[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 158 (Tuesday, October 3, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7731-H7736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       GOING FORWARD AS AMERICANS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mast). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2017, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, there are so many things on the minds of 
Americans: three hurricanes in a month, disasters in Houston, Florida, 
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands. We just heard our colleague from the 
Virgin Islands speak of the problems that that island has. Millions of 
Americans harmed in so many ways, lives lost, just yesterday, the 
tragedy in Las Vegas.
  It is hard not to focus only on those issues, but in many, many ways, 
Las

[[Page H7732]]

Vegas aside, the issue of the hurricanes and what we will do as 
Americans going forward is on my mind and, I suspect, on the minds of 
many.
  As we review and as we figure out how to deal with those disasters 
and how we rebuild, I would like us all to keep in mind that our goal, 
in addition to bringing these economies back together again, putting 
people back in their homes, their businesses, and the infrastructure, 
that we keep in mind that we ought to be looking for better jobs and 
better wages for all Americans--and certainly for those in the low- and 
middle-income brackets--and a better future.
  We think about Puerto Rico and their future. How do we make it a 
better future? Well, we certainly know that there is a problem in much 
of America, stagnation of wages, so higher pay becomes critically 
important.
  We need to deal with the cost issues that go into this, and we need 
to make sure that all Americans, wherever they may be, in Puerto Rico, 
the Virgin Islands, or Washington, Virginia, wherever, that they have 
the tools to compete.
  So today we are going to take 1 hour, and we are going to talk about 
ideas that need to be discussed here in the House of Representatives: 
legislation, existing programs such as the Jones Act, shipbuilding, and 
the like.

                              {time}  1830

  I would like to ask my colleague, Brendan Boyle, to begin the 
discussion with a bill that he and his colleagues, or our colleagues, 
are introducing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan 
F. Boyle).
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman from California for yielding.
  Before I have the opportunity to speak about that, I just want to say 
briefly what a contrast we see between the Republican tax plan that was 
released last week and the bill that my colleagues, the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Veasey), and I will be talking about.
  The Republican tax plan that was released last week, I think everyone 
has acknowledged by now that it is a massive giveaway to the wealthiest 
1 percent. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that 79.7 
percent of the top 1 percent would get the benefit.
  But what most people don't realize is that, under that same tax plan, 
many middle class families and working class families would see their 
taxes go up, not down. The same nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates 
that 30 percent of middle class families would see their taxes go up.
  We did an estimate of my district in northeast Philadelphia, and 
suburban Philadelphia. A majority of middle class and working class 
families in my district would see their taxes go up, all to pay for a 
massive tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent. That is wrong.
  Now, contrast that approach with what we are introducing this week, 
and I especially praise the leadership of my colleague, Congresswoman 
Schakowsky, who was the first one to introduce this idea. We are 
introducing the Patriot Employer Tax Credit Act. It has always bothered 
me, as someone who has seen jobs leave my district and go overseas and 
go abroad, that our Tax Code gives an incentive for that sort of 
behavior; that a company like Mondelez International that closed the 
