Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the LoBiondo-Lowey-Wamp amendment. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) have joined together in trying to bring this to the attention of our colleagues.

Before I discuss the amendment, however, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for their support on this critical issue. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and his staff for their willingness to work with me and my colleagues on this issue, and to help in crafting an amendment which will help rehab patients across the country.

The LoBiondo-Lowey-Wamp amendment would halt the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, on the implementation of the so-called 75 percent rule until a study is completed on the issue. As many know, rehabilitation hospitals provide essential care to patients recovering from conditions such as a stroke, hip replacement or cardiopulmonary disease. This policy, commonly known as the 75 percent rule, sets limits on which patients would be eligible for care at these facilities.

Under the current rule which went into effect on July 1, fewer Americans will have access to rehab care. This is wrong. Fewer patients needing treatment for conditions such as arthritis and joint replacement will qualify for this care, an important element in the overall recovery process. It is simply wrong not to do something about this. In addition, access to rehab care for patients recovering from cancer, cardiac conditions, transplant and pulmonary conditions is also threatened.

This amendment is by no means the first attempt to deal with the issue. Over the past year, the majority of Members of Congress not once, but twice has called on CMS to withhold implementation of the 75 percent rule until a thorough independent assessment by medical experts is completed. A similar directive was included in both the Medicare Modernization Act passed last November and the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill. Yet despite the will of Congress, CMS finalized the 75 percent rule in April and implemented it on July 1 without either commissioning a study in advance or making significant, much- needed updates.

Our amendment seeks to ensure that Congress' intent is carried out and that patients across America continue to have access to the rehab care they need. It will ensure that experts in the field of rehabilitative care study the issue and make recommendations that will produce a rule for rehab hospitals that reflects the advances medicine has made in the area of rehabilitative care.

I would like all of my colleagues to think what it would be like for them if they had to go to one of their constituents who needed rehab care, and they were denied access to the rehab hospital in their district; or worse yet, that rehab hospital had to close. What would my colleagues think if they had a family member, someone in their family, that was denied rehabilitative care, very good care, because of a stupid rule that we were not able to fix? People across America who need these services will not accept that Congress stood back and did nothing when there is something we can do.

I thank all Members in this Chamber who have supported our efforts to change the 75 percent rule, and I urge Members to cast a yes vote for the LoBiondo-Lowey-Wamp amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio.

Offered By: Mr. LoBiondo

Amendment No. 11: In title II, amend section 221 (page 65,

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership of the full committee and this conference. I also want to thank the ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), as well as all of the conferees of the House and Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of the conference report on the Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Act. The conference report authorizes funding and personnel numbers for the Coast Guard and includes a number of other measures that will improve both the operational capability of the Coast Guard and the safety of our maritime transportation system.

This conference report also includes important provisions designed to build upon the work we did in the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2001 to strengthen security at our ports.

H.R. 2443 includes language to clarify that members of the Coast Guard may make arrests for violations of Federal law while conducting security operations at our port facilities, to direct the Coast Guard to conduct vulnerability assessments of any waters adjacent to nuclear power plants to help ensure we are properly prepared for a waterborne threat to these facilities, and to authorize a new program to fund pilot projects that will test promising new technologies that could improve security at our ports.

I am particularly pleased that the other body has agreed with Members of the House regarding the need to accelerate Coast Guard's asset recapitalization program known as Operation Deepwater. This report authorizes a funding level of $1.1 billion for fiscal year 2005. This level of funding puts us on track to accelerate Deepwater's completion date to February 1, 2006, 5 years earlier than originally planned.

The effective accomplishment of the Coast Guard's national and homeland security missions, as well as its ability to sustain the level of performance of traditional missions, is predicated upon having a required funding level to replace its aging and rapidly failing assets sooner than the 20-year projected plan.

The need to accelerate is compelling. Over 20 110-foot patrol boats underwent emergency dry dock for breached hulls this past year, and the rest of the fleet is in immediate need of repair for structural corrosion. Over the past year, the HH-65 helicopters have suffered more than 125 in-flight main engine power losses, robbing the asset of its ability to hover and placing the lives of its crew, passengers and those below in grave danger.

These failures are increasing maintenance costs and are resulting in the direct loss of over 600 patrol days annually, severely affecting readiness and diminishing the service's ability to respond to terrorist threats and conduct its other vital missions.

