Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member Garamendi and all the staff who worked so hard on this, and, again, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. DeFazio, and Chairman Shuster for their help, leadership, and support on this. Explanation of Sec. 310. Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study. This section would require the Coast Guard to complete its on-going Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study (PARS) by April 2016. This provision was included in H.R. 1987 because the House was concerned about the impacts on navigation safety from the construction of certain offshore renewable energy projects. The Study will assist the federal government, as well as stakeholders, to understand potential impacts and whether the siting of these projects could pose hazards to safe navigation, especially projects built in or near vessel traffic routes. The Coast Guard's Atlantic Coast PARS working group has developed standards and a methodology for assessing potential impacts on navigation safety including high, medium and low or minimal impacts. The purpose of the study and the reason for developing standards and methodologies is to assist in future determinations of waterway suitability for proposed development projects. When the Atlantic Coast PARS began, it excluded the waters in and around Nantucket Sound. These waters are heavily traveled by commercial vessels, fishing and recreational vessels as well as passenger and freight ferries. Because of increased vessel traffic and the potential impacts to navigation from any future development, this section would direct the Coast Guard to complete a separate port access route study of Nantucket Sound using the new standards and methodologies developed by the Coast Guard's working group. The Atlantic Coast PARS will help the Coast Guard determine whether they should revise current regulations to improve navigation safety by establishing safety fairways, traffic separation zones or new vessel routing. The Nantucket Sound PARS is intended to guide decision-makers to ensure that any future development in Nantucket Sound will have minimal impact and low risk to navigational safety. This section would require the completion of the Nantucket Sound PARS by December I urge the passage of H.R. 4188. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the good doctor from Tennessee. I want to thank my Republican colleagues, Mr. Rokita especially, for bringing this important matter to a vote today. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. In this House, we often speak about the importance of ensuring and protecting tribal sovereignty. This bill does just that. The measure treats tribal governments like we do any other government entity in this country by excluding them from the onerous coverage under the National Labor Relations Act. In my district in San Diego and Riverside County, California, I represent 18 different tribes in Congress. That is more than anybody else in this House. They vary in size, tradition, and economic wealth, but they share one thing in common. They are all sovereign nations. This sovereignty ensures that they have jurisdiction over their territory. And, remember, the American people made a promise to these tribes that they can govern themselves on their own land. This should especially apply in areas that this bill seeks to address. I think it is ludicrous that the National Labor Relations Board thinks that they have purview over American Indian tribes. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 511.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to thank the leadership, Adam Smith from Washington and Mac Thornberry from Texas. We have wise leaders who are going to be here. When the generals term out, when the administration terms out, when the Secretary of Defense changes over and over, guess who is here? Mac Thornberry and Adam Smith. It will be Mike Rogers, Mike Turner, Rob Wittman, and Randy Forbes. We have people who love this country. They come to work every day in D.C., and they care about national security, because there is no social security without national security. That is the way it is. The National Defense Authorization Act is our solemn promise to our people who fight for us. It is us promising them that we will look out for them, that we will fight for them, and that we will give them what is needed to do their job. When the guys go kick down doors, when the guys are out in the freezing cold whether or the hot, humid weather every day, day in and day out, while we are here in our suits and ties in this nice air- conditioned building, this is our solemn promise to them. This is us telling them: Hey, we have your back. No matter where the President sends you, the Congress is going to make sure you have what you need to do your job. I did three tours--two in Iraq and one in Afghanistan--while my father was chairman of the Armed Services Committee here in D.C. That gave me the perspective of how Congress needs to watch our backs. Congress needs to do what is right for the men and women that are out there doing their jobs on the ships, day and night. That is what we are here doing. That is what is important. Without this, nothing else matters. Without this, the Ex-Im Bank doesn't matter. Without this, the transportation bill doesn't matter. It is about national security and making sure that we remain a free Nation. Once again, I want to thank the leaders who put this bill together and worked on this in a bipartisan way. I want to say thank you to Chairman Mac Thornberry and Ranking Member Adam Smith. I urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill for the country.