Frank LoBiondo

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the ``Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals Act of 2005.'' This important piece of legislation will ensure that patients across America will continue to have access to the rehabilitative care they need, and that experts in this community are organized to advise and make recommendations to Congress and the appropriate federal agencies based on the realities and challenges facing the rehabilitative field today and in the future. Rehabilitation hospitals provide essential care to patients recovering from conditions such as stroke, hip replacement, and cardio- pulmonary disease. They treat patients young and old, temporarily and permanently disabled. They allow their patients not only the chance to recover quicker, but to resume active and high quality lifestyles. Unfortunately, with each passing month fewer and fewer Americans will have access to the unique care and services that rehab hospitals provide. A Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) policy, commonly known as the ``75% Rule'', is being enforced in such a way that many patients, often regardless of their unique and pressing needs, are being turned away from facilities that could otherwise provide them with the best available care. The ``75% Rule'' requires a rehab facility to ensure that a percentage of its patients are receiving treatment for one or more conditions as specified by Medicare. When the current rule went into effect in July of 2004, 50% of a rehab facility's admissions were required to fall within the list of conditions, on July 1st this percentage rose to 60%, and will continue to rise until it returns to 75% in 2007. According to a Government Accountability Office report, many rehab facilities will not be able to meet this 75% threshold required at full implementation of the rule. In an effort to comply with the 75% Rule over the past year, thousands of patients across the country have been turned away from the care they desperately need. Rehab hospitals have been forced to tell patients recovering from cancer and strokes to look elsewhere for care, and have been forced instead to leave beds empty and reduce their staffs so that they can continue to provide care to the patients they are still able to treat. And with each coming year the situation will only get more dire. The ``Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals Act of 2005'' will help ease this problem by allowing hospitals additional time to figure out how to ensure they are in compliance with CMS's rules, while still providing the unique care and services they are able to provide to the patients most in need. It will also create a National Advisory Council on Medical Rehabilitation to ensure that future policies created by Federal agencies and Congress reflect the realities and challenges facing the field of rehabilitative care without denying needed care to patients. The American Hospital Association, American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association, Federation of American Hospitals and numerous other associations and advocacy groups join me in supporting the ``Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals Act of 2005.'' Their members are seeing first hand the devastating effect the ``75% Rule'' is having on those in need of rehab care today and the enormous impact further implementation of this Rule will have. Each and every day, patients across America are being denied the rehab care they need and deserve and which could be available to them. I urge you to speak for them and to support the ``Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals Act of 2005.''

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make my colleagues aware of the failure of this bill to provide funding for a critically important economic development program. The Round II Empowerment Zone initiative provides Federal assistance to support the comprehensive revitalization of designated communities across the country. It is a 10-year program that targets Federal grants to distressed communities for social services and community redevelopment and provides tax and regulatory relief to attract and retain businesses. In my district, the Cumberland County Empowerment Zone is a successful collaborative revitalization effort among the communities of Bridgeton, Millville, Vineland and Port Norris. Cumberland has committed nearly 100 percent of the $25 million that has been made available by HUD so far. Over 1,400 jobs have been created to date and over 166 housing units have been renovated, rehabilitated, constructed or purchased in EZ neighborhoods. Cumberland County has funded over 120 initiatives through the EZ program and has established a $4 million loan pool available to be reinvested back into the targeted communities. These projects are estimated to leverage a total of over $238 million in private, public and tax exempt bond financing. Put plainly, the Cumberland EZ has leveraged nearly $12 in private investment for every $1 of public funding, a remarkable achievement that demonstrates the success and promise of the Zone. While I am very proud of the accomplishments of the Cumberland EZ, I recognize the reluctance of the subcommittee to provide funding for the program. As the subcommittee has noted before, the IG, and HUD itself, have found too many of the other Zones have had problems spending grant funds, accounting for expenditures and spending funds consistent with their strategic plans. I further recognize the reluctance of the subcommittee to continue to provide funds for the program when the Senate has sought to eliminate this program for the past 2 years. While I main tremendously disappointed this bill fails to fund the Round II Empowerment Zone program, I will reluctantly vote for it. I do so with the hope that the Senate will find funding for this program, and that if that should happen, I will have the opportunity to work the subcommittee to restore funding for this critical program.