factory that existed for more than half a century in Philadelphia, and 
shipped over 300 jobs to Mexico, that they are able to claim a few tax 
deductions while doing that.
  The Patriot Employer Tax Credit Act closes those deductions, and it 
takes the money and devotes 100 percent of it to benefit those 
responsible employers, those companies that are providing jobs here at 
home in America, that are well paid with good benefits.
  Now, my colleague, Congresswoman Schakowsky, will go into greater 
detail about some of the aspects of the Patriot Employer Tax Credit 
Act. But I really think that this should be a bipartisan bill. It is a 
chance for our colleagues on the other side, even this administration, 
that says it is concerned about losing American jobs overseas, to join 
with us on the Democratic side of the aisle. Support the Patriot 
Employer Tax Credit Act and reject the sort of Wall Street-driven tax 
cockamamie ideas that give a massive tax cut to the wealthiest 1 
percent and require working class and middle class families to pay for 
it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Brendan F. Boyle) for his thoughts. I started off with a better 
deal, better wages, better jobs, or jobs at all. The Make It In America 
agenda, which we have been talking about here for 5 or 6 years, long 
before President Trump came along, involves tax policy. I am bringing 
to our attention tonight a tax issue that will create jobs in America 
and, frankly, no longer promote the offshoring of jobs.
  Another piece of our puzzle on making it in America, and better 
wages, better jobs, and better future, is something that has been much 
discussed in recent days, particularly with regard to the Puerto Rican 
situation, and that is the Jones Act.
  Joining me tonight to discuss the Jones Act, why it is important to 
America, why it is a major job opportunity and continuation for 
American mariners, American shipowners, as well as America's shipyards, 
is Ms. Jayapal.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. 
Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding. It was wonderful to see the gentleman out in Seattle 
exploring our maritime sector.
  We are very proud of the maritime industry. And in the State of 
Washington, and in my district, the Seventh Congressional District of 
Washington State, sometimes people know about us for Boeing airplanes, 
but they really should know us for our national deepwater port and all 
of the maritime that we have there.
  Obviously, Mr. Speaker, since Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico last 
month, residents have been without power. Many of them have not had 
access to relief supplies, including food and water. Many have lost 
their lives. It has been heartbreaking to watch. We all stand united in 
pushing this administration to do everything possible to ensure that 
the people of Puerto Rico have access to relief supplies and that the 
administration is doing everything it can to assist and rebuild.
  These are American citizens, and we have an obligation to do 
everything we can to help after this devastating hurricane.
  The reason I am here today is to join my colleague, the gentleman 
from California, because in the wake of Hurricane Maria, we did see a 
false narrative spreading through the media and social channels about 
the Jones Act. It caused us to reflect on the fact that perhaps not 
everybody knows the history of the Jones Act. Not everybody understands 
exactly what it does and how it supports so strongly American jobs that 
benefit so many of us.
  There are people who thought that perhaps the Jones Act was to blame 
for the fact that supplies were not making it out of the docks and into 
Puerto Rico, and so I am very grateful to the gentleman from 
California, and Republican colleague across the aisle, Representative 
Hunter, for holding an informal hearing on this very topic and inviting 
in shipbuilders, shipping companies, as well as the maritime labor 
industry to tell us a little bit about what was happening in Puerto 
Rico.

