Debate is now open for this bill for 72 hours. - Begins (UTC): 2026-08-14T13:00:00Z - Ends (UTC): 2026-08-17T13:00:00Z Please keep discussion on-topic and substantive. After debate closes, voting will automatically begin.

Colleagues, as this debate begins, let’s be clear about what this bill does—and what it does not do. It does not override Oregon’s coastal regulations or promise spending without legislative approval. It creates a practical framework to help communities build resilient, affordable homes while keeping fishing families, year-round residents, and working waterfronts from being displaced. Flooding and erosion are already making housing more expensive and less secure. We can either plan responsibly now or pay more after the next disaster. This measure protects both people and the coastal economy they sustain.

I agree with Mr. Navarro that this bill is a framework, not a blank check. That distinction matters to the families who live and work along our coast. In Maine, I have seen that a flooded home can become a displaced family, and a poorly planned recovery can undermine the harbor that supports an entire community. This measure pairs legislative appropriation with technical assistance, coastal safeguards, and protections for year-round residents and working waterfront access. It does not choose between resilience and livelihoods; it recognizes that, for coastal communities, we cannot preserve one without protecting the other.

I agree with the speakers who have emphasized that this is a framework, not a blank check. That is an important safeguard, especially for legislators responsible for every dollar appropriated. But accountability also means recognizing the cost of doing nothing. In Mobile and across Alabama’s coastal communities, flooding and erosion threaten homes, family businesses, and the working waterfronts that support our economy. This bill directs assistance toward resilient construction, year-round residents, and fishing families while preserving existing coastal regulations. With legislative oversight and careful project review, I believe this is a practical investment in both readiness and housing stability.

Colleagues, I appreciate the point already made that this is a framework, not a blank check. That is precisely why it deserves careful support. A coastal community is not merely land exposed to water; it is a network of homes, boats, businesses, and inherited obligations. If we protect only property values, we may preserve the shoreline while losing the people who give it meaning. This bill requires appropriation, respects coastal regulations, and places year-round residents and working waterfronts within the same moral field of concern. We should act prudently now, rather than pay a higher price after displacement.

Colleagues, the point made repeatedly in this debate—that this is a framework, not a blank check—is exactly right. As an economist and a governor, I support helping coastal families remain in communities where housing costs and climate risks are both rising, but good intentions do not replace disciplined budgeting. Grants should prioritize year-round residents, fishing families, and projects that preserve working waterfront access, while requiring clear cost estimates, coastal compliance, and measurable resilience outcomes. The legislature must retain appropriation authority. With those safeguards, this bill is a practical investment in homes, jobs, and responsible public spending.

Jason, I’d frame this as supporting coastal communities and working families while challenging whether a new government grant program is the best mechanism. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intent behind this legislation. Protecting working waterfronts, fishing families, and year-round coastal residents is a legitimate concern. These communities are facing real pressure from rising insurance costs, flooding, erosion, and a housing market increasingly difficult for working families to navigate. But good intentions do not automatically make good policy. My concern is that this bill responds to an affordability problem by creating another government program, another competitive grant process, another layer of administration, and another dependency on future legislative appropriations. Before we create a new program, we should ask a basic question: What is making coastal housing so expensive in the first place? If permitting takes too long, zoning restricts reasonable development, infrastructure cannot support additional housing, insurance costs are exploding, or regulations make construction unnecessarily expensive, then government should address those underlying barriers. We should help communities build more resilient housing, but resilience should not become another word for bureaucracy. I also believe strongly that working waterfronts deserve protection. Commercial fishermen, tradespeople, small businesses, and families who have lived in these communities for generations should not be pushed out by rising costs. But the strongest protection we can give them is an economy where they can afford to stay—not simply another government program deciding which projects receive taxpayer subsidies. If we move forward, I would encourage amendments that require measurable outcomes, local matching investment, clear limits on administrative expenses, prioritization of year-round residents and working waterfront families, and regular reporting to this Legislature on how many actual housing units are created. Most importantly, every dollar appropriated should be tied to removing barriers and increasing housing supply—not growing government infrastructure. We can protect our coastline. We can protect working families. We can protect the fishing communities that are part of our heritage. But we should do it with fiscal discipline, local control, accountability, and policies that make housing easier to build rather than government more complicated to navigate. For those reasons, I cannot support this bill in its current form, but I would welcome the opportunity to improve it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Voting is now open for 72 hours. - Ends (UTC): 2026-08-20T13:12:00Z Members may vote Aye, Nay, or Present. Results are visible in real time.

This bill awaits the Governor's action. Deadline: 2026-08-23 14:05:00 (UTC).

Result: passed. Aye (seats): 59 Nay (seats): 41 Present (seats): 0 Total seats: 100

This bill has been enacted via no action (pocket pass) at the Governor review deadline.