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and I thank him again for his participation and help.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1412) to amend the Ports and Waterways Safety Act to require notification of the Coast Guard regarding obstructions to navigation, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) and again thank her for her participation.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1412.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1412, the Delaware River Protection Act, makes several amendments to current law to enhance the Coast Guard's and the Federal Government's capability to prevent and respond to future oil spills in U.S. waters. On November 26 of 2004, the ATHOS I struck a submerged object and released more than 260,000 gallons of heavy crude oil into the Delaware River. I commend the excellent work of the Coast Guard, in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies, to minimize the impact of the spill. However, this incident has brought several issues to light that are needed to enhance our capabilities to prevent and to respond to future oil spills. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1412 would require persons to notify the Coast Guard in the event that an object is released into U.S. waters that could cause the obstruction to navigation or, in the case of the ATHOS I, rip open the bottom of a ship. Mr. Speaker, let me give an example of why this provision is necessary. Under current regulations, an individual must report the creation of an obstruction only when the obstruction is caused by a sunken vessel. In other words, you must notify the Coast Guard when a vessel, whether a dinghy or a cruise ship, is sunk in a navigable waterway, but you need not report the loss of a large object such as a 7-foot anchor which, in this case, ripped the hull of the ATHOS I. The notification requirement included in this bill will provide the Coast Guard with the information necessary to mark the location of potential obstructions on nautical charts until those obstructions can be removed. This provision will improve maritime safety and will protect the environment and economies of our local communities by further preventing similar mishaps in the future. H.R. 1412 also directs the President to adjust liability limits for vessel owners to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index since 1990 and establishes a research program to develop and test technologies to detect and remove submerged oil from our waterways. This bill will provide the Federal Government with authorities that will enhance our capabilities to prevent and respond to future oil spills in U.S. waters. I would like to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), for their help, participation, and cosponsoring this bill. I urge the House to support H.R. 1412. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Southern New Jersey Veterans Comprehensive Health Care Act''. I am proud to have Representatives Jim Saxton, Chris Smith, and Rob Andrews join me as original cosponsors of this legislation. My colleagues and I all share a serious concern that South Jersey veterans are not currently having their health care needs adequately served by the Veterans' Administration. In order to increase health care accessibility in our area, this bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to expand the capability of the VA to provide for the medical care needs of vets in Southern New Jersey. The issue of improved access to health services from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, is especially important with the growing number of veterans in Southern New Jersey. Many of our older veterans from World War II and other conflicts are in need of more frequent health care services and inpatient care. As a result of the continued fight in the Global War on Terror, there will be many new veterans in our area who need care in the coming years, as over 62 percent of the New Jersey National Guard is currently deployed, deploying, or has been deployed in support of the Global War on Terror. This percentage of Reserve Component forces from our State who will be eligible for veterans' status is growing rapidly. As it relates to Southern New Jersey, I have serious reservations about the VA's access model for health care access, which currently says that adequate access is being provided if a veteran lives within 60 to 90 mile radius of a VA Medical Center. Today, despite falling within the VA's access model, veterans residing in Southern New Jersey must often travel several hours away, either to the neighboring states of Pennsylvania or Delaware, or to Northern New Jersey, in order to receive inpatient medical care and some outpatient services. Although transportation is provided to the Wilmington, DE facility via a new handicapped-accessible van, these veterans often face a ten- hour round trip. Veterans riding a van from Southern New Jersey must board the van early in the morning, making several stops before reaching the VA facility, stay all day until each veteran has completed their appointment and then return home. This means that a veteran with a 4 p.m. appointment boards the bus at 8 a.m. and waits at the facility until 4 or 5 p.m. And, the veteran whose appointment is at 9 a.m. must wait to return home until the last appointment is completed, resulting in a 10 hour day of travel. Of equal concern is that veterans have told me they simply do not use the services at these three facilities because of the transportation hardship. Southern New Jersey is a prime example of suppressed