Floor Statements

Thank you, Congresswoman Myrick, and thank you to Congressman Pallone and to Congresswoman DeLauro for their advocacy on this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the resolution designating October 13 as National Metastatic Breast Cancer Awareness Day.

We have heard a lot of statistics. They are staggering, and they are staggering because, much of the time, some of this can be prevented. The resolution recognizes the need to raise the level of awareness and to increase research on treatments that will provide a higher quality of life and longer life expectancies for patients living with and fighting metastatic breast cancer.

I participated in an American Cancer Society cancer awareness event about 2 weeks ago on a Sunday in my district in southern New Jersey. On a Sunday morning, in a driving Nor'easter rainstorm with very high winds and with rain coming down in buckets, we had

hundreds of people who showed up because they believed that their involvement would make a difference. They were helping to raise the level of awareness. They were helping to get the message out that we can challenge this terrible disease and that we can make progress.

Metastatic breast cancer refers to stage IV breast cancer, which is when cancer cells travel and then do terrible things in other locations of the body. We know that, in this year, there will be in excess of 190,000 women, almost 2,000 men and, very, very tragically, in excess of 62,000 women who will lose their lives.

So I am a very proud cosponsor of this resolution. I encourage all of my colleagues to join in support of this. All of America should understand that, united and together, we can make a difference. We can make a difference against this dreaded disease.

Mr. Speaker, the people in the 2nd Congressional District of New Jersey are asking, Where are the jobs? They have watched as this Congress has passed bailouts for AIG, for GM and for Chrysler. They watched as this Congress passed a huge bailout for Wall Street, and then followed up with a stimulus bill that had very little thought and that isn't providing the jobs for our citizens. They are not too big to fail, so they are not getting help.

The unemployment rate nationally is about 9.8 percent. In most of my district, it is at least a couple of points higher than that. People are struggling. People want to understand when are we going to get spending under control, and when are we going to understand that we should pay attention to the real people, the people who have their connection to the real world, not the people who are connected to Wall Street, not the people who are getting multimillion dollar bonuses after running companies into the ground, but the people who are just trying to make America go.

I'd like to rise in support of amendment, thank Mr. Flake, and say that the Republicans on the committee are supportive of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition although I am not in opposition.

As the gentlelady stated and the chairman stated, this is something that the Coast Guard plays a critical role in their interdiction. We have dealt with the issue of submersibles and semi- submersibles to combat the growing drug threat. We need to give the Coast Guard the authority to do this.

We're happy to support the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition although I am not in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has repeatedly requested information on the condition and the need for additional Coast Guard shoreside facilities. The gentleman's amendment would require the service to submit a report detailing current shortfalls and future shoreside needs.

We congratulate the gentleman. We fully support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman's amendment.

We are happy to support the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, pirates attacked two American-flag vessels transiting waters off the Horn of Africa. If it were not for the heroic actions of our Special Forces, the bravery

of the captain and the crew of these vessels, a terrible tragedy would have been at hand. Just yesterday we got reports that a Panamanian- flagged vessel had been seized by pirates with hostages being taken. We cannot allow this to continue.

Knowing this would be an ongoing problem, the bill, as it was reported from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, included a very carefully worked out bipartisan agreement that we worked with Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Mica, and myself that would shield U.S. merchant mariners, ship owners, operators, and captains from liabilities in U.S. courts following any action taken to defend a U.S.- flagged vessel, for instance, taken to defend the United States of America against a pirate attack.

Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee objected and requested Chairman Oberstar add language to his recently adopted manager's amendment that appears to be an entanglement for getting the right thing done. The way the Judiciary Committee has worded this in the manager's amendment, a crewmember would be forced to go through a checklist in his mind or her mind of what legal entanglements could occur because of this.

The language in the manager's amendment only grants relief liability to the crew owner, meaning the vessel owners or operators and captains would still be sued. They would not be held without harm. They would have monetary damages, possibly.

