Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2892, legislation that makes appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010. I have received $750,000 in the FEMA, Predisaster Mitigation Account for the City of Flagler Beach located at P.O. Box 70, Flagler Beach, FL 32136. To the best of my knowledge, the funding would be used for the construction of a new EOC facility in Flagler Beach, FL.

As the population of the City of Flagler Beach has grown, the demand for services has increased. The City Hall and Emergency Operations Center share the same building, creating a constrained environment when responding to emergency situations. The city needs assistance to build a new facility that will accommodate not only current staff, but also the emergency response teams that will use the facility to respond to natural disasters, such as hurricanes that frequent Florida. The new building will expand the necessary space for city departments which will more adequately and efficiently serve the people of the community.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2892, legislation that makes appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010. I have received $350,000 in the FY2010 FEMA, Emergency Operations Center account for a new EOC in Palm Coast, FL. The entity to receive funding for this project is the City of Palm Coast, 160 Cypress Point Parkway Suite B-106, Palm Coast, FL 32164. To the best of my knowledge, the funding would be used for the construction of a new EOC facility in Palm Coast, FL.

The FY 2010 funding will assist in the construction of an Emergency Operations Center in Palm Coast. The new EOC will replace the 36 year old obsolete facility. The new location of the replacement facility will better serve the community by having its location in a central area of the City.

Madam Speaker, as we recognize Fathers Day 2009, probably never before has fatherhood been so challenged. The traditional position of fathers in American society and in the family as an institution is in serious trouble.

On a recent flight back to Washington I happened to open a local newspaper to birth notices. Nearly half of the births recorded were out of wedlock and about a dozen of the birth notices did not identify a father. In fact, today 28% of Caucasian, 51% Hispanic, and 70% African American children are born out of wedlock, while white males face a challenging role, their African American counterparts' fatherhood role has been dramatically eroded.

As we reflect on the plight of fatherhood in our community some sobering facts reveal a crisis that cannot and should not be ignored. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that not having a father has serious economic consequences. There are nearly twenty million children living in a single parent household. With no father present these households account for 45% of our poverty rate. The U.S. Department of Justice found that 46% of unwed mothers would leave poverty if they married the fathers of their children. A recent examination by the National Fatherhood Initiative revealed that African American newborns today are tremendously disadvantaged. Today, half of all children and 80% of African American children can expect to spend at least part of their childhood living apart from their fathers.

These staggering figures portray an absence in our society that is detrimental to our nation's youth. We must understand the consequences that result from denying our children a proper upbringing. Although Fathers Day is a time to celebrate and rejoice with our loved ones, we cannot forget about the increasing number of our children that are being raised without a father. Children growing up without a father are more likely to have behavioral problems, and be incarcerated. Those children are less likely to attend college, become married, and form healthy relationships.

Unfortunately this trend has become prevalent in our communities. As a result this problem has become repetitive through generations at an alarming rate. We must work to raise awareness of the positive effects fatherhood has on a child's life. We must also find ways to stem the decline of meaningful relationships between a father and his child in our society.

I recently read a commentary on The Importance of a Loving Father by Dr. Walter E. Barker, a Florida licensed Marriage and Family Therapist. ``Fathers are very important to their sons' and daughters' development. A mother gives the child unconditional love and acceptance and the father's love is more conditional on the child's finding success and accomplishment out in the larger world. He wants his children to find what makes them happy and then take that gift and talent to make a contribution to the larger society. Fathers want their children to have a strong work ethic and to be willing to assert themselves in the world.''

By supporting the family structure, better education and job training we can begin to reverse the diminished role of fathers in our country. We must all work to help raise awareness on this pressing issue. The importance of fatherhood should not be overlooked by our society if we are to ensure a promising future for the children in America.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This legislation appropriates $200,000 in the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, Department of Justice Juvenile Justice Account for KidsPeace Florida Therapeutic Foster Care Program in my district. The entity to receive this funding is KidsPeace Florida located at St. 711 Ballard Street, Altamonte Springs, FL 32701.

The funds from this request will (1) provide community-based placement to children involved with or at risk for involvement with the juvenile justice system; (2) address the mental health needs of children in the social service system; and (3) provide safe and supportive homes to children.

This legislation appropriates $250,000 in the Department of Justice COPS Law Enforcement Technology Account for St. Johns County in my district. The entity to receive this funding is St. Johns County located at 2740 Industry Center Road, St. Augustine, FL 32084.

The funds from this request will be used to improve the communications equipment that allows the cities and County to communicate during an emergency.

This legislation appropriates $400,000 in the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, Department of Justice COPS Law Enforcement Technology Account for the City of Maitland, Florida in my district. The entity to receive this funding is the City of Maitland, Florida located at 1 776 Independence Avenue, Maitland, Florida 32751.

Funding will be used for the critical Public Safety Radio System technology upgrades and Mobile Data Terminals for the Maitland Police Department.

This legislation appropriates $150,000 in the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, Department of Justice COPS Law Enforcement Technology Account for Volusia County, Florida in my district. The entity to receive this funding is Volusia County, Florida located at 123 West Indiana Avenue, DeLand, FL.

The Volusia County Sheriffs Office will use these funds for information technology systems upgrades to support a new evidence photo management system. The new system will provide for secure storage of evidentiary images to assist in the identification, apprehension, and prosecution of suspects.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 384, I was unavoidably detained on Transportation and Infrastructure Committee business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chair, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a letter I received this week from dozens of airports across the country concerning a provision in the pending legislation (H.R. 2200) pertaining to background screening services for aviation workers. I ask unanimous consent that the letter, which is addressed to me as well as the distinguished leaders of the Homeland Security Committee and Chairman Oberstar, be included in the Record.

This is an important issue with which I have a great deal of familiarity as the former Chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee. Following the tragic events of 9/11, Congress mandated that all workers with access to secure areas of airports be given criminal history background checks. While that now seems like a necessary and reasonable requirement, gaining those checks for nearly a million workers at airports was a daunting task given the fact that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)--the entity then in charge of processing background checks for aviation workers--routinely took more than 50 days to complete the process for each worker.

Without major upgrades to the process, meeting the congressional mandate was simply not achievable without significant disruptions to the aviation system. Recognizing that fact, the Federal Aviation Administration took the initiative to create a better system to facilitate the required checks and reached out to the private sector to help accomplish that goal. The result was a unique public/private partnership with the creation of the Transportation Security Clearinghouse to process background checks for aviation workers.