demand for VA health care. The Southern New Jersey Veterans Comprehensive Health Care Act gives an overview of the VA health care access situation veterans are facing Southern New Jersey and proposes a choice of two workable solutions to this growing problem. The bill cites that the current and future health care needs of South Jersey veterans are not being met by the VA, travel times to existing VA facilities in Philadelphia and Wilmington may fall within VA's access parameters, but that these parameters fail to take into account that the area is rural, and that routes to the two VAMCs are congested, leading to a ``suppressed demand'' for care. It also outlines that the number of vets in the area is increasing as more retire in the area and new vets come back from being deployed in support of the War on Terrorism. States that 62 percent of the NJ Guard will have been deployed on active duty by the end of 2004. This bill defines ``Southern New Jersey'' as the counties of: Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, Salem, Gloucester, Camden, Burlington, and Ocean and requires the VA Secretary to determine and notify Congress no later than March 15, 2006 as to how he will provide for the full service health care needs of South Jersey vets. The Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs is given two options for providing this improved access to health care for veterans in Southern New Jersey. The Secretary is given the choice of establishing a public-private partnership between the VA and an existing hospital (private-sector entity) in South Jersey--a ``VA Wing'', or construction of a full-service, 100 bed VA Medical Center (VAMC). If the VAMC option is chosen, the bill authorizes $120 M for the construction of the facility. I am proud to introduce the Southern New Jersey Comprehensive Health Care Act with my New Jersey colleagues Congressman Saxton, Congressman Andrews, and Congressman Smith. Our nation's veterans answered the call without question when our country needed them, and it is our duty to provide quality, convenient health care for them when they need it. This issue is a top priority for me and I will continue to fight to ensure that all veterans have adequate access to the health care they have earned and deserve.

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise here today in support of the ``Prostate Cancer Research and Prevention Act.'' This important piece of legislation will reauthorize through 2010 important programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) which will help increase awareness and surveillance of prostate cancer, address the serious issues of prostate cancer screening, and help unlock the mysteries of prostate cancer through research. Prostate cancer is the second most common type of cancer found in American men. The American Cancer Society estimates that there will be about 232,090 new cases of prostate cancer in the United States in 2005 and that approximately 30,350 men will die of this disease. It is the second leading cause of cancer death in men, behind only lung cancer. While these statistics remain alarming, the death rate for prostate cancer is actually decreasing in all racial and ethnic groups. While 1 man in 6 will still be diagnosed with prostate cancer during his lifetime, only 1 man in 33 will now die of this disease. More men, especially African-American men and others in high risk categories, are being made aware of the risk of prostate cancer and being encouraged to take steps to ensure early detection. This awareness and action is critically important when dealing with all cancers, but especially cancer of the prostate--which grows slowly and without symptoms and is all too often undetected until in its most advanced and incurable stage. That is why reauthorizing the ``Prostate Cancer Research and Prevention Act'' is so important. Reauthorizing the ``Prostate Cancer Research and Prevention Act'' will allow the CDC to continue to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of various screening strategies for prostate cancer and to further expand public information and education programs about the issues regarding the disease. It will also allow the CDC to continue to make grants to States and local health departments to ensure that this information is being thoroughly spread, especially among communities and groups where the risk is highest. The bill also extends the authority of the National Cancer Institute at the NIH to conduct and support basic and clinical research to expand the understanding of the cause of prostate cancer and to ultimately find a cure for the disease. Reauthorizing these important programs will help continue the rising trend towards awareness and action and hopefully result in even fewer untimely deaths. The American Cancer Society, the Men's Health Network and the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Center at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey join me in supporting this reauthorization of the ``Prostate Cancer Research and Prevention Act.'' These organizations know first hand the important roles education, awareness and research play, and I applaud each of them for their dedication to battling this disease. As National Men's Health Week draws to a close and we prepare to celebrate Father's Day on Sunday, I encourage each of you to reflect on the serious health threat that prostate cancer continues to pose for men across the country--including the men closest and most important to each of us, and urge my colleagues in the House to support the ``Prostate Cancer Research and Prevention Act.''

