Puerto Rico Interstate Commerce Improvement Act of 2013

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4005) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal years 2015 and 2016, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4005.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 4005 is the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014. It reauthorizes funding for the Coast Guard through fiscal year 2016 at levels that are fiscally sound and will reverse the misguided cuts proposed by this administration. The President proposed to slash the service's acquisition budget by over 20 percent, reduce the number of servicemembers by over 1,300, undermine readiness by cutting programmed hours for aircraft, and jeopardize the success of research and rescue missions by taking fixed-wing aircraft crews off of immediate alert status.

The President's budget request will only worsen the Coast Guard's growing gaps in mission performance, increase acquisition delays, drive up the costs of the new assets, and deny our servicemembers the critical resources needed to perform their duties.

H.R. 4005 provides sufficient funding to ensure these cuts do not happen and the service has what it needs to successfully conduct its missions.

In 2012--that is the last year we have the numbers for--the Coast Guard responded to over 19,700 search and rescue cases; saved over 3,500 lives; conducted over 20,000 safety, security, and environmental inspections of U.S. and foreign flag commercial vessels, more importantly; and interdicted over 2,900 undocumented migrants and 163 metric tons of illegal drugs.

The Coast Guard is our first line of defense in this country. H.R. 4005 is going to fund the eighth national security cutter. That is the last one. It is a 425-foot frigate that the Navy is even jealous of.

It funds six fast response cutters over the next 2 years. It also prepares us to buy the new offshore patrol cutter, and it also transfers 14 C-27Js from the Air Force to the Coast Guard for not a penny--not a dime--not a penny--totally free--transfers it from the Air Force to the Coast Guard. It can put those into effect.

The bill also makes several reforms to Coast Guard authorities, as well as laws governing shipping and navigation. Specifically, H.R. 4005 supports Coast Guard servicemembers by authorizing military pay raises and enhancing military benefits.

There are about 42,000 Active Duty Coast Guardsmen patrolling all the navigable waters throughout the United States in rivers, bays, and seas and also every single piece of coastline that we have--42,000.

Compare that to the Marine Corps numbers, over 175,000; the Army, over 400,000; yet the Coast Guard is responsible for every single piece of American water, every inland waterway, the Great Lakes, and every river. That is what the Coast Guard is responsible for.

If you talk about weapons of mass destruction coming in through American ports from the ocean, the Coast Guard is our first line of defense there, too.

This bill improves Coast Guard mission effectiveness by replacing and modernizing Coast Guard assets in a cost-effective manner. It enhances oversight of the Coast Guard, reduces inefficient operations, and saves taxpayer dollars by making commonsense reforms to Coast Guard missions and administration.

The bill helps veterans make an easier transition from the Coast Guard into the life of a mariner, so they can get out and get good- paying jobs in industry, so it gives them time and service for their Coast Guard time, as opposed to making them go through all of the hurdles, jumps, and hoops that you would have to go through otherwise.

It encourages job growth in the maritime sector by cutting regulatory burdens on job creators, and it reauthorizes and reforms the structure and operations of the Federal Maritime Commission.

H.R. 4005 is a bipartisan effort that was put together in close consultation with the minority. I want to thank Ranking Members Rahall and Garamendi for their efforts and Chairman Shuster for his leadership.

I would also like to thank John Rayfield and Geoff Gosselin on the committee staff, whose depths of knowledge on the Coast Guard and Maritime issues are unfathomable, and Lieutenant Commander Stephen West, my Coast Guard fellow that was our reality check in this committee by giving us great, sane advice when we needed it.

Finally, I want to take a minute to point out that this will be the last Coast Guard authorization bill that will benefit from the advice and support of the only Member of Congress with service in the Coast Guard, our colleague and friend, Howard Coble.

Howard is a Korean war veteran with 5 years of Active Duty in the Coast Guard and another 18 years in the Coast Guard Reserve. He is the founder of the Congressional Coast Guard Caucus, as well as an active member and former chairman of our subcommittee.