The Transportation Security Clearinghouse established the first high- speed, secure connection to the federal fingerprint processing system and ensured that more than 500 airports were able to access that system and complete the necessary background checks. It is my understanding that the TSC reduced a process that took more than 50 days down to an average of four hours, with many checks occurring in a matter of minutes. I am told that error rates with transmissions were reduced to 2 percent, well below the average government error rate of 8 percent.

As a result, the initial mandate for completing background checks was completed successfully. Numerous subsequent security enhancements-- issued directly by the Transportation Security Administration, the agency now in charge of aviation security--have likewise been completed successfully. Notably, all aviation workers and many others in the airport environment undergo detailed Security Threat Assessments, a process that has been facilitated by the TSC.

Over the past seven-plus years, the TSC has processed more than 4 million record checks for aviation workers. The costs of the checks for aviation workers have been reduced twice and at $27 are dramatically lower than for workers in other modes of transportation that require similar checks, including port workers and hazardous material truckers.

I raise these points to make clear that I concur with the view outlined by numerous airports on this letter. The current process for aviation workers works well and should not be disrupted as TSA seeks to comply with this legislation. Additionally, the agency needs to ensure that there is no diminution of security by requiring that any entity that seeks to provide these services in the future is capable of facilitating all current checks and can meet any other additional requirements deemed critical by the agency.

I appreciate the work of the Homeland Security Committee on this issue and look forward to working with them as this process moves forward.

June 2, 2009.

Hon. Bennie Thompson,

Chairman, House Homeland Security Committee, Washington, DC.

Hon. Peter King,

Ranking Member, House Homeland Security Committee,

Washington, DC.

Hon. James Oberstar,

Chairman, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Mica,

Ranking Member, House Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thompson, Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member

King, and Ranking Member Mica: with the House poised to

consider important TSA authorization legislation (H.R. 2200)

in the near future, we are writing to express our strong

support for the Transportation Security Clearinghouse (TSC)

and to ask that attempts to address competition in security

background screening services legislatively do not interfere

with the critical security services that the TSC currently

facilitates.

Created in the aftermath of September 11th in partnership

with the federal government to meet a congressional mandate

for the completion of background checks for aviation workers,

the TSC has built an incredible record of success over the

past seven-plus years. To date, more than four million

records have been vetted against federal criminal and

terrorist data bases at a cost much lower than other

comparable vetting programs. A process that took weeks to

complete prior to the creation of the TSC, now takes minutes,

collectively saving airports and our industry hundreds of

millions of dollars in operational and employee time savings

that would otherwise have been spent waiting for background

checks and away from their jobs.

For the federal government, the TSC serves as an invaluable

partner in ensuring the highest level of security in the

background screening process for aviation workers. As TSA has

expanded background check requirements for aviation workers

and others in the airport environment over the years, the

Clearinghouse has repeatedly risen to the occasion--most

often at its own expense--to ensure that additional checks

are performed quickly and effectively and in a manner that

limits disruptions to airport operations. Additionally, the

TSC adheres to all federal data and privacy standards and has

passed rigorous DHS certification requirements.

For airports, the TSC has repeatedly proven its value in

keeping costs low and services high. Difficult TSA mandates

have been met with minimal disruption, and Clearinghouse fees

have been reduced twice in recent years--currently $27 per

employee and significantly below the costs of similar

programs. The TSC was established to serve a

critical need of airports, and the incentives inherent in the

TSC model ensure that it will continue to put the needs of

airports and the aviation industry at the forefront.

While competition in this area is a worthy goal, it must

not come at the expense of a process that works well and that

has served our industry and the cause of aviation security

admirably for nearly eight years. As you have the opportunity

to consider legislation aimed at enhancing competition in

security background screening services, we ask that you take

steps to ensure that the current process facilitated by the

TSC is not disrupted and that any service providers approved

to perform similar functions are able to meet the same levels

of security and service that are currently provided by the

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which is also offered by Congressman Ehlers, Congressman Graves and Congressman Petri. This amendment would tighten standards for when TSA can issue an emergency regulation or security directive.

After 9/11, Congress wanted to ensure the TSA could act quickly to respond to terrorist threats. I was instrumental in crafting some of that legislation, and we wanted to give TSA the ability to waive the Administrative Procedures Act and issue a security directive any time they believed there was an ``immediate threat to transportation security.''

Now we come some 8 years after 9/11 and we see the TSA issuing security directives when the ``immediate threat'' they are seeking to address is sometimes unclear. And also there are some problems with use of this authority.

First, we have security directives that change from week to week. TSA is also issuing many directives that are unfunded mandates without an opportunity to comment; others are ``published'' and then remain open for months. And then we have seen examples of even security directives that have been revised seven or eight times.

TSA's use of the security directive makes us ask the question: What immediate threat is TSA addressing with these security directives in the manner they are proceeding?

This amendment would ensure that the waiver of the Administrative Procedures Act occurs only when there is an ``imminent threat of finite duration.'' TSA would still have the ability to quickly respond to such threats, but if the directive is in place for longer than 6 months, it would be required to conduct a regular rulemaking process.

This amendment would refine TSA's security directive issuance process to make it truly responsive to imminent threats and not just the whim of the agency. That is not what we intended. So I ask my colleagues to join other colleagues here in trying to strengthen and clarify this law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Might I inquire as to the balance of our time?

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), also a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, do we have 1 minute left on our side?

To close for our side, I would like to yield the balance of my time to another distinguished leader of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment with the modification which I have provided at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I do want to express my sincere gratitude to Chairman Thompson, to the majority staff, and to the staff on our side of the aisle and Members from the minority. They worked together, I think, in the best interest of trying to bring forward the best possible Transportation Security Administration authorization and legislation they could, and also worked very closely to modify an amendment that I originally proposed.

My colleagues, Congress has repeatedly directed the Transportation Security Administration to use biometric identifier technology for identification cards, travel documents and access control programs.

In fact, Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, these are the times, and I was one of the original authors of the TSA legislation, in which we included a similar directive back immediately after 9/11. But these are the times I have passed, or Congress has passed, into law directives, law after law, directive after directive to TSA to use biometric. And I'd like to submit a list of those for the Record.

