land loss, and extreme tides;
(V) sustaining, protecting, or restoring the functions and
habitats of coastal ecosystems; or
(VI) such other forms of coastal protection as the
Administrator considers appropriate; and

(ii) the performance of the project in providing such
protection;
(C) to make data collected under the project available on a
publicly accessible internet website of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration; and
(D) not later than one year after the entity receives the
grant, and annually thereafter until the completion of the
project, to submit to the Administrator a report on--
(i) the measures described in subparagraph (B); and
(ii) the effectiveness of the project in increasing
protection of the coastal community where the project is
carried out through living shorelines techniques, including--

(I) a description of--

(aa) the project;
(bb) the activities carried out under the project; and
(cc) the techniques and materials used in carrying out the
project; and

(II) data on the performance of the project in providing
protection to that coastal community.

(2) Guidelines.--In developing guidelines relating to
paragraph (1)(C), the Administrator shall consider how
additional data could safely be collected before and after
major disasters or severe weather events to measure project
performance and project recovery.
(3) Standards.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall, in
consultation with relevant offices of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, relevant interagency
councils, and relevant nongovernmental organizations, issue
standards for the monitoring, collection, and reporting under
subsection (d)(2) of data regarding the performance of living
shoreline projects for which grants are awarded under this
section.
(B) Reporting.--The standards issued under subparagraph (A)
shall require an eligible entity receiving a grant under this
section to report the data described in that subparagraph to
the Administrator on a regular basis.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $50,000,000 to the Administrator for each
of fiscal years 2020 through 2025 for purposes of carrying
out this section.
(h) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
(2) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means
any of the following:
(A) A unit of a State or local government.
(B) An organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is exempt from taxation
under section 501(a) of such Code.
(C) An Indian Tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
5304)).
(3) Living shoreline project.--The term ``living shoreline
project''--
(A) means a project that--
(i) restores or stabilizes a shoreline, including marshes,
wetlands, and other vegetated areas that are part of the
shoreline ecosystem, by using natural materials and systems
to create buffers to attenuate the impact of coastal storms,
currents, flooding, and wave energy and to prevent or
minimize shoreline erosion while supporting coastal
ecosystems and habitats;
(ii) incorporates as many natural elements as possible,
such as native wetlands, submerged aquatic plants, oyster
shells, native grasses, shrubs, or trees;
(iii) utilizes techniques that incorporate ecological and
coastal engineering principles in shoreline stabilization;
and
(iv) to the extent possible, maintains or restores existing
natural slopes and connections between uplands and adjacent
wetlands or surface waters;
(B) may include the use of--
(i) natural elements, such as sand, wetland plants, logs,
oysters or other shellfish, submerged aquatic vegetation,
native grasses, shrubs, trees, or coir fiber logs;
(ii) project elements that provide ecological benefits to
coastal ecosystems and habitats in addition to shoreline
protection; and
(iii) structural materials, such as stone, concrete, wood,
vinyl, oyster domes, or other approved engineered structures
in combination with natural materials; and
(C) may include a project that expands upon or restores
natural living shorelines or existing living shoreline
projects.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

SEC. 103. WORKING WATERFRONTS GRANT PROGRAM.

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 321. WORKING WATERFRONTS GRANT PROGRAM.

``(a) Working Waterfront Task Force.--
``(1) Establishment and functions.--The Secretary of
Commerce shall establish a task force to work directly with
coastal States, user groups, and coastal stakeholders to
identify and address critical needs with respect to working
waterfronts.
``(2) Membership.--The members of the task force shall be
appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, and shall include--
``(A) experts in the unique economic, social, cultural,
ecological, geographic, and resource concerns of working
waterfronts; and
``(B) representatives from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Office of Coastal Management,
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department
of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
United States Geological Survey, the Navy, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, the Economic Development Agency,
and such other Federal agencies as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
``(3) Functions.--The task force shall--
``(A) identify and prioritize critical needs with respect
to working waterfronts in States that have a management
program approved by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to
section 306, in the areas of--
``(i) economic and cultural importance of working
waterfronts to communities;
``(ii) changing environments and threats working
waterfronts face from environment changes, trade barriers,
sea level rise, extreme weather events, ocean acidification,
and harmful algal blooms; and
``(iii) identifying working waterfronts and highlighting
them within communities;
``(B) outline options, in coordination with coastal States
and local stakeholders, to address such critical needs,
including adaptation and mitigation where applicable;
``(C) identify Federal agencies that are responsible under
existing law for addressing such critical needs; and
``(D) recommend Federal agencies best suited to address any
critical needs for which no agency is responsible under
existing law.
``(4) Information to be considered.--In identifying and
prioritizing policy gaps pursuant to paragraph (3), the task
force shall consider the findings and recommendations
contained in section VI of the report entitled `The
Sustainable Working Waterfronts Toolkit: Final Report', dated
March 2013.
``(5) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this section, the task force shall submit a
report to Congress on its findings.
``(6) Implementation.--The head of each Federal agency
identified in the report pursuant to paragraph (3)(C) shall
take such action as is necessary to implement the
recommendations contained in the report by not later than 1
year after the date of the issuance of the report.
``(b) Working Waterfront Grant Program.--
``(1) The Secretary shall establish a Working Waterfront
Grant Program, in cooperation with appropriate State,
regional, and other units of government, under which the
Secretary may make a grant to any coastal State for the
purpose of implementing a working waterfront plan approved by
the Secretary under subsection (c).
``(2) Subject to the availability of appropriations, the
Secretary shall award matching grants under the Working
Waterfronts Grant Program to coastal States with approved
working waterfront plans through a regionally equitable,
competitive funding process in accordance with the following:
``(A) The Governor, or the lead agency designated by the
Governor for coordinating the implementation of this section,
where appropriate in consultation with the appropriate local
government, shall determine that the application is
consistent with the State's or territory's approved coastal
zone plan, program, and policies prior to submission to the
Secretary.
``(B) In developing guidelines under this section, the
Secretary shall consult with coastal States, other Federal
agencies, and other interested stakeholders with expertise in
working waterfront planning.
``(C) Coastal States may allocate grants to local
governments, agencies, or nongovernmental organizations
eligible for assistance under this section.
``(3) In awarding a grant to a coastal State, the Secretary
shall consider--
``(A) the economic, cultural, and historical significance
of working waterfront to the coastal State;
``(B) the demonstrated working waterfront needs of the
coastal State as outlined by a working waterfront plan
approved for the coastal

[[Page H9981]]

State under subsection (c), and the value of the proposed
project for the implementation of such plan;
``(C) the ability to successfully leverage funds among
participating entities, including Federal programs, regional
organizations, State and other government units, landowners,
corporations, or private organizations;
``(D) the potential for rapid turnover in the ownership of
working waterfront in the coastal State, and where applicable
the need for coastal States to respond quickly when
properties in existing or potential working waterfront areas
or public access areas as identified in the working
waterfront plan submitted by the coastal State come under
threat or become available; and
``(E) the impact of the working waterfront plan approved
for the coastal State under subsection (c) on the coastal
ecosystem and the users of the coastal ecosystem.
``(4) The Secretary shall approve or reject an application
for such a grant within 60 days after receiving an
application for the grant.
``(c) Working Waterfront Plans.--
``(1) To be eligible for a grant under subsection (b), a
coastal State must submit and have approved by the Secretary
a comprehensive working waterfront plan in accordance with
this subsection, or be in the process of developing such a
plan and have an established working waterfront program at
the State or local level, or the Secretary determines that an
existing coastal land use plan for that State is in
accordance with this subsection.
``(2) Such plan--
``(A) must provide for preservation and expansion of access
to coastal waters to persons engaged in commercial fishing,
recreational fishing and boating businesses, aquaculture,
boatbuilding, or other water-dependent, coastal-related
business;
``(B) shall include one or more of--
``(i) an assessment of the economic, social, cultural, and
historic value of working waterfront to the coastal State;
``(ii) a description of relevant State and local laws and
regulations affecting working waterfront in the geographic
areas identified in the working waterfront plan;
``(iii) identification of geographic areas where working
waterfronts are currently under threat of conversion to uses
incompatible with commercial and recreational fishing,
recreational fishing and boating businesses, aquaculture,
boatbuilding, or other water-dependent, coastal-related
business, and the level of that threat;
``(iv) identification of geographic areas with a historic
connection to working waterfronts where working waterfronts
are not currently available, and, where appropriate, an
assessment of the environmental impacts of any expansion or
new development of working waterfronts on the coastal
ecosystem;
``(v) identification of other working waterfront needs
including improvements to existing working waterfronts and
working waterfront areas;
``(vi) a strategic and prioritized plan for the
preservation, expansion, and improvement of working
waterfronts in the coastal State;
``(vii) for areas identified under clauses (iii), (iv),
(v), and (vi), identification of current availability and
potential for expansion of public access to coastal waters;
``(viii) a description of the degree of community support
for such strategic plan; and
``(ix) a contingency plan for properties that revert to the
coastal State pursuant to determinations made by the coastal
State under subsection (g)(4)(C);
``(C) may include detailed environmental impacts on working
waterfronts, including hazards, sea level rise, inundation
exposure, and other resiliency issues;
``(D) may be part of the management program approved under
section 306;
``(E) shall utilize to the maximum extent practicable
existing information contained in relevant surveys, plans, or
other strategies to fulfill the information requirements
under this paragraph; and
``(F) shall incorporate the policies and regulations
adopted by communities under local working waterfront plans
or strategies in existence before the date of the enactment
of this section.
``(3) A working waterfront plan--
``(A) shall be effective for purposes of this section for
the 5-year period beginning on the date it is approved by the
Secretary;
``(B) must be updated and re-approved by the Secretary
before the end of such period; and
``(C) shall be complimentary to and incorporate the
policies and objectives of regional or local working
waterfront plans as in effect before the date of enactment of
this section or as subsequently revised.
``(4) The Secretary may--
``(A) award planning grants to coastal States for the
purpose of developing or revising comprehensive working
waterfront plans; and
``(B) award grants consistent with the purposes of this
section to States undertaking the working waterfront planning
process under this section, for the purpose of preserving and
protecting working waterfronts during such process.
``(5) Any coastal State applying for a working waterfront
grant under this title shall--
``(A) develop a working waterfront plan, using a process
that involves the public and those with an interest in the
coastal zone;
``(B) coordinate development and implementation of such a
plan with other coastal management programs, regulations, and
activities of the coastal State; and
``(C) if the coastal State allows qualified holders (other
than the coastal State) to enter into working waterfront
covenants, provide as part of the working waterfront plan
under this subsection a mechanism or procedure to ensure that
the qualified holders are complying their duties to enforce
the working waterfront covenant.
``(d) Uses, Terms, and Conditions.--
``(1) Each grant made by the Secretary under this section
shall be subject to such terms and conditions as may be
appropriate to ensure that the grant is used for purposes
consistent with this section.
``(2) A grant under this section may be used--
``(A) to acquire a working waterfront, or an interest in a
working waterfront;
``(B) to make improvements to a working waterfront,
including the construction or repair of wharfs, boat ramps,
or related facilities; or
``(C) for necessary climate adaptation mitigation.
``(e) Public Access Requirement.--A working waterfront
project funded by grants made under this section must provide
for expansion, improvement, or preservation of reasonable and
appropriate public access to coastal waters at or in the
vicinity of a working waterfront, except for commercial
fishing or other industrial access points where the coastal
State determines that public access would be unsafe.
``(f) Limitations.--
``(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a grant awarded
under this section may be used to purchase working waterfront
or an interest in working waterfront, including an easement,
only from a willing seller and at fair market value.
``(2) A grant awarded under this section may be used to
acquire working waterfront or an interest in working
waterfront at less than fair market value only if the owner
certifies to the Secretary that the sale is being entered
into willingly and without coercion.
``(3) No Federal, State, or local entity may exercise the
power of eminent domain to secure title to any property or
facilities in connection with a project carried out under
this section.
``(g) Allocation of Grants to Local Governments and Other
Entities.--
``(1) The Secretary shall encourage coastal States to
broadly allocate amounts received as grants under this
section among working waterfronts identified in working
waterfront plans approved under subsection (c).
``(2) Subject to the approval of the Secretary, a coastal
State may, as part of an approved working waterfront plan,
designate as a qualified holder any unit of State or local
government or nongovernmental organization, if the coastal
State is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the
property will be managed in a manner that is consistent with
the purposes for which the land entered into the program.
``(3) A coastal State or a qualified holder designated by a
coastal State may allocate to a unit of local government,
nongovernmental organization, fishing cooperative, or other
entity, a portion of any grant made under this section for
the purpose of carrying out this section, except that such an
allocation shall not relieve the coastal State of the
responsibility for ensuring that any funds so allocated are
applied in furtherance of the coastal State's approved
working waterfront plan.
``(4) A qualified holder may hold title to or interest in
property acquired under this section, except that--
``(A) all persons holding title to or interest in working
waterfront affected by a grant under this section, including
a qualified holder, private citizen, private business,
nonprofit organization, fishing cooperative, or other entity,
shall enter into a working waterfront covenant;
``(B) such covenant shall be held by the coastal State or a
qualified holder designated under paragraph (2);
``(C) if the coastal State determines, on the record after
an opportunity for a hearing, that the working waterfront
covenant has been violated--
``(i) all right, title, and interest in and to the working
waterfront covered by such covenant shall, except as provided
in subparagraph (D), revert to the coastal State; and
``(ii) the coastal State shall have the right of immediate
entry onto the working waterfront;
``(D) if a coastal State makes a determination under
subparagraph (C), the coastal State may convey or authorize
the qualified holder to convey the working waterfront or
interest in working waterfront to another qualified holder;
and
``(E) nothing in this subsection waives any legal
requirement under any Federal or State law.
``(h) Matching Contributions.--
``(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall require that each coastal State that receives a grant
under this section, or a qualified holder designated by that
coastal State under subsection (g), shall provide matching
funds in an amount equal to at least 25 percent of the total
cost of the project carried out with the grant.
``(2) The Secretary may waive the application of paragraph
(1) for any qualified holder that is an underserved
community, a community that has an inability to draw on other
sources of funding because of the small population or low
income of the community, or for other reasons the Secretary
considers appropriate.
``(3) A local community designated as a qualified holder
under subsection (g) may utilize funds or other in-kind
contributions donated by a nongovernmental partner to satisfy
the matching funds requirement under this subsection.
``(4) As a condition of receipt of a grant under this
section, the Secretary shall require that a coastal State
provide to the Secretary such assurances as the Secretary
determines are sufficient to demonstrate that the share of
the cost of each eligible project that is not funded by the
grant awarded under this section has been secured.
``(5) If financial assistance under this section represents
only a portion of the total cost of a project, funding from
other Federal sources may be applied to the cost of the
project. Each portion shall be subject to match requirements
under the applicable provision of law.

[[Page H9982]]

``(6) The Secretary shall treat as non-Federal match the
value of a working waterfront or interest in a working
waterfront, including conservation and other easements, that
is held in perpetuity by a qualified holder, if the working
waterfront or interest is identified in the application for
the grant and acquired by the qualified holder within 3 years
of the grant award date, or within 3 years after the
submission of the application and before the end of the grant
award period. Such value shall be determined by an appraisal
performed at such time before the award of the grant as the
Secretary considers appropriate.
``(7) The Secretary shall treat as non-Federal match the
costs associated with acquisition of a working waterfront or
an interest in a working waterfront, and the costs of
restoration, enhancement, or other improvement to a working
waterfront, if the activities are identified in the project
application and the costs are incurred within the period of
the grant award, or, for working waterfront described in
paragraph (6), within the same time limits described in that
paragraph. These costs may include either cash or in-kind
contributions.
``(i) Limit on Administrative Costs.--No more than 5
percent of the funds made available to the Secretary under
this section may be used by the Secretary for planning or
administration of the program under this section.
``(j) Other Technical and Financial Assistance.--
``(1) Up to 5 percent of the funds appropriated under this
section may be used by the Secretary for purposes of
providing technical assistance as described in this
subsection.
``(2) The Secretary shall--
``(A) provide technical assistance to coastal States and
local governments in identifying and obtaining other sources
of available Federal technical and financial assistance for
the development and revision of a working waterfront plan and
the implementation of an approved working waterfront plan;
``(B) provide technical assistance to States and local
governments for the development, implementation, and revision
of comprehensive working waterfront plans, which may include,
subject to the availability of appropriations, planning
grants and assistance, pilot projects, feasibility studies,
research, and other projects necessary to further the
purposes of this section;
``(C) assist States in developing other tools to protect
working waterfronts;
``(D) collect and disseminate to States guidance for best
storm water management practices in regards to working
waterfronts;
``(E) provide technical assistance to States and local
governments on integrating resilience planning into working
waterfront preservation efforts; and
``(F) collect and disseminate best practices on working
waterfronts and resilience planning.
``(k) Reports.--
``(1) The Secretary shall--
``(A) develop performance measures to evaluate and report
on the effectiveness of the program under this section in
accomplishing the purpose of this section; and
``(B) submit to Congress a biennial report that includes
such evaluations, an account of all expenditures, and
descriptions of all projects carried out using grants awarded
under this section.
``(2) The Secretary may submit the biennial report under
paragraph (1)(B) by including it in the biennial report
required under section 316.
``(l) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `qualified holder' means a coastal State or
a unit of local or coastal State government or a non-State
organization designated by a coastal State under subsection
(g).
``(2) The term `Secretary' means the Secretary, acting
through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
``(3) The term `working waterfront' means real property
(including support structures over water and other
facilities) that provides access to coastal waters to persons
engaged in commercial and recreational fishing, recreational
fishing and boating businesses, boatbuilding, aquaculture, or
other water-dependent, coastal-related business and is used
for, or that supports, commercial and recreational fishing,
recreational fishing and boating businesses, boatbuilding,
aquaculture, or other water-dependent, coastal-related
business.
``(4) The term `working waterfront covenant' means an
agreement in recordable form between the owner of working
waterfront and one or more qualified holders, that provides
such assurances as the Secretary may require that--
``(A) the title to or interest in the working waterfront
will be held by a grant recipient or qualified holder in
perpetuity, except as provided in subparagraph (C);
``(B) the working waterfront will be managed in a manner
that is consistent with the purposes for which the property
is acquired pursuant to this section, and the property will
not be converted to any use that is inconsistent with the
purpose of this section;
``(C) if the title to or interest in the working waterfront
is sold or otherwise exchanged--
``(i) all working waterfront owners and qualified holders
involved in such sale or exchange shall accede to such
agreement; and
``(ii) funds equal to the fair market value of the working
waterfront or interest in working waterfront shall be paid to
the Secretary by parties to the sale or exchange, and such
funds shall, at the discretion of the Secretary, be paid to
the coastal State in which the working waterfront is located
for use in the implementation of the working waterfront plan
of the State approved by the Secretary under this section;
and
``(D) such covenant is subject to enforcement and oversight
by the coastal State or by another person as determined
appropriate by the Secretary.
``(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Grant Program $12,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2020 through 2024.''.

