Frank LoBiondo

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. LoBIONDO. Once again, Madam Speaker, we join with the Nation in our thoughts and prayers for the families and for those who have lost their lives in honoring all those who serve. I urge all of my colleagues to support the resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Madam Speaker, as per the requirements of the Republican Conference rules on earmarks, I secured the following earmarks included in the conference report accompanying H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act: Requesting Member: Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02) Bill Number: HR 3183 Account: Army Corps Investigations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107 Description of Request: Request an earmark of $90,000 to continue a Congressionally authorized study and design of a shore protection project for the Wildwoods. The project's formal name is N.J. Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, N.J. Requesting Member: Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02) Bill Number: HR 3183 Account: Army Corps Investigations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107 Description of Request: Request an earmark of $90,000 to continue a Congressionally authorized study and design of methods to provide long term renourishment of the N.J. shoreline. The project's formal name is N.J. Shoreline Alternative Long Term Nourishment, N.J.

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Thank you, Congresswoman Myrick, and thank you to Congressman Pallone and to Congresswoman DeLauro for their advocacy on this very important issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the resolution designating October 13 as National Metastatic Breast Cancer Awareness Day. We have heard a lot of statistics. They are staggering, and they are staggering because, much of the time, some of this can be prevented. The resolution recognizes the need to raise the level of awareness and to increase research on treatments that will provide a higher quality of life and longer life expectancies for patients living with and fighting metastatic breast cancer. I participated in an American Cancer Society cancer awareness event about 2 weeks ago on a Sunday in my district in southern New Jersey. On a Sunday morning, in a driving Nor'easter rainstorm with very high winds and with rain coming down in buckets, we had hundreds of people who showed up because they believed that their involvement would make a difference. They were helping to raise the level of awareness. They were helping to get the message out that we can challenge this terrible disease and that we can make progress. Metastatic breast cancer refers to stage IV breast cancer, which is when cancer cells travel and then do terrible things in other locations of the body. We know that, in this year, there will be in excess of 190,000 women, almost 2,000 men and, very, very tragically, in excess of 62,000 women who will lose their lives. So I am a very proud cosponsor of this resolution. I encourage all of my colleagues to join in support of this. All of America should understand that, united and together, we can make a difference. We can make a difference against this dreaded disease.

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, the people in the 2nd Congressional District of New Jersey are asking, Where are the jobs? They have watched as this Congress has passed bailouts for AIG, for GM and for Chrysler. They watched as this Congress passed a huge bailout for Wall Street, and then followed up with a stimulus bill that had very little thought and that isn't providing the jobs for our citizens. They are not too big to fail, so they are not getting help. The unemployment rate nationally is about 9.8 percent. In most of my district, it is at least a couple of points higher than that. People are struggling. People want to understand when are we going to get spending under control, and when are we going to understand that we should pay attention to the real people, the people who have their connection to the real world, not the people who are connected to Wall Street, not the people who are getting multimillion dollar bonuses after running companies into the ground, but the people who are just trying to make America go.

Mr. LoBIONDO

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

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

Mr. LoBIONDO. As the gentlelady stated and the chairman stated, this is something that the Coast Guard plays a critical role in their interdiction. We have dealt with the issue of submersibles and semi- submersibles to combat the growing drug threat. We need to give the Coast Guard the authority to do this. We're happy to support the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has repeatedly requested information on the condition and the need for additional Coast Guard shoreside facilities. The gentleman's amendment would require the service to submit a report detailing current shortfalls and future shoreside needs. We congratulate the gentleman. We fully support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LoBIONDO. We are happy to support the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, pirates attacked two American-flag vessels transiting waters off the Horn of Africa. If it were not for the heroic actions of our Special Forces, the bravery of the captain and the crew of these vessels, a terrible tragedy would have been at hand. Just yesterday we got reports that a Panamanian- flagged vessel had been seized by pirates with hostages being taken. We cannot allow this to continue. Knowing this would be an ongoing problem, the bill, as it was reported from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, included a very carefully worked out bipartisan agreement that we worked with Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Mica, and myself that would shield U.S. merchant mariners, ship owners, operators, and captains from liabilities in U.S. courts following any action taken to defend a U.S.- flagged vessel, for instance, taken to defend the United States of America against a pirate attack. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee objected and requested Chairman Oberstar add language to his recently adopted manager's amendment that appears to be an entanglement for getting the right thing done. The way the Judiciary Committee has worded this in the manager's amendment, a crewmember would be forced to go through a checklist in his mind or her mind of what legal entanglements could occur because of this. The language in the manager's amendment only grants relief liability to the crew owner, meaning the vessel owners or operators and captains would still be sued. They would not be held without harm. They would have monetary damages, possibly. Our amendment restores this bipartisan agreement. It's a commonsense agreement, something that the people on the committee worked out. It makes no sense in the heat of an attack, when you have got pirates coming at a U.S.-flagged vessel with automatic machine gunfire, with rocket-propelled grenades, or whatever else may happen, to suggest that a crewmember is going to be able to take the time to check through what is substantially or in excess or whatever the case is. We need to protect American interests. Under our amendment, an American crewmember would only need to prove that the person attacking the vessel was a pirate in order to receive liability relief. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. LoBIONDO. Yes.