  And so this is an opportunity, really, for us to talk about what the 
Jones Act means, because when you are talking about Make It In America, 
when you are talking about better wages, better jobs, and a better deal 
for the American public, then the Jones Act, in many ways, is the 
epitome of exactly that.
  The Jones Act has been in effect for nearly 100 years and inspired by 
cabotage laws that were in place since the first session of Congress in 
1789. The law requires that when goods are shipped via water between 
two points in the United States, they must be shipped on U.S.-made 
vessels that are owned and operated by Americans.
  This is where the critical industry comes in. In terms of Puerto 
Rico, the Jones Act is not the reason that the distribution of relief 
supplies has been slow to move in Puerto Rico. In fact, reports are 
that thousands of containers containing fuel, emergency housing, food, 
water, and other essentials are trapped at the Port of San

[[Page H7733]]

Juan. To date, at least 11,300 containers with millions of pounds of 
relief supplies have been delivered.
  To put this in perspective, just one such state-of-the-art container 
ship arrived in Puerto Rico just 3 days after Hurricane Maria made 
landfall, carrying more than 35 million pounds of cargo, the equivalent 
of about 1,900 cargo planes. You can see here on the chart that the 
Jones Act current capacity is 22,000 TEUs with a maximum carrying 
capacity of 1.079 billion pounds.
  So just imagine that the additional surge capacity, as of now, is 
5,430 TEUs with a max carrying capacity of 258 million pounds. So the 
issue has not been that ships are not delivering. Our American ships 
are delivering supplies. But unfortunately, because of the 
infrastructure, the lack of infrastructure, the destruction to the 
roads, and the issues around refrigeration across the island--
unfortunately, warehouses have been destroyed--there is nowhere to 
store those products, and there is no refrigeration.
  So what we are seeing is the capacity at the docks continuing to 
increase. So over the next 2 weeks alone, Jones Act vessels will 
deliver more than 9,000 containers to Puerto Rico, including at least 
3,300 FEMA loads full of relief cargo.
  So despite these volumes, the residents of Puerto Rico are suffering, 
not because ships aren't being able to deliver there, but because of 
the lack of infrastructure that I mentioned, lack of refrigeration, all 
of those things.
  So currently, the point that is very important, I think, for 
everybody to understand is that American flagships have the capacity to 
meet Puerto Rico's relief cargo needs, and the emphasis needs to be on 
moving cargo from the Port of San Juan into the island, and focusing on 
rebuilding the infrastructure that has suffered because of this 
devastating hurricane.
  Mr. Speaker, some have called for an outright repeal of the Jones Act 
despite these facts. Why should Members of Congress on both sides of 
the aisle support the Jones Act? Because it is incredibly important to 
our country's economy and to the maritime industry, which supports 
nearly 500,000 jobs and is responsible for over $92 billion in gross 
economic output each year.
  So in my home State of Washington, which ranks sixth in the country 
for Jones Act jobs, this law supports over 16,000 jobs and helps 
generate approximately $1.1 billion in labor income. More than 19 
million tons of cargo originate from my home State of Washington every 
year, and the State imports more than 28 million tons annually. Without 
these jobs, our economy would suffer tremendously.
  In my district, Washington's Seventh Congressional District, the 
Jones Act directly supports nearly 2,000 jobs, indirectly supports more 
than 6,500-related jobs. And to be clear, everywhere in the country 
where we have Jones Act jobs, they are better jobs, better wages, and a 
better future for our Americans across the country.
  Shipyard jobs pay incredibly well. They earn workers about 45 percent 
more than the national average for private sector jobs. And this is an 
area, as we saw in the hearing that was had, this is an area where 
business and maritime labor, our merchant marines, are proud to work 
together to make sure that we provide for the national security of our 
country through the Jones Act, and also that we provide these deep 
investments in good-paying union jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we have to invest in Puerto Rico 
by providing comprehensive relief, including water and food and housing 
and medical care, and we have to do everything we can to rebuild the 
infrastructure. But at the same time, we must make sure that we 
continue bipartisan support for this bedrock maritime law.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the State of 
Washington for very clearly laying out why the Jones Act is good for 
all of us.
  We held a hearing today, an extensive hearing on the maritime 
industry and on the Jones Act in the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, 
and it was laid out with facts and figures, many of those behind you on 
the chart. There has been a lot of talk about the Jones Act somehow 
harming Puerto Rico. The fact is, the truth is exactly the opposite.
  The Jones Act allows for three American shipping companies using 
American ships with American mariners to deliver twice a week--each of 
those companies--twice a week on what amounts to a milk run from 
Jacksonville, Florida, to Puerto Rico, all the goods and services that 
they need.
  With the hurricane having happened, these three companies are 
providing all of the FEMA, all of the emergency aid, and they have 
additional capacity that has not yet been used in delivering the goods 
and services that Puerto Rico needs in the wake of the hurricane.
  In addition to that, the Jones Act is not just between the islands of 
Puerto Rico, Guam, or Hawaii. It is the inland waterways of America--
the great Mississippi River system, all of the barges and tugs and the 
rest. If the Jones Act didn't exist, we would have companies, mariners, 
and sailors operating in the heart of our country from everywhere in 
the world. This is a major national security issue beyond what we will 
talk about.

  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) so 
very much for participating in this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey) to 
carry on with these issues.
  Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi) for yielding. He has done a great job of really making 
Congress aware and the American public aware of just how important the 
Jones Act is to our country.
  There have been a lot of misconceptions out there, a lot of reports 
on the news that were just quick to pick up on a sound bite. But the 
fact of the matter is, when you talk about trade, when you talk about 
taxes, labor, and other things that you have added, national security, 
it is the Jones Act that is keeping all of those things going strong in 
America. I just really appreciate the gentleman doing that.
  When we talk about middle class jobs in this country, there has been 
a lot of talk in this country about how we have lost a lot of middle 
class jobs over the last 20 years.