SEC. 104. WORKING WATERFRONTS PRESERVATION FUND; GRANTS.

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et
seq.) is further amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 322. WORKING WATERFRONTS PRESERVATION LOAN FUND.

``(a) Fund.--There is established in the Treasury a
separate account that shall be known as the `Working
Waterfronts Preservation Loan Fund' (in this section referred
to as the `Fund').
``(b) Use.--
``(1) Subject to the availability of appropriations,
amounts in the Fund may be used by the Secretary to make
loans to coastal States for the purpose of implementing a
working waterfront plan approved by the Secretary under
section 321(c) through preservation, improvement,
restoration, rehabilitation, acquisition of working
waterfront properties under criteria established by the
Secretary.
``(2) Upon enactment of this section, the Secretary of
Commerce shall conduct a feasibility study on the
administration of the development and management of a Working
Waterfronts Preservation Loan Fund.
``(3) Upon the completion of the study under paragraph (2),
the Secretary shall establish a fund in accordance with the
results of that study, and establish such criteria as
referenced in subsection (c) in consultation with States that
have a management program approved by the Secretary of
Commerce pursuant to section 306 and local government coastal
management programs.
``(c) Award Criteria.--The Secretary shall award loans
under this section through a regionally equitable,
competitive funding process, and in accordance with the
following:
``(1) The Governor, or the lead agency designated by the
Governor for coordinating the implementation of this section,
where appropriate in consultation with the appropriate local
government, shall determine that an application for a loan is
consistent with the State's approved coastal zone plan,
program, and policies prior to submission to the Secretary.
``(2) In developing guidelines under this section, the
Secretary shall consult with coastal States, other Federal
agencies, and other interested stakeholders with expertise in
working waterfront planning.
``(3) Coastal States may allocate amounts loaned under this
section to local governments, agencies, or nongovernmental
organizations eligible for loans under this section.
``(4) In awarding a loan for activities in a coastal State,
the Secretary shall consider--
``(A) the economic and cultural significance of working
waterfront to the coastal State;
``(B) the demonstrated working waterfront needs of the
coastal State as outlined by a working waterfront plan
approved for the coastal State under section 321(c), and the
value of the proposed loan for the implementation of such
plan;
``(C) the ability to successfully leverage loan funds among
participating entities, including Federal programs, regional
organizations, State and other government units, landowners,
corporations, or private organizations;
``(D) the potential for rapid turnover in the ownership of
working waterfront in the coastal State, and where applicable
the need for coastal States to respond quickly when
properties in existing or potential working waterfront areas
or public access areas as identified in the working
waterfront plan submitted by the coastal State come under
threat or become available;
``(E) the impact of the loan on the coastal ecosystem and
the users of the coastal ecosystem; and
``(F) the extent of the historic connection between working
waterfronts for which the loan will be used and the local
communities within the coastal State.
``(d) Loan Amount and Terms.--
``(1) The amount of a loan under this section--
``(A) shall be not less than $100,000; and
``(B) shall not exceed 15 percent of the amount in the Fund
as of July 1 of the fiscal year in which the loan is made.
``(2) The interest rate for a loan under this section shall
not exceed 4 percent.
``(3) The repayment term for a loan under this section
shall not exceed 20 years.
``(e) Deadline for Approval.--The Secretary shall approve
or reject an application for a loan under this section within
60 days after receiving an application for the loan.
``(f) Limit on Administrative Costs.--No more than 5
percent of the funds made available to the Secretary under
this section may be used by the Secretary for planning or
administration of the program under this section.
``(g) Definitions.--The definitions in section 321(l) shall
apply to this section.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Fund $12,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2020 through 2024.''.

SEC. 105. ELIGIBILITY OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR FEDERAL
FUNDING UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
OF 1972.

Section 304(4) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(16 U.S.C. 1453(4)) is amended by inserting ``the District of
Columbia,'' after ``the term also includes''.

SEC. 106. CLIMATE CHANGE PREPAREDNESS IN THE COASTAL ZONE.

(a) In General.--The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 323. CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION PREPAREDNESS AND
RESPONSE PROGRAM.

`` (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish,
consistent with the national policies set

[[Page H9983]]

forth in section 303, a coastal climate change adaptation
preparedness and response program to--
``(1) provide assistance to coastal States to voluntarily
develop coastal climate change adaptation plans, pursuant to
approved management programs approved under section 306, to
minimize contributions to climate change and to prepare for
and reduce the negative consequences that may result from
climate change in the coastal zone; and
``(2) provide financial and technical assistance and
training to enable coastal States to implement plans
developed pursuant to this section through coastal States'
enforceable policies.
``(b) Coastal Climate Change Adaptation Planning and
Preparedness Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, subject to the
availability of appropriations, may make a grant to any
coastal State for the purpose of developing climate change
adaptation plans pursuant to guidelines issued by the
Secretary under paragraph (8).
``(2) Plan content.--A plan developed with a grant under
this subsection shall include the following:
``(A) Identification of public facilities and public
services, working waterfronts, coastal resources of national
significance, coastal waters, energy facilities, or other
land and water uses located in the coastal zone that are
likely to be impacted by climate change.
``(B) Adaptive management strategies for land use to
respond or adapt to changing environmental conditions,
including strategies to protect biodiversity, protect water
quality, and establish habitat buffer zones, migration
corridors, and climate refugia.
``(C) Adaptive management strategies for ocean-based
ecosystems and resources, including strategies to plan for
and respond to geographic or temporal shifts in marine
resources, to create protected areas that will provide
climate refugia, and to maintain and restore ocean ecosystem
function.
``(D) Requirements to initiate and maintain long-term
monitoring of environmental change to assess coastal zone
adaptation and to adjust when necessary adaptive management
strategies and new planning guidelines to attain the policies
under section 303.
``(E) Other information considered necessary by the
Secretary to identify the full range of climate change
impacts affecting coastal communities.
``(3) State hazard mitigation plans.--Plans developed with
a grant under this subsection shall be consistent with State
hazard mitigation plans and natural disaster response and
recovery programs developed under State or Federal law.
``(4) Allocation.--Grants under this subsection shall be
available only to coastal States with management programs
approved by the Secretary under section 306 and shall be
allocated among such coastal States in a manner consistent
with regulations promulgated pursuant to section 306(c).
``(5) Priority.--In the awarding of grants under this
subsection, the Secretary may give priority to any coastal
State that has received grant funding to develop program
changes pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7),
and (8) of section 309(a).
``(6) Technical assistance.--The Secretary may provide
technical assistance to a coastal State consistent with
section 310 to ensure the timely development of plans
supported by grants awarded under this subsection.
``(7) Federal approval.--In order to be eligible for a
grant under subsection (c), a coastal State must have its
plan developed under this subsection approved by the
Secretary.
``(8) Guidelines.--Within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation
with the coastal States, shall issue guidelines for the
implementation of the grant program established under this
subsection.
``(c) Coastal Climate Change Adaptation Project
Implementation Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, subject to the
availability of appropriations, may make grants to any
coastal State that has a climate change adaptation plan
approved under subsection (b)(7), in order to support
projects that implement strategies contained within such
plans.
``(2) Program requirements.--The Secretary, within 90 days
after approval of the first plan approved under subsection
(b)(7), shall publish in the Federal Register requirements
regarding applications, allocations, eligible activities, and
all terms and conditions for grants awarded under this
subsection. No less than 30 percent, and no more than 50
percent, of the funds appropriated in any fiscal year for
grants under this subsection shall be awarded through a
merit-based competitive process.
``(3) Eligible activities.--The Secretary may award grants
to coastal States to implement projects in the coastal zone
to address stress factors in order to improve coastal climate
change adaptation, including the following:
``(A) Activities to address physical disturbances within
the coastal zone, especially activities related to public
facilities and public services, tourism, sedimentation, ocean
acidification, and other factors negatively impacting coastal
waters.
``(B) Monitoring, control, or eradication of disease
organisms and invasive species.
``(C) Activities to address the loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat through projects to
establish or protect marine and terrestrial habitat buffers,
wildlife refugia, other wildlife refuges, or networks
thereof, preservation of migratory wildlife corridors and
other transition zones, and restoration of fish and wildlife
habitat.
``(D) Projects to reduce, mitigate, or otherwise address
likely impacts caused by natural hazards in the coastal zone,
including sea level rise, coastal inundation, storm water
management, coastal erosion and subsidence, severe weather
events such as cyclonic storms, tsunamis and other seismic
threats, and fluctuating Great Lakes water levels. The
Secretary shall give priority to projects that utilize green
infrastructure solutions.
``(E) Projects to adapt existing infrastructure, including
enhancements to both built and natural environments.
``(F) Provision of technical training and assistance to
local coastal policy makers to increase awareness of science,
management, and technology information related to climate
change and adaptation strategies.
``(4) Promotion and use of national estuarine research
reserves.--The Secretary shall promote and encourage the use
of National Estuarine Research Reserves as sites for pilot or
demonstration projects carried out with grants awarded under
this section.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 318(a) of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1464(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
paragraph (1);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) for grants under section 323, such sums as are
necessary.''.
(c) Intent of Congress.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to require any coastal State to amend or modify its
approved management program pursuant to section 306(e) of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1455(e)) or to
extend the enforceable policies of a coastal State beyond the
coastal zone as identified in the coastal State's approved
management program.

TITLE II--FISHERY RESEARCH AND CONSERVATION

Subtitle A--National Fish Habitat Conservation Through Partnerships

SEC. 201. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this subtitle is to encourage partnerships
among public agencies and other interested persons to promote
fish conservation--
(1) to achieve measurable habitat conservation results
through strategic actions of Fish Habitat Partnerships that
lead to better fish habitat conditions and increased fishing
opportunities by--
(A) improving ecological conditions;
(B) restoring natural processes; or
(C) preventing the decline of intact and healthy systems;
(2) to establish a consensus set of national conservation
strategies as a framework to guide future actions and
investment by Fish Habitat Partnerships;
(3) to broaden the community of support for fish habitat
conservation by--
(A) increasing fishing opportunities;
(B) fostering the participation of local communities,
especially young people in local communities, in conservation
activities; and
(C) raising public awareness of the role healthy fish
habitat play in the quality of life and economic well-being
of local communities;
(4) to fill gaps in the National Fish Habitat Assessment
and the associated database of the National Fish Habitat
Assessment--
(A) to empower strategic conservation actions supported by
broadly available scientific information; and
(B) to integrate socioeconomic data in the analysis to
improve the lives of humans in a manner consistent with fish
habitat conservation goals; and
(5) to communicate to the public and conservation
partners--
(A) the conservation outcomes produced collectively by Fish
Habitat Partnerships; and
(B) new opportunities and voluntary approaches for
conserving fish habitat.

SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
(A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the National Fish
Habitat Board established by section 203.
(3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(4) Environmental protection agency assistant
administrator.--The term ``Environmental Protection Agency
Assistant Administrator'' means the Assistant Administrator
for Water of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(5) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian Tribe'' has the
meaning given to the term ``Indian tribe'' in section 4 of
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 5304).
(6) National oceanic and atmospheric administration
assistant administrator.--The term ``National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Assistant Administrator'' means
the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
(7) Partnership.--The term ``Partnership'' means an entity
designated by Congress as a Fish Habitat Partnership under
section 204.
(8) Real property interest.--The term ``real property
interest'' means an ownership interest in--
(A) land; or

[[Page H9984]]

(B) water (including water rights).
(9) Marine fisheries commissions.--The term ``Marine
Fisheries Commissions'' means--
(A) The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission;
(B) the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission; and
(C) the Pacific States Marine Commission.
(10) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(11) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, and the
District of Columbia.
(12) State agency.--The term ``State agency'' means--
(A) the fish and wildlife agency of a State; and
(B) any department or division of a department or agency of
a State that manages in the public trust the inland or marine
fishery resources of the State or sustains the habitat for
those fishery resources pursuant to State law or the
constitution of the State.

SEC. 203. NATIONAL FISH HABITAT BOARD.

(a) Establishment.--
(1) Fish habitat board.--There is established a board, to
be known as the ``National Fish Habitat Board'', whose duties
are--
(A) to promote, oversee, and coordinate the implementation
of this subtitle;
(B) to establish national goals and priorities for fish
habitat conservation;
(C) to recommend to Congress entities for designation as
Partnerships; and
(D) to review and make recommendations regarding fish
habitat conservation projects.
(2) Membership.--The Board shall be composed of 25 members,
of whom--
(A) 1 shall be a representative of the Department of the
Interior;
(B) 1 shall be a representative of the United States
Geological Survey;
(C) 1 shall be a representative of the Department of
Commerce;
(D) 1 shall be a representative of the Department of
Agriculture;
(E) 1 shall be a representative of the Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies;
(F) 4 shall be representatives of State agencies, 1 of whom
shall be nominated by a regional association of fish and
wildlife agencies from each of the Northeast, Southeast,
Midwest, and Western regions of the United States;
(G) 1 shall be a representative of either--
(i) Indian Tribes in the State of Alaska; or
(ii) Indian Tribes in States other than the State of
Alaska;
(H) 1 shall be a representative of either--
(i) the Regional Fishery Management Councils established
under section 302 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852); or
(ii) a representative of the Marine Fisheries Commissions;
(I) 1 shall be a representative of the Sportfishing and
Boating Partnership Council;
(J) 7 shall be representatives selected from at least one
from each of the following:
(i) the recreational sportfishing industry;
(ii) the commercial fishing industry;
(iii) marine recreational anglers;
(iv) freshwater recreational anglers;
(v) habitat conservation organizations; and
(vi) science-based fishery organizations;
(K) 1 shall be a representative of a national private
landowner organization;
(L) 1 shall be a representative of an agricultural
production organization;
(M) 1 shall be a representative of local government
interests involved in fish habitat restoration;
(N) 2 shall be representatives from different sectors of
corporate industries, which may include--
(i) natural resource commodity interests, such as petroleum
or mineral extraction;
(ii) natural resource user industries; and
(iii) industries with an interest in fish and fish habitat
conservation; and
(O) 1 shall be a leadership private sector or landowner
representative of an active partnership.
(3) Compensation.--A member of the Board shall serve
without compensation.
(4) Travel expenses.--A member of the Board may be allowed
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence,
at rates authorized for an employee of an agency under
subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code,
while away from the home or regular place of business of the
member in the performance of the duties of the Board.
(b) Appointment and Terms.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, a member of the Board described in any of
subparagraphs (F) through (O) of subsection (a)(2) shall
serve for a term of 3 years.
(2) Initial board membership.--
(A) In general.--The initial Board shall consist of
representatives as described in subparagraphs (A) through (F)
of subsection (a)(2).
(B) Remaining members.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the representatives of the
initial Board under subparagraph (A) shall appoint the
remaining members of the Board described in subparagraphs (H)
through (O) of subsection (a)(2).
(C) Tribal representatives.--Not later than 60 days after
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the
Board a recommendation of not fewer than 3 Tribal
representatives, from which the Board shall appoint 1
representative pursuant to subparagraph (G) of subsection
(a)(2).
(3) Staggered terms.--Of the members described in
subsection (a)(2)(J) initially appointed to the Board--
(A) 2 shall be appointed for a term of 1 year;
(B) 2 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years; and
(C) 3 shall be appointed for a term of 3 years.
(4) Vacancies.--
(A) In general.--A vacancy of a member of the Board
described in subparagraph (H), (I), (J), (K), (L), (M), (N),
or (O) of subsection (a)(2) shall be filled by an appointment
made by the remaining members of the Board.
(B) Tribal representatives.--Following a vacancy of a
member of the Board described in subparagraph (G) of
subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall recommend to the Board
a list of not fewer than 3 Tribal representatives, from which
the remaining members of the Board shall appoint a
representative to fill the vacancy.
(5) Continuation of service.--An individual whose term of
service as a member of the Board expires may continue to
serve on the Board until a successor is appointed.
(6) Removal.--If a member of the Board described in any of
subparagraphs (H) through (O) of subparagraph (a)(2) misses 3
consecutive regularly scheduled Board meetings, the members
of the Board may--
(A) vote to remove that member; and
(B) appoint another individual in accordance with paragraph
(4).
(c) Chairperson.--
(1) In general.--The representative of the Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies appointed under subsection
(a)(2)(E) shall serve as Chairperson of the Board.
(2) Term.--The Chairperson of the Board shall serve for a
term of 3 years.
(d) Meetings.--
(1) In general.--The Board shall meet--
(A) at the call of the Chairperson; but
(B) not less frequently than twice each calendar year.
(2) Public access.--All meetings of the Board shall be open
to the public.
(e) Procedures.--
(1) In general.--The Board shall establish procedures to
carry out the business of the Board, including--
(A) a requirement that a quorum of the members of the Board
be present to transact business;
(B) a requirement that no recommendations may be adopted by
the Board, except by the vote of \2/3\ of all members;
(C) procedures for establishing national goals and
priorities for fish habitat conservation for the purposes of
this subtitle;
(D) procedures for designating Partnerships under section
204; and
(E) procedures for reviewing, evaluating, and making
recommendations regarding fish habitat conservation projects.
(2) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall
constitute a quorum.