Mr. LoBIONDO. For civil.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Just civil.

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

Mr. LoBIONDO. Just to close, again, the manager's amendment, the crewmember of the vessel would have to prove in court that he knew at the time, she knew at the time, that the defensive actions were not substantially in excess of what is reasonable. That's not what's going to happen if a piracy attack occurs. I don't think any Members are going to even want to be close to voting for a piracy protection provision in line with what's going on. What does substantially in excess of reasonable mean? A crewmember is going to have to think through this checklist as a pirate attack is happening? That's not what we have in mind. I don't think it's the right way to go. I would urge all of our Members to vote in favor of this amendment to make sure that U.S. interests are protected. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LoBIONDO

Mr. LoBIONDO. I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). I would like to start off by thanking Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Mica and Mr. Cummings for their bipartisan effort to look at all the serious issues that are involved with this legislation and to bring together a pretty good product. But I am disappointed, as Mr. Diaz-Balart is, because the traditions of this very bipartisan committee have been changed with the basis of the rule being closed. And while I understand and am appreciative that Republican amendments were made in order, I think that it is sad that such a long tradition--when the Republicans were in the majority, it was either an open or a modified open rule. It is almost a little bit amusing, but more sad than amusing that Republicans were criticized for even having a modified open rule just with a preprint requirement, and now there is no open rule at all. I am going to support the bill. I have a few considerations that we will be talking about when the amendments come up. But once again, I am disappointed with the rule. I do want to talk about one of the amendments that we will be talking about tomorrow--I think it is very timely--on the issue of piracy and how we deal with piracy, because just today there were two pirate attacks. Now, fortunately they were not on U.S. flag vessels. One, I believe, was on a Panamanian vessel--we think it was a cargo ship-- where there were 26 hostages taken. The other attack was on an Italian ship. Fortunately, my understanding is that a Belgium warship was nearby and was able to aid and assist the Italians in thwarting the pirates. But this only brings to light the serious nature--and we can all recall with horror when pirates took a U.S. flag vessel. If it were not for the heroics of the captain, the crew, and a Navy SEAL team, we could have had a devastating consequence. Because of that pirate attack on a U.S. flag vessel, our committee--again, in a very bipartisan way, with Mr. Mica, Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Cummings--looked at what we could do. We all believed that the best answer to this would be for Coast Guard or Navy personnel to be on U.S. flag ships, but we understand the reality that that's not going to happen. So we entered into a bipartisan agreement, which was in the underlying bill before someone on the majority--and I think from the Judiciary Committee--got involved with this issue. The underlying bipartisan agreement basically said that if attacked by a pirate ship, a U.S. flag vessel crew member could take action to defend the crew, could defend who was on the ship against the pirates and not be held liable; a commonsense approach. The Judiciary language complicates it and makes it almost impossible. It puts a crew member in an incredibly difficult situation to determine the legal entanglements in his own mind as he's being fired upon with an automatic weapon or a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. If you think about the intensity of the moment, this is an attack on America. An attack on a U.S. flag vessel is an attack on the America. Why wouldn't we let the crew member have the opportunity to defend U.S. interests without liability? I think a bipartisan approach that was reached was exactly what this House is all about in understanding U.S. interests and what's best for the United States of America. The amendment tomorrow will deal with this further when the whole body will have an opportunity to listen to this debate and to make up their own minds whether it's going to be right to put a crew member in that impossible situation of having to decide, through the legal entanglement of a series of checkmarks in his own mind as they're coming under attack, whether to protect the crew and the ship. Once again, I thank my colleagues who have worked on this bill. I am disappointed with the rule. I will be voting against the rule, but I will be supporting the underlying bill.

Mr. LoBIONDO

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

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