Our amendment restores this bipartisan agreement. It's a commonsense agreement, something that the people on the committee worked out. It makes no sense in the heat of an attack, when you have got pirates coming at a U.S.-flagged vessel with automatic machine gunfire, with rocket-propelled grenades, or whatever else may happen, to suggest that a crewmember is going to be able to take the time to check through what is substantially or in excess or whatever the case is. We need to protect American interests.

Under our amendment, an American crewmember would only need to prove that the person attacking the vessel was a pirate in order to receive liability relief.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Mica.

Well, under title 18, an act of piracy is defined as happening on the high seas. The intention is to defend against an act of piracy and, as defined by law, it has to be on the high seas.

Yes.

For civil.

Just civil.

We certainly would be happy to work with you to make sure that we are in synchronization with what we are all understanding.

Just to close, again, the manager's amendment, the crewmember of the vessel would have to prove in court that he knew at the time, she knew at the time, that the defensive actions were not substantially in excess of what is reasonable. That's not what's going to happen if a piracy attack occurs.

I don't think any Members are going to even want to be close to voting for a piracy protection provision in line with what's going on. What does substantially in excess of reasonable mean? A crewmember is going to have to think through this checklist as a pirate attack is happening?

That's not what we have in mind. I don't think it's the right way to go. I would urge all of our Members to vote in favor of this amendment to make sure that U.S. interests are protected.

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

I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart).

I would like to start off by thanking Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Mica and Mr. Cummings for their bipartisan effort to look at all the serious issues that are involved with this legislation and to bring together a pretty good product. But I am disappointed, as Mr. Diaz-Balart is, because the traditions of this very bipartisan committee have been changed with the basis of the rule being closed. And while I understand and am appreciative that Republican amendments were made in order, I think that it is sad that such a long tradition--when the Republicans were in the majority, it was either an open or a modified open rule. It is almost a little bit amusing, but more sad than amusing that Republicans were criticized for even having a modified open rule just with a preprint requirement, and now there is no open rule at all.

I am going to support the bill. I have a few considerations that we will be talking about when the amendments come up. But once again, I am disappointed with the rule.

I do want to talk about one of the amendments that we will be talking about tomorrow--I think it is very timely--on the issue of piracy and how we deal with piracy, because just today there were two pirate attacks. Now, fortunately they were not on U.S. flag vessels. One, I believe, was on a Panamanian vessel--we think it was a cargo ship-- where there were 26 hostages taken. The other attack was on an Italian ship. Fortunately, my understanding is that a Belgium warship was nearby and was able to aid and assist the Italians in thwarting the pirates. But this only brings to light the serious nature--and we can all recall with horror when pirates took a U.S. flag vessel. If it were not for the heroics of the captain, the crew, and a Navy SEAL team, we could have had a devastating consequence. Because of that pirate attack on a U.S. flag vessel, our committee--again, in a very bipartisan way, with Mr. Mica, Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Cummings--looked at what we could do. We all believed that the best answer to this would be for Coast Guard or Navy personnel to be on U.S. flag ships, but we understand the reality that that's not going to happen. So we entered into a bipartisan agreement, which was in the underlying bill before someone on the majority--and I think from the Judiciary Committee--got involved with this issue. The underlying bipartisan agreement basically said that if attacked by a pirate ship, a U.S. flag vessel crew member could take action to defend the crew, could defend who was on the ship against the pirates and not be held liable; a commonsense approach. The Judiciary language complicates it and makes it almost impossible. It puts a crew member in an incredibly difficult situation to determine the legal entanglements in his own mind as he's being fired upon with an automatic weapon or a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. If you think about the intensity of the moment, this is an attack on America. An attack on a U.S. flag vessel is an attack on the America. Why wouldn't we let the crew member have the opportunity to defend U.S. interests without liability?