I firmly believe that, as authorizers, it is our job to set goals and priorities for the service. The accelerated replacement of these assets is one of the Coast Guard's highest priorities. I commend my colleagues for their support of this critical issue and encourage our appropriators to work towards the goals we have established in this report.

We all praise the work of the men and women of the Coast Guard almost on a daily basis. We have seen the incredible footage of the videos of the rescues that they have made. We hear of their heroism on a day-in- and-day-out basis. While it is very nice to say thank you in words, we need to show it in deeds, so we are providing the men

and women of the Coast Guard the assets that they so dramatically need to complete their mission.

Finally, I would like to thank the staff on both sides for their tremendous work, particularly John Rayfield, Eric Nagel, Marsha Canter from our subcommittee, as well as Liz Megginson from the full committee, and John Cullather from the staff of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their efforts. I urge all Members to support this legislation.

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 gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and everyone aforementioned for their support in bringing this conference report to the floor.

I would like just to put a human face on it for a minute, that this is really about the men and women of the Coast Guard who are out there every day doing such a heroic job both here and abroad.

For those who think that the Coast Guard is only here on our shores, recently there was a Coast Guard helicopter crew that was in theater in Iraq. One of those engine failures that I talked about earlier was experienced. The captain of the helicopter really had a tremendous challenge on his hands when he had an engine failure and had to decide whether to set the helicopter down in Syria or do a hard landing on the deck.

We can just let our minds wonder a little bit about what it would have been like to have one of our Coast Guard helicopters having to set down in Syria and the implications of that. We can all see that that is not a good scenario.

He very heroically put the helicopter down without any injuries to himself, the crew, or damage to the helicopter. But it is symptomatic of why we have to make sure that they have the resources necessary. This authorization bill will be a critical, but first step in getting us to that point.

So I would urge all my colleagues to continue to understand the tremendous mission that the Coast Guard has undertaken, the tremendous job that they do day in and day out. I ask everyone to please support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report for

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Jack Yanosov who helped design the transmitters that were used 35 years ago today in the Apollo mission that landed on the Moon.

It was a humble rise for Jack Yanosov, who began his career on the RCA assembly line, and would eventually become the lead engineer on the Apollo communications project. It was on a transmitter built by Jack Yanosov that the first words were ever spoken on a planetary body other than Earth. It was 35 years ago today, on July 20, 1969 that Neil Armstrong uttered his famous words that would inspire a generation, ``One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.'' The good news for Neil Armstrong and the rest of the world, Jack Yanosov's transmitter worked just like it was designed to do.

Today is a special day for our Nation. Thirty-five years ago, our country was locked in an arms race during a cold war that threatened to turn hot at any moment. The race for the Moon was more than just a prize in the darkest reaches of space, it symbolized our Nation's commitment to American ingenuity. We met our goal and made it to the Moon, and we did it first. I am proud that a resident of New Jersey played such an important role in this groundbreaking human achievement. I would like to congratulate Jack Yanosov, and thank him on behalf of the people of New Jersey's Second Congressional District and America for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4492, which includes legislation to reauthorize the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route. I would first like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues in the New Jersey delegation for their support of this reauthorization, especially Representative Jim Saxton whose assistance helped to bring this legislation to the floor today. I would also like to thank Chairman Pombo and his staff for their support and guidance.

I firmly believe the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail incorporates the very best of what the great state of New Jersey has to offer the rest of the Nation. Established by Congress in 1988, the Trail unifies New Jersey's many scenic points of interest. These points of interest include a wealth of environmental, historic, maritime and recreational sights found along New Jersey's coastline, stretching 300 miles from Perth Amboy to the north, Cape May in the extreme southern tip of the State and Deepwater to the west.

The Trail's area includes three National Wildlife Refuges, four tributaries of a Wild and Scenic River system, a Civil War fort and National cemetery, several lighthouses, historic homes, and other sites tied to southern New Jersey's maritime history. Through a network of themes and destinations, the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail connects people with places of historic, recreational, environmental and maritime interest.

H.R. 4492 would extend the authorization of the Trail to provide additional funding over 2 years to continue the work began in 1988. It would also require that during this period, a Strategic Plan be created in order to explore opportunities to increase participation by national and local private and public interests, as well as organizational options for sustaining the Trail.

The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail has helped New Jersey residents develop pride, awareness, experience with, and understanding of our coastal resources and its history. This reauthorization will allow the Trail to continue and flourish.