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today with my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), would restore the $466 million cut to the Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater System. I know the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) strongly supports the Coast Guard; and while I disagree with his decision to cut Deepwater, I understand why the gentleman felt the need to do it. In light of the post-9/11 capability requirement changes, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) asked for a comprehensive implementation plan for the entire life of the program. As the Chair of the Coast Guard authorizing subcommittee, I have also requested the exact same information. Unfortunately, to date, neither the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) nor I have received the information requested. I would say to the Coast Guard, to the Department of OMB, provide Congress with this information and do it now. No more excuses, just do it now. If the administration continues to ignore this request, the Deepwater program will be devastated. At $500 million, Deepwater will likely take over 40 years to complete instead of the original 20-year estimation. Thousands of jobs would be lost in a number of States. The total cost to the taxpayer would actually increase substantially because of the delays; and the delivery of the new, more capable vessels, aircraft and communications equipment will be delayed indefinitely. Specifically, this cut in funding would likely stop all work on the national security cutter affecting jobs in Mississippi. The break in production would negatively impact the already-troubled shipbuilding industry. It would also defer design work on offshore patrol cutters and the fast response cutter, again affecting jobs in Mississippi, would stop work on the vertical takeoff unmanned aerial vehicle, and this affects jobs in Texas. It will scale back the mission effectiveness program of the 210- and 270-foot cutters, which is intended to keep these legacy assets afloat and operational. This will affect jobs in Maryland. Also, Mr. Chairman, it will affect the operation tempos significantly, placing a tremendous strain on the service's aging legacy assets that are doing the job now. In fiscal year 2004, the United States Coast Guard lost over 700 patrol days due to failing legacy assets. Last year, the cutter fleet operated free of major casualty less than 50 percent of the time. Last year, the service's fleet of C-130, HU-25, and HH-60 aircraft all failed to meet target levels for readiness. And last year, the Coast Guard's main rescue helicopter experienced in-flight engine failures at a rates of 329 mishaps per 1,000 hours of flight. All of these issues are putting our men and women in uniform in grave danger and jeopardizing our homeland security mission. The GAO testified before my subcommittee that legacy assets are insufficient to meet mission demands and the need to replace or upgrade deteriorating legacy assets is considerable. The Coast Guard commandant calls it a readiness gap or downward readiness spiral. Whatever we call it, the fact remains without new and better-equipped assets promised under Deepwater, the Coast Guard will not be able to successfully conduct its homeland security and other vital missions. Delaying Deepwater is bad for homeland security. It is also bad news for the budget. Continuing to defer acquisition of new assets causes the service to sink more and more money into rapidly deteriorating legacy assets just to keep them afloat. The Coast Guard anticipated spending $20 million annually to keep legacy assets operational; but in 2006 the service expects to spend more than 12 times that much, and that does not take into account the nearly $60 million it will cost to replace the wing boxes on several of the C-130s or the $63 million in other unfunded legacy sustainment priorities. In order to control costs, we need to invest in replacement assets. The new Deepwater assets will cost much less to maintain and will operate with fewer servicemembers, saving millions in operating expenses and helping our homeland security mission. Deepwater will allow the service to push out the borders and effectively meet the demands of homeland security and other traditional missions. I urge my colleagues to fully restore the Deepwater funding, and at the appropriate time I intend to withdraw my amendment and hope that the gentleman from Kentucky will have received the information requested from the administration, and work with us as the bill moves forward to restore these desperately needed dollars.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut. As my colleague explained, this amendment will restore the Coast Guard's research and development funding to the Service's budget. The removal of this funding from the Coast Guard's direct control will constrict the Service's ability to direct funding to research programs to support both the Coast Guard's traditional and homeland security missions. Mr. Chairman, this is the second year that the Administration has proposed to transfer this funding to the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate. The Administration has reasoned that the consolidation of research programs within the Department will reduce redundancies and maximize resources available for the entire Department. However, this reasoning does not take into account the strong focus of the Coast Guard's research program to improve the Service's capabilities to carry out its traditional missions of search and rescue, providing aids to navigation, oil spill response and prevention, and illegal drug and migrant interdiction. Last year, the Coast Guard identified several key areas of concentration for its research and development programs that focused on enhancement to the Coast Guard's maritime safety, maritime mobility, marine environmental protection, and maritime domain awareness programs. I cannot help but be very skeptical that the Coast Guard's research and development program will continue to support such a broad scope of investigations under a DHS program that is wholly devoted to improving homeland security. The Coast Guard has always been and has continued to be a unique, multi-mission Service within the Federal government. As such, Congress required the Coast Guard to remain an independent entity within the Department of Homeland Security with complete control over all of the Service's functions, authorities, and assets. Any changes to the Coast Guard's research and development program will restrict the Service's ability to improve methods to protect the safety and security of lives and vessels in U.S. waters and on the high seas. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to maintain the integrity of the Coast Guard by restoring funding for the Service's research and development program. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut again for bringing forth this amendment.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for his focused and outstanding leadership, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise here today in support of the ``Stop Senior Hunger Act of 2005.'' This important piece of legislation reauthorizes vital senior nutrition programs. These programs help these men and women in cities, suburbs and rural communities across America who are elderly, homebound, disabled, frail or at risk. They help those with long-term illnesses and those who may just need a little short- term assistance after a hospital stay or during a time of need. In the words of the Meals-on-Wheels Association of America, the oldest and largest national organization representing senior meal programs in the United States, these programs are needed ``so no senior goes hungry.'' The ``Stop Senior Hunger Act of 2005'' reauthorizes through 2010 both congregate and home delivered nutrition services--those meals provided at local senior centers and those meals delivered to homebound seniors. It also reauthorizes the Nutrition Services Incentive program which provides additional funds to states based on each state's share of the total meals served by Meals on Wheels and other senior nutrition programs in all states the prior year. The average beneficiary may be very familiar to you--she may be your mother, your grandmother or your next door neighbor. She is an elderly woman in her very late seventies or early eighties and is more than twice as likely as her contemporaries to live alone, apart from family and friends. She is likely to have trouble with walking or climbing stairs and have a number of diagnosed chronic health conditions. In addition, she probably has an income below $18,000. Whatever the reason, she cannot shop, cook, or prepare meals for herself. She relies on Meals on Wheels and other senior nutrition programs to ensure she gets proper nutrition. The demand for the services Meals on Wheels and other senior nutrition programs provide will continue to increase at an astounding pace. As many of you know, the over 65 population in the United States is growing and is projected to increase dramatically. In fact, those individuals age 85 or older, is the fastest growing segment of the entire United States population. Meals on Wheels and other senior nutrition programs are also an excellent use of our increasingly scarce federal dollars. They save federal Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans' health care costs since malnourished patients stay in a hospital nearly twice as long as well nourished seniors. In addition, for every federal dollar spent as part of these programs as much as three dollars are leveraged from other funding sources, including state, local and private funds and participant contributions toward the cost of meals. I was proud to participate in the Meals on Wheels Association of America's ``March for Meals'' last month. I joined volunteers from Meals on Wheels of Salem County, New Jersey in delivering meals and witnessed first hand both the need for these important programs and the incredible dedication of their staff and volunteers. I encourage each of you to get involved with your local programs--whether you help prepare meals, deliver meals, or just join local seniors in enjoying their meals--your support can make a difference. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues in the House to support the ``Stop Senior Hunger Act of 2005.''

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who has worked very hard on this issue and I have joined with him. I appreciate the work that he has done. Let me say in starting that the vast majority of contractors in my State, in the State of New Jersey, are hardworking, ethical people who do good work and do the right thing. The real problem we have in New Jersey is that some public officials more interested in helping themselves than working to improve transportation infrastructure in the State have influenced the situation. The good news is that Trenton is finally trying to do something about it. The legislature has enacted reforms, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has discussed on this particular issue. I wish the State had provided the Federal Highway Authority with the cost savings they say exist, as I understand that that may have solved the problem and we maybe would not have had to do this today. Unfortunately, that is in the past; and we have to deal with the situation as it is. I am strongly supporting this amendment and will join with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) in voting for this amendment, because New Jersey desperately needs every penny of Federal highway and transit dollars and should not be penalized for trying to do the right thing. That is what it is all about: New Jersey is trying to do the right thing.

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I was not present in the House Chamber for votes on February 8, 2005, as I was attending the memorial services of a constituent, Corporal Harry Swain, IV of Millville, New Jersey, who died as the result of hostile action in Iraq. If I were present for votes on this day, I would have voted ``yea'' on Rollcall #20, ``yea'' on Rollcall #21, and ``yea'' on Rollcall #22.