Throughout his career in Congress, Howard has been a tireless advocate for the men and women of the Coast Guard. I thank him and commend him for his service to our Nation and his contributions to this and past Coast Guard authorizations and to this Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 20, 2014.

Hon. Bill Shuster,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 4005, the Howard

Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, as

amended. This legislation includes matters that fall within

the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services.

Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4005, and

the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Our

committee also appreciates efforts by your staff to

coordinate on matters that fall in our Rule X jurisdiction in

advance. Therefore, while we have a valid claim to

jurisdiction over this legislation, I do not intend to

request sequential referral on H.R. 4005. By waiving

consideration of the bill, the Committee on Armed Services

does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the

subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its

Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to

name members of this committee to any conference committee

which is named to consider the provisions over which we have

jurisdiction.

Please place this letter and your committee's response into

the committee report to accompany H.R. 4005 and into the

Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on

the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in

which you have worked regarding this matter and others

between our respective committees.

Sincerely,

Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

To the extent that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has jurisdiction over this issue, I look forward to working with the gentlelady from California to include her proposal to include cybersecurity as an element in facility security plans required under chapter 701 of title 46 because it is important, and we need to figure out who is the best at it, who can do it.

It might not be the Coast Guard. It might not be the actual ports. It might be the Navy. I think it is important, and I look forward to working with you on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes, it is.

To the extent that these issues are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Alaska with respect to resolving the disposition of the assets associated with the Coast Guard LORAN stations in a manner satisfactory to the longest-serving member of the subcommittee and its predecessors.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

That is my understanding as well.

That is also my understanding.

To the extent that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has jurisdiction over this property, I will work with the gentleman from Washington to convey the property to the city.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

One thing that this bill does is not only does it inventory this property--or it would--it also works to reduce the Coast Guard's excess property in general.

It requires the Coast Guard to conduct an inventory of all of its real property and to determine which property can be divested or consolidated to save taxpayers money and to give the land back to the municipalities and cities and counties in which it resides.

This is not just a Coast Guard bill. As the ranking member spoke about--and the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Shuster, it is beyond the Coast Guard in that this bill is important because it deals with maritime transportation. A healthy maritime industry is vital to our national security.

Throughout our history, the Navy has relied on U.S.-flagged commercial vessels, crewed by American merchant mariners to carry troops, weapons, and supplies to the battlefield.

When I deployed on my second tour to Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004 out of San Diego, I was in charge as the logistics officer of driving down all of our equipment with Humvees and our big battery cannons down to the local pier in San Diego. We then put this on a roll-on/roll-off boat.

I made sure everything was the way it was supposed to be, and that is how all of our equipment got over to Iraq. This boat was driven--manned by American merchant mariners.

It was not driven by the Navy or the Coast Guard, but by civilian mariners that do this for us; so I have a very close personal relationship, if you will, because all of the gear that we fell in on in Fallujah was stuff we had shipped over from San Diego to Iraq.

During Operations Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Iraqi Freedom, U.S.-flagged commercial vessels transported 63 percent of all military cargos, like mine, moved to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Since we cannot rely on foreign vessels and crews to provide for our national security--let's say we relied on the Russians to move our military equipment like we rely on them to move our people and equipment into space--it is critical that we maintain a robust fleet of U.S.-flagged vessels, a large cadre of skilled American workers, and a strong shipyard industrial base.

Let me go through what the maritime sector provides to our economy

very quickly. The U.S. maritime industry currently employs more than 260,000 Americans, providing nearly $29 billion in annual wages.

There are more than 40,000 commercial vessels currently flying the American flags on our waterways, and the vast majority of these vessels are engaged in domestic commerce, moving over 100 million passengers and $400 billion worth of goods between ports in the U.S. on an annual basis.

Each year, the U.S. maritime industry accounts for over $100 billion in economic output, and these are not just port cities that get this. It is the inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Great Lakes, all of the different locks and dams throughout Pennsylvania and the Northeast, including the Colorado River.