I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Holy Spirit High School girls varsity-eight crew team on their second straight Peabody Cup Championship at the distinguished and well known Henley Women's Regatta in Henley-on-Thames, England on Sunday, June 20, 2004. The girls' varsity-eight crew team defeated St. Andrews School by taking a strong lead from the start of the race and pushed on to victory by winning the 1,500 meter race by 1\1/4\ boat lengths in 5 minutes and 11 seconds.

The team is led by Holy Spirit High School coach John Slattery, and was made up of bow Robyn Brennan, Erin Coyle, Kairie Roehill, Kaitlin Grant, Andria Haneman, Kristen Haneman, Jen Maslanka, stroke Teri Francesco, and coxswain Lynn Cassidy.

On behalf of the residents of the Second District of New Jersey, I offer my congratulations to the Holy Spirit High School girls' varsity- eight crew team on their outstanding second straight victory at the Peabody Cup Championships. These young women showed poise under pressure and share our pride in their outstanding achievement.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for his comments, but I rise today in strong support of the Simmons-LoBiondo amendment, and I want to commend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for his leadership on this particular issue.

The intent of this amendment is pretty clear, that the transfer of the Coast Guard research and development money which was placed under the control of Science and Technology Directorate should go back to the Coast Guard where it belongs.

Earlier this week the Department of Homeland Security's Under Secretary for Science and Technology made a speech to the Brookings Institute in which he said that he would have oversight responsibility for the Coast Guard's research and development center. I strongly believe that this coupled with the funding transfer is in violation of section 888 of the Homeland Security Act.

Section 888 clearly states that all authorities, functions and capabilities of the Coast Guard must be maintained intact under the authority of the service. It further mandates that the Coast Guard has to be maintained as a distinct entity within the Department of Homeland Security. Any transfer of funding and oversight responsibility such as the one proposed and included in this bill not only violates these provisions but jeopardizes the integrity and the functional capabilities of the service.

When we were debating the Homeland Security Act and talking about the Coast Guard being included, it was only after assurances and guarantees that the Coast Guard would in fact be kept intact that we agreed that we would sign off on the transfer. While I do not think any disagree that the Coast Guard's primary mission is homeland security, it is not their only mission. They are responsible for all the initiatives that they had been working on prior to September 11, search and rescue, illegal drug interdiction, fishery law enforcement and environmental concerns. If these homeland security research and development dollars are left to the discretion of Homeland Security, we have no assurance these other programs will receive a single dollar.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, I take a great deal of interest in protecting the ability of the Coast Guard to continue to administer their own research and development funding.

For several decades the Service R&D Center has led efforts to develop new technologies in support of all its critical missions, not just maritime security.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is an extremely important issue. I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for his continued understanding of how critically important this is, but I once again want to remind all of my colleagues that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the full committee, myself as chairman of the subcommittee, and the ranking members of both the full committee and the subcommittee were in complete agreement only after we received assurance that these R&D dollars would be kept intact with the Coast Guard with all of their other missions.

I respectfully request that this amendment be favorably considered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Coastal Restoration Act of 2004 for myself and Representative Lampson. Since 1995, we have seen several attempts to change Federal policies in an effort to cripple the Federal beach nourishment program.

The Coastal Restoration Act (CRA) restates the congressional intent regarding the importance of the Federal beach nourishment program. The CRA makes it clear that changes in administration policy will not prevent feasibility and other types of studies from being processed through the Corps of Engineers and sent to Congress. The legislation emphasizes the role of Congress in determining which beach nourishment projects should be authorized for construction. It also restates and strengthens existing law that periodic renourishment is an integral part of the ongoing construction of a beach nourishment project.

This legislation states that in deciding which projects should receive Federal assistance, Congress intends that preference shall also be given to areas: (1) where regional sediment management plans have been adopted to integrate coastal beach nourishment, navigation, and environmental projects; or (2) where the project promotes human health and safety, as well as the quality of life for individuals and families. These additions will encourage states to adopt regional sediment management plans to identify areas for the disposal of dredged spoils and the projects to that promote their beneficial reuse, as well as ensure that public safety and other quality of life issues are taken into account when recommending a project for implementation.

The Coastal Restoration Act also raises the low priority now accorded by the U.S. Army Corps to the recreational benefits of beach nourishment, giving equal consideration to all national projects. It provides a mechanism to begin the project reauthorization process and it allows the Corps to better manage their funding and schedules to work around the times when endangered species are present at the project site.