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HUNTER. It takes a long time for these flowers to grow.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the roads, bridges, and other infrastructure projects we seek to advance in the legislation before us today require a steady supply of aggregate and gravel. Without it, we might as well not even be here debating this legislation. In fact, a report from the U.S. Geological Survey--2011 USGS Report: Aggregate Resource Availability in the United States--found ``a 70 percent increase in annual aggregate production may be required to upgrade our transportation infrastructure.'' The report went on to say, ``There is an indisputable need for an uninterrupted, large supply of aggregate for the restoration and rehabilitation of the infrastructure.'' It is also important to note that a substantial portion of the cost of aggregate is its transportation costs, and lowering those costs will reduce the cost of construction projects. My State of California is just one example of where the need is great. According to a recent report, California goes through 200 million tons of high-grade aggregate every year, which is the equivalent of more than 7 million trips by large diesel trucks. So here is what my amendment does: It streamlines access to marine-accessible sand and gravel aggregate supply points throughout the United States, allowing our country to meet the future needs of the national infrastructure projects which are covered in this legislation. With this amendment, we have the opportunity to strengthen our supply of raw building materials for infrastructure projects, to reduce road congestion and transportation costs, and to strengthen our maritime community. I urge all Members to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Here is what this amendment does. If you have a quarry that does gravel or aggregate by any waterway, whether it is an inland waterway, an inlet, a sound, or the ocean, you can then develop your gravel pits and put that aggregate on ships--not on trucks, not on rail, but on ships--that have a much lower emission cost than anything else does. You can put them on ships, which means it is going to help the maritime community. We import sand and gravel right now from China. We get our aggregate right now from Communist China. Instead of doing that, let's strengthen our domestic supply and allow the aggregate producers around the country the ability to export their aggregate to domestic suppliers, to the national defense community, to our road makers, and to our building makers. This strengthens America. It strengthens our national security. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment is only a technical change to a pilot program that is already included in the underlying bill. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for including the base language in the bill. This legislative language in our proposed amendment is a means for State Departments of Transportation to increase their revenues without additional burden on the taxpayer. Everybody knows that every State is hurting for transportation dollars. This helps them. By acknowledging contributions of third parties to a State DOT's roadside maintenance through a corporate logo made of live plant materials rather than conventional metallic material, State Departments of Transportation will have innovative new means for funding highway maintenance needs. This will free up funds for other highway projects. I support this program because Caltrans, my State DOT, and six other State DOTs asked for the authority to operate this kind of innovative program. The pilot program does not cost the State or Federal Government a penny to operate. Estimates are that my State of California could conservatively save millions of dollars annually in roadside maintenance costs from this program. Other States would enjoy other similar tangible benefits. The legislative language for the pilot program, as it appears in the underlying bill, does not specifically permit acknowledgment through live plant materials and places no limitations on what guidelines the U.S. Department of Transportation would develop for innovative approaches under the pilot program. The legislative language in our proposed amendment paves the way for State DOTs to implement an acknowledgement program with live plant materials by specifying this particular approach in the legislative language and by providing some specificity on the guidelines that the U.S. Department of Transportation should develop and what matters are best left to the States to assure the success of this innovative new approach. I urge all Members to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those things that I kind of thought everybody would enjoy. It is environmentally friendly, it uses plants and flowers, and it doesn't cost anybody anything. I mean, this is one of those deals that I am surprised is opposed by any Member. