Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, today, in strong opposition to this House Republican tax bill, which was developed in secret without a single public hearing.

Despite repeated calls for Republicans to engage in a bipartisan process with Democrats, this bill was written without Democratic input and with enormous giveaways to wealthy interests.

It makes you wonder, doesn't it, Mr. Speaker?

To pay for them, Republicans have eliminated critical tax provisions that are important to the middle class--such as deductions to medical expenses, for State and local taxes, for student loan interest, and other expenses--on which middle class families rely. What Republicans can't pay for, they add to the Nation's credit card to the tune of $1.7 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, we are out to support this plan, but most Americans are only given the crumbs of this tax reform pie.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for this bill. We need a fair and balanced tax reform package that helps everyday Rhode Islanders and that helps everyday Americans get ahead, not just the well-off and well-connected.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to begin by thanking Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith and Chairwoman Stefanik for their tireless work on this bill. It is a good work product, and I am very proud to be associated with it and be supporting it.

I would also like to thank the Armed Services Committee staff for their contributions for another successful and bipartisan NDAA, in particular, Lindsay, Pete, Kevin, and Neve. I want to recognize Kathryn Mitchell, my MLA on my staff, along with my two fellows, Sean and John, for their contributions and support during the time we put together this mark.

I am extremely pleased with the Emerging Threats and Capabilities portion of the NDAA. I want to congratulate Chairwoman Stefanik. This is her first NDAA as chairwoman, and it was a pleasure working with her in a strong bipartisan way.

The conference agreement preserves important steps forward when it comes to cyber, information operations, and advanced technologies, and it provides support to our special operators and their families.

When it comes to cyber, the bill requires the Department of Defense to conduct a cyber posture review to ensure we have appropriate authorities and policies in place to allow our forces to operate successfully in cyberspace.

It also reinvigorates the DOD's cyber scholarship program, which provides scholarships and grant opportunities at colleges and universities to boost the Nation's cyber forces and to bring their expertise into the Department after they graduate.

Additionally, the finalized language includes a provision that I wrote in conjunction with Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and Chairwoman Stefanik to require timely notifications for sensitive cyber military operations outside areas of active hostilities, ensuring Congress is able to conduct appropriate oversight in this new domain.

The bill makes important investments in advanced technologies that will be game changers for our warfighters, such as the electromagnetic railgun. We never want to send our servicemembers into a fair fight, and transitioning critical technologies like these will ensure that we avoid the valley of death and provide them with the very best tools that are available.

Finally, I am very pleased with the final conference report preserving my amendment expressing the sense of Congress that climate change is a national security challenge and requiring the department to report its effects.

This important bipartisan provision represents one of the most significant legislative actions Congress has taken on this issue, and this shift in policy will better prepare our Armed Forces, ensure mission resiliency, and improve our readiness to face the changing climate.

Again, I want to thank the Armed Services Committee for their excellent work on this critical bill, particularly Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, Chairwoman Stefanik, and, again, all the members of both the committee staff and my staff as well. It was a pleasure working on this very bipartisan bill in support of all of our warfighters, who we want to make sure that we provide the very best tools that they need to do their job safely and effectively. I thank them for all that they do for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the bipartisan Career and Technical Education Caucus, I rise in recognition of National Apprenticeship Week.

Apprenticeships, Mr. Speaker, provide valuable industry-driven job training for students of all ages, preparing them for careers in high- skilled, high-demand fields. They are a proven workforce development tool that is crucial to meeting the demands of skilled trades, healthcare, and IT businesses, among many others, all of which currently face a significant shortage of qualified workers.

Now, this summer, the House passed the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act with strong bipartisan support, which promotes work-based learning as a key component of CTE programs.

My colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol tout the value of apprenticeships. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is so important that we back our words with action by passing the Strengthening CTE Act into law and providing robust funding for apprenticeship programs across the Nation.

It is the right thing to do for our young people. It is the right thing to do for our workforce. It is the right thing to do for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday is Veterans Day, a day to reflect on the bravery and the commitment of our servicemembers and to

thank them for their dedication to our Nation.