Congressional Mandates for the Utilization of Biometric Identifier

Technology for Identification Cards, Travel Documents, and Access

Control Programs * * *

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001

Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001

Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002

Maritime and Transportation Security Act of 2002

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for

I only have a short period of time, but I would like to yield it to Mr. Dent.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the amendment, the way it is crafted. I thank the gentlelady from Florida. My colleague has very good intentions, but let's look at the results here.

First of all, this isn't going to eliminate the duplication that was referred to. Florida can still issue an identity card, its own identity card. And it would be better to have just one identity card, but they can still issue one identity card.

What this amendment does is it says that the State is prohibited from conducting a separate background check. So what this becomes is a protection and cover for basically thugs and criminals who are at our ports. You cannot do a criminal background check. This actually prohibits that. That's why I'm opposed to it.

The reason we're concerned in Florida about having criminal background checks--this is the Camber Report. I was in Congress when this was conducted in 2000. One of our ports had over 60 percent of those working at the port with criminal backgrounds.

Here's part of the security assessment. I will name this port; Jacksonville. It has a large physical layout of its facilities, three noncontiguous terminals. The port represents a lucrative target to would-be smugglers and terrorists.

So this amendment, by the way it is crafted--and it should be revised--would prohibit Florida from, even if they want to, and still can with this amendment, they can issue their own card, but they can't conduct a criminal background check. That's wrong. That's wrong.

We can't provide cover for thugs and criminals. And you hear from this report that it does pose both a criminal and terrorist threat, and that needs to be addressed.

This amendment, the way it's crafted, does not do that.

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

Thank you again for the opportunity to rise today and speak about a very important piece of legislation, and that is reauthorization of our Federal Aviation Administration operations.

Americans take for granted sometimes the ability to have the best, the largest, and the most accessible air transportation system in the world. But it is our job in Congress to make certain that that system is safe and that we also pass laws from time to time authorizing the policy, the projects, the funding, and other safety measures that are important for that system.

I want to speak in favor of enacting good reauthorization. At the end of the day, I will not vote in support of this particular measure because I do have some concerns that I will briefly outline.

First, let me say that I have enjoyed my working relationship with Mr. Oberstar. He chairs the committee, and I try to work with him in a bipartisan manner to make certain that our key responsibilities, like this important safety air industry legislation, passes Congress, and I will continue to do that.

I do have some concerns about some specifics. The bill does have some very good provisions. And Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Costello, and Mr. Petri, our ranking member, have all worked hard to do the best they can in looking out for our current system, making certain that it is sound, making certain that there is funding in place and making certain that we have what we call ``NextGen,'' next generational air traffic control, in the system for the future, and that bill does take us a long way towards those positive efforts.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of provisions that we haven't reached agreement on. And I have been married 37 years. Almost every other day my wife and I have a disagreement on something. So it is not a big deal to have disagreement. Hopefully we can work some of these problems out.

What concerns me are, first of all, the labor provisions that were included in this bill. Now, as we know, we had a difficult situation with the air traffic controllers' contract. It expired. It was being negotiated. They couldn't reach an agreement some years ago. They sent it to Congress. We don't want it in Congress. It caused a great deal of conflict and problems. We shouldn't be the arbiters of these labor negotiations. And I will say that President Obama has stepped forward. He has set in motion a mechanism to resolve this pending impasse. I support his efforts.

By I believe June 5, if we don't reach negotiations, this issue will go to binding arbitration. I support binding arbitration. I support taking this out of the realm of Congress. But I think it was wrong to include that provision here when we are in the middle of negotiations that our new President is trying to get going and get this issue behind us and resolve. So this sets a horrible precedent for Congress to be dictating here, at this point, with this new President, these terms which do have a $1 billion-plus price tag and do set a standard of unfairness. Not only are there 15,000 air traffic controllers who should be treated fairly, but then we have 20,000 other FAA employees who should be treated fairly and hundreds of thousands of hard-working Federal employees who should be treated fairly, not Congress dictating a special level of compensation or some deal for a smaller group. So this does have consequences. And I'm disappointed that

that remains. I'm supportive of taking this away from Congress in the future and sending it to compulsory arbitration.

Unfortunately, there are two job killers in this bill. At a time when there isn't a Member of Congress that isn't getting a heartfelt request that someone is losing their job, they are losing their home, or they are not able to live the American Dream, unfortunately, this bill has two job-killer provisions.

First is a very controversial, and I know that Mr. Oberstar tried to explain this in his particular provision that he has put in here, requirement that the FAA make biennial inspections of all foreign repair stations. It sounds good. The only problem is that we already have existing agreements in place that that provision would supersede. We are negotiating now a treaty which also, the provisions the way they are written, would impose sanctions on us and cost us jobs.

Now, that is not what John Mica is saying. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that, as written, the bill jeopardizes 129,000 jobs. And we will put that in the Record a little bit later.

The National Association of Manufacturers, not John Mica, says retaliation threat from the EU is real and we must work together to maintain our working partnerships and preserve jobs. Again, they say it is a job killer.

Then I have a whole list of companies. They are in everybody's district, I could go on and on, Rockwell Collins, Boeing, Gulfstream, GE. Here is just one. GE sent a letter to Mr. Oberstar and me regarding how much this will cost in each of these stations. Now I don't mind spending money for safety. I don't mind imposing regulations or laws for safety. But this is a step backward, and it is a step away from what we should be doing, rather than saying on every Tuesday in the sixth month that we should be in Amsterdam inspecting, or we should be in London inspecting, or we should be in Ireland inspecting, or in Berlin inspecting, as this bill requires, twice-year annual inspections even to countries that we have already got agreements that we would have the same high standards and some of the countries have even higher standards imposed, their own higher than the U.S.

So we take our limited resources and we do these mandated inspections whether or not we need them. And our whole system in this country we changed some years ago for our large aircraft was to get away from that. We are risk based, and that is why we are the safest aviation industry in the United States. Yes, we have problems with commuters. And we should be using some of our resources to enhance the training, the requirements, and the inspections of the commuters where we are having crashes. We can't let up in any area. But we are diverting resources by this and going back to a system that did not work.

So not only does this I think impair safety, it also is a job killer.

The second and last thing that I am concerned about is 95 percent of this bill, we said in the Rules Committee, is pretty much the same bill we had last time. Added to this bill, and again I don't know why, is a provision that would sunset airline antitrust immunity. Unfortunately, this bill, and it is not what Mica says again, here is the Air Transport Association. This bill could cost as many as 15,000 airline jobs. Again, this is what is said by those who are in the industry. And this is a second job killer provision. This was not in the original bill. It has been added here.