Those are places where the Coast Guard is hard at work and our maritime industry is creating jobs and keeping people's mortgages paid and food on their table.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to thank the ranking member, Mr. Garamendi from California. He was great to work with on this. We had some disagreements, but we agree on the majority of it.

I would like to thank you for your support. It was great working with you, and we will do it more in the future.

I would also like to take into account what Mr. Garamendi said about an icebreaker. America is the only Arctic nation with no icebreaker. We don't have one. China has them; Russia has them; Canada has them. Just about everybody else that has any Arctic in its sphere of influence has an icebreaker, except for the United States; meaning, if an American oil ship got stuck in the Arctic, guess who would bail them out? Our good friend the Russians, maybe our good friends the Communist Chinese. The Canadians, if we are lucky, will have a ship available so we can at least go with a free country if we had to get that ship out of trouble.

We don't have an icebreaker. That is a travesty. Icebreakers are expensive, especially if you just buy one. They are about a billion dollars by the Coast Guard's account.

There are other options to get an icebreaker. You can lease an icebreaker like you lease a car, and it can be operated by merchant mariners, the same ones that we have been praising. Talking about this bill, that is who could run this icebreaker. We are going to work on that, and that should be this subcommittee and this committee's crowning achievement is getting an American icebreaker on the high seas to support American industry and American seafarers in the Arctic.

Number two, maritime transportation is more than just important to this country; it is what this country is all about. There is an old saying in the Department of Defense--and I was a marine, so let me just throw this out there--whoever controls the oceans controls the world. Now you can say whoever controls space controls the ocean, but whoever controls the oceans controls the world.

America is surrounded by water for the most part. All of our trade comes in through the Pacific or the Atlantic.

It is more than important. It is the most important thing out there that we make sure of two things: that we protect these trade routes on the high seas for goods coming in and out of this country; number 2, we have to secure our ports and coastline from drugs, from illegal immigrants, and, most importantly, from a weapon of mass destruction that might be smuggled to our shoreline and then detonated by one of our port cities. That is easier to do than it is now to fly an airplane and land in an American airport and set something off. It is also easier to do than it is to cross the southern border and sneak across with some weapon of mass destruction. It is easier to get a ship or a cargo container ship with a weapon of mass destruction off of an American coast than it is to get it into this country any other way.

When it comes to maritime transportation, Americans are leading the way in making these ships. We just made in San Diego, a company called NASSCO, a shipbuilding company in San Diego just built or is in the process of building right now the very first liquified natural gas- powered ships. They are not container ships that carry liquified natural gas, LNG, but they are powered by it. They are the first ones in the world. They are being made here in this country. So we might not be able to make cheap ships as easily as nations that don't have the same labor laws or environmental laws, but we can still make the most technologically advanced ships in the world, and we are doing that today.

Lastly, the Coast Guard, approximately 41,000 military personnel--and to my friends that say that the U.S. Coast Guard should be under Homeland Security, the Coast Guard is a fifth branch of the U.S. military. It is actually under DOD. So if we want to move it anywhere, I would say put it under the Armed Services Committee.

Approximately 41,000 military personnel, 8,000 reservists, 8,500 civilian employees, and 30,000 volunteers of the Coast Guard Auxiliary comprise this adaptable responsive military force within the Department of Homeland Security.

As one the Nation's five Armed Forces, the Coast Guard also is prepared to operate as a specialized service to the Navy in times of war or at the President's direction. The Coast Guard is instrumental to the security of our Nation and our maritime transportation system of this Nation which, both of those, are, in turn, the most important things that we can look at when it comes to the high seas and maintaining a robust economy and secure shores.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding, and I thank the manager of this legislation.

I rise with an appreciation for this legislation and also a concern. I think this legislation would have been important to have been referred and for the waiver not to be exercised to the Homeland Security Committee.