I think a bipartisan approach that was reached was exactly what this House is all about in understanding U.S. interests and what's best for the United States of America. The amendment tomorrow will deal with this further when the whole body will have an opportunity to listen to this debate and to make up their own minds whether it's going to be right to put a crew member in that impossible situation of having to decide, through the legal entanglement of a series of checkmarks in his own mind as they're coming under attack, whether to protect the crew and the ship.

Once again, I thank my colleagues who have worked on this bill. I am disappointed with the rule. I will be voting against the rule, but I will be supporting the underlying bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Before my remarks, I would like to yield to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), such time as he may consume.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

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

I would like to begin by thanking Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Mica and Mr. Cummings. I think the model that this subcommittee works with could be an example for the entire Congress, the bipartisan nature in which we proceed. The opinions and ideas of all are respected and acted upon, and that is reflected in H.R. 3619, this Coast Guard Authorization Act.

However, I do have some serious concerns about a few matters--Mr. Mica touched on some of them--in the underlying bill, and some others that are being proposed in the manager's amendment. I hope the chairmen of the committee and the subcommittee will work with Ranking Member Mica and myself to address these concerns, if they are not cleared up today, as we move forward to a conference bill with the Senate.

This bill has been a long time in coming, as has been noted by Mr. Mica and Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Cummings. We have worked on many of these provisions starting in the 109th Congress. Over that time, the absence of an authorization bill has had a real and negative impact on the Coast Guard.

Let me just stop for a minute and say I think we should all take a step back and recognize the tremendous job that the men and women of the Coast Guard have been doing, are doing, and will continue to do. They are true unsung heroes. They put themselves in harm's way, whether it is on a drug interdiction mission, whether it is in search and rescue, whether it is maritime

antiterrorism, or in the global war on terrorism, which they have also been involved in.

We owe them a great debt of gratitude. We should continue to recognize the many sacrifices they are making on behalf of our country. I thank Admiral Allen and the leadership team, but especially the men and women of the Coast Guard.

But to carry on with my statement, despite the addition of several new missions and focus areas, the service has been capped at an end- strength number that has not been increased since 2004. The lack of an authorization bill has also prevented the Coast Guard from moving forward with a planned reorganization of its senior staff, from receiving expedited hiring authorities to bolster its acquisition staff--something that is desperately needed in this time when they are replacing assets--and from exercising strengthened authorities to apprehend and prosecute alien smugglers by sea. The smugglers continue to try to improve their methods and the Coast Guard continues to respond. These are vital tools we are giving them with this authorization legislation.

This is an important bill, and I only hope our action this week will provoke an equal and prompt response from our counterparts in the United States Senate. We sometimes joke about it, we sometimes talk about it, but our ability to act on this side on an important measure like this should be followed up with the Senate. This is not the naming of a post office. There are literally lives that can be at stake here, and I hope the counterparts in the Senate will understand the severity of dealing with this in a timely manner.

In addition to authorizing much-needed funding for the Coast Guard in the coming fiscal year, the bill includes several important provisions which will improve the organization and capabilities of the Coast Guard. Under the bill, Coast Guard officers will enjoy improved flexibility to specialize in high-need mission areas without fear that they will be passed over for promotion in the process, something that is not true today.

The bill also includes the Coast Guard's proposed reorganization of its senior command structure, which will improve overall coordination of personnel, resources and capabilities to carry out all of their missions. This is increasingly important because of the needed flexibility of the changing of the mission, of the changing of the threat that the Coast Guard is protecting against, and this will be a vital component that will help them do their job.

H.R. 3619 also includes bipartisan language to overhaul the Coast Guard's acquisition program, something that Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Cummings and Ranking Member Mica have worked on very closely, to make sure that we can fine-tune this and make it much better as they recapitalize their major assets through the Deepwater program.

On balance, this is a very good bill, but it does include some provisions that need to be improved prior to enactment or signing by the President.