SEC. 204. FISH HABITAT PARTNERSHIPS.

(a) Authority To Recommend.--The Board may recommend to
Congress the designation of Fish Habitat Partnerships in
accordance with this section.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of a Partnership shall be--
(1) to work with other regional habitat conservation
programs to promote cooperation and coordination to enhance
fish populations and fish habitats;
(2) to engage local and regional communities to build
support for fish habitat conservation;
(3) to involve diverse groups of public and private
partners;
(4) to develop collaboratively a strategic vision and
achievable implementation plan that is scientifically sound;
(5) to leverage funding from sources that support local and
regional partnerships;
(6) to use adaptive management principles, including
evaluation of project success and functionality;
(7) to develop appropriate local or regional habitat
evaluation and assessment measures and criteria that are
compatible with national habitat condition measures; and
(8) to implement local and regional priority projects that
improve conditions for fish and fish habitat.
(c) Criteria for Designation.--An entity seeking to be
designated by Congress as a Partnership shall--
(1) submit to the Board an application at such time, in
such manner, and containing such information as the Board may
reasonably require; and
(2) demonstrate to the Board that the entity has--
(A) a focus on promoting the health of important fish and
fish habitats;
(B) an ability to coordinate the implementation of priority
projects that support the goals and national priorities set
by the Board that are within the Partnership boundary;
(C) a self-governance structure that supports the
implementation of strategic priorities for fish habitat;
(D) the ability to develop local and regional relationships
with a broad range of entities to further strategic
priorities for fish and fish habitat;
(E) a strategic plan that details required investments for
fish habitat conservation that addresses the strategic fish
habitat priorities of the Partnership and supports and meets
the strategic priorities of the Board;
(F) the ability to develop and implement fish habitat
conservation projects that address strategic priorities of
the Partnership and the Board; and
(G) the ability to develop fish habitat conservation
priorities based on sound science and data, the ability to
measure the effectiveness of fish habitat projects of the
Partnership, and a clear plan as to how Partnership science
and data components will be integrated with the overall Board
science and data effort.
(d) Requirements for Recommendation to Congress.--The Board
may recommend to Congress for designation an application for
a Partnership submitted under subsection (c) if the Board
determines that the applicant--

[[Page H9985]]

(1) meets the criteria described in subsection (c)(2);
(2) identifies representatives to provide support and
technical assistance to the Partnership from a diverse group
of public and private partners, which may include State or
local governments, nonprofit entities, Indian Tribes, and
private individuals, that are focused on conservation of fish
habitats to achieve results across jurisdictional boundaries
on public and private land;
(3) is organized to promote the health of important fish
species and important fish habitats, including reservoirs,
natural lakes, coastal and marine environments, and
estuaries;
(4) identifies strategic fish and fish habitat priorities
for the Partnership area in the form of geographical focus
areas or key stressors or impairments to facilitate strategic
planning and decision making;
(5) is able to address issues and priorities on a
nationally significant scale;
(6) includes a governance structure that--
(A) reflects the range of all partners; and
(B) promotes joint strategic planning and decision making
by the applicant;
(7) demonstrates completion of, or significant progress
toward the development of, a strategic plan to address
declines in fish populations, rather than simply treating
symptoms, in accordance with the goals and national
priorities established by the Board; and
(8) promotes collaboration in developing a strategic vision
and implementation program that is scientifically sound and
achievable.
(e) Report to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than February 1 of the first
fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act
and each February 1 thereafter, the Board shall develop and
submit to the appropriate congressional committees an annual
report, to be entitled ``Report to Congress on Future Fish
Habitat Partnerships and Modifications'', that--
(A) identifies each entity that--
(i) meets the requirements described in subsection (d); and
(ii) the Board recommends to Congress for designation as a
Partnership;
(B) describes any proposed modifications to a Partnership
previously designated by Congress under subsection (f);
(C) with respect to each entity recommended for designation
as a Partnership, describes, to the maximum extent
practicable--
(i) the purpose of the recommended Partnership; and
(ii) how the recommended Partnership fulfills the
requirements described in subsection (d).
(2) Public availability; notification.--The Board shall--
(A) make the report publicly available, including on the
internet; and
(B) provide to the appropriate congressional committees and
the State agency of any State included in a recommended
Partnership area written notification of the public
availability of the report.
(f) Designation or Modification of Partnership.--Congress
shall have the exclusive authority to designate or modify a
Partnership.
(g) Existing Partnerships.--
(1) Designation review.--Not later than 5 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, any partnership receiving
Federal funds as of the date of enactment of this Act shall
be subject to a designation review by Congress in which
Congress shall have the opportunity to designate the
partnership under subsection (f).
(2) Ineligibility for federal funds.--A partnership
referred to in paragraph (1) that Congress does not designate
as described in that paragraph shall be ineligible to receive
Federal funds under this subtitle.

SEC. 205. FISH HABITAT CONSERVATION PROJECTS.

(a) Submission to Board.--Not later than March 31 of each
year, each Partnership shall submit to the Board a list of
priority fish habitat conservation projects recommended by
the Partnership for annual funding under this subtitle.
(b) Recommendations by Board.--Not later than July 1 of
each year, the Board shall submit to the Secretary a priority
list of fish habitat conservation projects that includes a
description, including estimated costs, of each project that
the Board recommends that the Secretary approve and fund
under this subtitle for the following fiscal year.
(c) Criteria for Project Selection.--The Board shall select
each fish habitat conservation project recommended to the
Secretary under subsection (b) after taking into
consideration, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) A recommendation of the Partnership that is, or will
be, participating actively in implementing the fish habitat
conservation project.
(2) The capabilities and experience of project proponents
to implement successfully the proposed project.
(3) The extent to which the fish habitat conservation
project--
(A) fulfills a local or regional priority that is directly
linked to the strategic plan of the Partnership and is
consistent with the purpose of this subtitle;
(B) addresses the national priorities established by the
Board;
(C) is supported by the findings of the habitat assessment
of the Partnership or the Board, and aligns or is compatible
with other conservation plans;
(D) identifies appropriate monitoring and evaluation
measures and criteria that are compatible with national
measures;
(E) provides a well-defined budget linked to deliverables
and outcomes;
(F) leverages other funds to implement the project;
(G) addresses the causes and processes behind the decline
of fish or fish habitats; and
(H) includes an outreach or education component that
includes the local or regional community.
(4) The availability of sufficient non-Federal funds to
match Federal contributions for the fish habitat conservation
project, as required by subsection (e).
(5) The extent to which the fish habitat conservation
project--
(A) will increase fish populations in a manner that leads
to recreational fishing opportunities for the public;
(B) will be carried out through a cooperative agreement
among Federal, State, and local governments, Indian Tribes,
and private entities;
(C) increases public access to land or water for fish and
wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities;
(D) advances the conservation of fish and wildlife species
that have been identified by a State agency as species of
greatest conservation need;
(E) where appropriate, advances the conservation of fish
and fish habitats under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and
other relevant Federal law and State wildlife action plans;
and
(F) promotes strong and healthy fish habitats so that
desired biological communities are able to persist and adapt.
(6) The substantiality of the character and design of the
fish habitat conservation project.
(d) Limitations.--
(1) Requirements for evaluation.--No fish habitat
conservation project may be recommended by the Board under
subsection (b) or provided financial assistance under this
subtitle unless the fish habitat conservation project
includes an evaluation plan designed using applicable Board
guidance--
(A) to appropriately assess the biological, ecological, or
other results of the habitat protection, restoration, or
enhancement activities carried out using the assistance;
(B) to reflect appropriate changes to the fish habitat
conservation project if the assessment substantiates that the
fish habitat conservation project objectives are not being
met;
(C) to identify improvements to existing fish populations,
recreational fishing opportunities, and the overall economic
benefits for the local community of the fish habitat
conservation project; and
(D) to require the submission to the Board of a report
describing the findings of the assessment.
(2) Acquisition authorities.--
(A) In general.--A State, local government, or other non-
Federal entity is eligible to receive funds for the
acquisition of real property from willing sellers under this
subtitle if the acquisition ensures--
(i) public access for fish and wildlife-dependent
recreation; or
(ii) a scientifically based, direct enhancement to the
health of fish and fish populations, as determined by the
Board.
(B) State agency approval.--
(i) In general.--All real property interest acquisition
projects funded under this subtitle must be approved by the
State agency in the State in which the project is occurring.
(ii) Prohibition.--The Board may not recommend, and the
Secretary may not provide any funding for, any real property
interest acquisition that has not been approved by the State
agency.
(C) Assessment of other authorities.--The Board may not
recommend, and the Secretary may not provide any funding
under this subtitle for, any real property interest
acquisition unless the Partnership that recommended the
project has conducted a project assessment, submitted with
the funding request and approved by the Board, to demonstrate
all other Federal, State, and local authorities for the
acquisition of real property have been exhausted.
(D) Restrictions.--A real property interest may not be
acquired pursuant to a fish habitat conservation project by a
State, local government, or other non-Federal entity
conducted with funds provided under this subtitle, unless--
(i) the owner of the real property authorizes the State,
local government, or other non-Federal entity to acquire the
real property; and
(ii) the Secretary and the Board determine that the State,
local government, or other non-Federal entity would benefit
from undertaking the management of the real property being
acquired because that is in accordance with the goals of a
Partnership.
(e) Non-Federal Contributions.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
fish habitat conservation project may be recommended by the
Board under subsection (b) or provided financial assistance
under this subtitle unless at least 50 percent of the cost of
the fish habitat conservation project will be funded with
non-Federal funds.
(2) Non-federal share.--Such non-Federal share of the cost
of a fish habitat conservation project--
(A) may not be derived from another Federal grant program;
and
(B) may include in-kind contributions and cash.
(3) Special rule for indian tribes.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, any funds made
available to an Indian Tribe pursuant to this subtitle may be
considered to be non-Federal funds for the purpose of
paragraph (1).
(f) Approval.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
receipt of the recommended priority list of fish habitat
conservation projects under subsection (b), and subject to
subsection (d) and based, to the maximum extent practicable,
on the criteria described in subsection (c), the Secretary,
after consulting with the Secretary of Commerce on marine or
estuarine projects, shall

[[Page H9986]]

approve or reject any fish habitat conservation project
recommended by the Board.
(2) Funding.--If the Secretary approves a fish habitat
conservation project under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
use amounts made available to carry out this subtitle to
provide funds to carry out the fish habitat conservation
project.
(3) Notification.--If the Secretary rejects under paragraph
(1) any fish habitat conservation project recommended by the
Board, not later than 90 days after the date of receipt of
the recommendation, the Secretary shall provide to the Board,
the appropriate Partnership, and the appropriate
congressional committees a written statement of the reasons
that the Secretary rejected the fish habitat conservation
project.

SEC. 206. TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--The Director, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Assistant Administrator, the
Environmental Protection Agency Assistant Administrator, and
the Director of the United States Geological Survey, in
coordination with the Forest Service and other appropriate
Federal departments and agencies, may provide scientific and
technical assistance to Partnerships, participants in fish
habitat conservation projects, and the Board.
(b) Inclusions.--Scientific and technical assistance
provided under subsection (a) may include--
(1) providing technical and scientific assistance to
States, Indian Tribes, regions, local communities, and
nongovernmental organizations in the development and
implementation of Partnerships;
(2) providing technical and scientific assistance to
Partnerships for habitat assessment, strategic planning, and
prioritization;
(3) supporting the development and implementation of fish
habitat conservation projects that are identified as high
priorities by Partnerships and the Board;
(4) supporting and providing recommendations regarding the
development of science-based monitoring and assessment
approaches for implementation through Partnerships;
(5) supporting and providing recommendations for a national
fish habitat assessment;
(6) ensuring the availability of experts to assist in
conducting scientifically based evaluation and reporting of
the results of fish habitat conservation projects; and
(7) providing resources to secure State agency scientific
and technical assistance to support Partnerships,
participants in fish habitat conservation projects, and the
Board.

SEC. 207. COORDINATION WITH STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES.

The Secretary shall provide a notice to, and cooperate
with, the appropriate State agency or Tribal agency, as
applicable, of each State and Indian Tribe within the
boundaries of which an activity is planned to be carried out
pursuant to this subtitle, including notification, by not
later than 30 days before the date on which the activity is
implemented.

SEC. 208. INTERAGENCY OPERATIONAL PLAN.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the Director, in
cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Assistant Administrator, the Environmental
Protection Agency Assistant Administrator, the Director of
the United States Geological Survey, and the heads of other
appropriate Federal departments and agencies (including, at a
minimum, those agencies represented on the Board) shall
develop an interagency operational plan that describes--
(1) the functional, operational, technical, scientific, and
general staff, administrative, and material needs for the
implementation of this subtitle; and
(2) any interagency agreements between or among Federal
departments and agencies to address those needs.

SEC. 209. ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING.

(a) Reporting.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the
Board shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report describing the progress of this subtitle.
(2) Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) an estimate of the number of acres, stream miles, or
acre-feet, or other suitable measures of fish habitat, that
was maintained or improved by Partnerships under this
subtitle during the 5-year period ending on the date of
submission of the report;
(B) a description of the public access to fish habitats
established or improved under this subtitle during that 5-
year period;
(C) a description of the improved opportunities for public
recreational fishing achieved under this subtitle; and
(D) an assessment of the status of fish habitat
conservation projects carried out with funds provided under
this subtitle during that period, disaggregated by year,
including--
(i) a description of the fish habitat conservation projects
recommended by the Board under section 205(b);
(ii) a description of each fish habitat conservation
project approved by the Secretary under section 205(f), in
order of priority for funding;
(iii) a justification for--

(I) the approval of each fish habitat conservation project;
and
(II) the order of priority for funding of each fish habitat
conservation project;

(iv) a justification for any rejection of a fish habitat
conservation project recommended by the Board under section
205(b) that was based on a factor other than the criteria
described in section 205(c); and
(v) an accounting of expenditures by Federal, State, or
local governments, Indian Tribes, or other entities to carry
out fish habitat conservation projects under this subtitle.
(b) Status and Trends Report.--Not later than December 31,
2020, and every 5 years thereafter, the Board shall submit to
the appropriate congressional committees a report that
includes--
(1) a status of all Partnerships designated under this
subtitle;
(2) a description of the status of fish habitats in the
United States as identified by designated Partnerships; and
(3) enhancements or reductions in public access as a result
of--
(A) the activities of the Partnerships; or
(B) any other activities carried out pursuant to this
subtitle.

SEC. 210. EFFECT OF THIS SUBTITLE.