And more troubling is that this provision would also automatically invalidate all antitrust immunity grants to airline alliances 3 years after the enactment of this bill. It is not necessary. It shouldn't have been added in this bill.

There are several other provisions that are controversial. We can work through this, and we need to work through this. This is the longest period that I can remember in the history of my service, and maybe Congress, that we have not had an FAA reauthorization. Hopefully we will also have in the next few days the President's designee for FAA Administrator. We haven't had one there. The other side of the Congress has not acted the way it should in promptly confirming an FAA Administrator. We all know how difficult it is when we have an Administrator in an agency to deal with him, and when you have no one in place for a long time we see some of the unfortunate results.

Those are some of my concerns and, again, I pledge to work with Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Costello and others, and Mr. Petri, our ranking member. We're all committed to work. They all do a great job. We all have the interests and safety of the American public at heart.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and then I yield 5 minutes to our ranking member, Mr. Petri.

Just for the record, I want to call to the attention of Members--and we will try to get this distributed today--this bill, the way it is written, voids the 2006 contract with the FAA and air traffic controllers, and it reinstates the generous terms and pay raises of the 1998 contract which had about a 70 percent pay increase. Today, at noon the Government Accountability Office released this report on the effects of pay and compensation, particularly for air traffic controllers and FAA employees, and this substantiates what I've said and also substantiates the very generous compensation that was provided under the terms of the 1998 contract. This bill interferes, again, with pending negotiations that the President has started, and we're hoping to resolve this matter.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), our distinguished ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, and then I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Just 15 seconds to add in the Record that the repair station provision I will cite for different Members, in Mr. Costello's district, according to Midcoast Aviation, will cost us and kill 1,339 jobs.

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself 15 seconds.

So for 15 seconds, I see Ms. Johnson in the Chamber, and her district, I have the list of aviation centers in her district that will lose a total, or could lose a total of 1,735 job. Again, job-killer provisions in this legislation.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock) a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I see in the Chamber, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cohen. And while he has some provisions in this that will do much damage to his district, the repair station job-killer provision will kill, could kill 218, I have a list of the companies, high-paying jobs.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

I would like to yield myself 30 seconds to respond. Then I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Chairman, I had my staff compile the number of jobs that would be killed in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee members' districts. The previous speaker from Georgia represents probably one of the busiest airports and activities in the United States, and he has expressed concerns. I don't know how many jobs will be killed in his district. In Ms. Richardson's district in California, which is suffering from a downturn in the economy, they could lose 1,015 jobs.

I will yield now 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Again, the figures that I'm using about the job-killing provisions, particularly on the repair station provision, are not my guesstimates. These are provided by industry.

I don't see Ms. Brown on the floor, but my colleague Ms. Brown and I share a district in Florida, its boundaries, and it's estimated that 935 jobs could be lost. This is when our area is suffering from 10 to 15 percent unemployment, and these are high-paying jobs.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself 30 seconds.

Well again, I've talked about the job-killing provisions of the repair station mandate in this bill. On our small Aviation Subcommittee, it has the potential for killing 7,100 high-paying jobs in Democrat districts. This is an equal opportunity job killer because in Mr. Petri's district, a gentleman who is here in a Republican district, it could do away with 850 jobs. I also know Wisconsin needs those high-paying aviation industry jobs.

Well, first of all, we got the information both from the FAA and from industry.

We may lose that many jobs if there is retaliation.

Well, we're not certain, but again I'm telling you what the industry says. We have countless groups that have said that this is a job killer to the industry.

I don't know how many jobs will be lost.

I would like to yield 1 minute, if I may to Mr. Cohen.

(Mr. COHEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Can I inquire as to the balance of time on both sides, please.

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude and yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, we've worked hard. We have a common goal here. Mr. Oberstar cares deeply about the safety and viability of our American aviation industry.

Mr. Costello shares that concern, our chair of the Aviation Subcommittee. Mr. Petri, our ranking Republican. We have the leaders of aviation. When I came to Congress, Mr. Oberstar was the chairman at the Aviation Subcommittee. I had the opportunity for 6 years during a very difficult time in the history of the country from 2001 for 6 years to lead that committee.

Our interest is safety. Now, there are very good provisions in this bill, and we've worked together to put them there. There are some hiccups here and some things we wish were not in the bill. I have great concern about this repair station provision and the jobs that it may kill. I don't know how many. All I have is the information. We took the information from the districts of just the members on the subcommittee, and it's 11,000. This is a bipartisan job-killing provision--11,442 just on our small subcommittee in Congress. We can't take that chance now.

Now, you heard Mr. Johnson, I believe, from Georgia talk about the antitrust provisions. And we're told by the Air Transport Association the job-killing potential of that antitrust provision that was not in the bill that was voted on by Congress last time, it's a new provision and a job-killing provision.

Our interest here is putting people to work and making this system safe, not doing away with jobs. So we've got to ensure that the provisions of this are sound for safety, sound for the current operations of our Federal Aviation Administration system, and sound, also, for the future.

With that, I pledge to work with my colleagues because this bill will probably pass today. I wouldn't want to go back during Memorial Day and say I voted, however, for a measure--and we just heard Mr. Cohen from Tennessee make a plea because this has job-killing provisions for him-- and say this may kill high-paying jobs in your district.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, and gentlelady from New York, I just want to express, through the Chair, that we do have concerns. We've expressed concerns. We are willing to work with the gentlelady and accept her amendment at this time. But our reservations have been noted for the record.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment, unfortunately, is a local issue that we're putting into a Federal piece of legislation that is very important for safety; and the gentleman, who I greatly respect, Mr. Ackerman, is trying to do the best he can to make arguments that this dump poses safety concerns and hazards to aviation. I don't have the capability of making that determination, nor does Congress. We rely on the FAA. They have looked at this. They say that it does not pose a hazard to air navigation.

That being said, I like Mr. Ackerman, and sometimes I find myself in the situation like Mr. Ackerman, and you try to use any means you can to satisfy concerns about a project, whether it be local, State or Federal to the best benefit of your constituents.