In the United States, nearly 17 million people are employed in the tourism industry. Beaches are the leading tourist destination in the Nation. Beach tourists contribute about $260 billion to the U.S. economy overall. Each year about 180 million Americans make 2 billion visits to the ocean, the gulf, and our inland beaches. That is almost twice as many

visits as those made to State and National Parks and wilderness areas combined.

In my home State of New Jersey, tourism is a $31 billion industry, supporting over 836,000 jobs and generating $17.7 billion in wages. The vast majority of that revenue is generated by the millions of people who visit our 127 miles of shoreline on an annual basis. These projects provide the businesses and residents located along our shore and driving our economy an important layer of protection from ocean storms. It also lowers Federal flood insurance premiums and reduces the number of claims. Finally, these projects provide vital habitat for numerous species of plants and animals and often protect vital coastal habitats such as wetlands or fresh-water resources.

The Coastal Restoration Act is needed to maintain the Federal program so we can continue to protect and restore our beaches as the national treasures they are.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2443) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2004, to amend various laws administered by the Coast Guard, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

On behalf of Chairman Young and myself, I have a couple of remarks about this motion. We support section 415 and allowed it to be included in the House bill with the agreement that we would continue to work to improve the language. It is very important that we ensure that all vessels, including foreign vessels, have security plans. However, to protect the United States, we need to support the Coast Guard's efforts as they board and inspect vessels coming into U.S. waters.

However, the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security have expressed strong concerns about the current House language. They are concerned about requiring submission and secretarial approval of all foreign vessel security plans. They are concerned that this requirement could undermine extensive progress on vessel security planning already made in the international arena and would impose an unsupportable resource drain on the Coast Guard. They are concerned that this could conflict with provisions of the Safety of Life At Sea Convention and the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. This would place the United States at a significant disadvantage when demanding that other nations comply with their responsibilities and would significantly degrade our ability to negotiate new international requirements.

Additionally, other nations could retaliate and demand to review and approve U.S. security plans before our vessels were allowed to trade in their ports. I believe that this is a real danger. Ultimately, the sharing of sensitive U.S. vessel security plans with all nations may not be in the best interests of our own national security. I would like to continue to explore whether acceptance of foreign vessel security plans approved under the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code with aggressive Coast Guard verification and enforcement might better achieve our national maritime security goals.

There is concern that the number of plans that could potentially be subject to review is staggering. Worldwide, there are approximately 40,000 vessels required to have security plans. If section 415 were enacted, the Coast Guard would be required to review the security plan of each of these vessels that wanted to visit the United States. In recent years, approximately 8,000 vessels per year have visited the United States, making roughly 50,000 port calls.

Without significant additional resources, our diversion of resources from some other area, the Coast Guard could not accomplish this review and approval process in a timely manner. The cost of this effort would be substantial, and the Coast Guard is not funded in this effort.

The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and I pledge to continue to work with our colleagues and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the Democratic ranking member, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) to address their concerns on this homeland security issue.

Today we will support this motion, but would strongly recommend that we continue to discuss this issue with the Coast Guard and the maritime shipping industry and our colleagues in the other body to improve and merge our other bills to ensure that the country and our security is protected.

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

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

I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for his comments. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and I do support this, but as we have worked through the committee all along in a very strong bipartisan way, we are expressing that there are some legitimate concerns such as our turning over our vessel security plans to this nonexistent government of Liberia. These are things that we should be talking about. These are things that we want to talk about so that in the end the final product that we have is a product that will ensure our national and homeland security.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement with so many points that the gentleman made. No Member and no one should get the impression that any of us are not completely committed to maritime anti-terrorism, to homeland and port security. What we are saying here is we believe there needs to be just a little bit of additional fine tuning.

But in principle, I agree. I will support the gentleman's motion to instruct, and I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. Speaker, the Farm Credit Act of 1971 allows the Farm Credit Administration to oversee and regulate banks and associations to provide long-term and short-term credit and financial services to farmers, ranchers, producers, and commercial fishermen in all 50 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In many parts of the country, Farm Credit is an important and significant lender to the farming and commercial fishing industry. Over one-fourth of the total credit used by farmers and fishermen derives from the FCA through a network of Farm Credit Banks, Federal Land Banks, Production Credit Associations, and Banks for Cooperatives.