(a) Water Rights.--Nothing in this subtitle--
(1) establishes any express or implied reserved water right
in the United States for any purpose;
(2) affects any water right in existence on the date of
enactment of this Act;
(3) preempts or affects any State water law or interstate
compact governing water; or
(4) affects any Federal or State law in existence on the
date of enactment of the Act regarding water quality or water
quantity.
(b) Authority To Acquire Water Rights or Rights to
Property.--Only a State, local government, or other non-
Federal entity may acquire, under State law, water rights or
rights to property with funds made available through section
212.
(c) State Authority.--Nothing in this subtitle--
(1) affects the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility
of a State to manage, control, or regulate fish and wildlife
under the laws and regulations of the State; or
(2) authorizes the Secretary to control or regulate within
a State the fishing or hunting of fish and wildlife.
(d) Effect on Indian Tribes.--Nothing in this subtitle
abrogates, abridges, affects, modifies, supersedes, or alters
any right of an Indian Tribe recognized by treaty or any
other means, including--
(1) an agreement between the Indian Tribe and the United
States;
(2) Federal law (including regulations);
(3) an Executive order; or
(4) a judicial decree.
(e) Adjudication of Water Rights.--Nothing in this subtitle
diminishes or affects the ability of the Secretary to join an
adjudication of rights to the use of water pursuant to
subsection (a), (b), or (c) of section 208 of the Departments
of State, Justice, Commerce, and The Judiciary Appropriation
Act, 1953 (43 U.S.C. 666).
(f) Department of Commerce Authority.--Nothing in this
subtitle affects the authority, jurisdiction, or
responsibility of the Department of Commerce to manage,
control, or regulate fish or fish habitats under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
(g) Effect on Other Authorities.--
(1) Private property protection.--Nothing in this subtitle
permits the use of funds made available to carry out this
subtitle to acquire real property or a real property interest
without the written consent of each owner of the real
property or real property interest, respectively.
(2) Mitigation.--Nothing in this subtitle authorizes the
use of funds made available to carry out this subtitle for
fish and wildlife mitigation purposes under--
(A) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.);
(B) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661
et seq.);
(C) the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law
99-662; 100 Stat. 4082); or
(D) any other Federal law or court settlement.
(3) Clean water act.--Nothing in this subtitle affects any
provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), including any definition in that Act.

SEC. 211. NONAPPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall
not apply to--
(1) the Board; or
(2) any Partnership.

SEC. 212. FUNDING.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Fish habitat conservation projects.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $7,200,000 for
each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023 to provide funds for
fish habitat conservation projects approved under section
205(f), of which 5 percent is authorized only for projects
carried out by Indian Tribes.
(2) Administrative and planning expenses.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for each of
fiscal years 2019 through 2023 an amount equal to 5 percent
of the amount appropriated for the applicable fiscal year
pursuant to paragraph (1)--
(A) for administrative and planning expenses under this
subtitle; and
(B) to carry out section 209.
(3) Technical and scientific assistance.--There is
authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2020
through 2024 to carry out, and provide technical and
scientific assistance under, section 206--
(A) $400,000 to the Secretary for use by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service;
(B) $400,000 to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Assistant Administrator for use by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
(C) $400,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency
Assistant Administrator for use by the Environmental
Protection Agency;
(D) $400,000 to the Secretary for use by the United States
Geological Survey; and
(E) $400,000 to the Chief of the Forest Service for use by
the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service.

[[Page H9987]]

(b) Agreements and Grants.--The Secretary may--
(1) on the recommendation of the Board, and notwithstanding
sections 6304 and 6305 of title 31, United States Code, and
the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act
of 1999 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note; Public Law 106-107), enter into
a grant agreement, cooperative agreement, or contract with a
Partnership or other entity to provide funds authorized by
this subtitle for a fish habitat conservation project or
restoration or enhancement project;
(2) apply for, accept, and, subject to the availability of
appropriations, use a grant from any individual or entity to
carry out the purposes of this subtitle; and
(3) subject to the availability of appropriations, make
funds authorized by this Act available to any Federal
department or agency for use by that department or agency to
provide grants for any fish habitat protection project,
restoration project, or enhancement project that the
Secretary determines to be consistent with this subtitle.
(c) Donations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may--
(A) enter into an agreement with any organization described
in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of that
Code to solicit private donations to carry out the purposes
of this subtitle; and
(B) accept donations of funds, property, and services to
carry out the purposes of this subtitle.
(2) Treatment.--A donation accepted under this subtitle--
(A) shall be considered to be a gift or bequest to, or
otherwise for the use of, the United States; and
(B) may be--
(i) used directly by the Secretary; or
(ii) provided to another Federal department or agency
through an interagency agreement.

SEC. 213. PROHIBITION AGAINST IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATORY
AUTHORITY BY FEDERAL AGENCIES THROUGH
PARTNERSHIPS.

Any Partnership designated under this subtitle--
(1) shall be for the sole purpose of promoting fish
conservation; and
(2) shall not be used to implement any regulatory authority
of any Federal agency.

Subtitle B--Great Lakes Fishery Research Authorization

SEC. 214. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:
(1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the United States Geological Survey.
(2) Great lakes basin.--The term ``Great Lakes Basin''
means the air, land, water, and living organisms in the
United States within the drainage basin of the Saint Lawrence
River at and upstream from the point at which such river and
the Great Lakes become the international boundary between
Canada and the United States.

SEC. 215. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The Great Lakes support a diverse ecosystem, on which
the vibrant and economically valuable Great Lakes fisheries
depend.
(2) To continue successful fisheries management and
coordination, as has occurred since signing of the Convention
on Great Lakes Fisheries between the United States and Canada
on September 10, 1954, management of the ecosystem and its
fisheries require sound, reliable science, and the use of
modern scientific technologies.
(3) Fisheries research is necessary to support multi-
jurisdictional fishery management decisions and actions
regarding recreational and sport fishing, commercial
fisheries, tribal harvest, allocation decisions, and fish
stocking activities.
(4) President Richard Nixon submitted, and the Congress
approved, Reorganization Plan No. 4 (84 Stat. 2090),
conferring science activities and management of marine
fisheries to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
(5) Reorganization Plan No. 4 expressly excluded fishery
research activities within the Great Lakes from the transfer,
retaining management and scientific research duties within
the already established jurisdictions under the 1954
Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, including those of the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the Department of the
Interior.

SEC. 216. GREAT LAKES MONITORING, ASSESSMENT, SCIENCE, AND
RESEARCH.

(a) In General.--The Director may conduct monitoring,
assessment, science, and research, in support of the
binational fisheries within the Great Lakes Basin.
(b) Specific Authorities.--The Director shall, under
subsection (a)--
(1) execute a comprehensive, multi-lake, freshwater
fisheries science program;
(2) coordinate with and work cooperatively with regional,
State, tribal, and local governments; and
(3) consult with other interested entities groups,
including academia and relevant Canadian agencies.
(c) Included Research.--To properly serve the needs of
fisheries managers, monitoring, assessment, science, and
research under this section may include--
(1) deepwater ecosystem sciences;
(2) biological and food-web components;
(3) fish movement and behavior investigations;
(4) fish population structures;
(5) fish habitat investigations;
(6) invasive species science;
(7) use of existing, new, and experimental biological
assessment tools, equipment, vessels, other scientific
instrumentation and laboratory capabilities necessary to
support fishery management decisions; and
(8) studies to assess impacts on Great Lakes fishery
resources.
(d) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this subtitle is intended
or shall be construed to impede, supersede, or alter the
authority of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, States, and
Indian tribes under the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries
between the United States of America and Canada on September
10, 1954, and the Great Lakes Fishery Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C.
931 et seq.).

SEC. 217. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

For each of fiscal years 2020 through 2029, there is
authorized to be appropriated $17,500,000 to carry out this
subtitle.

TITLE III--MEETING 21ST CENTURY OCEAN AND COASTAL DATA NEEDS

Subtitle A--Digital Coast

SEC. 301. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Digital Coast is a model approach for effective
Federal partnerships with State and local government,
nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector.
(2) Access to current, accurate, uniform, and standards-
based geospatial information, tools, and training to
characterize the United States coastal region is critical for
public safety and for the environment, infrastructure, and
economy of the United States.
(3) More than half of all people of the United States
(153,000,000) currently live on or near a coast and an
additional 12,000,000 are expected in the next decade.
(4) Coastal counties in the United States average 300
persons per square mile, compared with the national average
of 98.
(5) On a typical day, more than 1,540 permits for
construction of single-family homes are issued in coastal
counties, combined with other commercial, retail, and
institutional construction to support this population.
(6) Over half of the economic productivity of the United
States is located within coastal regions.
(7) Highly accurate, high-resolution remote sensing and
other geospatial data play an increasingly important role in
decision making and management of the coastal zone and
economy, including for--
(A) flood and coastal storm surge prediction;
(B) hazard risk and vulnerability assessment;
(C) emergency response and recovery planning;
(D) community resilience to longer range coastal change;
(E) local planning and permitting;
(F) habitat and ecosystem health assessments; and
(G) landscape change detection.

SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:
(1) Coastal region.--The term ``coastal region'' means the
area of United States waters extending inland from the
shoreline to include coastal watersheds and seaward to the
territorial sea.
(2) Coastal state.--The term ``coastal State'' has the
meaning given the term ``coastal state'' in section 304 of
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453).
(3) Federal geographic data committee.--The term ``Federal
Geographic Data Committee'' means the interagency committee
that promotes the coordinated development, use, sharing, and
dissemination of geospatial data on a national basis.
(4) Remote sensing and other geospatial.--The term ``remote
sensing and other geospatial'' means collecting, storing,
retrieving, or disseminating graphical or digital data
depicting natural or manmade physical features, phenomena, or
boundaries of the Earth and any information related thereto,
including surveys, maps, charts, satellite and airborne
remote sensing data, images, LiDAR, and services performed by
professionals such as surveyors, photogrammetrists,
hydrographers, geodesists, cartographers, and other such
services.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Commerce, acting through the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

SEC. 303. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DIGITAL COAST.

(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program
for the provision of an enabling platform that integrates
geospatial data, decision-support tools, training, and best
practices to address coastal management issues and needs.
Under the program, the Secretary shall strive to enhance
resilient communities, ecosystem values, and coastal economic
growth and development by helping communities address their
issues, needs, and challenges through cost-effective and
participatory solutions.
(2) Designation.--The program established under paragraph
(1) shall be known as the ``Digital Coast'' (in this section
referred to as the ``program'').
(b) Program Requirements.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary shall ensure that the program provides data
integration, tool development, training, documentation,
dissemination, and archiving by--
(1) making data and resulting integrated products developed
under this section readily accessible via the Digital Coast
Internet website of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the GeoPlatform.gov and data.gov Internet
websites, and such other information distribution
technologies as the Secretary considers appropriate;
(2) developing decision-support tools that use and display
resulting integrated data and provide training on use of such
tools;
(3) documenting such data to Federal Geographic Data
Committee standards; and

[[Page H9988]]

(4) archiving all raw data acquired under this title at the
appropriate National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
data center or such other Federal data center as the
Secretary considers appropriate.
(c) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the
activities carried out under the program to optimize data
collection, sharing and integration, and to minimize
duplication by--
(1) consulting with coastal managers and decision makers
concerning coastal issues, and sharing information and best
practices, as the Secretary considers appropriate, with--
(A) coastal States;
(B) local governments; and
(C) representatives of academia, the private sector, and
nongovernmental organizations;
(2) consulting with other Federal agencies, including
interagency committees, on relevant Federal activities,
including activities carried out under the Ocean and Coastal
Mapping Integration Act (33 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), the
Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009
(33 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), and the Hydrographic Services
Improvement Act of 1998 (33 U.S.C. 892 et seq.);
(3) participating, pursuant to section 216 of the E-
Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347; 44 U.S.C. 3501
note), in the establishment of such standards and common
protocols as the Secretary considers necessary to assure the
interoperability of remote sensing and other geospatial data
with all users of such information within--
(A) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
(B) other Federal agencies;
(C) State and local government; and
(D) the private sector;
(4) coordinating with, seeking assistance and cooperation
of, and providing liaison to the Federal Geographic Data
Committee pursuant to Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-16 and Executive Order 12906 of April 11, 1994 (59
Fed. Reg. 17671), as amended by Executive Order 13286 of
February 28, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 10619); and
(5) developing and maintaining a best practices document
that sets out the best practices used by the Secretary in
carrying out the program and providing such document to the
United States Geological Survey, the Corps of Engineers, and
other relevant Federal agencies.
(d) Filling Needs and Gaps.--In carrying out the program,
the Secretary shall--
(1) maximize the use of remote sensing and other geospatial
data collection activities conducted for other purposes and
under other authorities;
(2) focus on filling data needs and gaps for coastal
management issues, including with respect to areas that, as
of the date of the enactment of this Act, were underserved by
coastal data and the areas of the Arctic that are under the
jurisdiction of the United States;
(3) pursuant to the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration
Act (33 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), support continue improvement in
existing efforts to coordinate the acquisition and
integration of key data sets needed for coastal management
and other purposes, including--
(A) coastal elevation data;
(B) land use and land cover data;
(C) socioeconomic and human use data;
(D) critical infrastructure data;
(E) structures data;
(F) living resources and habitat data;
(G) cadastral data; and
(H) aerial imagery; and
(4) integrate the priority supporting data set forth under
paragraph (3) with other available data for the benefit of
the broadest measure of coastal resource management
constituents and applications.
(e) Financial Agreements and Contracts.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary--
(A) may enter into financial agreements to carry out the
program, including--
(i) support to non-Federal entities that participate in
implementing the program; and
(ii) grants, cooperative agreements, interagency
agreements, contracts, or any other agreement on a
reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis, with other Federal,
tribal, State, and local governmental and nongovernmental
entities; and
(B) may, to the maximum extent practicable, enter into such
contracts with private sector entities for such products and
services as the Secretary determines may be necessary to
collect, process, and provide remote sensing and other
geospatial data and products for purposes of the program.
(2) Fees.--
(A) Assessment and collection.--The Secretary may assess
and collect fees to conduct any planned training, workshop,
or conference that advances the purposes of the program.
(B) Amounts.--The amount of a fee under this paragraph may
not exceed the sum of costs incurred, or expected to be
incurred, by the Secretary as a direct result of the conduct
of the training, workshop, or conference, including for
subsistence expenses incidental to the training, workshop, or
conference, as applicable.
(C) Use of fees.--Amounts collected by the Secretary in the
form of fees under this paragraph may be used to pay for--
(i) the costs incurred for conducting an activity described
in subparagraph (A); or
(ii) the expenses described in subparagraph (B).
(3) Survey and mapping.--Contracts entered into under
paragraph (1)(B) shall be considered ``surveying and
mapping'' services as such term is used in and as such
contracts are awarded by the Secretary in accordance with the
selection procedures in chapter 11 of title 40, United States
Code.
(f) Ocean Economy.--The Secretary may establish publically
available tools that track ocean and Great Lakes economy data
for each coastal State.

Subtitle B--Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System

SEC. 304. STAGGERED TERMS FOR NATIONAL INTEGRATED COASTAL AND
OCEAN OBSERVATION SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Section 12304(d)(3)(B) of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean
Observation System Act of 2009 (33 U.S.C. 3603(d)(3)(B)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Members'' and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii),
members''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Staggered terms.--The Administrator may appoint or
reappoint a member for a partial term of 1 or 2 years in
order to establish a system of staggered terms. The
Administrator may appoint or reappoint a member under this
clause only once. A member appointed or reappointed to a
partial term under this clause may not serve more than one
full term.''.

SEC. 305. INTEGRATED COASTAL AND OCEAN OBSERVATION SYSTEM
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

Section 12305(a) of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean
Observation System Act of 2009 (33 U.S.C. 3604(a)) is amended
by inserting ``disburse appropriated funds to,'' after
``agreements, with,''.

SEC. 306. REAUTHORIZATION OF INTEGRATED COASTAL AND OCEAN
OBSERVATION SYSTEM ACT OF 2009.

Section 12311 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean
Observation System Act of 2009 (33 U.S.C. 3610) is amended by
striking ``for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 such sums as
are necessary'' and inserting ``$47,500,000 for each of
fiscal years 2020 through 2024''.

TITLE IV--NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS

SEC. 401. REFERENCES TO THE NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE
PROGRAM ACT.

Except as otherwise expressly provided, wherever in this
title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of the National Sea Grant College Program Act
(33 U.S.C. 1121 et seq.).

SEC. 402. MODIFICATION OF DEAN JOHN A. KNAUSS MARINE POLICY
FELLOWSHIP.

(a) In General.--Section 208(b) (33 U.S.C. 1127(b)) is
amended by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall''.
(b) Placements in Congress.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Secretary''
and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary''; and
(2) in paragraph (1), as designated by paragraph (1) of
this section, in the second sentence, by striking ``A
fellowship'' and inserting the following:
``(2) Placement priorities.--
``(A) In general.--In each year in which the Secretary
awards a legislative fellowship under this subsection, when
considering the placement of fellows, the Secretary shall
prioritize placement of fellows in the following:
``(i) Positions in offices of committees of Congress that
have jurisdiction over the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
``(ii) Positions in offices of Members of Congress who are
on such committees.
``(iii) Positions in offices of Members of Congress that
have a demonstrated interest in ocean, coastal, or Great
Lakes resources.
``(B) Equitable distribution.--
``(i) Finding and recognition.--Congress--

``(I) finds that both host offices and fellows benefit when
fellows have the opportunity to choose from a range of host
offices from different States and regions, both chambers of
Congress, and both political parties; and
``(II) recognizes the steps taken by the National Sea Grant
College Program to facilitate an equitable distribution of
fellows among the political parties.

``(ii) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure, to the
maximum extent practicable, that fellows have the opportunity
to choose from offices that are described in clauses (i),
(ii), and (iii) of subparagraph (A) and that are equitably
distributed among--

``(I) the political parties; and
``(II) the Senate and the House of Representatives.