The bill continues to include language that would place unnecessary barriers in the way of approving and operating facilities that receive important energy and agricultural resources. While I understand this provision will be amended by the manager's amendment, we should look closely at whether the manager's amendment, the language therein, really improves the security, or merely sets up additional regulatory hurdles to the use of domestic energy resources, something that I don't think our country can afford.

I am likewise concerned with the proposal in the manager's amendment which would weaken language which was adopted on a bipartisan basis in the committee to provide protection from liability for vessel owners, operators, captains and crewmembers who take action to defend themselves from a pirate attack.

I want to spend just a couple more minutes talking about this. While I have an amendment on it, I think Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Mica and Mr. Cummings were very thorough in helping us work out the language in a bipartisan way to deal with this liability issue with the pirates.

I had an opportunity at the end of August and beginning of September to visit the East Coast of Africa and to visit a Navy SEAL team on the Manda Bay, which is in Kenya, just across from Somalia where the pirates are doing most of their activities.

Our SEAL team is training Kenyans. They are doing a magnificent job, but they pointed out that the threat is very real and the pirates, because of some successes, are expected to pick up their activity. Little did we realize that this activity was going to pick up today.

For those who did not hear my remarks earlier during the debate on the rule, we had two pirate attacks today. One pirate attack took 26 hostages, took them from a Panamanian-flagged cargo vessel, as I understand it, something that gives us all great concern. There was another attack on an Italian ship. Fortunately, there was a Belgian warship that was close enough to be able to get involved and thwart that effort.

An attack on a U.S. flag vessel happened barely 6 months ago. We all watched with great anxiety how our very heroic captain and crew of a U.S.-flagged vessel conducted themselves and the heroics of a Navy SEAL team to save the lives of Americans.

The language that was worked out that was in the underlying bill, before the majority on the Judiciary Committee decided to change this, was something that will work, that will give the protection from liability to our crewmembers that they need.

The language that was put in the manager's amendment by the Judiciary Committee will set up a legal tangle and a horrific situation for a crewmember trying to thwart an attack by pirates who may be firing upon them with automatic weapons or grenade launchers. Whatever the ammunition and firepower they have, this crewmember has to go through a legal tangle in their mind of five, six or seven things to understand what they can and can't do. This is an attack on U.S. interests. So I hope Members pay particular attention to the piracy amendment as we move forward with that.

Lastly, I am concerned with our inability to include language that would establish uniform national standards for vessel discharges, including ballast water. I have spoken on numerous occasions with Mr. Oberstar, and I want to take particular note to thank Mr. Oberstar once again for his keen interest in solving this problem and bringing so many interested parties to the table. I know that Mr. Oberstar shares my concerns and that of many of my colleagues, both on the committee and in Congress, to address this issue through legislation this year. I thank him for his offer to work with us, and I look forward to bringing the bill to the floor in the very near future.

I plan to support the bill, even though I have a few reservations. I think it is a very important piece of legislation that we need to move forward, and I hope we will continue to improve the bill as we move through the process with amendments made in order today and as we move in a conference with the Senate. But I will continue to urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. It's good for the Coast Guard and it's good for America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Madam Chairman, once again I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member Mica and our colleagues who have worked so hard on this. I want to reiterate how important this is for the men and women of the Coast Guard, who are putting their lives on the line every day for us, and to repeat what I said earlier, where I believe that this is one of those rare situations where we find a double win: It is very good for the Coast Guard, and it is very good for the United States of America.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment although I am not in opposition to the amendment.

On balance, this amendment does more good than harm, and for that reason, as I mentioned, I will not oppose the amendment or the adoption thereof.

I do, however, want to raise several concerns I have with the amendment. The amendment before us now overhauls several important provisions that passed with wide bipartisan support in the committee. The language was added despite the continued objections of the minority.