I serve as the ranking member on the Border Security and Maritime Security Committee, and it is known that the Coast Guard has a responsibility for defending the Nation's maritime borders. It is charged with port waterway and coastal security.

With that in mind, it would be appropriate to address those questions of Homeland Security. I notice that this bill limits and reduces the number of commissioned officers, alters the mission of Coast Guard centers, and did not come before our committee.

At a hearing on the oil spill in Houston, which has an impact on America's waterways, particularly around the gulf region and has an impact on security, it was clear that the Coast Guard were the first responders. They were the first responders in terms of the potential rescue. They were the first responders in terms of being the cops of the waterway, to ensure that all of those who needed to use that waterway and the ports were able do so. They were the ones that protected the individuals that were on cruise lines that were left offshore, and they were, of course, taking care of commerce. This is clearly part of the responsibility of Homeland Security.

As I indicated, we are very proud of the Coast Guard. I am always reminded of the great service they rendered during Hurricane Katrina, saving over 1,000 persons.

I rise today to hope that we will have an opportunity to address the questions dealing with security. As I do so, however, I want to commend Admiral Robert Papp, Jr., who is a commandant now of the United States Coast Guard, 24th United States Coast Guard Commandant and has served 39 years. Let us salute this great American.

Commandant Papp is a great American. He has been a friend to not only those of us in the United States Congress who are on the responsible committees, but he has been a friend to his men and women that serve in the United States Coast Guard.

Commandant Papp, we salute you for your grand service and look forward to your continued service to America, but more importantly, we owe you a great deal of respect and honor. Thank you so very much.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak with reservations regarding the consideration of H.R. 4005, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act under a suspension because the bill establishes appropriations limits; reduces the number of commissioned officers; alters the mission of Coast Guard Centers; and did not come before the Homeland Security Committee under a sequential referral.

The bill before the House accomplishes several goals that may have been shared by the House Transportation Committee and the House Committee on Homeland Security, but it also addresses areas that should have had more deliberation before coming to the House Floor for a vote with no opportunity to amend the legislation.

On February 11, 2014, as Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, I joined Ranking Member of the Full Homeland Security Committee Bennie Thompson in writing to urge a sequential referral of H.R. 4005, the ``Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014.''

We were disappointed with the decision of the Homeland Security's Chair and Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security to waive the Committee's right to a sequential referral of this important homeland security legislation.

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is charged with port, waterway, and coastal security, putting them on the forefront of defending the Nation's maritime borders.

On March 25, 2014, I participated in the hearing held by the Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communication when FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate testified.

One of the provisions of H.R. 4005 would prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from making a determination that a waterway is navigable for purposes of the Coast Guard's jurisdiction without conducting a rulemaking under appropriate administrative procedures.

This provision of H.R. 4005 could have huge repercussions in an emergency related to a waterway's safety.

I raised the issue with Administrator Fugate regarding the critical role of the Coast Guard in making sure that our ports and waterways are navigable because of the 168,000 gallons of oil spilled due to a tugboat accident into the Port of Houston which led to a shutdown.

The Port of Houston is critical infrastructure:

According to the Department of Commerce in 2012, Texas exports totaled $265 billion.

The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of diversified public and private facilities located just a few hours' sailing time from the Gulf of Mexico.

In 2012 ship channel-related businesses contribute 1,026,820 jobs and generate more than $178.5 billion in statewide economic impact.

For the past 11 consecutive years, Texas has outpaced the rest of the country in exports.

First ranked U.S. port in foreign tonnage;

Second ranked U.S. port in total tonnage;

Seventh ranked U.S. container port by total TEUs in 2012;

Largest Texas port with 46 percent of market share by tonnage;

Largest Texas container port with 96 percent market share in containers by total TEUs in 2012;

Largest Gulf Coast container port, handling 67 percent of U.S. Gulf Coast container traffic in 2012;

Second ranked U.S. port in terms of cargo value (based on CBP Customs port definitions).