``(iii) Political and cameral equity.--The Secretary shall
ensure that placements are equitably distributed between--

``(I) the political parties; and
``(II) the Senate and the House of Representatives.

``(3) Duration.--A fellowship''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (b)
shall apply with respect to the first calendar year beginning
after the date of the enactment of this Act and each fiscal
year thereafter.
(d) Sense of Congress Concerning Federal Hiring of Former
Fellows.--It is the sense of Congress that in recognition of
the competitive nature of the fellowship under section 208(b)
of the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C.
1127(b)), and of the exceptional qualifications of fellowship
awardees--
(1) the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, should
encourage participating Federal agencies to consider
opportunities for fellowship awardees at the conclusion of
their fellowships for workforce positions appropriate for
their education and experience; and
(2) Members and committees of Congress should consider
opportunities for such awardees for such positions.

[[Page H9989]]

SEC. 403. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
TO ACCEPT DONATIONS FOR NATIONAL SEA GRANT
COLLEGE PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Section 204(c)(4)(E) (33 U.S.C.
1123(c)(4)(E)) is amended to read as follows:
``(E) accept donations of money and, notwithstanding
section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, of voluntary
and uncompensated services;''.
(b) Priorities.--The Secretary of Commerce, acting through
the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere,
shall establish priorities for the use of donations accepted
under section 204(c)(4)(E) of the National Sea Grant College
Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1123(c)(4)(E)), and shall consider
among those priorities the possibility of expanding the Dean
John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship's placement of
additional fellows in relevant legislative offices under
section 208(b) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1127(b)), in accordance
with the recommendations under subsection (c) of this
section.
(c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Sea Grant
College Program, in consultation with the National Sea Grant
Advisory Board and the Sea Grant Association, shall--
(1) develop recommendations for the optimal use of any
donations accepted under section 204(c)(4)(E) of the National
Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1123(c)(4)(E)); and
(2) submit to Congress a report on the recommendations
developed under paragraph (1).
(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit or otherwise affect any other amounts
available for marine policy fellowships under section 208(b)
of the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C.
1127(b)), including amounts--
(1) accepted under section 204(c)(4)(F) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 1123(c)(4)(F)); or
(2) appropriated under section 212 of such Act (33 U.S.C.
1131).

SEC. 404. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR REPORT ON COORDINATION OF
OCEANS AND COASTAL RESEARCH ACTIVITIES.

Section 9 of the National Sea Grant College Program Act
Amendments of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 857-20) is repealed.

SEC. 405. REDUCTION IN FREQUENCY REQUIRED FOR NATIONAL SEA
GRANT ADVISORY BOARD REPORT.

Section 209(b)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1128(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``Biennial'' and inserting
``Periodic''; and
(2) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Board shall
report to the Congress every two years'' and inserting ``Not
less frequently than once every 4 years, the Board shall
submit to Congress a report''.

SEC. 406. MODIFICATION OF ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL SEA GRANT
COLLEGE PROGRAM.

Section 204(b) (33 U.S.C. 1123(b)) is amended by inserting
``for research, education, extension, training, technology
transfer, public service,'' after ``financial assistance''.

SEC. 407. DIRECT HIRE AUTHORITY; DEAN JOHN A. KNAUSS MARINE
POLICY FELLOWSHIP.

(a) In General.--During fiscal year 2019 and any fiscal
year thereafter, the head of any Federal agency may appoint,
without regard to the provisions of subchapter I of chapter
33 of title 5, United States Code, other than sections 3303
and 3328 of such title, a qualified candidate described in
subsection (b) directly to a position with the Federal agency
for which the candidate meets Office of Personnel Management
qualification standards.
(b) Qualified Candidate.--Subsection (a) applies with
respect to a former recipient of a Dean John A. Knauss Marine
Policy Fellowship under section 208(b) of the National Sea
Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1127(b)) who--
(1) earned a graduate or post-graduate degree in a field
related to ocean, coastal, or Great Lakes resources or policy
from an institution of higher education accredited by an
agency or association recognized by the Secretary of
Education pursuant to section 496(a) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1099b(a));
(2) received a Dean John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship
under section 208(b) of the National Sea Grant College
Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1127(b)) within 5 years before the
date the individual is appointed under this section; and
(3) successfully fulfilled the requirements of the
fellowship within the executive or legislative branch of the
United States Government.

SEC. 408. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATIONAL SEA
GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Section 212(a) (33 U.S.C. 1131(a)) is
amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Secretary to carry out this title--
``(A) $87,520,000 for fiscal year 2020;
``(B) $91,900,000 for fiscal year 2021;
``(C) $96,500,000 for fiscal year 2022;
``(D) $101,325,000 for fiscal year 2023;
``(E) $106,380,000 for fiscal year 2024; and
``(F) $111,710,813 for fiscal year 2025.''; and
(2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) Priority activities for fiscal years 2020 through
2025.--In addition to the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be
appropriated $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 through
2025 for competitive grants for the following:
``(A) University research on the biology, prevention, and
control of aquatic nonnative species.
``(B) University research on oyster diseases, oyster
restoration, and oyster-related human health risks.
``(C) University research on the biology, prevention, and
forecasting of harmful algal blooms.
``(D) University research, education, training, and
extension services and activities focused on coastal
resilience and United States working waterfronts and other
regional or national priority issues identified in the
strategic plan under section 204(c)(1).
``(E) University research and extension on sustainable
aquaculture techniques and technologies.
``(F) Fishery research and extension activities conducted
by sea grant colleges or sea grant institutes to enhance, and
not supplant, existing core program funding.''.
(b) Modification of Limitations on Amounts for
Administration.--Paragraph (1) of section 212(b) (33 U.S.C.
1131(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Administration.--
``(A) In general.--There may not be used for administration
of programs under this title in a fiscal year more than 5.5
percent of the lesser of--
``(i) the amount authorized to be appropriated under this
title for the fiscal year; or
``(ii) the amount appropriated under this title for the
fiscal year.
``(B) Critical staffing requirements.--
``(i) In general.--The Director shall use the authority
under subchapter VI of chapter 33 of title 5, United States
Code, to meet any critical staffing requirement while
carrying out the activities authorized under this title.
``(ii) Exception from cap.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), any costs incurred as a result of an exercise of
authority described in clause (i) shall not be considered an
amount used for administration of programs under this title
in a fiscal year.''.
(c) Allocation of Funding.--
(1) In general.--Section 204(d)(3) (33 U.S.C. 1123(d)(3))
is amended--
(A) by striking ``With respect to sea grant colleges and
sea grant institutes'' and inserting ``With respect to sea
grant colleges, sea grant institutes, sea grant programs, and
sea grant projects''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``funding among sea
grant colleges and sea grant institutes'' and inserting
``funding among sea grant colleges, sea grant institutes, sea
grant programs, and sea grant projects''.
(2) Repeal of requirements concerning distribution of
excess amounts.--Section 212 (33 U.S.C. 1131) is amended--
(A) by striking subsection (c); and
(B) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively.

SEC. 409. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) Section 204(d)(3)(B) (33 U.S.C. 1123(d)(3)(B)) is
amended by moving clause (vi) 2 ems to the right.
(b) Section 209(b) (33 U.S.C. 1128(b)), as amended by this
Act, is further amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``The Secretary shall''
and all that follows; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Availability of resources of department of
commerce.--The Secretary shall''.

The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in
order except those printed in House Report 116-330 and amendments en
bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution 748.
Each further amendment printed in House Report 116-330, shall be
considered 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.
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 House Report 116-330 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 respective designees, shall not
be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question.

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Case of Hawaii

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 748,
I offer amendments en bloc under the rule.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7,
10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 28 printed
in House Report 116-330, offered by Mr. Case of Hawaii:

amendment no. 1 offered by mr. hastings of florida

Page 49, after line 24, insert the following:
(G) Activities or projects to address the immediate and
long-term degradation or loss

[[Page H9990]]

of coral and coral reefs in response to bacteria, fungi,
viruses, increased sea surface temperatures, ultraviolet
radiation, and pollutants.

amendment no. 2 offered by mr. hastings of florida

Page 66, line 4, insert ``coral reefs,'' after
``environments,''.

amendment no. 3 offered by mr. morelle of new york

Page 35, line 4, strike ``may'' and insert ``shall''.

amendment no. 5 offered by mr. mceachin of virginia

Page 10, line 5, strike ``or''.
page 10, line 8, strike the period and insert ``; or''
(C) which include communities that may not have adequate
resources to prepare for or respond to coastal hazards,
including low income communities, communities of color,
Tribal communities, and rural communities.

amendment no. 7 offered by mr. lipinski of illinois

Page 45, line 25, insert after subparagraph (C) the
following:
(C) Adaptive management strategies for Great Lakes
ecosystems and resources, including strategies to support
freshwater fisheries, monitor ice cover, manage phosphorous
and nitrogen chemical loads, minimize invasive species and
harmful blooms of algae, and create protected areas to
maintain Great Lakes ecosystems.
Page 46, lines 1 and 7, redesignate subparagraphs (D) and
(E) as subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively.

amendment no. 10 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin

Page 45, line 15, insert ``combat invasive species,'' after
``strategies to''.
Page 46, after line 6, insert the following:
(E) A description of how the plan will address the impact
of climate change affecting coastal communities will have on
nearby Tribes, Tribal communities, and low-income or low-
resource communities and how those stakeholders will be
included in and informed about the development of the plan.

amendment no. 11 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin

Page 7, line 17, strike ``and''.
Page 7, line 23, strike the period and insert ``; and''
(3) include an outreach or education component that seeks
and solicits feedback from the local or regional community
most directly affected by the proposal.
Page 11, after line 6, insert the following:

(II) Tribes and Tribal organizations;

amendment no. 13 offered by mr. higgins of new york

Page 91, after line 14, insert the following:
(7) research on the impacts of harmful algal blooms,
nutrient pollution, and dead zones on Great Lakes fisheries;

amendment no. 15 offered by ms. speier of california

Page 49, line 19, insert ``, such as sea walls and living
shorelines'' after ``environment''.

amendment no. 16 offered by ms. bonamici of oregon

Page 48, line 19, insert ``coastal acidification,
hypoxia,'' after ``acidification,''.

amendment no. 17 offered by ms. bonamici of oregon

At the end of title III, insert the following:

SEC. 307. ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-OCEANS.

(a) Agreement.--Not later than 45 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall seek
to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct the comprehensive assessment under
subsection (b).
(b) Comprehensive Assessment.--
(1) In general.--Under an agreement between the
Administrator and the National Academy of Sciences under this
section, the National Academy of Sciences shall conduct a
comprehensive assessment of the need for and feasibility of
establishing an Advanced Research Projects Agency-Oceans
(ARPA-O).
(2) Elements.--The comprehensive assessment carried out
pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) an assessment of how an ARPA-O could help overcome the
long-term and high-risk technological barriers in the
development of ocean technologies, with the goal of enhancing
the economic, ecological, and national security of the United
States through the rapid development of technologies that
result in--
(i) improved data collection, monitoring, and prediction of
the ocean environment, including sea ice conditions;
(ii) overcoming barriers to the application of new and
improved technologies, such as high costs and scale of
operational missions;
(iii) improved management practices for protecting
ecological sustainability;
(iv) improved national security capacity;
(v) improved technology for fishery population assessments;
(vi) expedited processes between and among Federal agencies
to successfully identify, transition, and coordinate research
and development output to operations, applications,
commercialization, and other uses; and
(vii) ensuring that the United States maintains a
technological lead in developing and deploying advanced ocean
technologies;
(B) an evaluation of the organizational structures under
which an ARPA-O could be organized, which takes into
account--
(i) best practices for new research programs;
(ii) metrics and approaches for periodic program
evaluation;
(iii) capacity to fund and manage external research awards;
and
(iv) options for oversight of the activity through a
Federal agency, an interagency organization, nongovernmental
organization, or other institutional arrangement; and
(C) an estimation of the scale of investment necessary to
pursue high priority ocean technology projects.
(c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Administrator shall submit to
Congress a report on the comprehensive assessment conducted
under subsection (b).
(d) Definitions.--In this section, the term
``Administrator'' means the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere in the Under Secretary's capacity as
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.

amendment no. 18 offered by mr. kildee of michigan

At the end of title I, insert the following:

SEC. 108. UPDATE TO ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY INDEX PRODUCTS
OF NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION FOR GREAT LAKES.

(a) Update Required Environmental Sensitivity Index
Products for Great Lakes.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere shall commence updating the
environmental sensitivity index products of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for each coastal area
of the Great Lakes.
(b) Periodic Updates for Environmental Sensitivity Index
Products Generally.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations and the priorities set forth in subsection
(c), the Under Secretary shall--
(1) periodically update the environmental sensitivity index
products of the Administration; and
(2) endeavor to do so not less frequently than once every 7
years.
(c) Priorities.--When prioritizing geographic areas to
update environmental sensitivity index products, the Under
Secretary shall consider--
(1) the age of existing environmental sensitivity index
products for the areas;
(2) the occurrence of extreme events, be it natural or man-
made, which have significantly altered the shoreline or
ecosystem since the last update;
(3) the natural variability of shoreline and coastal
environment; and
(4) the volume of vessel traffic and general vulnerability
to spilled pollutants.
(d) Environmental Sensitivity Index Product Defined.--In
this subsection, the term ``environmental sensitivity index
product'' means a map or similar tool that is utilized to
identify sensitive shoreline, coastal or offshore, resources
prior to an oil spill event in order to set baseline
priorities for protection and plan cleanup strategies,
typically including information relating to shoreline type,
biological resources, and human use resources.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Under Secretary $7,500,000 to carry out subsection (a).
(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be available to the
Under Secretary for the purposes set forth in such paragraph
until expended.

amendment no. 19 offered by ms. plaskett of virgin islands

Page 75, lines 7-8, strike ``paragraph (2)'' and insert
``paragraphs (2) and (4)''.
Page 75, after line 25, insert the following:
(4) Waiver authority.--The Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Commerce with respect to marine or estuarine
projects, may waive the application of paragraph (2)(A) with
respect to a State or an Indian Tribe, or otherwise reduce
the portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of an
activity required to be paid by a State or an Indian Tribe
under paragraph (1), if the Secretary determines that the
State or Indian Tribe does not have sufficient funds not
derived from another Federal grant program to pay such non-
Federal share, or portion of the non-Federal share, without
the use of loans.

amendment no. 20 offered by ms. jayapal of washington

Page 55, line 25, strike ``25'' and insert ``26''.
Page 56, line 16, strike ``1 shall be a representative''
and insert ``2 shall be representatives''.

amendment no. 21 offered by ms. jayapal of washington

Page 11, line 16, strike ``and''.
Page 11, line 20, strike the period and insert ``; and''
(3) to incentivize landowners to engage in living shoreline
projects.

amendment no. 22 offered by ms. jayapal of washington

Page 10, line 15, strike ``and''.
Page 10, line 18, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 10, after line 19, insert the following:
(iii) the consideration of an established eligible entity
program with systems to disburse funding from a single grant
to support multiple small-scale projects.