The manager's amendment rewrites language that would confer protections against liability for U.S. mariners that act in self- defense against a pirate attack on U.S.-flagged vessels. We have all read the accounts on the attacks of the Maersk Alabama and the Liberty Sun. Do we really want future mariners to hesitate in the face of a pirate armed with automatic weapons while they determine whether or not their actions will be deemed by a court reasonable with a check-off list in their minds as an attack is taking place? I don't think so

And with the two pirate attacks today, while they weren't U.S.- flagged vessels, they could have been, and we certainly don't want to have that kind of a situation.

So I strongly oppose this section of the amendment. And a little bit later in the debate, I'll offer an amendment to replace the language with the bipartisan agreement that we worked out within our committee.

I want to once again thank Chairman Oberstar for his acceptance of the language that would extend an existing exemption for fishing vessels and small commercial vessels from complying with certain vessel discharge requirements. This action will allow this segment to continue operations while Environmental Protection Agency surveys the magnitude of discharges from the vessels and whether regulations are necessary.

And I very much appreciate the chairman's commitment to continue to work with us on the goal of setting a single national standard, which makes the most sense of all, to regulate the discharge of ballast water and other incidental discharges from vessels.

It simply is unacceptable to require our maritime sector to comply with two Federal standards and with as many as 30 different State standards and, often, conflicting State standards for vessel discharges. So it is a situation, I think, we are all looking forward to trying to solve.

I also want to thank, once again, Chairman Oberstar for improving language regarding the security of the vessels and of the facilities handling certain dangerous cargos. While I still believe too much of this provision is unnecessary and duplicative to current requirements under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, the language, Mr. Chairman, is a very marked improvement over the committee-reported amendment, and I thank you for your consideration.

I also thank Chairman Oberstar for his willingness to work with us on a variety of issues that we have encompassed in this bill, and I look forward to further consultation as the bill moves further down the line to enactment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but only to say we have no objection to the chairman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment, along with Mr. Coble of North Carolina, to conform Coast Guard authorities to provide child care in development services, to support chaplain-led activities, and to issue medicals and commendations on a par with those available to the other branches of the military.

The Coast Guard is unique within the military community because it is located outside of the Department of Defense. While these authorities have been made available to the other military services, this amendment is necessary to provide the Coast Guard similar capabilities. This is a commonsense amendment which will improve services to servicemembers and their families.

The amendment also directs the Coast Guard to conduct a comprehensive study of military housing currently available to members of the Coast Guard and their families. While we had initially intended to reinstate authorities necessary to construct new Coast Guard housing--which I might add is desperately needed--through public-private partnerships, a scoring issue with the CBO has presented us from better addressing the deplorable condition of Coast Guard housing.

I know all Members want to provide the finest housing to these servicemen and -women who are giving so much to their country and who put their lives on the line each and every day to protect us. It is my hope that we will be able to work out a solution with Chairman Oberstar and the CBO to provide the service with the authority to improve their housing.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment with my colleague, Mr. Michaud. This is a simple amendment which would require that the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Department of Transportation, report to Congress on the decommissioning of the LORAN- C system. LORAN-C is a radio-based navigation and positioning system which many mariners use as a backup to GPS. It is also a primary means of navigation for bush pilots in Alaska.

At the request of the Obama administration, the FY10 Homeland Security Appropriations Act does not include funding to continue the system's operation. This is being done despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security came to the conclusion in February of 2008 that a backup system to GPS is needed.

I am very concerned about the impact this will have on the safety of our waterways. In many regions around the country, the GPS can be found unreliable. I do not believe, as some in the administration have suggested, that we should go back to the days of navigating by sextant and lighthouse.

Our amendment would simply require the two departments to study the issue of whether a backup to the GPS is needed for safe navigation and report the findings to Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this commonsense amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I seek to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. The amendment would require the Coast Guard to establish the American Waterways Watch Program, which I understand is already in operation today. The language is identical to language that was offered by former Transportation Committee member from the State of Washington, Dave Reichert, as an amendment to the bill in the 110th Congress. So we have no object to its inclusion once again.