From the Greatest Generation who served in World War II to the veterans who traversed the harsh jungles of Vietnam, to the young people who took up the banner and persisted in the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and in Iraq, we owe our veterans an endless debt of gratitude.

It is our responsibility to provide for our servicemembers when they heed the call to serve, as well as to care for them when they return home.

Mr. Speaker, we must fulfill our promises to our veterans and deliver on the promises, the benefits that they have earned. We need to make sure that we end veterans' homelessness. Whether it be ensuring timely access to quality healthcare, enabling the pursuit of educational opportunities, or providing the tools to start their own business, let us reaffirm to our veterans that they will have the support and the services that they need following their service.

To all our veterans, thank you for your service. May God bless you, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 607; YEA on Roll Call No. 608; and NAY on Roll Call No. 609.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of November as National Adoption Month in honor of the 111,000 children waiting to be adopted from the foster care system.

As a co-chair of the Congressional Foster Youth Caucus, I strongly believe that every child deserves a forever family. The love and stability that a family provides leads to far better outcomes for youth of all ages, and we must work to ensure that we have this support system.

But adoption does take a toll on families, both financially and emotionally. They need assistance, and the adoption tax credit provides them with up to $13,570 in tax refunds for adoption expenses. I am truly disturbed, Mr. Speaker, that Republicans have introduced a tax bill that would eliminate the adoption tax credit.

During National Adoption Month, I call on my colleagues to support adopted children and families by rejecting this misguided measure.

Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that adoptions are affordable, that they are possible, and that, long-term, they are successful, and the adoption tax credit does exactly that.

Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago this week, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, which provided much-needed Federal aid to overhaul our aging election infrastructure.

I was proud to support this investment in our elections, which helps States expand opportunities for all Americans to cast ballots and know that they were properly counted.

Unfortunately, today, much of our election infrastructure is again in need of a refresh. Among many challenges, Russia has mounted a direct attack on our elections, and it is absolutely imperative that we shore up our defenses.

To address this issue, among others, I introduced the PAPER Act with Congressman Mark Meadows, to provide States with resources to assess the security risks posed to their election systems and implement cybersecurity best practices, including postelection audits of paper ballots.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to recommit to the ideals of HAVA. I urge my colleagues to pass the PAPER Act and restore the integrity of our elections.

Mr. Speaker, it is National Cyber Security Awareness Month, and we have a lot of work to do to better secure our Nation's cyberspace, and we cannot underestimate these challenges.

During our district work period last week, I took the opportunity to go on a cybersecurity tour to understand better what Rhode Island's initiatives are. During that time, I visited some of the Ocean State's growing cybersecurity companies, stopping by SecureWorks' Providence campus and speaking on a panel at Carousel Industries' AlwaysOn Technology summit.

I learned about efforts to stem cybercrimes from the Rhode Island State Police, and I joined Rhode Island Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea at an election security workshop for local officials.

At the Rhode Island Society of CPAs, I encouraged our accountants to advise their clients about cybersecurity risk, and I joined State Senator Lou DiPalma to promote cyber hygiene practices.

Most importantly, I spoke to PTECH students and participants in CyberPatriot about their importance as the next generation of cybersecurity leaders.

Mr. Speaker, cybersecurity may be the national and economic security challenge of the 21st century, but with the talent that we have in Rhode Island, I am confident that we can take it on.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct conferees at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Army has a surplus of pistols. The M-1911 A-1, a .45-caliber pistol--the Armed Forces standard issue sidearm for more than 50 years--was replaced in the 1980s by a newer model.

Since then the Army has accumulated stores of surplus M-1911 pistols which are housed at taxpayer expense in Alabama.

There is no national security reason to keep these pistols. The Army stopped issuing them 30 years ago, yet the Army has been prevented from disposing of them due to parochial interests tied to the Civilian Marksmanship Program, or CMP.