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), reports that this port, and its waterways, and vessels are part of an economic engine handling more than $700 billion in merchandise annually.

The Port of Houston houses approximately 100 steamship lines offering services that link Houston with 1,053 ports in 203 countries.

The Port of Houston has $15 billion petrochemical complex, the largest in the nation and second largest worldwide.

The bill does establish rules for the Coast Guard engaging in ice patrol agreements with other nations and the need to establish reimbursement agreements prior to the commitment of resources in ice patrols.

The bill provides for compensation of ship owners and operators who provide necessary support to seafarers paroled into the United States to facilitate investigations, reporting, documentation, or adjudications.

The bill also addresses the definition of ``high-risk waters,'' for the purpose of determining when owners and operators of U.S. vessels carrying government-impelled cargo are to be reimbursed for the cost of providing armed on-board safety personnel.

Since being established as a standing committee in the 109th Congress, the Homeland Security Committee has failed to receive a referral of a bill authorizing the Coast Guard only during periods of Republican control of the House of Representatives.

In contrast, during the 110th and 111th Congresses, during our time in the Majority, we insisted that both bills authorizing the Coast Guard be referred to the Committee.

Given the critical role the Coast Guard plays in ensuring the security of our ports and maritime system the Homeland Security Committee should never waive its right to consider legislation directly related to homeland security. The Committee on Homeland Security had no chance to provide valuable input in the drafting of H.R. 4005.

H.R. 4005, is an important bill that should have had the attention of the House Committee on Homeland Security, and if not members should have had an opportunity to offer amendments during full House Consideration of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

H.R. 4005, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, is bipartisan legislation.

Maintaining a safe, reliable, and efficient maritime economy enables foreign and domestic trade to fuel the U.S. economy, and it remains vital. This legislation will provide the Coast Guard with the resources and policy tools it needs to fulfill its vital missions.

I want to thank Chairman Hunter and his staff for their willingness to work with me and several of the Democratic Members, and I also want to commend Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Nick Rahall for their valuable contributions to this bill. We thank the gentlemen.

H.R. 4005 will provide not only the budget stability for the Coast Guard for the next 2 years, it will also advance several important initiatives to revitalize our U.S. maritime industry.

For example, H.R. 4005 will better align the Coast Guard's mission needs with its long-term capital planning and annual budgetary processes, and explicit cooperative agreement authority is also granted.

It provides a new multiyear procurement authority for the offshore patrol cutter, the OPC, a critical and new asset. It directs the administration to enforce our cargo preference laws. No way out, guys. Enforce those laws and regulations, something that is long overdue.

It will streamline the administrative processes to make it easier for our veterans to get their civilian licenses and find jobs in the merchant marine.

Now, natural gas is a strategic American asset that is allowing America to enjoy low energy costs and a resurgence of American manufacturing. The export of LNG at a modest level could create even more American jobs if that LNG is transported on American-made LNG tankers flying the American flag with American sailors.

The currently approved export terminals will require approximately 100 LNG tankers. This tanker fleet could be American made, phased in as the LNG export terminals come on line and LNG exports grow. American shipyards could build these tankers over the next decade and beyond, creating thousands of jobs and maintaining a vital industrial base for America and our Navy.

This legislation does direct the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, to assess how future transport of LNG on U.S. tankers could affect American job creation in the U.S. maritime industry. It is a good first step, but we should be doing more.

This legislation also directs the Department of Transportation to develop a new national maritime strategy, a much-needed revision and new thought into what that strategy could be.

The bill authorizes a needed increase in the funding for the Federal Maritime Commission, and the bill reauthorizes the Small Shipyard Grant Program through fiscal year 2017 to improve the quality and competitiveness of our small, domestic shipyards.