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I am looking at some of the designs that have been already done. One is a Nike swoosh. You don't have to read a swoosh. You just know it is a swoosh because we all know what Nike swooshes look like. You have the Pepsi logo. You don't have to read that. By going with the gentleman's argument, you couldn't have any billboards up anywhere. There are tons of billboards that you have to read. These are just logos, and the corporations want to pay the State DOT to put these logos on the side of the road. This is free money for the States, free money for States' transportation. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to give my support to this valiant effort to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank in an effort that I believe puts first the best interests of American manufacturers, innovators, and entrepreneurs. We had a vote this year on the TPA, the trade promotion authority. Many of my colleagues that are arguing against the Ex-Im Bank unapologetically stated their intent to give the President new, expansive authority to export U.S. jobs overseas, this amounting to millions of jobs sent overseas, all in the name of trade and globalization. If you want to talk big business, I ask my friends that are against the Ex-Im Bank to look at that vote. Many of those in that contingent who voted for the trade promotion authority--and are going to vote for the big trade deal we have coming up--are now trying to say there is something inherently wrong with trying to underwrite U.S. exports through the Ex-Im Bank, although the vast majority of Bank loans support small business. In my district alone, in eastern San Diego, you have nine companies-- no Boeings, no GEs. Over 400 jobs, $60 million in exports, all underwritten by the Ex-Im Bank. I have heard a lot of people quoting Ronald Reagan. Here is what he said about the Ex-Im Bank: ``Exports create and sustain jobs for millions of American workers and contribute to the growth and strength of the United States economy. The Export-Import Bank contributes in a significant way to our Nation's export sales.'' I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chair, I am voting for this bill overall. In California, we don't drill anymore, and we are cutting down on our refineries even, but this is important for the Nation. One big part of this bill is the Maritime Security Program. If you don't know it, over 90 percent of all the stuff that we transfer to Iraq, Afghanistan, anywhere where there are American troops--all of their gear, their tanks, their weapons, their ammo, everything, for the most part--is shipped on American-flag commercial vessels. Of the 50,000 cargo ships that travel the ocean every day, 79 of those are American-flag. That is it, 79 out of 50,000. Sixty of those are on call when America needs them to transfer our gear to our troops overseas. When I was a lieutenant in the Marine Corps, on my second tour in 2004, I drove down to the San Diego Port with my Marine battery, and we loaded up all the equipment that we would then fall in on in Iraq 2 months later. Without the Maritime Security Program plus-up that is in this bill, we would not be able to go fight wars. We would not be able to move our equipment. We would not be able to support our troops. This is a national security bill. It is not only national security because it is energy security, but it is national security because that is how we support our troops overseas is with the Maritime Security Program, which this bill pluses up. I just want to say thank you to the chairman and everybody who supports this. I would urge my colleagues to not just support energy security, but support national security.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Michigan's point, this is the process. I chair the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee. I am also the vice chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee in the Armed Services Committee. Mr. Forbes is the chairman of the subcommittee that handles this stuff. This went through the process. This is the process. This is how it is supposed to work. There are only--I will say again--79 U.S.-flagged commercial vessels on the ocean today. That is 79 out of about 50,000; 60 of those are used in times of war. It would cost us billions of dollars to create a fleet that sits there mothballing until we go to war and then we get to use it. This is how the system works. This is the process, and this is how we keep national security strong. Republicans and Democrats realize this is the process. It is the right way to do it, and it shores up the Maritime Security Program for a decade. That is 10 years that we don't have to worry about this, and it is paid for. The gentleman from Michigan would have a point if this were not paid for. It is totally paid for. This is the right vehicle for it, and I would urge all my colleagues to vote against the gentleman's amendment and support maritime security and national security.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, last Thursday was a tragic day for the American maritime community and America. El Faro, an American flagship en route to Puerto Rico, was lost in Hurricane Joaquin and, with it, its 33 crew, including 28 Americans. In the hours after we learned El Faro was in trouble, the Coast Guard, DOD, and other government and private sector partners mobilized assets with search crews battling treacherous weather conditions in an attempt to find survivors; and we appreciate their efforts. Mr. Chair, today our thoughts and prayers are with the crewmembers' families and loved ones. I ask that the House observe a moment of silence to honor the brave men and women who served on the El Faro.