                              {time}  1845

  These jobs, because of the Jones Act, have been protected, and we 
need to make sure that we keep those jobs here in America going strong.
  I am so glad that the gentleman also cleared up the confusion about 
what was really going on in relation to Puerto Rico, that American 
ships were doing what they were supposed to be doing, and that there 
were other issues on why people weren't getting supplies. The American 
public needs to know that.
  When the gentleman starts talking about minimum wage, middle class 
wages, obviously, the Merchant Marines, the mariners out there who work 
on these cargo and container ships, help keep that middle class strong 
in America.
  One of the reasons why they are able to do that is because many of 
those jobs related to the Jones Act, as the gentleman knows, are union 
jobs. The people who run those unions work very hard to make sure 
people have good wages and that they have good benefits so they can 
take care of their families and be able to send them to college.
  As the gentleman knows, I have talked with the gentleman before, and 
he heard Representative Boyle earlier, who is also the co-chair of the 
Blue Collar Caucus, talk about how important these issues are to us, 
and I know as well as Mr. Garamendi and everyone else within our 
caucus.
  I just want to point this out very briefly. According to the Center 
for Economic and Policy Research, unionized workers are compared to 
their nonunionized counterparts in showing that their wages are 14 
percent higher on average. Again, if you have jobs that are paying 14 
percent higher on average, we need to protect those jobs because we 
want people to have more spending power to be able to make our economy 
strong and great, not less spending power.
  The union wage premium is even larger for some demographic groups 
that, on average, receive lower pay, including workers of color and 
those without a college education. According

[[Page H7734]]

to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, unions increase 
workers' benefits really substantially. Ninety-four percent of union 
workers have access to retirement benefits while only 65 percent of 
nonunion workers do.
  As the gentleman knows, we discuss Social Security in this Chamber 
quite often, and how we are going into our retirement years and whether 
or not we are going to be able to take care of ourselves when we are no 
longer able to perform certain physical functions is obviously 
something that is very important.
  Union workers are 28 percent more likely to have health insurance and 
pay a lower share of premiums for it. They are also 54 percent more 
likely to have a retirement plan than nonunion workers at workplaces. 
Union women in the United States are more likely to take parental 
leave, which is also more likely to be paid.
  Again, whether it is the Jones Act or Davis-Bacon, we need to make 
sure that in this country we keep these jobs going strong and that we 
keep the conversation going in that direction.
  Again, I just want to thank the gentleman for the work that he has 
done to raise awareness on this issue. We need to continue to talk 
about this just so the American public understands just how important 
this is to our economy and to our society as we continue to grow our 
workforce into the 21st century.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Veasey very much for bringing 
to our attention the role of the unions in maintaining wages throughout 
the United States. If we are looking for a better deal, better jobs, 
better wages, and a better future, certainly the union members in the 
maritime industry will--and have been able to--achieve that.
  The great risk is legislation may be moving through the Senate and 
the House that would terminate the Jones Act and, along with it, some 
400,000 jobs in the United States, 100,000 of those directly in the 
shipyards that are building these American-built ships for the 
intercoastal and for the brown water, the river transportation, as well 
as the open ocean transportation.
  So we have got something here that is very important, and that is 
Make It In America, a better deal for Americans comes through the Jones 
Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Veasey very much for his remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I notice that my colleague from Chicago, Ms. Schakowsky, 
is here once again to pick up on something we talked about earlier in 
our Make It In America agenda. If she would look here, number two on 
the Make It In America agenda is taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky) to talk about taxes.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to just pick up on something 
that Congressman Veasey said, but first let me just thank the gentleman 
from California for his relentless push to make sure that we have good 
jobs in America, that that is part of our better deal. We are not just 
talking about jobs. We are talking about good jobs.
  I wanted to just say that when it comes to women, if women want equal 
pay for equal work now, join a union. There aren't any union contracts 
that say: Oh, we are going to pay men up here and women over here, not 
79 cents on the dollar for a woman in a labor union.
  So I encourage my friends--my sisters--to join a union.
  Marc Veasey and Brendan Boyle are both the co-chairs of what we call 
the Blue Collar Caucus. I am part of it. Notice my blue collar today.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is properly dressed for 
the Blue Collar Caucus.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud member of that caucus 
because workers, as we know, are just not getting a fair deal right now 
in today's economy. The U.S. is the richest country in the world and in 
the history of the world. We are richer than we have ever been. Now, 
most people don't actually feel that because the ordinary worker has 
not seen any wage growth in the last 2, maybe 2\1/2\ or 3 decades. The 
income gap between top executives and the average worker is bigger than 
ever. At the same time, corporations are raking in record profits as 
they ship jobs overseas.

