Frank LoBiondo

the budget that was sent to us is so separated from reality.

The top priority of the Aviation Subcommittee, as well as me, personally, is the safety of the flying public.

An article was published last week stating the Army is accepting incomplete Apaches off the Boeing production line. How can this be reasonable?

These are American jobs that will be lost. This is American capacity that will be lost; and, again, it is a separation from the reality of a program that really works.

I think that is an unacceptable answer.

I want to join in with the chorus and express my strong opposition to the proposed cuts in the President's budget for the Coast Guard.

I guess I would just close by suggesting that during the Bush and Obama administration both of them have spent much time and political capital in trying in good faith, in my opinion, to assuage the Russian concerns or its stated concerns…

Ballistic missile threats are likely to grow at least as rapidly as our defensive assets, giving us little margin for error in acquisition and force management decisions.

The FAA can and must find every way to meet the required cuts while ensuring the safety and security of the traveling public.

my hope is that you remember who stood with the FAA, who stood with the flying public to try to avoid these stupid cuts.

There has been a threat, because of sequester, the FAA will have to furlough the majority of their 47,000 employees, putting our Nation's air traffic and airport safety at risk.

I remain deeply concerned about the impact of sequestration, and I believe we should work for a long-term solution targeting wasteful and unnecessary Government spending without raising taxes.

It is still in the forefront of my mind and the minds of my constituents, who are responding with strength, courage, and resiliency.

We must invest in the future. But we must invest wisely.

the President's fiscal year 2013 budget would cut funding for the Coast Guard by nearly $350 million and over 1,000 service men and women.

A terrorist attack at any of our ports could severely disrupt the supply chain, which would be catastrophic to our fragile economy.

We cannot expect the Coast Guard to do more with less.

The importance of keeping our ports and waterways secure cannot be overstated.

The sad reality is the Coast Guard will be doing less with less given the current budget's trajectory.

It is beyond frustrating. We have got a law that is in place. It has been ignored.

I would like to praise the Coast Guard for following that critical balancing act in their efforts in implementing MTSA.

Each of these requirements and proposed mandates are and will be very expensive and, in some cases, prohibitive for vessel owners.

I remain skeptical as to whether the Coast Guard has ever looked at all these systems in totality.

I have to tell you that I am still terribly troubled by how these decisions are being made, and the priorities.

Many of the proposed management practices, in my view, and I think most of the members of the committee, are impossible to comply with, especially on fishing vessels.