[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

  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 297, 
noes 121, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [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

  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 389, 
noes 29, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [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

  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 285, 
noes 134, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [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

  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 368, 
noes 51, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [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

  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 160, 
noes 259, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [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.

                          ____________________