Under the current law, Farm Credit institutions are also authorized to finance individuals furnishing farm-related services related to their operating needs including custom fertilizers, irrigation installation, and land leveling services. It has been brought to my attention by a local Farm Credit institution in my District that a similar authorization to provide credit and financial services for individuals furnishing services to producers and harvesters of aquatic products does not exist. As a result of this limitation, Farm Credit institutions are not authorized to finance businesses such as boat repair shops, net makers, ice suppliers, or dock operations that provide necessary services for commercial fisherman.

This omission in the Farm Credit Act means that Farm Credit institutions cannot serve the commercial fishing industry in the same manner that they currently serve the farming industry. The Farm Credit Act clearly states that it includes fishermen, but then does not go on to include those who support the industry in the same way it includes those that support the farming industry.

An amendment is needed to the Farm Credit Act to authorize Farm Credit institutions to serve businesses that provide services related to the operating needs of producers and harvesters of aquatic products. This bill would extend the Farm Credit Act to numerous commercial fishing industry providers such as boat repair shops and dock operators that provide the necessary business needs to these fishermen.

I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as the largest mobilization of National Guard and Reserve troops since World War II continues, the high operations tempo is undoubtedly taking a toll on members and their families. Through March of 2004, 363,000 reservists have been mobilized in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. This new operations tempo reality for the Reserve components has altered perceptions of what it means to serve as a Reservist or National Guardsman, while raising serious questions about how Reserve members are compensated in terms of benefits. If the nation is to rely on the Reserves to assume a similar role to our active duty troops in military operations, then it is essential that Reserve compensation and benefits adequately reflect that new role.

Congress has become increasingly sensitive to the needs of these servicemembers and their families and I am heartened that we have improved Reserve component benefits in several areas. Unfortunately, education benefit shortfalls for reservists have not drawn the attention they should, as one benefit that has been left behind is the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill.

When the modern Montgomery GI Bill was established in 1985, Guard and Reserve GI Bill benefits were set at 47 percent of active duty benefits. For every $100 that an active duty servicemember or veteran received in GI Bill benefits, a Reservist would get $47. This ratio continued until the late 1990s, when Congress improved the active duty Montgomery GI Bill through large increases. Our active duty servicemembers have more than earned this improved educational benefit, but no similar major increases have been made for the Reserve program.

As a result, Reserve MGIB benefits have slipped to 29 percent of active duty GI Bill benefits. This is simply unacceptable and with over 350,000 Guard and Reserve members having been mobilized in the last 2 years, and many thousands more scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq, it is well past time to fix this problem. We must not leave our citizen-soldiers behind as they go into harm's way to fight the Global War on Terrorism. Helping them transition back to civilian life by improving their educational benefits will be one important way we can help.

Today, I am introducing legislation, along with Mr. McIntyre of North Carolina, which will increase the Reserve GI Bill to 50 percent of the Montgomery GI Bill over a 5-year period and then keep it linked to the Montgomery GI Bill at the 50 percent rate. This bill, the LoBiondo- McIntyre Reserve GI Bill Improvements Act of 2004, would also authorize Reservists who serve on active duty for 24 months during a 5-year period to qualify for benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill program, which is now open to only active duty personnel. This is a fiscally responsible way to make an achievable increase in educational benefits for the Reserve component.

The 253rd Transportation Company out of Cape May Court House, New Jersey, in my district has just returned from over a year in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. We are very proud of the 253rd and the great contributions they have made to the Global War on Terrorism. I dedicate this legislation to all the National Guardsmen and Reservists from the Second District of New Jersey and to the thousands of other Reserve component soldiers, sailors, airman, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen who secure our freedom through their dedicated service to our nation.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would make States eligible to receive section 410, Alcohol-Impaired Countermeasures grant funding to cover the cost of DWI vehicle impoundment programs.

The motivation for my amendment is the result of a very tragic death of one of my constituents. U.S. Navy Ensign John Elliott, who had just received his commission from the naval flight school in Pensacola, Florida, was struck and killed by a drunk driver on July 22 of the year 2000. The accident instantly killed Ensign Elliott and seriously injured his passenger, Kristen Hoinwarter.

Sadly, it was later discovered, and it was very sad, that the driver responsible for Ensign Elliott's death had been arrested for drunken driving earlier in the evening. He was released from custody, obviously while still being intoxicated, and returned to his car. Elliott was on his way home for his mother's birthday party when he crossed paths with the intoxicated driver.