There is more to be done. Specifically, title 11 needs to be rewritten and redone so that our American shipyards will have the loan guaranties that they need to construct the ships, perhaps those LNG tankers.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4005 is responsible legislation. It deserves an ``aye'' vote, and I want to thank all of who have been involved in writing it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the good lady from Los Angeles, California (Ms. Hahn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to the amount of time I have remaining?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I just wanted to say that Congressman Rick Larsen entered his statement in the Record, and his statement speaks to the issue of the Coast Guard providing icebreaking services in the Arctic, and particularly the reconstruction of the polar sea.

I want to thank Mr. Hunter and the staff, Republican staff, and our staff on our side, David, and the people that worked on this particular piece of legislation.

This legislation is very important to the Coast Guard and to the American economy because it deals with the international trade. Ninety percent or more of the trade and services go by water. This bill provides the Coast Guard with the materials that it needs, with the budget authority, and with important reforms.

The legislation also provides considerable support for the Merchant Marine elements in our committee. It deals in part with the necessity for the national defense.

Chairman Hunter spoke to the issue of the Maritime Security Program. Similarly, the bill does speak to the Ready Reserve program as well as the breaking of ships, that is, the disposal of ships that have lost their usefulness. It is a comprehensive bill. There are a few more things that we should be doing in this piece of legislation that hopefully we will be able to take up in the Senate or in the conference committee.

I spoke earlier about the export of liquified natural gas, LNG. This is an enormous opportunity for America to rebuild its Merchant Marine. More than 100 ships will be needed to export that LNG. Those should be American-made ships, manned by American sailors, flying under the American flag.

I think we need, also, to work on title XI, the Loan Guarantee Program for ships that are built in the United States. It is very restrictive in its present form.

Chairman Hunter in his opening remarks also talked about the problem of the appropriations. While this bill does provide authorization authority that should be sufficient for all of these elements, the ultimate money available would be through the appropriation process.

I am very concerned about the austerity budgeting that has consumed this Congress for the last 3 years and appears to be continuing for the next 2. If that happens, all of the good intentions in this bill may be lost upon the shoals of an austerity budget. We need to pay attention to that.

It is a good piece of legislation. It has been a great honor to work on this subcommittee as the ranking member.

I yield back my remaining time, asking for a positive vote on this bill.

I thank the gentleman from California for the time, and I also thank him for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to commend Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall for their hard work on the legislation before the House today.

H.R. 4005, the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, authorizes the United States Coast Guard, a critical component of the Department of Homeland Security, for 2 years.

Every day, the men and women of the Coast Guard work to protect our ports and waterways from terrorist attack and other dangers.

It is for that very reason that the Committee on Homeland Security should have considered this legislation. Unfortunately, Chairman McCaul rejected my request that, consistent with precedent the committee established in prior Congresses, he insist on a referral of this measure.

Doing so would have ensured that the members of the Committee on Homeland Security could inform the bill's security-related provisions in an open markup setting.

As a result of Chairman McCaul's decision to waive the right of the committee to consider this measure, the House has before it a bill that does not fully take into account the statutory mission of the Department of Homeland Security component it authorizes.

In fact, it does not have a single provision solely dedicated to port and maritime security. You just heard the gentlelady from California talk about port security and how important it is, and I appreciate the gentleman from California saying that he would work with her, but it is also a responsibility of the Committee on Homeland Security.

While disappointing, I do not blame the leadership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for the absence of such provisions. It is the responsibility of the Committee on Homeland Security to leave its mark on this important homeland security legislation.

To be clear, this is not a case of the Committee on Homeland Security lacking

the jurisdiction needed to inform the legislation before us today. It is a case of a chairman failing to ensure his committee was afforded the right to exercise its jurisdictional authority.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, February 11, 2014.

Hon. Michael T. McCaul,

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Ford House Office

Building, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Candice S. Miller,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security,

Cannon House Office Building, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McCaul and Subcommittee Chairman Miller: We

write to urge you to insist upon a sequential referral of

H.R. 4005, the ``Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act

of 2014,'' and to afford the Members of the Committee on

Homeland Security (the Committee) the opportunity to consider

this important homeland security legislation in an open

markup session.