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

Madam Speaker, as per the requirements of the Republican Conference Rules on earmarks, I secured the following earmarks in the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2997:

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 2997 (Conference Report)

Account: National Institute of Food and Agriculture--SRG

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Rutgers University Marucci Center for Blueberry and Cranberry Research and Extension

Address of Requesting Entity: 125A Oswego Road, Chatsworth, NJ 08019

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $550,000 for the Cranberry/Blueberry Disease Project for research on breeding and pest management to provide continued support for the $50 million a year industry. Past research has found bacterial anti-adherence mechanisms helping to fight urinary tract infection and dental caries, and other antioxidant properties. A major effort within the breeding program aims to enhance these health beneficial properties.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 2997 (Conference Report)

Account: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--Salaries and Expenses

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: State of New Jersey, Department of Agriculture

Address of Requesting Entity: 369 S. Warren Street, P.O. Box 330, Trenton, NJ 08625

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 for the New Jersey Gypsy Moth Pest Management Program to support and enhance gypsy moth control on effected communities and public lands. Funds will be used to cost share aerial treatments borne by local municipalities; for outreach in developing a web-based interactive online map showing the distribution of the gypsy moth in New Jersey and proposed treatment areas; and for technical support for salaries for field scouts and vehicle operation.

Madam Speaker, as per the requirements of the Republican Conference Rules on earmarks, I secured the following earmarks in the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2467.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 2467 (Conference Report)

Account: Army--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: (1) Drexel University; (2) Waterfront Technology Center

Address of Requesting Entity: (1) 3141 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104; (2) 200 Federal Street, Suite 300, Camden, NJ 08103

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $3.8 million for Applied Communications and Information Networking (ACIN). ACIN enables the warfighter to rapidly deploy state-of-the-practice communications and networking technology for warfighting and National Security. This funding will build on funding from previous years to fully develop this technology.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 2467 (Conference Report)

Account: Air Force--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Accenture

Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Federal Street, Suite 300, Camden,

Madam Speaker, as per the requirements of the Republican Conference Rules on earmarks, I secured the following earmarks in HR 3326:

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Army--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: (1) Drexel University, (2) Waterfront Technology Center

Address of Requesting Entity: (1) 3141 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104; (2) 200 Federal Street, Suite 300, Camden, NJ 08103

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $3.8 million for Applied Communications and Information Networking (ACIN). ACIN enables the warfighter to rapidly deploy state-of-the-practice communications and networking technology for warfighting and National Security. This funding will build on funding from previous years to fully develop this technology.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Air Force--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Accenture

Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Federal Street, Suite 300, Camden,

Mr. Speaker, we are rapidly coming up on the 6-month anniversary of the stimulus bill. The question all across America, the question in New Jersey, and the question in my district in south Jersey is, Where are the jobs? We had jobs that were promised, good jobs that were promised, jobs that were going to be available. The unemployment rate was going to come down. The families in New Jersey are hurting. The families in south Jersey are hurting. Our unemployment rate in the State of New Jersey is 9.2 percent; and in most of my counties, it's well above 11 percent.

Most of the stimulus money has been financed by the Chinese. And people are asking, Where is the help going to come from? But there is one category that has had a dramatic rise in employment, and that is in the category of czar. So if you are a czar, make application. Your day is coming.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 1665, the Coast Guard Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. I'd like to thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar. I'd like to thank Mr. Cummings and Mr. Mica for their help in moving and developing this important legislation. H.R. 1665 builds upon several provisions which passed the House during the 110th Congress and includes new language which I believe greatly improves the legislation.

Like those bills in the previous Congress, the bill would reform the service's acquisition programs and procedures, prohibit the continued use of private-sector lead systems integrators, and establish a Chief Acquisition Officer to oversee all the Coast Guard's acquisition projects.