So therefore, I am not going to call for a vote. I'm not going to actively oppose. I probably will quietly say no to this and let it pass.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to the time remaining?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Well, this is the conclusion, really, on the debate of the FAA authorization. It ends with a question of whether we should close the dump or keep the dump open.

As I said, I have the greatest respect for Mr. Ackerman and also for Mr. Crowley, and I know what they're trying to do for their constituents. So I rise in very quiet opposition, but I do have to state the facts, that this is not a matter that really should be in the bill, but we'll try to assist our colleagues as they're trying to do the best they can for their constituents.

On the larger question of the bill, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I also rise in opposition to the bill, somewhat quietly. Every Member can vote the way they'd like. I'm not telling or asking Republican Members to vote one way or another, but you do have to be the judge of what we're doing here today. It is important that we do reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. We've had a 2-year delay, not of any fault of my colleagues under the great leadership of Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Costello, and Mr. Petri, our ranking

member. We've done our level best to make certain that we have the policy, the projects, and the funding to have the safest aviation system in the world. They can be very proud of their work.

Now, we do have some differences of opinion on some particular provisions. This was voted on before, and some circumstances have changed. We have a new President. He is trying to resolve a very contentious labor issue. I don't like putting that issue in now. That's different than when we voted on it before. We did have a different President and a different situation. So here I am, a Republican, saying we need to support our President, but we need to do that and to not set a bad precedence for all labor issues to be drug before Congress in this manner.

Then, on the question of job creation and job killing, I don't know how many jobs are in the provisions for insisting on this mandated inspection of foreign repair stations. That sounds good, but it reverts us back to a time when we used to do that in the United States. Twice a year, we would inspect every one of these stations whether we needed to or not, and that was a diversion of our resources. We changed that to a risk-based system, and that's what we need to maintain both domestically and internationally.

Finally, 95 percent of this bill was debated before. There is an antitrust immunity provision that does repeal some provisions we've given to airline alliances. It's a job killer. It's estimated to be over 100,000 jobs. I don't know how many. At a time when people will come to us as we return to our districts over Memorial Day weekend, we can't leave here and say that we've eliminated more jobs. Many of these jobs, whether they're repair stations or the airline industry, are good-paying jobs that people need so desperately today.

So the question before us is how we vote on this particular legislation at this time and place and with these particular provisions. Some are good. Some are bad. I choose to vote ``no'' today. I'm sorry.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, though I found several provisions in this bill today to be good, I am afraid that in the long-run this legislation will hurt credit card consumers, so I reluctantly voted against it.

Some worthwhile provisions of note include consumer protections. Raising interest rates without fair and timely notice is wrong, as is applying a penalty interest rate to your existing debt. Another good provision provides for adequate time to receive and pay your bill on time using the mail. I particularly liked the section that protects young people from getting in over their heads before they even start adult life.

My concerns are that there will be fewer credit cards and less credit to individuals and businesses that need it. Fees will go up on those who tried to pay on time.

I am afraid this bill in the end will extend our recession, cost those who currently hold cards more and deny those seeking cards access to the credit they need very badly.

Mr. Speaker, due to mechanical problems relating to US Airways flight #859, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to vote on rollcalls 267, 268, and 269. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of these measures.

I have known Jack Kemp for more than three decades.

First of all, I want to join the House and my colleagues and every Member of Congress in supporting this resolution to honor both Jack Kemp's life and accomplishments. We all have our stories about Jack Kemp. Anyone who met Jack Kemp cannot be left without the memory of the special sparkle in his eye.

All you had to do was see Jack Kemp and see that special sparkle.

There was also a special warmth in his greeting. When you met Jack Kemp, you met someone special. And he greeted you warmly whether you were just an average person on the street or held the highest office in this land.

We will all remember Jack Kemp for his sharp mind, and always with his new ideas. Jack Kemp was a man of his time and a man ahead of his time.

We have lost, Mr. Speaker, a great American. He cared about people. The quote in this resolution, as Jack Kemp said, and I quote from Jack, ``There are no limits to our future''--

In conclusion, again, Jack Kemp's own words about people, ``There are no limits to our future if we don't put limits on our people.'' He believed in people. He believed in this country. He will be missed by all of us.

It is fitting, again, that we celebrate and recognize the accomplishments of a great American's life. To Joanne and his family, we send our sympathies and condolences.

Madam Speaker, I want to express my concern regarding the $3.5 trillion Federal budget, S. Con. Res. 13, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday.

The size of the deficit in this budget, some $1.7 trillion for one year, is almost beyond comprehension. This could be a prescription for future debt disaster for our Nation's finances. Even the United States can go bankrupt if we continue spending at this rate.

In the first 100 days of the new administration, Congress and the administration have run up more debt than the entire 8 years of the Bush Administration. The spending in the first three months includes a $787 billion so-called stimulus, $406 billion Omnibus increasing discretionary spending by 10% this year and hundreds of billions in TARP dollars.

Not only does the 2010 budget represent astronomical deficit spending, it also raises taxes by $1.5 trillion (that's trillion) dollars.

At some point soon this deficit spending, taxation and increased national indebtedness will have dramatic and negative consequences for our Nation.

I thank you so much. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding to me. I thank him for his leadership and also for calling this Special Order tonight to talk about the Fair Tax and about the subject of taxation which has sort of gotten brushed under the carpet and not been considered in the 111th Congress, or for that matter in the past Congress. The Fair Tax has not been given a fair hearing or a fair chance.

I can't come before the House and talk about the subject without complimenting the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder). Mr. Linder certainly is an inspiration for moving this proposal forward, not only in Congress, but across the Nation. We were pleased to have him in my Congressional district to speak on the Fair Tax and other matters before Congress. There is no question that without John Linder, this topic would be totally forgotten both in the Congress and across the country.

I come before Congress at a time when we have a new administration, and I think we all wish the President well. We wish him success. The country is hurting economically, and we don't want one person without a job. We don't want one person who has a problem paying their mortgage or losing their home. We don't want people to suffer because they don't have health insurance or an opportunity for education or the great opportunities that this Nation provides.

Unfortunately, this new administration also has not considered the Fair Tax. I think they have considered or are considering just about every other tax. I don't have enough time to cite all of them, but if you ever want to see new taxes, look at the budget that has been rolled out by the new administration. Some are hidden. Some have fancy, clever names. There is the cap-and-trade which would impose higher costs for energy users. Someone told me it is over $3,128 annually in higher cost for every household. That is a new

tax. It has a clever name, but they have no problem imposing another tax on people who are already hurting and having difficulty in paying their energy bills.