Despite H.R. 4005 containing numerous provisions within the

Committee's Rule X, clause 1(j) jurisdiction, the Speaker

chose not to refer the bill to the Committee upon

introduction, opting to refer the bill to the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) alone. As you are

aware, H.R. 4005, as ordered to be reported by T&I today,

contains numerous provisions within the legislative

jurisdiction of the Committee.

Since being established as a standing committee in the

109th Congress, the Committee has waived its right to a

sequential referral of legislation authorizing the United

States Coast Guard (USCG) on only two occasions. The first

instance was in the 109th Congress and the most recent was

during the 112th Congress. In contrast, in the 110th and

111th Congresses, we made certain that bills authorizing the

USCG, a critical component of the Department of Homeland

Security (DHS), were referred to the Committee.

As recently as last week, the Committee's Subcommittee on

Border and Maritime Security held a public hearing to explore

the USCG's homeland security mission. During that hearing,

Chairman Miller emphasized the important homeland security

mission of the USCG when she stated:

``Since 9/11, the Coast Guard has taken an ever-increasing

role in the protection of our nation. We've given the Coast

Guard additional responsibility. We have tasked them to

specifically focus their limited resources on port and

maritime security.''

We concur with Chairman Miller's sentiment regarding the

critical role the USCG plays in ensuring the security of our

ports and maritime system. To ensure H.R. 4005 reflects the

USCG's homeland security mission, we urge you to insist on a

referral and hold an open markup session of the bill.

In addition to our desire to see the Members of our

Committee have an opportunity to shape the policy in a bill

authorizing a critical component of DHS, we believe it is

critical that the Committee exercise its jurisdictional

prerogative whenever possible. H.R. 4005 represents an

opportunity for you to ensure that the Committee exercises

its existing jurisdictional authority to the fullest extent

possible.

Thank you, in advance, for your attention to this request.

Should you or your staff have any questions on this matter,

please contact Ms. Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel for

Legislation of the Committee on Homeland Security, at x6-

2616.

Sincerely,

Bennie G. Thompson,

Ranking Member.

Sheila Jackson Lee,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime

Security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4005, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014. I want to thank the subcommittee chair, Chairman Hunter, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Garamendi, as well as Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall, for their leadership on the committee and their willingness to include language in the bill that would rectify a problem that has hurt the charter boat industry in my district, the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Section 312 of the bill would enable U.S.-owned passenger vessels operating in the Virgin Islands to carry up to 12 passengers, provided the vessels, of course, meet certain safety requirements, something our charter boat industry has been advocating for at least 20 years. Because of the existing rule, our once thriving charter yacht industry has gone to the British Virgin Islands, and estimates of revenue losses to the USVI economy range from $70 million to $100 million annually.

I also want to thank the Virgin Islands Marine Advisory Council for their invaluable assistance. I have been working on this change since coming to the House. And I can honestly say it is only because of their efforts and the support of Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall that we are on the cusp of finally resolving the issue. I thank them again, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4005.

I rise in support of H.R. 4005, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014.

I especially want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall for their willingness to include language in the bill that would clarify a problem with the Charter boat industry in my district, the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Section 312 of the bill would enable U.S. owned uninspected passenger vessels operating in the U.S. Virgin Islands to carry up to 12 passengers provided the vessels meet certain safety requirements. The Virgin Islands Charter boat industry has been advocating for this change for at least 20 years.

Because of the rule this section will change, our once thriving charter yacht industry has migrated to the British Virgin Islands where regulations are less restrictive. Estimates of revenue losses to the USVI economy because of the damage to this industry, range from $70 to $100 million annually. This is at a time when the territory's economy has not rebounded from the 2008 recession and the closure of largest private employer.

In closing Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Virgin Islands Marine Advisory Council for their invaluable assistance. I have been working on this change since coming to the House and I can honestly say that it is only because of their efforts and the support of Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall that we are on the cusp of finally resolving the issue.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4005, as amended.