[[Page H9991]]

amendment no. 24 offered by mr. levin of michigan

Page 49, line 1, insert ``, avian,'' after ``marine''.
Page 49, line 5, insert ``, avian,'' after ``fish''.

amendment no. 25 offered by mr. levin of michigan

Page 91, after line 14, insert the following:
(7) research into the affects of per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances, mercury, and other contaminants on fisheries and
fishery ecosystems;

amendment no. 27 offered by mr. rouda of california

Page 50, after line 24, insert the following:

SEC. 107. PRIZE COMPETITIONS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a program to
award prizes competitively under section 24 of the Stevenson-
Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3719),
for the purpose described in subsection (b).
(b) Purpose.--The purpose described in this subsection is
to stimulate innovation to advance the following coastal risk
reduction and resilience measures:
(1) Natural features, including dunes, reefs, and wetlands.
(2) Nature-based features, including beach nourishment,
dune restoration, wetland and other coastal habitat
restoration, and living shoreline construction.
(3) Nonstructural measures, including flood proofing of
structures, flood warning systems, and elevated development.

amendment no. 28 offered by mr. rouda of california

Page 50, after line 24, insert the following:

SEC. 107 CATALOG OF RESEARCH ON APPLICABLE COASTAL RISK
REDUCTION AND RESILIENCE MEASURES.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce, acting
through the Administrator, shall--
(1) identify all Department of Commerce research activities
regarding applicable coastal risk reduction and resilience
measures;
(2) consult with the heads of other Federal agencies to
identify what activities, if any, those Federal agencies are
conducting regarding applicable coastal risk reduction and
resilience measures;
(3) evaluate the effectiveness of the activities identified
under paragraphs (1) and (2); and
(4) appoint one or more officers or employees of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to liaise
with non-Federal entities conducting research related to
applicable coastal risk reduction and resilience measures in
order to eliminate redundancies, cooperate for common climate
research goals, and to make research findings readily
available to the public.
(b) Definition Of Applicable Coastal Risk Reduction And
Resilience Measures.--In this section, the term ``applicable
coastal risk reduction and resilience measures'' means
natural features, nature-based features, or nonstructural
measures.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 748, the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Case) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, again, in the interests of an incredibly good bipartisan
bill and moving this bill forward, I offer this en bloc amendment,
which is a package of a number of amendments offered by colleagues that
all seek to further improve the resilience of our coastlines and of our
Great Lakes.
I applaud the sponsors of these amendments for their thoughtful
engagement on this issue and for acting to ensure that families in
their districts are safe and healthy, with productive jobs and clean
environments.
We are working to create a more sustainable, healthy planet, and this
package of bills and these amendments will move us in the right
direction.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1545

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chair, I first want to thank the Democrats for at least not
wasting our time by debating all of these amendments individually. But,
once again, within the pockets you will find some good things and some
not so good things that are part of what is going on here.
For example, there will be within that list some blanket waivers for
Federal cost-sharing requirements. It is not a good idea to do it.
There are some stand-alone bills that are in there that have no
regular order consideration in this House. It is also not a good
process to go through.
But if we are going to throw regular order out the window and address
20 amendments all at once that don't really have that significant of a
change or an impact, at least we are doing this in the most efficient
and effective way that we possibly could. It is not necessarily making
a bill, it is not really going anywhere better, but at least we are
getting stuff done so we can say we have the illusion of activity on
the floor.
Madam Chair, I urge rejection of the en bloc, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), my colleague.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii for
yielding and for his work on this bill.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to ensure that Great
Lakes States have access to the resources in this bill, so they can
address climate change threats specific to our region.
Increased rain has already led to more agricultural runoff into the
Great Lakes, resulting in higher bacterial counts and larger algal
blooms. This has put our drinking water supplies at risk. Lake Michigan
alone provides drinking water for 10 million people.
Climate change increasingly threatens Great Lakes wildlife, including
fisheries important to our economy, by changing temperatures,
precipitation patterns, and ice cover.
These are some of the reasons that America's ``third coast,'' our
Great Lakes States, need access to the resources in this bill.
Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Grijalva for his support, including my
amendment in this en bloc, and I ask my colleagues to join me and
support this amendment and the underlying bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), my colleague.
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii for
yielding.
Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the en bloc amendment.
The ocean covers more than 70 percent of the planet. It supplies much
of the oxygen that we breathe, it regulates our climate, it is linked
to the water we drink, and it is home to more than half of all life on
Earth. But despite our intrinsic connection to our ocean, we know very
little about what is beneath its surface.
As co-chair of the House Oceans Caucus, I have worked with my fellow
co-chair for the caucus, Congressman Don Young from Alaska, to
improve ocean data and monitoring efforts through the introduction of
our BLUE GLOBE Act. My amendment parallels those efforts and would
direct the NOAA administrator to enter into an agreement with the
National Academy of Sciences to assess the potential for, and
feasibility of, an Advanced Research Project Agency-Oceans, or ARPA-O.
Coastal communities, like those I represent in northwest Oregon, rely
on accurate ocean data and monitoring for information on ocean
acidification, forecasting of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, tsunami
preparedness, navigation, and port security. And after the stark
findings in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Special Report on ``The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate,''
we know that ocean data and monitoring are more important than ever in
adapting to the climate crisis.
My other amendment would add and expand a new grant program
established in the underlying bill to strengthen research opportunities
on coastal acidification and hypoxia. The basic chemistry of our oceans
is changing at an unprecedented rate, and additional research efforts
like those established in this bill will help communities respond.
I thank Chairman Grijalva and Mr. Crist for their support of these
amendments and for their leadership.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendment.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, again, these en bloc amendments are critical
additions and positive additions to a critical bill. These amendments
address major issues related to the harmful impacts of climate change
and

[[Page H9992]]

other man-made effects on our oceans, our coastlines, and our lakes.
For example, they single out the destruction that is being wrought,
as we speak, on our coral reefs throughout our entire country, our
coral reefs throughout the Gulf Coast, throughout Florida, and
throughout the West Coast, in Hawaii and beyond: the acidification that
has led to bleaching of these coral reefs. And as we all know, or at
least I hope we all know, as go the coral reefs, so go our oceans.
These amendments would strengthen Federal programs that address the
health of our coral reefs. These amendments go to harmful algal blooms,
which are a problem throughout our country, as well.
What can we and should we do about it as a Federal coordinated
effort? Of course, we should do something about that.
These amendments would strengthen this bill. These amendments would
forward a Federal-State partnership, a community partnership, to
address another harmful consequence which is killing our oceans.

These amendments would address coastal resiliency. How do we prevent
our coastlines from eroding? In my own home State of Hawaii, we have
seen significant erosion. And that is true of all of the other coasts:
significant increases in sea level over a very, very recent period of
time that has caused major erosion.
How can we adopt better overall programs that adapt to a changing
ocean and do not worsen the problem of coastal erosion? How do we do
that?
These amendments get at these issues. These are good, solid, and
positive additions that our colleagues have come up with to strengthen
a good, solid, and positive bipartisan bill.
Madam Chair, I support these amendments, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I appreciate especially the ability
of putting all these amendments into en bloc to help move this process
along. I am just looking at some of the issues that have been brought
up already, and I am looking at the list of the Federal grants and the
agencies that are already spending their money on these approaches.
If the issue is, obviously, you want more money spent on those
programs, that is not an authorization that we are doing here. That is
an appropriations issue. Go to the Appropriations Committee and talk
about how that fits into the overall budget.
This does not necessarily move us forward, but at least we are not
spending as much time as we would if we addressed each of these
individually.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendments which are
included in en bloc No. 1.
My amendments are simply. I will sum them up in six words: Community
Engagement, Education, Outreach, and Consultation.
The impacts of climate change and environmental degradation affect us
all. But the fact is climate change has a disparate impact on low-
income and minority communities. Indeed, these communities are also
disproportionately impacted by other environmental hazards. It is also
worth mentioning that these communities, which suffer resource
deficits, cannot simply relocate out of flood zones or pay for
expensive mitigation efforts.
Similarly, my Native brothers and sisters have unique cultures that
are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts which threatens their
ways of life, subsistence, lands and water rights, and survival. For
example, the Great Lakes have been an integral part of the history of
many of the region's tribes.
However, too often, the most vulnerable communities are left out when
it comes to the great ideas and projects like those we are authorizing
in this bill. Tribal communities and low-income communities have a
great stake in this debate. My amendment makes sure that they are
included and active participants in the efforts authorized by this
bill. My amendments would amend two of the grant programs in the bill
to make clear that you must consult with, reach out, and meaningfully
engage with tribal and low-income communities located where these
projects are planned.
My amendments affect two programs created in this bill: the Living
Shorelines Grant Program and the Climate Change Adaption Preparedness
and Response Program.
The Living Shorelines Grant program is intended to fund the design,
implementation, and monitoring of climate resilient living shoreline
projects intended to protect coastal communities and ecosystem
functions from environmental conditions, particularly those impacted by
climate change.
The Climate Program is intended to help develop and fund
comprehensive adaptation plans to help states better understand the
scope of the threat of climate change, identify state-wide costs, and
develop local strategies to ensure safety for their residents.
We get better policy making and outcomes when we ensure that all
segments of our communities are engaged and meaningfully involved in
the process.
I thank the chairman for his support of these commonsense amendments.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Heck). The question is on the amendments en
bloc offered by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from
Hawaii will be postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Brown of Maryland

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 116-330.
Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 92, after line 7, insert the following:

Subtitle C--Chesapeake Bay Oyster Research

SEC. 218. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that the Chesapeake Bay Office
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall
be the primary representative of the Administration in the
Chesapeake Bay.

SEC. 219. GRANTS FOR RESEARCHING OYSTERS IN THE CHESAPEAKE
BAY.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Commerce, acting
through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, shall establish a grant program
(in this section referred to as the ``Program'') under which
the Secretary shall award grants to eligible entities for the
purpose of conducting research on the conservation,
restoration, or management of oysters in the Chesapeake Bay.
(b) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, an eligible entity shall submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require.
(c) Allocation of Grant Funds.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award a grant under
the Program to eligible entities that submit an application
under subsection (b).
(2) Matching requirement.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the total amount of Federal funding received under the
Program by an eligible entity may not exceed 85 percent of
the total cost of the research project for which the funding
was awarded. For the purposes of this subparagraph, the non-
Federal share of project costs may be provided by in-kind
contributions and other noncash support.
(B) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive all or part of the
requirement in subparagraph (A) if the Secretary determines
that no reasonable means are available through which an
eligible entity applying for a grant under this section can
meet such requirement and the probable benefit of such
research project outweighs the public interest in such
requirement.
(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Academic community.--The term ``academic community''
means faculty, researchers, professors, and representatives
of State-accredited colleges and universities.
(2) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a
member of the academic community, the seafood industry, a
relevant nonprofit organization, or a relevant State agency,
that is proposing or conducting a research project on the
conservation, restoration, or management of oysters in the
Chesapeake Bay developed through consultation with a member
of the academic community, a member of the seafood industry,
a relevant nonprofit organization, or a relevant State
agency.
(3) Nonprofit organization.--The term ``nonprofit
organization'' means an organization described in section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt
from tax under section 501(a) of such Code.
(4) Seafood industry.--The term ``seafood industry'' means
shellfish growers, shellfish harvesters, commercial
fishermen, and recreational fishermen.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Commerce, acting through the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary $2,000,000 for each of
the fiscal years 2020 through 2025 to carry out this section.

[[Page H9993]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 748, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to first recognize the hard work of Chairman
Grijalva and the sponsors of the underlying pieces of legislation. This
package reflects a bipartisan collaboration between Members dedicated
to conserving our natural resources.
In the face of changing climate, extreme weather patterns and events,
rising tides, disappearing species, and habitat destruction, it is
critical we act now to preserve and protect our coastlines, and the
communities and local economies that depend on the continued health of
our water resources.
This includes the Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the country,
in my State of Maryland. The bay is critically important as an economic
engine that attracts millions of tourists and supports thousands of
jobs.
For decades, oyster harvesting was one of the bay's most important
industries. Yet today, we are seeing an alarming decline in the bay's
oyster population, a decline caused by climate change, years of
overharvesting, ocean acidification, nutrient reduction,
denitrification, habitat destruction, and oyster-debilitating disease.
However, there is still much we don't know as to why the depletion is
occurring and how best to conserve oysters.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment strengthens the underlying bill by
providing research grants to those working to reverse the depletion and
decline of oysters in the Chesapeake Bay. These grants support
collaborative partnerships to research the long-term conservation,
restoration, and management of oysters in the Chesapeake Bay.
This program will encourage collaborations between the academic
community, the seafood industry, nonprofit organizations, and State
agencies to develop new innovative solutions.
These grants will help us better understand why oyster hatcheries are
crashing and to develop best practices in mitigating habitat
destruction.
My amendment will provide us more tools to strengthen the oyster
population and the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and
the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I actually don't have great
pleasure in doing that because Mr. Brown is a vital member of our
committee, does a great job, and defends his State brilliantly. I
appreciate him doing that.
But, once again, the process we are doing is adding another new
taxpayer program that already has existing programs in effect, and is
actually a stand-alone bill that has not received a hearing, a markup,
or a CBO score, and adding that to this, because this is, once again,
the only train in town and we are not taking time to do these things
individually as we ought to.
But when it comes to oyster research, which is extremely important, I
recognize fully, as you see by the chart the total numbers in each of
these years, starting in fiscal year 2014, are how much had been given
to this particular program.
In 2018, it was $617 million in funds from all of the different
government agencies that actually participate. That includes
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, and EPA
for watershed restoration.
NOAA does have a Chesapeake Bay office. They provide research. They
provide grants to both Maryland and Virginia. Last year, they also
provided a grant to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to add these programs
in there.
What we are trying to say here is, it is already being done.
Now, if this is a problem of not enough money going into there, as
some of the other speakers have said, well, that is not an issue of
authorization. The authorization authority exists. That is a question
of how much we are actually appropriating, which is an entirely
different issue, which you should go to the Appropriations Committee to
see if you actually want that number higher.
But, actually, the Federal Government does do this, and they are
increasing with it. There is not a problem that needs authorization. If
you need more money, that is an appropriations issue. This,
unfortunately, is not about appropriations. This is about
authorization.
So I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland. I appreciate his
interest. I appreciate this issue. But it is already being done by
other agencies. There is no need for another entity to enter into this
particular market.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
will be postponed.

{time} 1600

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Huizenga

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 116-330.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 16, after line 2, insert the following:
(h) Minimum Required Funds for Shoreline Projects Located
Within the Great Lakes.--The Secretary shall make not less
than 10 percent of the funds awarded under this section to
projects located in the Great Lakes.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 748, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, while I stand here today as I offer my
amendment, residents across the Great Lakes are facing imminent threats
to their property, their infrastructure, and the shorelines themselves
due to historically high water levels.
Great Lakes communities, including many in my own district along the
shores of Lake Michigan, are in critical need of shoreline projects to
protect against devastating erosion.
For those of us who call the region home, the Great Lakes forever
shape our way of life. It is where we recreate. It is where we do
business. It is where we pass along the heritage of our region.
The Great Lakes form the largest fresh surface water system on the
Earth, holding nearly 20 percent of the world's freshwater supply.
They directly generate more than 1.5 million jobs, provide the
backbone of a $5 trillion regional economy, and are the home for more
than 3,500 different plants and species.
As I often say, we can and should protect and promote both the
economy and the ecology of the Great Lakes. However, our communities
are facing devastating consequences if we don't act to protect our
shorelines now. The high water levels, combined with the effect of
recent storms that brought even higher waves and strong winds, are
threatening our communities.
Public infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and docks, have been
battered and, in some cases, actually lost. Recreational beaches have
disappeared, and others are covered with dangerous debris now. Habitats
have been destroyed. Numerous homes are teetering on the edge of dune
cliffs or are threatened by the rising water level.
This amendment, which would set aside just 10 percent of the spending
in these particular projects, would ensure that communities within the
Great Lakes system receive necessary funding through the living
shoreline grant program to protect and preserve our shorelines.
It is imperative that resources are provided through all available
options to enhance the shorelines of the Great Lakes and to protect our
homes and our communities.

[[Page H9994]]

I understand the ranking member's position on this particular package
of bills and Senate activity, or maybe lack thereof on this. Yet, I do
have a responsibility to not only highlight this issue but to advocate
for those who are in desperate need and in desperate situations.
That is one of the reasons I will be supporting this package. I ask
for consideration of my colleagues to help adopt this amendment.
Whether it is going together as a package or whether it gets dealt
with separately in the Senate, I know that this is something that we
need to look at as a legislative body, and we need to act now.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Hawaii?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, for our majority colleagues, I deeply appreciate
my colleague's comments in support of his amendment and his
appreciation and understanding of the communities that he represents,
in terms of the impacts of climate change and other man-made causes not
only on our oceans, because we tend to focus on our oceans, but on our
lakes, to include our Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes are currently experiencing nearly record high water
levels, causing widespread erosion of beaches and property and costing
people their lives. In fact, there have been over 50 percent more
deaths in the Great Lakes in 2019 because of these dangerous conditions
compared to 2018.
These high lake levels are forecast to continue for 2020 and, in all
likelihood, beyond. Just this month, 12 Michigan State lawmakers asked
Governor Whitmer to declare a state of emergency for the Lake Michigan
shoreline because of water levels.
Resilient, living shorelines are one of the best options for the
Great Lakes communities dealing with the impacts of high lake levels,
as they are for other communities in the body of this bill.
Our majority does support my colleague's amendment to be sure that
this money does find its way to where it is most needed. I support this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman from Hawaii and
his acknowledgment of what is going on in the Great Lakes.
In fact, it was my own State representative who led that letter of
State legislators requesting Governor Whitmer to declare this emergency
declaration so that the Federal Government can look at that.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate that support, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Katko

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 116-330.
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 91, after line 14, insert the following:
(7) harmful algal bloom development research;

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 748, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Katko) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 729, which I am proud to
offer with my colleagues from New York, Representatives Morelle,
Brindisi, and Stefanik.
This amendment would explicitly authorize the U.S. Geological Survey
to conduct research on harmful algal bloom, or HAB, development within
the Great Lakes Basin system. This research would help to address
significant risks that algal blooms pose to freshwater ecosystems,
including the production of toxins that endanger humans and animal
life.
These hazards are all too familiar to the community that I represent
in central New York, which has faced a rising number of outbreaks in
recent years. In these instances, outbreaks have jeopardized the
availability of clean drinking water for my constituents and directly
impacted the health of our lakefront communities.
Unfortunately, this issue extends beyond my district and even further
beyond the Great Lakes. These algal blooms have been recorded in all 50
States, necessitating increased Federal support for research and
mitigation efforts nationwide.
Research conducted in the Great Lakes under this amendment would help
to stem the increasing spread of this toxic threat and provide peace of
mind to at-risk communities.
Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Hawaii?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my colleague's efforts
on this particular amendment, which, as he points out, is a truly
bipartisan amendment joined in by Members from the New York delegation
on a bipartisan basis. I think this illustrates a couple of different
things.
First of all, this bill and these amendments need not be partisan. In
fact, they offer one of the best avenues forward for true
bipartisanship as we confront the crisis of climate change.
Second, they illustrate that when we talk about our marine resources
and climate change, and in this bill, we focus on our oceans and tend
to think that our coastal States are those that are affected. Clearly,
it is not only our coastal States that are affected.
Many States throughout our country are directly affected by the
impacts of climate change, including New York State, in conjunction
with the Great Lakes. So this is an amendment that we can support.
Every year, we seem to hear about another toxic algal bloom in the
Great Lakes closing beaches or fisheries.
It is important that the fishery research reauthorization in this
bill include researching the impacts of harmful algal blooms because
there is a lot that is unknown about the causes of these toxic blooms
and the long-term effects in fish populations.
When we speak of fish populations in the Great Lakes, we speak not
only of the benefits of the fish populations through our natural
ecosystems in the Great Lakes and not only of recreational fisheries,
but we speak in the range of some 75,000 jobs that can be directly
attributed to the health of our fisheries in our Great Lakes. So I am
pleased to urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Hawaii. I urge
adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Katko