The CMP's proponents basically want to transfer the pistols to a private corporation so that it can sell them. Do we want this to happen? We have the opportunity in this year's NDAA to stop this transfer of tens of thousands of M-1911 A-1 pistols which constitutes a multimillion-dollar government giveaway.

It is also important to note that this would make our streets more dangerous at a time when gun violence is all too common.

The CMP was established in 1903--just to put this in historical context--following the Spanish-American War when American militiamen demonstrated distressingly poor marksmanship. At that time, our Nation needed a better trained and organized militia, and the CMP helped the government build a broader base of able citizen-soldiers.

Now, the program was an important component of our national defense back then. But today, Mr. Speaker, over a century later, we have a professional military and many rifle clubs, and the CMP is, quite frankly, no longer needed. Congress clearly understood this when it privatized the CMP in 1996.

Now, as an initial capital investment at a time when earmarks were still common, Congress provided the newly chartered corporation with a stock of rifles, ammunition, and other spare parts. The CMP could sell the surplus equipment--mostly M1 Garand rifles--in order to fund its activities until it became self-sufficient.

However, it was never Congress' intent to equip the CMP with handguns, or it would have provided the corporation with surplus M- 1911-A1 .45-caliber pistols at that time.

Now, more than two decades later, the CMP is running out of rifles to sell. The reality is that it is in dire financial straits as, more than 20 years later, the program is still reliant on rifle sales to support its activities.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is clearly not the taxpayers' responsibility to bail out the CMP. To do so would be an unprecedented government handout at a time when earmarks have been banned for years.

So what makes this program so special?

There is nothing.

Beyond this, it would flood our streets with handguns--the guns that are most often used by criminals. I believe this would be extremely dangerous when, more than 2 years ago, the first attempt was made to effectuate this earmark, I heard the argument that storing surplus pistols, as the Army is now doing, is a waste of government funds. Well, I agree. However, a handout is not the answer.

There is no national security reason to put these guns on our streets. In fact, an increase in the number of handguns will only result potentially in more violence.

So, Mr. Speaker, we should allow the Army to dispose of these pistols by melting them down, as it plans to do with other surplus arms.

Senate language in the NDAA exempts M-1911-A1 pistols from Army disposal, but I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct the conferees to reject this exemption. There is no reason to store these pistols. There is no reason to flood our streets with them. There is no reason to give an earmark, again, to a private corporation. They should be melted down and repurchased for other military uses, which is exactly what this motion supports.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have great respect for the chairman and his leadership of the Armed Services Committee. No one questions his commitment to defending the Nation in support of our military, but we don't need to support earmarks to a private corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).

Mr. Speaker, I would just mention many wonderful organizations around the country that would love to have earmarks, but we don't do earmarks anymore.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen).

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

Mr. Speaker, Congress intended for the CMP to become self-sufficient after it was privatized in 1996. It was never meant to be the recipient of another multimillion-dollar government handout years later, especially not a handout of tens of thousands of pistols which then would be used immediately for sale to the public to fund its operations.

Again, perhaps one could argue that, when earmarks were around, they needed this to fund their operations. Again, there was a time when earmarks were in existence. Earmarks are no longer regular order. They don't exist anymore. They were done away with several years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that I don't hold with the need for the CMP to receive Federal support.

On another note, I don't often see eye to eye with the NRA, but I must agree with the statement on the NRA's website that the Association is ``the premier firearms education organization in the world.''

Well, the NRA does not receive Federal support from its education programs, which are widely accessible, and in our professional military, the need for marksmanship training for national security purposes has evaporated. Even if we truly think the CMP is deserving of a government subsidy, Congress should do so through the appropriations process, not through a provision that is, quite frankly, again, an earmark.

As my colleagues so well know, earmarks were banned in the 112th Congress, yet the provisions at issue in the House-passed NDAA would transfer millions of dollars, ostensibly, in government property to a corporation that is in the congressional district of the measure's chief advocate. And while I have deep respect for my colleague, the government shouldn't be engaged in this type of practice.