H.R. 1665 would also require the Coast Guard to take several steps during the planning, production and acceptance period to enhance the Coast Guard's control over all parts of the process. Under the programmatic changes made by this bill, the Coast Guard will be able to use all of its many technical authorities to ensure that assets delivered meet the service's specifications and needs.

Lastly, the bill includes two new provisions which will improve the Coast Guard's ability to staff acquisition positions with the most qualified candidates. The first is limited direct hiring authority which is based on existing authority available to the other Armed Services. Under this language, the Coast Guard will be able to directly hire civilian personnel with the needed acquisition expertise. The second will allow Coast Guard promotion boards to consider the need for specialized skills and qualifications of Coast Guard officers in areas like acquisitions. This language will provide Coast Guardsmen with the opportunity to specialize in limited duty areas, such as acquisition, without negatively impacting their promotional potential in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and urge other Members to do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

We have no additional speakers, Mr. Speaker, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 508 offered by my colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Fortenberry. The resolution expresses the sense of the House that the general aviation community be recognized for numerous contributions to the United States.

I'd like to yield to Mr. Fortenberry such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, the aviation industry is a vital part of small business. They rely on their fleets to provide the efficient and cost-effective transportation of goods and personnel.

It is very appropriate that we are considering this resolution today. The Experimental Aircraft Association is holding its annual convention this week in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, known as the EAA AirVenture Oshkosh. It is referred to by many simply as ``Oshkosh.'' It is the world's largest general aviation fly-in.

A healthy and productive general aviation industry is important to both our Nation's economy and to the American way of life, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, as per the requirements of the Republican Conference Rules on earmarks, I secured the following earmarks in H.R. 3288

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3288

Account: FRA, Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Program

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: County of Salem, NJ

Address of Requesting Entity: 94 Market St., Salem, NJ 08079

Description of Request: Received an earmark of $750,000 for the rehabilitation of county owned rail line depended upon by local industry.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3288

Account: HUD, Economic Development Initiative

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: South Jersey Economic Development District

Address of Requesting Entity: 226 North High Street, Millville, NJ 08332

Description of Request: Received an earmark of $250,000 to assist in the construction of facilities at the Aviation Research and Technology Park, an industrial park in Pomona, NJ which will facilitate economic development and provide new jobs to the area.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3288

Account: HUD, Economic Development Initiative

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Town of Hammonton

Address of Requesting Entity: 100 Central Avenue, Hammonton, NJ 08332

Description of Request: Received an earmark of $250,000 to assist in the acquisition and adaptation of blighted former industrial sites for reuse as a location for new businesses looking to bring jobs to the area.

Madam Speaker, as per the requirements of the Republican Conference Rules on earmarks, I secured the following earmarks in H.R. 3293

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3293

Account: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)--Health Facilities and Services

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Shore Memorial Hospital

Address of Requesting Entity: 1 East New York Avenue, Somers Point,

Madam Speaker, as per the requirements of the Republican Conference Rules on earmarks, I secured the following earmarks in H.R. 2996

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Army Corps Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $400,000 for the Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point Environmental Restoration Project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Army Corps O&M

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $100,000 for the Salem River, NJ ongoing dredging maintenance project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Army Corps O&M

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 for the NJ Intracoastal Waterway ongoing dredging maintenance project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Army Corps Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2,000,000 for ongoing construction of the Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Absecon Island, NJ shore protection project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Army Corps Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $300,000 for ongoing construction of the Townsend Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ shore protection project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Army Corps Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 to begin construction of the Great Egg Harbor to Townsend Inlet, NJ shore protection project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Army Corps Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $200,000 for ongoing construction of the Cape May Inlet to Lower Township, NJ shore protection project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Army Corps O&M

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $250,000 for ongoing maintenance dredging of Absecon Inlet, NJ.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Army Corps Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $6,500,000 for ongoing construction of the Great Egg Harbor Inlet and Peck Beach, NJ shore protection project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Army Corps Section 205