Nearly 3 years after that tragic accident, his parents, Bill and Muriel Elliott, continue the fight to save other families from the grief they have endured. Lobbying the New Jersey State legislature, the Elliotts saw to fruition the drafting, passage, and ultimate enactment of John's Law. The law ensures that individuals who pick up an arrested driver sign a document accepting custody. Additionally, it gives State Police the authorization to impound the automobile of an arrested driver for up to 12 hours.

My amendment will encourage States to establish DWI impoundment programs for making them eligible for an existing grant program, helping them to defray costs. My amendment does not, I repeat, does not require States to enact impoundment programs, nor does it stipulate the terms of their programs, nor does it penalize States for not enacting such programs. And since funds come from an existing grant program, it will not cost the Federal Government a single penny.

We are making important strides to eliminate the senseless deaths caused by the lethal mix of alcohol and automobiles. Annual deaths from drinking and driving have decreased. However, much work remains to be done. Each death is a preventable one, and this amendment will go a long way to ensuring deaths like Elliott's are prevented, and families are saved from the pain that the Elliotts have experienced and other families have experienced across the Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would answer, absolutely yes, that is a commonsense approach, and I would agree to that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume for a few closing remarks.

I would just again like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee. And to the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), I thank you. I know we have had extensive discussions over this issue.

I want to also thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who came to me when he first heard of my story, and he told me about situations that he had experienced and the work he had done on this. And I think he is absolutely correct, we have to find a common ground in these areas where we can avoid these senseless tragedies for families like that of Ensign Elliott. This is a commonsense measure that can move us forward.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) very much for his leadership on this, and I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for his partnership.

We joined in 1997 after similar incidents in our districts, totally separated, joined us together on this particular issue. I urge my colleagues to support this. It is something that will make a difference in real terms in people's lives.

The legislation reauthorizes the grant program until 2007. The current authorization is set to expire this year.

Congress has overwhelmingly approved the program twice before, first in the 105th and then in the 106th. In the 105th Congress, at that point in time, I had two groups within my district, Vest-A-Cop and Shield of Blue, that were raising money to provide vests for police officers basically by sub sales and bake sales and raising a dollar at a time. We recognized through a very tragic incident where a corrections officer at Bayside State Prison, Officer Fred Baker, while on duty was stabbed in the back by an inmate. He did not have a protective vest. We can only speculate if Officer Baker would be alive today, but many of us believe that he would be.

After that incident, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and I got together, drafted the legislation and went to work on it; and we are very pleased that our colleagues were able to support it.

This Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act program has directly benefited every U.S. State and territory. A bulletproof vest is one of the most important pieces of equipment an officer can have. Many times, it can mean the difference between life and death.

Every day, law enforcement officers are confronted by violent criminals armed with deadly weapons. While many officers wear vests to protect themselves, an alarming number of officers across the United States are not afforded the same protection because of budget constraints.

The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act Grant program has helped State and local law enforcement purchase these vests and in response has saved countless thousands of lives. In 2002 alone, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act has provided $25 million to State law enforcement agencies across America. This program has provided more than 700,000 of these life-saving vests since its inception in the beginning of the program; and in turn, in this last year, the program has helped fund more than 188,000 new vests, giving vital protection to thousands of law enforcement officers nationwide.

I again thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his support and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow the Federal Air Marshal Service to offer their specialized training services to foreign law enforcement personnel.

Last December, in the wake of perceived threats to certain flights from foreign countries, the Department of Homeland Security placed

a requirement on foreign airlines to carry armed law enforcement personnel on flights into or over the United States determined by U.S. intelligence to be a threat or suspected threat.

With this important directive in mind, my legislation would allow the Federal Air Marshal Service to offer their specialized training to foreign law enforcement personnel. The legislation would also require the sponsoring foreign country to reimburse the Service for the cost of training.

The Air Marshal training facility located in Pomona, NJ, is unique. It is the world premiere facility for the very specialized on-board aircraft law enforcement training. The training they receive there is far more sophisticated than just airborne firearm proficiency and hand to hand combat. Air Marshals are also trained to help out in any airborne emergency situation, including evacuating passengers and flying a pilotless plane. The facility does a tremendous job teaching students to safely and efficiently eliminate a terrorist threat under very confined and crowded conditions all while traveling at over 30,000 feet in the air.

My legislation will allow students from across the globe access to the intense training regime available only at the Pomona facility and better equip America's allies to help us fight the War on Terror.