  So, obviously, it is time for us to fix the economy that is rigged 
against America's working families. We can start with our Tax Code or 
end with our Tax Code or in the middle with our Tax Code. We need to do 
something about our Tax Code.
  So today I am joining with Congressmen Boyle and Veasey to 
introduce--we introduced just a few minutes ago--the Patriot Employer 
Act, and that is H.R. 3925. It is a first step toward fixing a broken 
tax system.
  Instead of giving tax breaks to companies that offshore jobs and that 
pay poverty wages, our bill encourages businesses to create good jobs 
here at home.
  Here is how the bill works. We reward patriot employers with a tax 
credit for each employee's wages. To qualify for the patriot employers 
tax credit, a business must fulfill the following checklist:
  One, invest in American jobs, no offshoring or tax inversion schemes;
  Two, pay living wages;
  Three, contribute to workers' retirement security through a defined 
benefit or defined contribution plan;
  Four, provide quality health insurance;
  Five, provide paid leave;
  Six, and lastly, have practices in place to support employment of our 
troops, our veterans, and people with disabilities.
  There is a companion bill that was introduced by Senator Sherrod 
Brown, and I am sure he will get more cosponsors.
  Small businesses, under 50 employees, can qualify for the tax credits 
by meeting only some of these criteria.
  Unlike the Trump-GOP tax giveaway proposal, our bill is responsible. 
It pays for the new tax credits by closing existing tax loopholes that 
incentivize corporations to invest overseas. I think most Americans get 
that there is actually an advantage now for companies who decide to 
take their jobs out of the United States.
  Under the current Tax Code, multinational corporations get to defer 
taxes on overseas earnings until they bring those profits back to the 
United States. Through creative accounting, corporations essentially 
get to avoid taxes in perpetuity. That is forever.
  At the same time, those corporations can deduct interest expenses on 
investments overseas, such as building a new manufacturing plant 
somewhere. That is totally backward. We are rewarding corporations that 
are avoiding U.S. taxes and offshoring American jobs.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, excuse me for a moment, forgive me for 
interrupting, but the gentlewoman said something that caught my 
attention.
  American corporations that build a factory in China are able to 
deduct that cost of that factory against their American taxes?
  Unbelievable. Unbelievable.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That is exactly right, Mr. Speaker. If a corporation 
deducts interest expenses on investments overseas, and that would 
include building a new manufacturing plant offshore somewhere.
  So we don't want to be rewarding corporations that are avoiding U.S. 
taxes and offshoring American jobs and giving them benefits. So the 
Patriot Employer Act fixes that. It raises taxes on corporations that 
offshore and reduces taxes on businesses that invest in good, American 
jobs.
  The President talks about America first. This is exactly the kind of 
thing that we should be doing. Let's not create incentives to take 
those jobs away. But still, the Trump-GOP tax plan is a betrayal of 
American workers. I don't know if he knows that. It does nothing to 
raise wages. In fact, 80 percent of the plan's tax cuts would go to the 
top 1 percent of earners.
  At the same time, 30 percent of middle class families--$50,000 to 
$150,000--would actually see a tax increase under the plan.
  As for corporate taxes, it doubles down on the problem in the current 
Tax Code. While our current Tax Code lets multinationals put off paying 
taxes on offshore profits, the new Republican plan would give permanent 
tax breaks for offshoring.
  The Republican tax plan means less revenue for investments that grow 
the middle class, like education and infrastructure, which we need so 
badly, which he said he wanted to do. We want to do it with him. It 
means more