The new administration is looking at again a host of other ways to tax people, but not looking at the Fair Tax, which would probably be the simplest, one of the fairest means of assessing costs to run our government. Now they are talking about new taxes on small business, taxes for anyone who makes $250,000 a year, taxes on charitable giving, taxes on certain housing and financial transactions, bringing back the death tax, and there are some taxes that under the Bush administration needed to be extended and they will let them expire.

So I think they are finding every way to tax but not looking at probably the simplest, most honest approach to again raising revenue, and that we think is the option of the Fair Tax.

It is kind of interesting, too, in the new crowd we have folks we find don't mind raising new taxes because a lot of them haven't been paying those taxes or are having difficulty explaining both to congressional committees and the American public and others that they couldn't figure out the taxes, or their highly paid CPAs or accountants couldn't figure out the morass of regulations and all of the terms in the thousands of pages of Tax Code that everybody has to comply with. This is not a laughing matter, folks. We have buried ourselves in tax law that again would probably reach higher than me if it was all stacked up here on these desks at which I am pleased to speak tonight.

But again, I think that it is vital and I would appeal to the leadership of the House and those on the Ways and Means Committee and other committees in the Congress to give the Fair Tax a fair chance. Give it a fair hearing. Give it a chance to be debated in committee and here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Instead of this long list of new taxes that we hear coming out almost daily from the new administration to raise revenue, to look at a means of a very simple, economical, efficient reasons of raising revenue, eliminating the red tape and eliminating the questionable thousands of pages that people are having difficulty with, whether they are high Wall Street smart executives being considered for the highest posts in our land, or the average taxpayer who is struggling to compile their taxes.

I know that people are saying that Mr. Mica made this up, but I came from my office and almost tripped over a little stack that I have on the floor that I have to get to this week, and that is my taxes, to prepare that complicated--and thank goodness I have been out of business and the private sector for some time--so what used to be probably 2 or 3 inches of tax returns and sitting down for some time with my CPA and accountant is a much smaller, less complicated affair; but nonetheless, it is complicated. And many people, obviously, have difficulty complying with the thousands and thousands of pages and rules and regulations that are interpreted differently.

So this is the time, I think, to give this proposal which has been developed by some here in Congress a fair chance, a fair hearing. Let's not sweep it under the carpet for another 2 years, but let's give it an honest hearing and look at how we can eliminate a huge bureaucracy and red tape. And so important today in creating jobs, whether it is in my district which is hurting for jobs, or across the country, the issue of competitiveness in the world markets, and nothing would allow us to compete more than a fair and equitable tax system that many other nations in the world have turned to, and many of our competitors have turned to, which make us less competitive in our jobs and products, and ability to compete in this global market.

I am here tonight to join my colleagues in asking that we give the Fair Tax a fair hearing and a fair chance and fair consideration in the Congress rather than the host of taxes that are being cast upon us and the Nation to pay by the administration at this time.

I thank you for the opportunity to join you tonight for a few minutes in this Special Order. And again, I praise your work and hope that we get a fair hearing on the Fair Tax.

I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding, and appreciate his leadership.

As our ranking Republican leader on the Water Resources Subcommittee, I also want to thank Mr. Oberstar, my chairman of the full committee, who I am pleased to work with on our side of the aisle in what has been I think an example for the Congress, a bipartisan relationship, during the last 2 years. I want to compliment him on the water resources bill that we did together, when we sat down and we said we had not reauthorized water resources legislation for some 7 years, and we made a commitment together that we thought was in the best interest of the Nation.

Previously, the authorization levels were $4 billion or $5 billion. The bill that we offered, and there had been a backlog of projects and need for investment in our water resources infrastructure, was a $24 billion measure which, unfortunately, got vetoed by the former President. But I helped in leading the 107th veto override in the history of the Congress, because both Mr. Oberstar and I, Democrats and Republicans, agreed. There were some disagreements with the administration, but we agreed that we had to invest in this Nation's infrastructure; that our sewer systems, our water systems, the basic infrastructure of this country needed that investment. We can't have in the United States Third-World water and sewer systems or storm drainage systems or antiquated municipal systems that serve our people, and essential public services that are outdated, aging, crumbling. So we made that commitment together.

Now, I was noticing that this legislation here, we passed five bills last time. Four of the bills, and I have the votes here, were all over 360 votes, a very small number of people in opposition to four of the votes. I think I supported all four of the measures. We did combine, however, in here an important bill that the chairman led, the provisions of House Resolution 720, that reauthorized State resolving funds and provides $13 billion over 5 years in Federal assistance to further capitalize the funds for these projects, and this is a very important fund.

Now, let me just say that while I am supportive of the overall legislation, even the level of funding that we put in here, I do have one reservation about the extension of the requirement for prevailing wage. And this is not a union-set wage; that is not the issue; it is a prevailing wage, and the way it is assessed in some of our areas. We have 18 States that will be penalized by having their funds that previously weren't subject to this, and they are State funds, and funds that come back into their fund are now also made subject to this prevailing Federal wage provision. And that is the one objection I do have to this legislation. Another gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack) will offer an amendment, which we all agreed should be fully debated and heard. But that is my issue.

Now, if that provision comes out of the bill, I would support the entire measure. I am sorry that this small point that I disagree on would cause me not to support this bill on final passage if it is included. But this is basically a good piece of legislation. It does have a question about extension of some of these things, these prevailing wage issues and, again, the way they assess this prevailing wage; and maybe we should go back and change this.

First of all, I have no problem with prevailing wage, and we should have it in our large urban areas. We should also give States discretion to set levels of wage even beyond the Federal requirement, and some of those jurisdictions do. We do have a Federal minimum wage, so no one is trying to make people work for less than the Federal minimum. But sometimes the area in which we assess that prevailing wage does expand into some of the smaller communities. So they are going to be paying more and getting less, or marginal projects will get left behind because they don't have the resources that they can expend. And it does, again, diminish the amount of money that they can have available by

this new requirement. So that is the one area of disagreement we have.

I compliment the staff, the ranking member's, Ms. Johnson--I don't see her here today--Mr. Oberstar, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) for their leadership on this issue, and I hope we can proceed. And I hope that even if this does pass today with that provision, that we can work with the other body and make the basic provisions of this legislation the law of the land and improve our infrastructure.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Energy and Water section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations Account for the Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, FL.