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail incorporates the very best of what the great State of New Jersey has to offer the rest of the Nation. Established by Congress in 1988, the Trail unifies New Jersey's many scenic points of interest. These points of interest include a wealth of environmental, historic, maritime, and recreational sights found along New Jersey's coastline, stretching 300 miles from Perth Amboy in the north, Cape May in the extreme southern tip of the State and Deepwater to the west. The trail's area includes three National Wildlife Refuges, four tributaries of a Wild and Scenic River system, a Civil War fort and national cemetery, several lighthouses, historic homes, and other sites tied to southern New Jersey's maritime history. Through a network of themes and destinations, the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail connects people with places of historic, recreational, environmental and maritime interest. One exciting aspect of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route is its focus on maritime history. There is a rich story to be told about the industries once sustained by the Delaware Bay, such as whaling, shipbuilding, oystering and crabbing. While we often define our Nation's history through military or political milestones, the Trail will serve to remind visitors that maritime-dependent commerce was a major factor in the growth of the United States. ``Eco-tourism'' along the Coastal Heritage Trail has proven to be a huge success. There is an abundant variety of natural habitats and species to be found on the Trail. Whale and dolphin watching have become extremely popular, and bird lovers from throughout the country, and in fact around the world, are realizing what Southern New Jersey residents have known all along: our region is unmatched for observing migratory birds, ospreys, and bald eagles. Today, I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route. This legislation would extend the authorization of the trail to provide additional funding over 2 years to continue the work begun in 1988. It would also initiate a Strategic Plan which would explore opportunities to increase participation by national and local private and public interests, as well as organizational options for sustaining the trail. The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail has helped New Jersey residents develop pride, awareness, experience with, and understanding of our coastal resources and its history. This reauthorization will allow the trail to continue and flourish. I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, we will soon observe the fifth anniversary of the tragic death of one of my constituents. U.S. Navy Ensign John Elliott, who had just received his commission to Naval Flight School in Pensacola, Florida, was struck and killed by a drunk driver on July 22, 2000. The accident instantly killed Elliot and seriously injured his passenger, Kristen Hohenwarter. Sadly, it was later discovered that the driver responsible for Elliott's death had been arrested for drunken driving earlier that evening. Having called for a ride, he was picked up by a friend and returned to his car. Elliott was on his way home for his mother's birthday party when he crossed paths with the intoxicated driver. Nearly 5 years after that tragic accident, his parents continue the fight to save other families from the grief they have endured. Lobbying the New Jersey State Legislature, the Elliott's saw to fruition the drafting, passage and ultimate enactment of John's Law. The law ensures that individuals who pick up an arrested driver sign a document accepting custody. Additionally, it gives State Police the authorization to impound the automobile of an arrested driver for up to 12 hours. Today, I am introducing legislation to encourage all states to enact legislation to require law enforcement officers to impound motor vehicles of those charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). The legislation would make states that adopt DWI vehicle impoundment programs eligible to receive federal grant funds under the existing Alcohol Impaired Countermeasures Program to help defray costs. We are making important strides to eliminate the senseless deaths caused by the lethal mix of alcohol and automobiles. Annual deaths from drinking and driving have decreased from approximately 28,000 in 1980 to 16,068 in 2000. In 1982, 57 percent of all traffic fatalities were alcohol-related. In 2000, that percentage fell to 38 percent. However, much work remains to be done. Each death is a preventable one and I am sure this resolution will go a long way in ensuring deaths like Ensign Elliott's are prevented and families are saved from the pain the Elliotts and other families across the nation have endured. I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 532) commending the Aero Squad After School Program at Tomorrow's Aeronautical Museum in Compton, California, as well as other youth aviation programs that expose young minorities to the field of civil aviation, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from California. Education, guidance and opportunity are key ingredients to success, and I commend the gentlewoman for her initiative on this motion. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5426 and H. Con. Res. 532.

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5426 makes technical corrections to Public Law 108-293, the Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. The bill does not make any substantive changes to the existing law, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5426) to make technical corrections relating to the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4548.