[[Page H7735]]

jobs shipped abroad. For many middle class families, it would mean a 
smaller paycheck.
  So we are offering a different path. The Patriot Employer Act, 
together with stronger unions and greater public investment, offers a 
real solution to the growing inequity in our country.
  There are responsible businesses in our country. If a business pays 
fair wages and provides good benefits, we should support that. We 
shouldn't make them compete with corporations that don't.
  In the end, it is a question of whose side are you on: the offshoring 
corporation or the American worker?
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my House colleagues to reject tax cuts for 
millionaires, billionaires, and multinational corporations, and to 
invest in American workers and not offshoring.
  So I just want to thank the gentleman from California so much for 
letting me come today and talk about this new bill that was introduced. 
I think it is totally consistent with our better deal, better wages, 
better future, and better jobs for America. I thank Congressman 
Garamendi so much for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman so very much for 
bringing the voice of Chicago to the floor on a very good piece of 
legislation. I believe that has already gone across the desk, and I 
didn't get a chance to sign on to it before the gentlewoman put it 
across the desk, but I will forgive the gentlewoman for that.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am going to come to the gentleman 
right now and get his signature.

  Mr. GARAMENDI. As a proud member of the Blue Collar Caucus, I thank 
the gentlewoman for both wearing blue and bringing a message from that 
caucus. It is extremely important.
  The Make It In America agenda, which we have been talking about here 
for at least the last 8 or 9 years, has all of these pieces. The 
gentlewoman talked about trade, taxes, infrastructure, education, and 
labor--all the pieces of this puzzle.
  As we discussed today, there are programs that are clearly going to 
be at risk. If the Jones Act somehow gets repealed or gets waived or 
otherwise is made less effective, then there are some 400,000 jobs in 
American shipyards across the Nation that will be lost. These are 
shipyards in Philadelphia, the Gulf Coast, and out in the West, as we 
heard Ms. Jayapal talk about Seattle.
  San Diego has a major shipyard, the NASSCO shipyard. These are places 
where the Jones Act allows for American ships to be built not in China, 
but, rather, in America. Make It In America. The Jones Act does that.
  Mr. Speaker, I will give you a couple of examples. One of the 
companies that ships goods from Jacksonville, Florida, to Puerto Rico 
is the TOTE shipping company. They recently spent nearly $400 million 
on two of the most advanced clean energy ships anywhere in the world.

