Ed Case

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this valuable legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 212) to amend the Native American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000, the Buy Indian Act, and the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to provide industry and economic development opportunities to Indian communities, as amended.

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 include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 212, the Indian Community Economic Enhancement Act, amends current laws to provide industry and economic development opportunities to Indian communities. Indian Tribes face many unique obstacles in their mission to bring industry and economic development to Indian Country. This includes geographic isolation, lack of infrastructure, and lack of sufficient collateral and capital. The end result is an increased cost of doing business in Indian Country, which stifles outside investment. S. 212 seeks to address these issues by amending three existing Federal laws, the Native American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000, the Buy Indian Act, and the Native American Programs Act of 1974. These laws have been supporting Native businesses and economic development for years. However, they need to be updated to reflect the 21st century economy, as well as the realities in Indian Country today. To that end, enactment of S. 212 will increase access to capital for Indian Tribes and businesses, increase opportunities for Indian business promotion, and create mechanisms and tools to address investments in Indian communities. At the request of the Appropriations Committee, we are making some small changes to the current bill to update the fiscal year authorization language for some of the programs. This means that the bill will have to go back to the Senate, where I hope and believe they will move swiftly to enact it, as amended, before the end of this Congress. I commend the sponsor of the bill, the chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Hoeven from North Dakota, for his work on this legislation. I also recognize our own colleague, Representative Norma Torres from California for her work on the bill and for carrying the House companion, H.R. 1937. I urge my colleagues to support S. 212, and I ask for its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, November 30, 2020. Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Grijalva: I write concerning S. 212, the Indian Community Economic Enhancement Act of 2019. This bill was primarily referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and additionally to the Committee on Education and Labor. As a result of Leadership and the Committee on Natural Resources having consulted with me concerning this bill generally, I agree to forgo formal consideration of the bill so the bill may proceed expeditiously to the House floor. The Committee on Education and Labor takes this action with our mutual understanding that by forgoing formal consideration of S. 212, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and we will be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward so we may address any remaining issues within our Rule X jurisdiction. I also request that you support my request to name members of the Committee on Education and Labor to any conference committee to consider such provisions. Finally, I would appreciate a response confirming this understanding and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the committee report for S. 212 and in the Congressional Record during floor consideration thereof. Sincerely, Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Chairman.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the comments of my colleague from Puerto Rico. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE

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 include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 914, the Coordinated Ocean Observations and Research Act, would reauthorize the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009, called IOOS for short. For over 10 years now, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, has implemented this data-driven national regional partnership to successfully improve safety, enhance the economy, and protect the environment. IOOS is a coordinated network of people and technology consisting of Federal partners and regional associations that generates and disseminates continuous data and models for our oceans and the Great Lakes. These data give us a crucial understanding of environmental variables, like temperature, salinity, currents, nutrient concentrations, contaminant levels, and more. This bill would also clarify the authority of NOAA in regards to post-storm assessments, which NOAA has been doing the work for since it was appropriated funds in 2016. The bill makes technical challenges to the COASTAL Act of 2012 so that NOAA can successfully collect the required data to perform post-storm assessments and then provide that information to FEMA. And finally, this legislation would codify establishment of the National Water Center as the primary facility for hydrologic decision support services. As we saw from the historic flooding events last year, it is critical that NOAA has these decision support tools. In the face of climate change, it is so important that our environmental planners and managers have the tools they need to ensure safety for the American people and the longevity of our coastal natural resources. The Coordinated Ocean Observations and Research Act will put us on that path. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I certainly do deeply appreciate the comments of my colleague from Puerto Rico, and she knows, as well as I do, as members of the Island Caucus--and we include in the Island Caucus the largest island of all, Alaska, Mr. Young's island--the deep importance of this system. It is a matter of life and death to us in many areas and many ways, and so we all fully endorse this bill from that perspective. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this invaluable legislation for our oceans and all of us, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE

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 include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy today to rise in support of S. 1342, the Great Lakes Environmental Sensitivity Index Act. I commend my colleagues, Senators Peters and Young and Representatives Kildee and Joyce, for their bipartisan, bicameral efforts on this legislation. The Great Lakes are the largest freshwater system by area in the world and are home to highly productive commercial and recreational fisheries, thriving coastal communities, and unique aquatic and terrestrial species. This legislation ensures that the Great Lakes are not left behind in environmental planning. The bill requires that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, update at least once every 7 years its environmental sensitivity index products for each coastal area of the Great Lakes. These environmental sensitivity indexes, or ESI maps, are crucial tools used in identifying sensitive coastal shorelines, biological resources, and human-use resources prior to a disaster like an oil spill. In emergencies, coastal managers and responders can then use these ESI maps to properly assess the situation, allocate and prioritize resources, and plan cleanups. The last time the Great Lakes environmental sensitivity indexes were updated was in the 1980s. As we all know, between the climate crisis and human development, our environment has changed dramatically across our country and world in that time. In the Great Lakes, for example, we are seeing record-setting water levels and harmful algal blooms. How these environmental factors would interact with a disaster like an oil spill is, unfortunately, largely guesswork with our outdated information. It is so important that we pass this much-needed, commonsense legislation so that the Great Lakes region is prepared in the event of an unthinkable oil spill or other natural disaster. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Great Lakes Environmental Sensitivity Index Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 306) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the site of the Kettle Creek Battlefield in Wilkes County, Georgia, and adjacent property, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 include extraneous materials on the measure under consideration.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 306, the Kettle Creek Battlefield Survey Act, introduced by our colleague, Representative Jody Hice. This bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a reconnaissance survey of the Kettle Creek Battlefield in Wilkes County, Georgia. On February 14, 1779, at the Battle of Kettle Creek, approximately 350 patriots defeated more than 800 British loyalists in a surprise attack. The battle marked the only significant victory in Georgia by forces opposed to British rule and impacted the course of the American Revolutionary War. In 1975, the battlefield was added to the National Register of Historic Places to protect the site's historic and archeological resources. This bill tasks the National Park Service with determining the best management options for these historic resources, and I would like to thank Representative Hice for his efforts on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate the support of my friend and colleague from Alaska, the dean of the House, on this bipartisan, bicameral measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I certainly regret to hear the words from my friend, the ranking member's mouth on this bill, because in scattershotting 9 or 10 cherry-picked arguments, he ignores the big picture. He ignores, again, the big picture that the NOAA Corps are doing serious work for our country, are commissioned officers, one of our seven commissioned officer corps, and are not recognized the same as the other six, to include the Public Health Service, which is a commissioned officer corps and is entitled to the same benefits as the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard. I think, in all honesty--and I don't think he means to do this--he does a great disservice to the people who are serving in the NOAA Corps by some of his statements, because these people are trying to do their best for our country. I am not sure that the Member has ever spent time on a NOAA ship in the high seas as I have, but if you do that, you know that there is nothing really to distinguish them from any of their fellow officers in any of the other services. It would take a lot of time to go through each of my colleague's 9 or 10 cherry-picked arguments. I want to make a couple of quick comments and then some big picture observations. First of all, if I am not mistaken, the GAO report that he refers to is dated 1996, a whole generation ago. That report itself was disputed by subsequent studies and, I submit, is really no longer relevant. He says, twice: Why should we greatly expand the unprecedented benefits that the NOAA Corps receives? There is a very simple answer to that: Because they don't get today what the other six do. All we are doing today in expanding is bringing them up to the same level as the other six corps. He says that the mission of NOAA is a minor mission, so why should we reward them--I suppose is what he is saying--with the same promotion benefits, the same educational benefits, the same retirement benefits, the same respect as the other six. I would say to him, first of all, because that mission is worthy of that treatment. And, number one, if he is referring to the GAO report from a generation ago, the NOAA Corps does so much more today. I think we would all agree that the mission that the NOAA Corps works on, which is the basic health and quality of our oceans, of our atmosphere, of our ability to predict the weather, of our ability to protect our shorelines, of our ability to protect and sustain our fisheries, is so much greater than it ever was. He complains that some of the members of the NOAA Corps spend time onshore. Is that any different from the Navy? I don't think the Navy has all of its officers out at sea all the time, and neither does the NOAA