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 116-330.
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 49, after line 24, insert the following:
(G) Projects to assess the impact on coastal resiliency of
water level regulating practices on the Great Lakes.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 748, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Katko) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H9995]]

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 729, the
Coastal and Great Lakes Communities Enhancement Act. This amendment
would extend the eligibility for grant funding under H.R. 729 to
projects that assess the impact of Great Lakes water level management
practices on coastal resiliency.
My constituents on Lake Ontario's southern shore have faced record
high and oftentimes catastrophic water levels in 2 of the last 3 years.
These rising levels have resulted in catastrophic flood damage and
coastal erosion, threatening the physical well-being of our communities
and posing an existential threat to the local economy.
As water levels continue to rise across the Great Lakes, it is
important that we thoroughly evaluate all the factors that contribute
to the health of our coastal communities, including the water level
management procedures that are supposed to mitigate those threats to
our coasts.
My amendment will provide necessary support to projects that include
a thorough evaluation of these procedures as a part of the broader
effort to improve coastal resiliency across the Great Lakes.
I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Hawaii?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, again, this is a very positive, bipartisan
amendment by the Members from New York and indicates that we can, in
fact, proceed in a bipartisan way on these critical issues.
As already noted earlier in my remarks, the Great Lakes have
experienced record or near-record high levels of water this year and
are projected to continue to have high levels next year and well
beyond.
Many coastal communities and property owners in the Great Lakes are
suffering from accelerated land loss and erosion. This amendment
rightfully ensures that water level regulating practices can be a part
of coastal resilience planning.
I only regret that when it comes to our world's oceans, we don't have
the luxury of regulating sea levels in accordance with water level
regulating practices.
We support this amendment and the intent of this amendment, but I
must indicate a caution for the Record, and that is that if this
amendment leads to the uncontrolled, indiscriminate construction of
dams throughout our country, we need to be careful because dams are
double-edged swords. They can be a tremendous boon to water regulating
practices and electricity, energy, sports and fishing, and many other
concerns, but they can have unintended environmental consequences.
I would simply caution that as we go forward with the implementation
of this amendment, I hope that we pay very close attention to the sound
science behind water level regulating practices.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, but I will
note that my colleague from Hawaii is right in that this needs to be
properly administered if it is, in fact, made into law.
One of the problems we have in the Great Lakes in general is the high
water levels. What we have on Lake Ontario is something called the
International Joint Commission, which I would argue is not properly
administering the water levels and is contributing greatly to the
problem.
This amendment is meant, in part, to address that and to have more
uniformity with respect to the application of water levels and
considering more the impact on the coastal shorelines from those
regulations.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Crist

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 116-330.
Mr. CRIST. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 48, lines 19-20, insert ``harmful algal blooms,''
after ``ocean acidification,''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 748, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Crist) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CRIST. Mr. Chair, my amendment today is simple. It clarifies that
projects to address harmful algal blooms are eligible for priority
funding under the climate change adaptation, preparedness, and response
program created by the underlying bill.

{time} 1615

Last year, the State of Florida was ravaged by simultaneous outbreaks
of red tide and blue-green algae. Floridians across the State were
forced to endure threats to their health. Dead fish, dolphins, and
Florida's iconic manatees washed up on our beaches in droves, and an
awful and inescapable stench drifted inland for miles.
In Florida, our waterways and natural resources are our livelihoods,
but these harmful algae blooms threaten that. According to a damage
assessment from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, businesses in
the 12 most impacted counties lost over $130 million in 4 short months,
and at least 300 hardworking Floridians lost their jobs as a direct
result of these outbreaks.
This is not just a seasonal nuisance. These outbreaks are a threat to
Florida's environment and to our very way of life. As our State still
struggles to recover from last year's disaster, another red tide
outbreak is happening right now.
The reality is that these outbreaks will only get worse as our
climate changes and our oceans warm. It is imperative that any program
to help prepare our communities for the impacts of climate change also
includes initiatives to address harmful algae blooms such as red tides.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the bipartisan sponsors of my
amendment: the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney); the gentlewoman
from Oregon, Chairwoman Bonamici; the gentlewoman from Ohio, Chairwoman
Kaptur; and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). I would also
like to thank the Rules Committee for making my amendment in order.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment
as well as the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this is, once again, where we have
the same situation that the issue and the problem of which the
gentleman from Florida speaks is real and it is there. The concept is
it is already also being addressed. These are the kinds of programs
that already exist to do exactly what the gentleman wishes to do.
Nonetheless, this amendment would authorize a duplicative program
that would cost $114 million if it were actually implemented. But just
because we pass the amendment doesn't mean the money is there to
implement the program.
So much of the opposition and so many of the complaints that we have
been hearing are that there is not enough money appropriated to do it.
The $114 million doesn't exist until there is an appropriation to
actually go about that concept.
Here is where the problem lies for all of these amendments that we
are going to be hearing for this entire process. The bill is the
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act, passed in
1998, which already provides the legal authority and the funding
level--not necessarily the appropriation but the legal, authorized
funding level--for algae bloom prevention and control.
In addition--in addition to these activities--and they are being
conducted by NOAA, USGS, NASA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and EPA--it
is the

[[Page H9996]]

concept we have been saying all along, this entire concept of this
package that we are bringing in here is stuff that is trying to
highlight another issue and another problem which may be, in this case,
a legitimate issue and problem, but fails to realize it is already
covered.
Mr. Chairman, you don't need a duplicative program to do what we are
already doing. If you want more money for it, that is another issue,
and that doesn't take place in these authorizations. That takes place
in appropriations. But we are already doing it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.

Amendment Number 14 Offered by Mr. Panetta

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed House Report 116-330.
Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 92, after line 23, insert the following:
(3) Collaborations and partnerships between institutions of
higher education and Federal agencies help ensure digital
data focused on coastal management issues are communicated
effectively between such entities.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 748, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Panetta) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 729,
the Coastal and Great Lakes Communities Enhancement Act.
As we have heard today, this bill helps communities like mine on the
central coast of California prepare for and respond to climate change,
and it does this with scientific data to address coastal and ocean
management.
More importantly, this bill establishes the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Digital Coast program, a web-based
collection of tools, training resources, and data that informs coastal
managers on their climate-related decisions.
Now, my amendment will expand that data set, and it will do that by
encouraging collaborations and partnerships between higher educational
institutions and Federal agencies.
Now, in my district, there are coastal colleges and universities that
are pursuing cutting-edge research focused on coastal resilience. At
the same time, there are Federal agencies like NOAA that are doing
innovative work on this very same topic.
My amendment will ensure that there is communication, coordination,
and collaboration between academic scholars and the policymakers when
it comes to digital data focused on coastal management issues. This
will not only improve the relevance and applicability of our Nation's
efforts to protect coastal communities, but it will help our Nation
gather the evidence it needs and continue being the leader it needs to
be when it comes to mitigation and adaptation in dealing with climate
change.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition,
although, in all fairness, I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this adds a finding to it. It
doesn't have any cost. This is not a duplicative program because it is
a finding, so I support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BUDD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Ms. Mucarsel-Powell

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23
printed in House Report 116-330.
Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 17, line 6, insert ``corals,'' after ``submerged
aquatic plants,''.
Page 17, line 18, insert ``corals,'' after ``submerged
aquatic vegetation,''

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 748, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Mucarsel-Powell) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment,
which would ensure that corals are included in projects eligible for
grants provided for by section 102 of the underlying bill, the Living
Shorelines grant program.
Living shorelines are essential for protecting our coastlines from
rising sea levels and stronger wave action from intensifying storms.
My district in south Florida benefits greatly from many elements of
living shorelines. Mangroves absorb the power of strong waves, protect
our coasts from erosion, and store carbon. Our beautiful Everglades
provide tremendous flood protection, clean our water, and provide
habitats for so many types of wildlife.
Another crucial tool in our natural toolbox is coral reefs, and we
must ensure that projects to protect and restore our reefs are eligible
for grants.
My district is home to the third largest barrier reef in the world
and the only barrier reef in the continental United States. Healthy
corals dissipate the force of waves and protect coastlines from damage
and erosion. In fact, according to NOAA, healthy coral reefs absorb 97
percent of a wave's energy, providing significant shoreline protection.
Unlike concrete and stone seawalls and breakwaters, coral reefs have
a tremendous amount of biodiversity that is unparalleled under the
surface. They are the rain forest of the ocean. They are essential for
our tourism industry and for our fishing industry, both recreational
and commercial.
Our coral reefs are suffering right now under the stressors of
today's environment and human activity. We need to take steps wherever
we can to protect and restore our reefs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of my amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, again, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, we, once again, are in the same
situation. This is not a bad idea, and it is not a bad concept. In
fact, it is such a good concept, we are already doing it.
So, if I quote NOAA in their testimony in our committee, the agency
currently provides financial and technical assistance to coastal
communities for the use of living shorelines through existing programs.
The program already has $300 million that is going in there, and it is
going through those areas, including the Interior, NOAA, Fish and
Wildlife, EPA, Science Foundation, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the Department of Agriculture.
All of those are providing funds for this very thing, which means it
is happening. You don't need to add this language to have it happen,
Mr. Chairman, because it already is happening.
By adding the language, I guess, well, you get to add another line in
the code, and you can say you passed something. But the bottom line is
it still is an unnecessary amendment to an unnecessary bill because the
authority and the authorization is already there.
The only thing that might not be there is, once again, you don't
think it

[[Page H9997]]

is spending enough money, in which case that is an appropriations
issue, not an authorization issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concern of my
fellow colleague from the other side, but you know the technicalities
that we have to deal with when dealing with bureaucratic agencies and
governments. So we just need to make sure that we do not exclude such a
crucial part of what we are talking about, which is protection for our
shorelines.
I just want to mention one more thing, that the annual benefits of
coral reefs, including a flood protection barrier for more than 18,000
coastal citizens, actually provide $1.8 billion worth of coastal
infrastructure in the United States in terms of benefits. So, whatever
we are going to spend in providing grants to protect our coral reefs,
we are going to receive back in benefits.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Mucarsel-Powell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BUDD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mrs. Luria

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26
printed House Report 116-330.
Mrs. LURIA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, line 24, strike ``and''.
Page 9, line 18, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 9, line 19, insert ``(E) the potential of the project
to support resiliency at a military installation or community
infrastructure supportive of a military installation (as such
terms are defined in section 2391 of title 10, United States
Code).''

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 748, the gentlewoman
from Virginia (Mrs. Luria) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.
Mrs. LURIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 729,
the Coastal and Great Lakes Communities Enhancement Act.
My amendment directs NOAA to consider the potential of proposed
living shoreline projects to enhance the resiliency of military
installations and the communities that surround them.
Earlier this year, the Department of Defense found that well over
half of the highest priority military installations are or will be at
risk of recurrent flooding. The report found that greater Hampton Roads
is one of the areas ``most vulnerable to flooding'' in the entire
United States.
Hampton Roads is home to the largest Navy base in the world and
installations from every branch of the service. When it floods in
coastal Virginia, it is both a local nuisance as well as a threat to
our national security.
Coastal Virginians are stepping up to meet this challenge. The cities
of Norfolk and Virginia Beach have proposed almost $1.5 billion in
coastal resiliency infrastructure, but Hampton Roads and other coastal
localities with military presence cannot bear the cost of sea level
rise, severe storms, and recurrent flooding alone.
My amendment will strengthen H.R. 729 by ensuring that NOAA takes
into account the crucial role resiliency projects can play in
bolstering our national security and our local communities.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the
underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I would actually ask to claim the
time in opposition, though, once again, I am not really opposed to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those elements
which, once again, the gentlewoman raises an issue that I think is
right, it is good, and it is appropriate; and the idea that we should
make sure these considerations take effect is an appropriate thing.
The concept, once again, but the problem is there is nothing that
prohibits that from being done, and, indeed, it is being done even as
we speak, but you want to reemphasize it.
Once again, we should be taking military consideration into
everything we are doing, not just this particular amendment. But it is
the right concept there. It is why I am not really opposed to this. It
is the right thing to do.
Actually, it is such a right thing to do, we should have been
spending our time doing the NDAA, which is much more successful and
much more important to the military. That should have been passed
months ago. That is how important this particular topic is.
I am not really opposed to it. It is, once again, redundant, and we
are already doing that. There is nothing that stops us from doing that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1630

Mrs. LURIA. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hawaii
(Mr. Case).
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I applaud the sponsor of this amendment, my
colleague from the beautiful and critical Virginia coast.
Everything she said in her remarks could easily have applied to many,
many of our military installations across the country.
Of course, Hampton Roads is critical to our Nation's defense, and so
is Joint Base Pearl Harbor, the home of our Air Force and our Navy in
the Indo-Pacific, as is Marine Corps Base Kaneohe, the home of our
marines in the Indo-Pacific.
My colleague, as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, knows
full well that our military has actually taken the lead in assessing
the realistic consequences of climate change on our military
installations across the country. They deserve credit for that. They
also need help with that. My colleagues' amendment would provide them
that help and will create the partnership that we need to guarantee the
continued security and operation of our Nation's key military
installations and the family communities that depend on them.
Mrs. LURIA. Mr. Chair, coastal resiliency projects, such as the
Living Shoreline Program, can strengthen our military and the local
communities that support them. My amendment will improve H.R. 729 by
ensuring that NOAA considers the national security benefits of these
projects.
Let me be clear: A vote against this amendment is a vote to turn our
backs on our servicemembers and military families, as well as disregard
the future of military readiness in our coastal communities.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment in
the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, let's just say this: In concept once
again, regardless of how one votes on this amendment, the issue is
still significant. The issue is still being covered. The issue is
already being done. There is a redundancy in some elements to it, but
it is a redundancy for a good cause.
Mr. Chair, I am not going to vote against it, but, once again, we are
doing it. We are doing it already, that is what we are doing with the
entire package that we are debating. We are doing it already.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BUDD. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Louisiana

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29
printed House Report 116-330.

[[Page H9998]]

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:

TITLE V--STREAMLINING ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS

SEC. 501. ADDRESSING PERMITS FOR TAKING OF MARINE MAMMALS.

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) is amended as follows:
(1) In clause (i)--
(A) by striking ``citizens of the United States'' and
inserting ``persons'';
(B) by striking ``within a specific geographic region'';
(C) by striking ``of small numbers'';
(D) by striking ``such citizens'' and inserting ``such
persons''; and
(E) by striking ``within that region''.
(2) In clause (ii)--
(A) in subclause (I), by striking ``, and other means of
effecting the least practicable impact on such species or
stock and its habitat'';
(B) in subclause (III), by striking ``requirements
pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking by
harassment, including'' and inserting ``efficient and
practical requirements pertaining to the monitoring of such
taking by harassment while the activity is being conducted
and the reporting of such taking, including, as the Secretary
determines necessary,''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``Any condition imposed pursuant to subclause (I), (II), or
(III) may not result in more than a minor change to the
specified activity and may not alter the basic design,
location, scope, duration, or timing of the specified
activity.''.
(3) In clause (iii), by striking ``receiving an application
under this subparagraph'' and inserting ``an application is
accepted or required to be considered complete under
subclause (I)(aa), (II)(aa), or (IV) of clause (viii), as
applicable,''.
(4) In clause (vi), by striking ``a determination of `least
practicable adverse impact on such species or stock' under
clause (i)(I)'' and inserting ``conditions imposed under
subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (ii)''.
(5) By adding at the end the following:
``(viii)(I) The Secretary shall--
``(aa) accept as complete a written request for
authorization under this subparagraph for incidental taking
described in clause (i), by not later than 45 days after the
date of submission of the request; or
``(bb) provide to the requester, by not later than 15 days
after the date of submission of the request, a written notice
describing any additional information required to complete
the request.
``(II) If the Secretary provides notice under subclause
(I)(bb), the Secretary shall, by not later than 30 days after
the date of submission of the additional information
described in the notice--
``(aa) accept the written request for authorization under
this subparagraph for incidental taking described in clause
(i); or
``(bb) deny the request and provide the requester a written
explanation of the reasons for the denial.
``(III) The Secretary may not make a second request for
information, request that the requester withdraw and resubmit
the request, or otherwise delay a decision on the request.
``(IV) If the Secretary fails to respond to a request for
authorization under this subparagraph in the manner provided
in subclause (I) or (II), the request shall be considered to
be complete.
``(ix)(I) At least 90 days before the expiration of any
authorization issued under this subparagraph, the holder of
such authorization may apply for a one-year extension of such
authorization. The Secretary shall grant such extension
within 14 days after the date of such request on the same
terms and without further review if there has been no
substantial change in the activity carried out under such
authorization nor in the status of the marine mammal species
or stock, as applicable, as reported in the final annual
stock assessment reports for such species or stock.
``(II) In subclause (I) the term `substantial change' means
a change that prevents the Secretary from making the required
findings to issue an authorization under clause (i) with
respect to such species or stock.
``(III) The Secretary shall notify the applicant of such
substantial changes with specificity and in writing within 14
days after the applicant's submittal of the extension
request.
``(x) If the Secretary fails to make the required findings
and, as appropriate, issue the authorization within 120 days
after the application is accepted or required to be
considered complete under subclause (I)(aa), (II)(aa), or
(III) of clause (viii), as applicable, the authorization is
deemed to have been issued on the terms stated in the
application and without further process or restrictions under
this Act.''.