                              {time}  1900

  These ships were built in San Diego. They are LNG-powered, natural 
gas-powered ships, and they are now plying the Jacksonville-Puerto Rico 
trade twice a week, back and forth.
  Crowley is another company operating in that same area, again, twice 
a week, back and forth. They, too, will soon have LNG-powered ships 
operating in that area--ships built in America with American workers 
and American steel, American engines, and the rest.
  So this is critically important. There are 100,000 jobs in the 
shipyards. If we repeal the Jones Act, they are gone and, along with 
it, the ability of the American shipbuilding industry to supply 
commercial ships to move critical national security men and equipment 
wherever it needs to go in the world.
  The U.S. military is dependent on the American merchant marine system 
to move 90 percent of the personnel, equipment, supplies, tanks, 
artillery, and all the rest around the world. We have huge airplanes. 
They are essential. We see those operating in Puerto Rico now. But they 
are not supplying the great mass of goods and services that are needed.
  So the plea from all of us who understand what the Jones Act is 
really about is to say don't do away with this critical piece of 
America's infrastructure.
  At the hearing today, I heard my Republican colleague, Mr. Hunter, 
chairman of the committee, quote the great free market idol, Adam 
Smith.
  All too often, the free marketers of the world read those paragraphs 
that serve their purposes, but if they were to read the next few 
paragraphs in Adam Smith's work, ``The Wealth of Nations,'' they would 
read that Adam Smith said very clearly at the period of time he was 
writing that it was absolutely essential for the British Government to 
protect the British merchant marine and the British maritime industry.
  That same admonition should come to the American Congress the same 
way: protect this vital industry, protect the merchant marines.
  We do not want and we cannot have foreign ships, foreign tugboats, 
foreign barges operating up and down the Mississippi River.
  What are they carrying? They are carrying gasoline, diesel oil, 
natural gas, volatile substances. They are carrying cement. They are 
carrying grain.
  Do you want to have Yemeni sailors on the Mississippi? Do you want to 
have ships owned by China, tugboats, barges owned by China on the 
Mississippi River?
  If that is what you want, then do away the Jones Act, because that is 
exactly what would happen. If you want good American wages with good 
American mariners operating on the inland waterways through the Gulf 
Coast and up the East Coast, if that is what you want, then you better 
keep the Jones Act.
  If you do away with the Jones Act, it is guaranteed we will have the 
elimination of the American maritime industry.
  If you want American ships operating on the West Coast from Seattle 
to Anchorage, then you better keep the Jones Act, similarly with Hawaii 
and Guam.
  Most of all, do you want to have the United States military phone 
China and say: We need to ship a few things to the South China Sea to 
deal with your encroachment on the islands in the South China Sea; gee, 
Mr. China, would you please send us some ships so that we can put the 
military equipment on those ships? Is that what we want?
  For those men and women here in this Congress and the Senate that 
want to do away with the Jones Act, think about it. If you do away with 
the Jones Act, you do away with the American merchant marine. Then this 
country relies upon China, the largest ship-owning nation in the world, 
or maybe sailors from wherever. What background would they have?
  So let's pay attention here. Adam Smith said to the British 
Government: Maintain the cabotage laws. Do not allow the maritime 
industry for Great Britain to go away.
  So we should be paying attention to the master of the free market 
system, who wasn't totally for the free market but understood the 
necessity of protecting certain industries that are critical to the 
future of a country.
  One more thing is on my mind. Two years ago, the Congress of the 
United States decided that we ought to, for the first time in some 50 
years, export our crude oil. We have been exporting natural gas in the 
form of liquefied natural gas for some time. We added to that the 
export of oil.
  Is that strategic national asset on American ships with American 
sailors? The answer is no. But if we passed a couple of paragraphs of 
law and required, as we once did with the North Slope oil when that 
opened up in the sixties, that that oil be transported on American-
built ships with American sailors, if we were to reinstitute that law 
for just a small percentage of the strategic national asset, crude oil 
and natural gas, just a small percentage of that on American-built 
ships with American sailors, we could build ships in America. Not just 
a few ships, but over the course of the next 20 or 30 years, 50 or 60 
ships, providing thousands upon thousands of jobs in our American 
shipyards.
  Right now, where are those ships built? China, Japan, and Korea, but 
not in America. We ought to pay attention to the 1960 law that opened 
up the North Slope of Alaska that required that oil from Alaska be on 
American-built ships with American sailors. That

[[Page H7736]]

lasted for almost 40 years. Then slowly, slowly it was set aside. Now 
that oil is on ships that are built in China, Korea, and Japan.
  If we want good-paying jobs in America, if we want a better future, 
if we want better jobs, if we want an opportunity for Americans to earn 
a good middle class wage in the shipyards on the ships, then maintain 
the Jones Act and think seriously about a law that would create even 
more jobs in American shipyards.
  We will soon be introducing a bill called the Energizing American 
Maritime Act. Using a strategic national asset that we are now able to 
export, natural gas and oil, we require that a small percentage of 
that--not 50 percent, not 70 percent, not even 40 percent, but maybe 20 
percent--be on American ships with American sailors.

  There are many, many things we can do to create good-paying jobs in 
America. The Jones Act is one such law that has been in place for 
nearly a century. It served America well and will continue to serve 
America well if we maintain it and if we don't allow waivers that 
simply blow holes in that law, and if we take a strong Make It In 
America agenda. The President likes to talk about it, but talk is 
cheap. Legislation makes that talk real.
  Trade policy, taxes: We just heard about the patriot tax encouraging 
American businesses with real tax incentives and discouraging American 
businesses that want to offshore the jobs.
  Energy policy: I think I just talked about energy policy a moment 
ago. Put that oil and natural gas on American ships.
  Labor: Good-paying jobs in the shipyards, good-paying jobs on the 
ships.
  Education: The maritime academies provide the education that is 
necessary to do that.
  Infrastructure: Freight movement, the ports, channels deepening, 
maintaining the locks on the Mississippi and the Ohio. Infrastructure, 
again, good-paying jobs.
  We can do a lot. It takes laws and it takes men and women on the 
Democratic side and the Republican side that come together and say: We 
can do this. We can do this for America and for America's workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________