Corps. The Army doesn't have all of its officers overseas in battle zones. He says a number of times: This is a 55 percent increase in the size of the corps. Yes, it does authorize an increase in the size of the NOAA Corps from 320 to a maximum of 500--by the way, the last authorization, as already noted, was almost 20 years ago--but that increase is subject to two conditions: First of all, it can only be increased on the certification of need by the Secretary of Commerce; and it is subject to congressional oversight, both general oversight authority and, most importantly, funding. So there are lots of steps between 320 and 500, but this gives them the authority to move if it is needed. Frankly, I believe that we should move it up, but that is up to us to decide with the Secretary of Commerce and with the Congress. He says: Well, we are not building any new NOAA ships. Well, I think we should build a lot more new NOAA ships. I believe that NOAA's mission is going to be--I think that when we look back on today 25 years from now at the size of this effort for our Federal Government, we are going to say to ourselves: That was so insufficient given the challenge that we faced. There is a dire need for additional NOAA-related research, NOAA- related activities across this country, across this world. So the fact that we have not authorized and built a sufficient number of new NOAA ships for its mission is no reason to treat the NOAA Officer Corps differently from the other six services. My colleague rightly raises the issues NOAA has had of sexual assault within its ranks, as have other uniformed services, and, as he points out as well, this Congress responded with an act specific to the NOAA situation. This bill goes further and strengthens that act. So we are responding to the concern in Congress, as has NOAA itself. Finally, he seems to have some continuing issues with a staff member from NOAA assigned to the committee. It is not unusual, of course, for departments in the administration to second members for some work. We have had fellows do it all the time. But if that is an issue we have to look at, that is an issue we have to look at, but that is not an issue that should stand in the way of a constructive and fair adjustment of the benefits and position afforded to NOAA officers. I would conclude by going back to the fact that, if the gentleman's concerns are so widespread, if his concerns are so deep, then why do we have the principal military uniformed services associations of our country supporting this bill without qualification? I refer to the Military Officers Association of America. I also refer to The Military Coalition, 5.5 million members, consisting of--and I am not going to read all their names because I think it is about 30 here. I will just read maybe the first 10 or so--the Air Force Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Army Aviation Association of America, the Association of Military Surgeons, the Association of the United States Navy, the Blinded Veterans Association, the Coast Guard, the Public Health Service, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Gold Star Wives of America, the Iraq Afghanistan Veterans Association. It is very clear that military officers and their community view their NOAA colleagues and the corps as being treated substantially unfairly in the big picture and want them to be afforded, again, the same benefits, the same respect that is due the other six services. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where the Senate passed this bill, a Republican Senator's bill, by unanimous consent. That is why this House should pass this bill, as well, and send it to the President. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan, bicameral measure to treat the commissioned officers of one of our Nation's seven uniformed services, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps, with the same basic statutory recruitment, advancement, retention, and benefit structure, and with the same respect, as is accorded to commissioned officers of our other six armed services, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. The bill before us today is led by a Republican, Alaskan Senator Sullivan. It passed through the Senate committee and the Senate itself by unanimous consent. It is a virtual companion with improvements to H.R. 2406, which was introduced by me and both Democratic and Republican colleagues, and reported out of our Natural Resources Committee. If passed today, it will go straight to the President, whose Department of Commerce testified to our Natural Resources Committee: ``The Department believes this bill would improve NOAA's ability to administer the NOAA Corps. The Department is very supportive of the ability to retain veterans of the NOAA Corps and the unique skill sets they possess. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the transmittal of these views, from the standpoint of the administration's programs.'' The bill is also supported wholeheartedly by two of our Nation's foremost servicemember organizations, the 350,000-strong Military Officers Association of America, representing all military officers of all services, and the 5.5-million-strong Military Coalition, whose motto is, ``Proudly serving all seven uniformed services.'' In fact, but for the isolated objections of a few Members, which we may hear from shortly, which appear to arise from some combination of a fundamental misunderstanding or lack of appreciation for the mission of NOAA and its Uniformed Officer Corps, one could scarcely imagine a more broadly supported measure. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, celebrates its half-century anniversary this year as ``America's environmental intelligence agency.'' Never, during that half-century, has its mission been so important, and never has it been growing so fast. NOAA now operates oceanic observation and research throughout our world's oceans, measuring the health of our oceans, the health of our fisheries, and weather prediction. It operates atmospheric research and observation, weather prediction, and, again, national hazard warnings. It operates fisheries enforcement increasingly throughout our world, including in partnership with our friends and allies. It increases partnerships with foreign countries, projecting part of our soft power throughout this world. It does its vital work with a critical team, including the structured, uniformed Commissioned Officer Corps. The women and men of the NOAA Corps operate NOAA's highly specialized international fleet of research and survey ships and aircraft. They conduct international world-class oceanic and atmospheric research, including the famous Hurricane Hunter aviators who fly into, above, and around hurricanes to give NOAA's National Weather Service forecasters accurate data for their storm forecasts and warnings used by emergency managers as they make life and death decisions. Like the other uniformed services, Active Duty NOAA Corps officers spend most of their careers away from home, at sea, in the air, and in remote locations such as Antarctica, conducting this important work. Their work is frequently in increasingly hazardous conditions. However, the corps is often overlooked in the legislative process, resulting in a patchwork of statutory authorities, benefits, and service obligations. This bill will help the NOAA Corps improve recruitment, retention, and diversity to attract the best and the brightest commissioned officers and better align the NOAA Corps with the other uniformed services as they continue their service to NOAA and our Nation. The NOAA Corps Amendments Act is an important step to make sure that the NOAA Corps has the authority it needs to continue as an effective service for our country. The bill gives the NOAA Corps officers employment rights in line with other uniform services, authorizes education loan repayment programs for NOAA Corps officers, tuition support for prospective officers, and gives NOAA updated authority to manage the size and composition of the corps. In their letter supporting the NOAA Corps Amendments Act, the Military Officers Association of America, the Nation's leading voice for commissioned officers of all seven uniformed services, highlighted the importance of the NOAA Corps for national defense. They stated that, ``The unique scientific and operational expertise, flexibility, and deployment capability of the NOAA Corps continues to be a force multiplier for U.S. and ally air, land, and sea operation.'' This first reauthorization of the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps since 2002, under the House counterpart bill's co-introducer of the dean of the House, Mr. Young, further improves the diversity of the corps by authorizing financial aid for a student precommissioning education in exchange for service, which will prioritize underserved populations to undertake careers in NOAA and addresses sexual harassment issues by strengthening the corps' policies, including required reporting of potential offenses. Mr. Speaker, we may shortly hear objections that, as noted, represent a distinct minority in Congress and the uniformed services community. They recite three decades'-old arguments that we have long moved past. They recite various arguments that could just as easily be made for any other uniformed service. If we are going to go down that road, should we not make those arguments globally, not selectively and discriminatorily as to one of our seven services? They recite arguments that are simply inaccurate and, again, that seem to reflect a deep misunderstanding of NOAA's mission. Here is the bottom line for this bill: NOAA does exist. It has existed for 50 years. It has done its work with a committed officer corps for 50 years. It is not being abolished. That mission, that corps will continue. That mission is critical and its personnel must be recognized and improved. And NOAA officers are commissioned officers in our services and should be fully recognized as such, similar to all others. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan, bicameral, needed, and fair bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I express my appreciation to new colleague, Mr. Palazzo, for his support of this critical bill. Those of us that live in the oceans and on the coasts completely understand the value of NOAA, again, as a matter of life and death in many cases, and we understand that NOAA can only do its job with a motivated, high-expertise Corps. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the ranking member, for his passion on this matter. I think he is wrong, and I think the entire Senate thinks he is wrong, and I think the majority of this House thinks he is wrong. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but I think that the statement that this bill is wrong is not borne out by the facts; it is not borne out by the sentiment, again, of the broader community. If there is a problem with NOAA or any other commissioned officer corps, the way to solve that problem is not to kill the corps itself. The way to solve that problem is not to deprive it of the resources that it needs to fix its problem and to continue its mission. For me to accept the ranking member's argument would be for me to accept that, in fact, NOAA itself is not relevant, and I don't believe that. I believe NOAA is entirely relevant, and it needs to be staffed by people who are incentivized to be recruited, who are incentivized to stay and to want to do their job, and who are recognized as such. This is not about the military, per se. I would disagree with his characterization that the NOAA Corps does not perform a military function. It is certainly quasi-military in many ways, but that is not what this is about. This is about fairly recognizing one of our seven commissioned officer corps organizations in our country. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, I certainly endorse and agree with my colleague's comments on Mr. Lujan's service in the House. The House's loss is the Senate's gain. And I would also note that I personally enjoyed Mr. Lujan's personal testimony from an acequia before the committee. That is the way to do it, where you have a real sense of what the actions are that you are taking. I urge passage of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.