I have received $4.019 million in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is Florida Inland Navigation District, 1314 Marcinski Road, Jupiter, Fl 33477. The FY 2009 funding will be used for the maintenance dredging of the IWW in portions of the IWW in St. Johns, Duval, St. Lucie, Martin and Indian River Counties.

The Intracoastal Waterway in Florida annually: transports over 1.7 million tons of commercial cargo and over 500,000 recreational vessels; increases property values by $38.4 billion, and; provides $18 billion in economic output which includes $6 billion in personal wages and 203,519 jobs. Studies have shown that these benefits would be reduced by over 50% if the waterway is not properly maintained.

Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Transportation, HUD section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Federal Transit Administration Account for the Buses and Bus Facilities for the Seminole County, Florida.

I have received $1,425,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is Seminole County, 1101 East First St., Sanford, FL 32771. The FY 2009 funding will be used to construct bus stations in Seminole County, Florida in the cities of Altamonte, Lake Mary, Longwood and Sanford. The cities have received the necessary environmental clearances to move forward with land acquisition. This project is eligible under SAFETEA-LU program authorization.

Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, 1 am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Transportation, HUD section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Federal Highway Administration Account for TCSP-Transportation and Community and System Preservation for Flagler County.

I have received $237,500 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is Flagler County, 1769 East Moody Blvd., Bunnell, FL 32110. The FY

2009 funding will used for the construction of the Colbert Lane to Belle Terre segment of the Lehigh Trail in Flagler County, Florida. No previous federal funding, eligible for funds under SAFETEA-LU program authorization.

Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Transportation, HUD section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Federal Highway Administration Account for the Central Winds Park Water Taxi Project, Winter Springs, Florida.

I have received $190,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is the City of Winter Springs, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, FL 32708. The FY 2009 funding will be used for the design, permitting and construction for a water taxi launch site to provide transportation between communities located on Lake Jesup in Seminole County.

Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Transportation, HUD section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Federal Transit Administration Account for the Central Florida Commuter Rail System Project.

I have received $13 million in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is the Florida Department of Transportation, 605 Suwannee St., Tallahassee, FL 32399. The FY 2009 funding will support purchasing right of way for the station properties and conduct final design for Phase 1.

The project is a 61-mile, 17-station commuter rail system being built on existing right-of-way from the DeLand Amtrak Station in Volusia County to Poinciana Industrial Park in Osceola County, through downtown Orlando, Florida. The project was approved by the Federal Transit Administration to enter preliminary engineering in March 2007 and anticipates beginning revenue operations in 2011 (Phase 1) and 2013 (Phase 2). The Central Florida Commuter Rail System is authorized under SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59), Section 3043(b)(3).

Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Transportation, HUD section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Federal Transit Administration Account for the Winter Park Intermodal Facility Project.

I have received $950,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is City of Winter Park, Fl, 150 W. Morse Blvd., Winter Park, FL 32789. The FY 2009 funding will be used for construction and facility improvements to the Amtrak Station in Winter Park, Florida to accommodate additional public transit and the Central Florida Commuter Rail system due to start in 2010. This project is eligible under SAFETEA-LU program authorization.

Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Transportation, HUD section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Federal Transit Administration Account for the Buses and Bus Facilities for the St Johns County Council on Aging.

I have received $1,472,500 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is St Johns County, 180 Marine St., St. Augustine, FL 32084. The FY 2009 funding will be used for the construction of new transit facilities and fleet replacement in St Johns County, Florida. This project has received federal funding in FY04, FY05 and FY06 and is eligible under SAFETEA-LU program authorization.

Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Labor, HHS, Education section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Administration Account for the Catholic Charities of Central Florida Mobile Health Unit.

I have received $190,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is Catholic Charities of Central Florida, 1771 N. Sermoran Blvd., Orlando, FL 32807. The FY 2009 funding will be used toward the purchase and equip a Mobile Health Unit (MHU) to serve the most vulnerable uninsured residents in Central Florida. A medically equipped 35 ft. MHU is a critical tool that will provide immediate basic health to the uninsured men, women and children with the most urgent needs who lack access to transportation, child care, inability of working poor to take time off from their jobs and at-risk seniors without Medicare Part B in underserved communities. The Mobile Health Unit will serve an estimated 4,000 people per year equaling a taxpayer/hospital savings of $1,980,000 in indigent care costs.

Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Labor, HHS, Education section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Administration Account for the School of Nursing at the Bethune-Cookman University.

I have received $330,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is Bethune-Cookman University, 640 Dr. Mary McCleod Bethune Blvd., Daytona Beach, FL 32114-3099. The FY 2009 funding will be used for toward the completion of the $3.5 million renovation of a 37,000 sq. ft. facility to house the expansion of the School of Nursing. The building will include Smart Classrooms, Simulation and Skills Laboratories, a Lecture Hall, Seminar and Conference Rooms, Administrative and Faculty Offices and the innovative, community focused Wellness Center. The University received federal funding for this project in FY08 in the HUD account.

Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Interior and Environment FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Environmental Protection Agency, STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Account for the Volusia County Integrated Water Resources Project.

I have received $500,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is the St. Johns River Water Management District, 4049 Reid Street Palatka, FL 32178-1429. The FY 2009 funding will be used to integrate alternative water supplies in Volusia County, to serve the collective water supply needs of the local governments. These alternative supplies will reduce the projected regional groundwater deficits. This project will develop up to 30 million gallons per day of additional water supply from the St. Johns River and potentially other alternative water sources.

This funding is needed in order to ensure the availability of an affordable supply of water for use by public water supply and possibly by wastewater utility customers in the Volusia County area, to avoid competition among users of traditional groundwater sources for the limited groundwater supplies in the project area and to reduce the significant threat to water resources and related natural systems that would result if withdrawals of groundwater were allowed to occur beyond their sustainable limits.

Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Interior and Environment FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Environmental Protection Agency, STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Account for the Potable Water System Improvement Project, City of Crescent City, Florida.

I have received $500,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is the City of Crescent City, Florida, 3 N. Summit St., Crescent City, Fl 32112. The FY 2009 funding will be used for the replacement of asbestos cement lines with PVC water lines, existing asbestos cement lines have been cracking and corroding and adversely effect water service to local residents.

Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Energy and Water section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations Account for the Flagler Beach Shoreline Protection Project.

I have received $263,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is Flagler County, 1769 East Moody Blvd, Bunnell, Fl 32110. The FY 2009 funding will complete the feasibility study of the Flagler County shoreline which was begun with funding provided in FY 2004.

The shoreline of the City of Flagler Beach has experienced critical erosion that threatens State Road A1A, which serves as an emergency evacuation route. For example, A1A was closed in Flagler Beach for the month of January, 2006 as the road was completely washed away due to erosion. The erosion also has caused a severe loss of public recreation opportunities and a degradation of environmental habitat. The beach is so narrow that the high tide line extends into the existing revetment, making it unsuitable as nesting habitat for sea turtles and almost unusable for recreational purposes. The City believes that restoration of the beach is a primary component of preserving safe passage along A1A while

also providing public recreational opportunities and environmental habitat.

Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Commerce, Justice, Science section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Department of Justice, OJP-Byrne Discretionary Grants Account for Putnam County for the Children's Advocacy Center.

I have received $330,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is Putnam County, PO Box 758, Palatka, FL 32178. The FY 2009 funding will assist Putnam County, FL to renovate and equip a new 2500 sq. ft facility to address child abuse cases in this affected area. This new facility will provide children, their families, case workers, detectives and advocates a safe central location where they can meet in a nonthreatening environment. This project has not received federal funding previously, but is authorized under P.L. 109-162--the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.

The purpose of the Children's Advocacy Center in Putnam County provides an environment for multiple agencies to interview, examine, investigate and treat cases of child abuse in Putnam County. These funds will be used to renovate and staff a new 2500 sq. ft facility. This new facility will provide children, their families, case workers, detectives and advocates a safe central location where they can meet in a non-threatening environment. Providing this space for concurrent interviewing and interagency conferencing enhances the communication between agencies on mutual cases.

Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Commerce, Justice, Science section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Department of Justice, COPS Law Enforcement Technology for the City of Maitland. I have received $170,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is City of Maitland, 1776 Independence Ln, Maitland, FL 32751. The FY 2009 funding will assist the City of Maitland in the purchase of an upgraded computer aided dispatch system that will better coordinate law enforcement and of first responders. This project has not received federal funding previously, but is authorized under P.L. 109-162--the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.

The funding will form a multi-agency radio interoperability system comprised of the City of Maitland, City of Orlando and the University of Central Florida, and for critical technology upgrades for the Maitland Police and Fire Department. Funding is for Maitland's portion of the multi-agency radio interoperability system. Additionally, the need for timely records, Drivers License, Criminal History, and photo identification information is critical for public safety. Mobile Data Terminals (MDT) provide immediate access to this critical information and funding will allow for their full provision to Police, Public Safety (Fire EMS), and connection to the Public Safety Records Management System (RMS).

Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Energy and Water section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations Account for the St. Johns County Shore Erosion Control Project.

I have received $263,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is St. Johns County, 4020 Lewis Speedway, St. Augustine, Fl 32084. The FY 2009 funding will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to lessen down drift shoreline impacts caused by the federal navigation channel at St. Augustine Inlet, and to provide storm damage protection to the shore.

St. Johns County is located on the East Coast of Florida, approximately 30 miles south of Jacksonville and 200 miles north of Miami. The ocean shoreline of St. Johns County is approximately 42 miles long. Due to tropical storms and major hurricanes, particularly Hurricane Floyd of 1999, the shorelines of St. Johns County have been subject to significant erosion prompting a request to the federal government for assistance. The feasibility study area will include all of St. Johns County, including the South Ponte Vedra Beach area.

I rise in strong support of the Oberstar amendment. This is a very simple amendment to understand. Chairman Oberstar and I have worked, as he said, we have worked together since last fall to create a stimulus package of infrastructure projects that are ready to go and in which we can employ people as soon as possible. That is the objective of Oberstar amendment.

We need to pass this amendment because we are not interested in funding projects or providing a stimulus package and not have the money into our States and our communities to build that infrastructure that will be real and not employ people.

This stimulus package is all about employing people. Whether it's Minneapolis, the great State of Minnesota, which Mr. Oberstar represents, or my State, look at the statistics. Look at the newspapers and the people who are losing their jobs. We need to get this money out as soon as possible so people who want to work, have a choice of work, have that opportunity.

This amendment, the Oberstar amendment, puts that money out there and it employs people immediately. No games played in this. This is not a bailout-to-financial-institution fiasco. This is putting people to work now that are crying out for jobs and stimulating our economy.

I am pleased to rise in support. I have been pleased to join with Mr. Oberstar, who's been doing everything possible to get jobs and our infrastructure and our economy moving forward.

I thank the gentleman.

I am spending all my afternoon supporting some of the amendments from the other side; but let me tell you, the Nadler amendment is one we have to support.

Mr. Oberstar as the chairman and I as the ranking Republican, we have been working on an infrastructure proposal since back in September last year to try to get infrastructure going and jobs started in this country, and we are still delayed. And what is most offensive is they took one of the most important parts for rail and transit out of the bill, or actually cut it down, and he is restoring that money. Let me tell you, that is just a little bit of money.

These projects are expensive. Transportation projects in New York, the tunnel across Long Island, $7 billion; the Second Avenue subway tunnel is over $7 billion. Infrastructure projects are expensive, and we are only putting in a small fraction.

Support the Nadler amendment.

I thank the gentleman.

Again, folks, this is about creating jobs. And every billion dollars we put in jobs, ready-to-go projects, is 28,000 to 35,000 jobs. So it makes a big difference.

Mr. Nadler is going to make a decision on how many people will go to work, and it may be in your communities throughout the United States. So they give you a choice right now of a few jobs; he gives you a choice of many jobs with sound investments.

Support the Nadler amendment.

Thank you. And I don't feel uncomfortable over on this side.

But let me say that this is the wrong amendment at the wrong time here. We just finished, after 11 years of not having an Amtrak reauthorization, in a bipartisan manner we put together reforms for Amtrak that have been called for. Now we have an opportunity--and we've worked together to reform it--to actually get it moving to provide a difference in transportation alternatives, to provide a difference in energy-efficient transportation, to provide a difference in the environment. So why would we want to stop projects that need the funding now and are ready to go and we've made the reforms?

So I do not support the Flake amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it. And let's get Amtrak transportation and infrastructure moving in this country.