SEC. 502. REMOVING DUPLICATIONS.

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)), as amended, is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(xi) Any taking of a marine mammal in compliance with an
authorization under this subparagraph is exempt from the
prohibition on taking in section 9 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1538). Any Federal agency authorizing,
funding, or carrying out an action that results in such
taking, and any agency action authorizing such taking, is
exempt from the requirement to consult regarding potential
impacts to marine mammal species or designated critical
habitat under section 7(a)(2) of such Act (16 U.S.C.
1536(a)(2)).''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 748, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer this amendment
to the underlying legislation, H.R. 729, the Coastal and Great Lakes
Communities Enhancement Act.
My amendment seeks to provide critical reforms to duplicative,
burdensome, and outdated policies that hamper energy exploration and
critical coastal restoration. To be clear, coastal restoration is vital
to deterring ecosystem degradation and fueling economic sustainability
for communities who call this southernmost part of Louisiana home.
The loss of our coastal areas presents an increased threat to safety
within residential communities, and it negatively impacts business
investments due to the difficulty in obtaining insurance.
Since the 1930s, Louisiana has suffered nearly 1,900 square miles of
land loss, and it is anticipated to lose an additional 4,000-plus,
unless Congress acts to loosen the regulations that have delayed
critical projects that bolster vulnerable habitats and communities.
Take my home State of Louisiana, for example, which has greatly
suffered from overreaching government regulation.
In March of 2017, the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana
announced the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion Project was going to be
delayed an additional 2 years due to permitting issues. This project is
considered the very cornerstone of the Coastal Protection and
Restoration Authority's 2017 Coastal Master Plan to mitigate flood
risks, restore and protect critical habitats, and ensure Congress is
not debating the issue 15 years after the region has been irreparably
lost and sunk into the Gulf of Mexico.
In addition, this amendment supports the national security interest
of the United States to ensure our men and women in uniform are able to
properly train for future missions.
In 2016, a Federal court of appeals revoked the U.S. Navy's
authorization to use sonar for critical national security training
because it conflicted with the rules and regulations under the MMPA. To
address these delays directly, my amendment simply makes commonsense
updates to the MMPA that help increase regulatory efficiency and remove
duplicative permitting requirements under Federal law.
For anyone to insinuate that this amendment will destroy protections
and result in wetland and species decline is simply untrue. In fact,
the reforms made by my amendment would further support coastal habitats
and species restoration, U.S. national security interest, and American
energy independence.
Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support my amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, this amendment is not a coastal resilience
amendment. This amendment has nothing to do with the underlying bill;
in fact, it was a miracle that it was ruled germane. This amendment
instead is simply an unneeded handout to oil and gas companies that
takes us in exactly the wrong direction, not only on climate change,
but on the very survival of our oceans.
We all know, and I remind everybody, that this language is the exact
language that in past Congresses was included in the other side's ocean
drilling package that would have paved the way for faster permitting of
seismic testing and ocean drilling.
Why? Because our oceans marine mammals get in the way of that.
Congress first enacted the Marine Mammal Protection Act over 40 years

[[Page H9999]]

ago to protect all marine mammals in response to declines caused by
human activities, and it has worked successfully for almost all of
those years. The Marine Mammal Protection Act ensures that activities
that may result in incidental harm or take of marine mammals are
thoroughly reviewed, rather than permitted through the expedited and
inadequate process proposed by this bill.
Activities such as seismic air gun testing used for oil and gas
exploration, offshore drilling, sonar, and geophysical surveys can all
affect marine mammals. And while I sometimes hear the other side
falsely claim that these activities have not killed any marine mammals,
the best available science for decades has demonstrated that, in fact,
there are significant long-term negative impacts on several marine
mammal species that do, in fact, cause their death.
This amendment would undermine critical protections under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act by striking the conditions required for permitted
activities. It would allow for unmitigated incidental harm, that is
without the current safeguards that would allow for the, ``least
practicable impact on such species or stocks,'' among other things. Is
it too much to ask that we require the least practicable impact on such
species or stock?
It would further limit mitigation for any incidental losses and
requirements for monitoring. These legislative changes would allow
industry to continue their activities with oversight of their impacts
only if it was, ``efficient and practical.'' Efficient and practical?
Let's just give them carte blanche to gut this bill, literally and
figuratively.
Lastly, this amendment would waive requirements for take and
consultation under the Endangered Species Act, another decades-long
cornerstone of our protection of our natural species for any threatened
or endangered marine mammals. The ESA has been critical to the recovery
of several populations of marine mammals and is needed to protect other
species from extinction.
Let's keep the focus where we can focus on a bipartisan solution to
climate change as it affects our oceans, our coastlines and our lakes.
Let's keep the focus on coastal resilience, on assisting communities,
on fostering Federal-State organization partnerships, on living in the
present and the future and not in the past on the effects of climate
change.

Let's keep that focus there, rather than use this bill, this
amendment, to provide a desired handout to an industry that does not or
has not demonstrated a true understanding of its impacts on our oceans,
an industry that does need to continue to be regulated through strong
positive time-tested legislation, such as the Marine Mammal Protection
Act.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I really appreciate the
gentleman's zeal, but I want him to know the focus is on the right
thing. We are focused here on solving problems.
This is not the first time this legislation has been misunderstood or
even mischaracterized. As I stated previously, those who say that this
amendment would weaken the effectiveness of certain elements of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act resulting in industries involved with
offshore areas having unfettered access to conduct activities that are
detrimental to marine life is just absolutely not the case.
This amendment would roll back burdensome regulations on companies
seeking to do business in offshore areas, but it does it in a very safe
and responsible way. The current process is just too burdensome; it is
too time-consuming.
Though the MMPA includes statutory deadlines for Federal agencies
processing Incidental Harassment Authorization applications, industries
operating in offshore areas cite delays that lasts hundreds of days,
and that is just simply not acceptable.
Previously, the Government Accountability Office reported on this
exact issue. The GAO discovered that the National Marine Fishery
Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to meet basic tasks,
which included accurately recording application dates and timelines. In
addition, the GAO found that some IHA applications sat within these
agencies for years. In addition, ESA's list of species recovery efforts
have also been hampered or delayed by the current IHA process.
During a previous Water, Power and Ocean Subcommittee hearing on
marine mammal predation of ESA-listed salmon species in the Pacific
Northwest, the then-regional director of the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife testified that, ``the conditions associated with the
current requirements of Section 120 of the MMPA are challenging and
expensive to implement, limited in scope and legal challenges have
slowed the progress in reducing impacts to salmon.'' That is just one
species, as an example, but it illustrates the need for this amendment
to be adopted to H.R. 721.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close after the gentleman
closes, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), our distinguished
ranking member.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of UTAH. Mr. Chair, unlike the other amendments that we
have had, this is the only one that is added here that actually has had
a hearing. It has had a markup, it has gone through regular order, and
it is the only one that is not doing something that is duplicative.
This is a problem that does exist and trying to make it to actually
happen. Everything else we have talked about is stuff that is nice, but
it is duplicative. It doesn't actually do anything. This is the only
one that does something, and it does something in a positive way.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, we understand that for some industries
interested in the exploitation of our oceans that the Marine Mammal
Protection Act is inconvenient. We understand that we ask for
limitations on the activities of those industries, which would
otherwise not demonstrate any discernible concern for our oceans. And
we reject the basic premise that that regulation is not necessary for
our oceans.
Our marine mammals deserve our protection, and we have protected
them, and we have worked through the give-and-take of legitimate
activities in the oceans where they can and should be balanced with
impacts on our marine mammals.
So, again, I respectfully submit that this particular proposal, which
has been--as the ranking member points out--thoroughly vetted in prior
Congresses, although not brought to the floor, can in fact yield a
good, solid debate. But we simply reject the position taken.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1645

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
will be postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 116-330 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendments en bloc by Mr. Case of Hawaii.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Brown of Maryland.
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Crist of Florida.
Amendment No. 14 by Mr. Panetta of California.
Amendment No. 23 by Ms. Mucarsel-Powell of Florida.
Amendment No. 26 by Mrs. Luria of Virginia.
Amendment No. 29 by Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

[[Page H10000]]

The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Case of Hawaii

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Case) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendments en bloc.
The Clerk redesignated the amendments en bloc.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 249,
noes 166, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 660]

AYES--249

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gottheimer
Graves (LA)
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waltz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young

NOES--166

Abraham
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
McAdams
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Miller
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose, John W.
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Spano
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--21

Aderholt
Clarke (NY)
Gabbard
Gooden
Hunter
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (PA)
Lawrence
Lieu, Ted
Meuser
Moore
Perry
Radewagen
Rooney (FL)
Rouzer
San Nicolas
Serrano
Smucker
Thompson (PA)
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1713

Messrs. WALBERG and GROTHMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the en bloc amendments were agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Chair, I was delayed in arriving to votes
due to a personal matter. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 657 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 660.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Brown of Maryland

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Brown) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235,
noes 179, not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 661]

AYES--235

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gottheimer
Graves (LA)
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Harris
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond

[[Page H10001]]

Rose (NY)
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stefanik
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waltz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Yarmuth

NOES--179

Abraham
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Cox (CA)
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (MS)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McAdams
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Peterson
Porter
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Spano
Stauber
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--22

Aderholt
Clarke (NY)
Gabbard
Gooden
Hunter
Johnson (GA)
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (PA)
Lawson (FL)
Lieu, Ted
Meuser
Perry
Radewagen
Rooney (FL)
Rouda
Rush
San Nicolas
Serrano
Smucker
Thompson (PA)
Wasserman Schultz

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1718

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall No. 661.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 661.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Crist

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Crist) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 662]

AYES--297

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amodei
Axne
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Dunn
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez (TX)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gottheimer
Graves (LA)
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Harris
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (LA)
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (TX)
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
LaHood
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCaul
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Riggleman
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Spano
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stevens
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waltz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Zeldin

NOES--121

Abraham
Allen
Amash
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Banks
Barr
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
DesJarlais
Duncan
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Hartzler
Hice (GA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hudson
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Miller
Mooney (WV)
Murphy (NC)
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Pence
Ratcliffe
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Roe, David P.
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Stewart
Taylor
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Walker
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young

NOT VOTING--18

Aderholt
Gabbard
Gooden
Hunter
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (PA)
Lieu, Ted
Meuser
Perry
Radewagen
Rodgers (WA)
Rooney (FL)
San Nicolas
Serrano
Smucker
Thompson (PA)
Wasserman Schultz

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

[[Page H10002]]

{time} 1722

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, for the record, on the Crist amendment No. 12,
rollcall No. 662 I intended to vote ``nay.'' I mistakenly voted
``yea.''

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Panetta

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Panetta) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 663]

AYES--389

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Axne
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cloud
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davidson (OH)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Dunn
Emmer
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Estes
Evans
Ferguson
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx (NC)
Frankel
Fudge
Fulcher
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gianforte
Gibbs
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez (TX)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Haaland
Hagedorn
Harder (CA)
Hartzler
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (LA)
Higgins (NY)
Hill (AR)
Himes
Holding
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (TX)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamb
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lesko
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marshall
Mast
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McNerney
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (NC)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Norcross
Norton
Nunes
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Olson
Omar
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose (NY)
Rose, John W.
Rouda
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scalise
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sherrill
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Spano
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stevens
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Waters
Watkins
Watson Coleman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wexton
Wild
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOES--29

Abraham
Allen
Amash
Babin
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Brady
Buck
Burgess
Carter (TX)
Cline
Duncan
Flores
Gaetz
Gohmert
Gosar
Graves (GA)
Griffith
Harris
Hice (GA)
King (IA)
Long
Loudermilk
Massie
Norman
Roy
Smith (MO)
Weber (TX)
Wright

NOT VOTING--18

Aderholt
Gabbard
Gooden
Hunter
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (PA)
Lieu, Ted
Meuser
Perry
Radewagen
Rooney (FL)
San Nicolas
Serrano
Shalala
Smucker
Thompson (PA)
Wasserman Schultz

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1727

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Ms. Mucarsel-Powell

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Mucarsel-Powell) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 664]

AYES--285

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Bacon
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Dunn
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gaetz
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gottheimer
Granger
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Holding
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (TX)
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McBath
McCaul
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McNerney

[[Page H10003]]

Meeks
Meng
Mitchell
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (NC)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (KY)
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Spano
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Yarmuth
Yoho

NOES--134

Abraham
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Cox (CA)
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
DesJarlais
Duncan
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gosar
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hudson
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
McAdams
McCarthy
McClintock
McKinley
Meadows
Miller
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Peterson
Ratcliffe
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rose, John W.
Roy
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--17

Aderholt
Gabbard
Gooden
Hunter
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (PA)
Lieu, Ted
Meuser
Perry
Radewagen
Rooney (FL)
San Nicolas
Serrano
Smucker
Thompson (PA)
Wasserman Schultz

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1730

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mrs. Luria

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia
(Mrs. Luria) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 665]

AYES--368

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Axne
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crenshaw
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Dunn
Emmer
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx (NC)
Frankel
Fudge
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gianforte
Gibbs
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez (TX)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Guest
Guthrie
Haaland
Hagedorn
Harder (CA)
Hartzler
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Hill (AR)
Himes
Holding
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (TX)
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
LaMalfa
Lamb
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lesko
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marshall
Mast
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (NC)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Norcross
Norton
Nunes
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (KY)
Rose (NY)
Rose, John W.
Rouda
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scalise
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Spano
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stevens
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waltz
Waters
Watkins
Watson Coleman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wexton
Wild
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Woodall
Yarmuth
Young
Zeldin

NOES--51

Abraham
Allen
Amash
Babin
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Buck
Burchett
Carter (GA)
Cline
Cloud
Collins (GA)
Comer
Crawford
Davidson (OH)
Duncan
Estes
Ferguson
Flores
Fulcher
Gohmert
Gosar
Graves (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Harris
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hudson
Jordan
King (IA)
LaHood
Long
Loudermilk
Massie
Meadows
Mooney (WV)
Norman
Olson
Rice (SC)
Rogers (AL)
Roy
Smith (MO)
Walker
Weber (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Wright
Yoho

NOT VOTING--17

Aderholt
Gabbard
Gooden
Hunter
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (PA)
Lieu, Ted
Meuser
Perry
Radewagen
Rooney (FL)
San Nicolas
Serrano
Smucker
Thompson (PA)
Wasserman Schultz

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1734

So the amendment was agreed to.

[[Page H10004]]

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Louisiana

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 666]

AYES--160

Abraham
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx (NC)
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Spano
Stauber
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thornberry
Tipton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOES--259

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amash
Axne
Bacon
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Graves (GA)
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Marshall
Mast
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCaul
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (NC)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norman
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stefanik
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Timmons
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waltz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--17

Aderholt
Gabbard
Gooden
Hunter
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (PA)
Lieu, Ted
Meuser
Perry
Radewagen
Rooney (FL)
San Nicolas
Serrano
Smucker
Thompson (PA)
Wasserman Schultz

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Payne) (during the vote). There is 1 minute
remaining.

{time} 1737

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Heck) having assumed the chair, Mr. Payne, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, and, pursuant to House Resolution 748, he
reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House
with sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 262,
nays 151, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 667]

YEAS--262

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gaetz
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Harris
Hastings
Hayes
Heck

[[Page H10005]]

Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steube
Stevens
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Yarmuth
Young
Zeldin

NAYS--151

Abraham
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Miller
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Spano
Steil
Stewart
Taylor
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Wagner
Walden
Walker
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho

NOT VOTING--17

Aderholt
Allen
Gabbard
Gooden
Hunter
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (PA)
Lieu, Ted
Meuser
Perry
Rooney (FL)
Roy
Serrano
Smucker
Thompson (PA)
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1747

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is
laid on the table.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the motion to lay on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

Motion to Reconsider

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Himes moves to reconsider the vote on passage of H.R.
729.

Motion to Table

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. McCollum moves to lay the motion to reconsider on the
table.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HARRIS. 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.

____________________