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Description of Request: Provide the Army Corps authority to continue construction of the Pennsville, NJ section 205 Small Flood Control project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: DOE EERE

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: South Jersey Economic Development District

Address of Requesting Entity: 226 North High Street, Millville, NJ 08332

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 to construct wind turbines in Sea Isle City, NJ and Penns Grove, NJ on publicly owned land that cannot be utilized otherwise because they currently serve as municipal waste sites.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize LT Jamie C. Frederick for his service to the United States House of Representatives and for his fifteen years of service to our country in the United States Coast Guard.

LT Jamie C. Frederick was assigned as Congressional Liaison Officer to the House in the Office of Coast Guard Congressional and Governmental Affairs in July 2007. As Congressional Liaison Officer, he worked directly with the Coast Guard's appropriations and authorizing committees to ensure the Service receives the necessary resources and legislative authorities to effectively execute its vital missions. Lieutenant Frederick served as the face of the Coast Guard here in the House and has sacrificed countless hours of time with his family to respond to Congressional requests and to accompany Members and staff as we travel to learn firsthand about Coast Guard missions and policies in the field.

In my roles as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, my staff and I relied on Lieutenant Frederick's tremendous familiarity and understanding of the needs, as well as operational missions, roles and responsibilities of the United States Coast Guard to conduct or oversight of the Service.

Lieutenant Frederick began his Coast Guard career after graduating from Dover High School in Dover Plains, New York. Following basic training in Cape May, New Jersey, he was assigned to the USCG Cutter BITTERSWEET before he moved on to a three year assignment at Coast Guard Station Two Rivers, Wisconsin, where he served as a rescue boat coxswain, engineer and federal law enforcement boarding officer.

In October 1999, he was one of only 30 enlisted members selected to attend Coast Guard Officer Candidate School at the United States Coast Guard Academy, New London, Connecticut. Upon graduation in 2000, he received a commission as an ensign and was assigned to Coast Guard Sector Key West, Florida as an Operations Center Controller and Public Affairs Officer. While serving as the unit's Public Affairs Officer he earned back-to-back CDR Jim Simpson Awards for excellence in media and public relations.

In 2002, he was selected to serve as the Aide to then Coast Guard Chief of Staff, Admiral Thad W. Allen. Admiral Allen is currently serving as the twenty-third Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard. Lieutenant Frederick was a key member of Admiral Allen's staff during the Coast Guard's transition to the Department of Homeland Security.

In 2004, Lieutenant Frederick was selected to command Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment in Ilwaco, Washington. As the Commanding Officer, he was responsible for operations and readiness of the largest Search and Rescue and Law Enforcement Station in the Pacific Northwest with 7,100 square-miles of ocean, the treacherous Columbia River Bar, and 42 nautical-miles of the lower Columbia River. During his tenure as the Commanding Officer, the Station conducted over 800 search and rescue and 500 law enforcement cases. In 2006, he and his crew were awarded the Pacific Area Coast Guard Foundation Award for Heroism for a winter rescue of the 50-foot fishing vessel Catherine M.

Lieutenant Frederick was a finalist for the Witherspoon Inspirational Leadership Award, the highest leadership award in the USCG, in 2005 and was recognized as an Honorable Mention in 2006. It should also be noted that Lieutenant Frederick's military decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal, two Coast Guard Commendation Medals, the Coast Guard Achievement Medal and a variety of other personal, team and unit commendations.

Lieutenant Frederick was recently selected for promotion to Lieutenant Commander and will attend Johns Hopkins University for a master's degree in communications beginning this fall. I know Lieutenant Frederick will excel in his studies. The critical work he has done in service to the Coast Guard and our nation is an example for all those that serve. I wish the best to him and his wife Kimberly and his children. Thank you, Lieutenant Frederick for a job well done.