The government has occasionally transferred surplus property to nonprofit corporations for education or other purposes; however, it has never done so with the intent that the property be immediately sold, with the proceeds going to the corporation's bottom line. So if that isn't an earmark, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what is. It is blatant subversion of congressional order, and it would set, I believe, a very dangerous precedent.

I hope that my colleagues would join me in upholding the rules of the House and support the motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to highlight the danger of this transfer, potentially, to public safety. Injecting tens of thousands of new pistols onto our streets by providing them to the CMP, I believe, could be disastrous, as handguns are regularly used in crime.

Now, in 2013, of the 6,498 homicides committed by a firearm for which the type of weapon was known, 89 percent were handgun related--89 percent. Only 4 percent were carried out using a rifle, the type of firearm the CMP has traditionally sold.

The qualities that made the M1911A1 .45-caliber pistol a fun sidearm is the fact that it is easily concealed, extremely reliable, and packs quite a punch, all qualities that make it prized also among criminals. In fact, the Department of Justice has tracked 1,768 M1911A1s over the last decade due to their involvement in criminal activity.

In a time when mass shootings have become all too common and 93 Americans are killed with guns every day, the last thing we need is more guns on our streets.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, the bill before us, overall, is a fine mark. I was proud to support it in committee, overall, because it provides for our national defense. It supports key programs of the Department of Defense to make sure our warfighters have every advantage possible. We never want to send our warfighters into a fair fight, and this bill, overall, goes a long way toward ensuring for our national defense and provides great support for our men and women in uniform.

Unfortunately, this CMP issue has been an unnecessary distraction. It is something I don't believe belongs in the bill. I believe that and, again, I made the point that we have done away with earmarks, and so we shouldn't be using an earmark and subverting congressional authority and will through the regular order process, through the appropriations process, to help to fund a private organization.

Again, there are many, I am sure, meritorious organizations around the country that would love to have an earmark, but we don't do them anymore, and we shouldn't be doing a sidestep here to give a private organization such an earmark.

As I said, I have highlighted again the potential for guns to fall into the wrong hands. And although the owners of the weapons may be of good character and those who purchased the guns, to fund, again, the operations of the CMP, a private organization, even if they have them in their home, if there is criminal activity that takes place, whether it is an act of violence or if the home is broken into and the weapon is stolen, which happens every day in America that a law-abiding citizen has a weapon that gets in the wrong hands, that weapon is then used in the crime. The more weapons out there, the more likely something like that could potentially happen.

This is what we are trying to prevent. We want to do this in a responsible way. Again, we want to make sure that the guns don't just wind up out in our streets, and we want to make sure that they are melted down like other surplus equipment.

The Army surely does not need to store them any longer. We want to get rid of them. We want the Army to be able to do that, but they should be able to do what they do with other surplus equipment, and that is melt it down,

perhaps use that melted down material for making other weapons that the Army does need that are relevant at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to oppose the language in the current NDAA. We should work together and support my motion to instruct so that, as we go to conference, we have clear direction from the House as to what the House believes we should do and not allow these weapons out in our communities. We shouldn't be supporting earmarks.

As I said, I know that the Senate provision does in fact have a provision there that would allow these weapons to be melted down, and that is the way that we should go. I believe that we have an opportunity to make that statement right here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the full House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member Smith for speaking on behalf of this motion to instruct. I deeply appreciate his leadership on the Armed Services Committee and his years of service, as I do, again, have deep respect for Chairman Thornberry and his leadership as chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Case in point, the NDAA this year, and as has been the case in past years, has been truly a bipartisan effort, and it's one of the reasons I truly enjoy serving in the Armed Services Committee is because of the bipartisan cooperation that is demonstrated when it comes to protecting our country, when it comes to providing for our national defense, especially supporting our men and women in uniform. It is a bipartisan effort. It is unfortunate that in this one particular case we have this difference of opinion.

We are, again, a program that was initially intended to train marksmen years ago when we didn't have a professional military. Maybe it had merit and the organization was supported, but we have a professional military now, great marksmanship programs and training programs, as well as private organizations that do this. But it doesn't require or need a government subsidy, and so it wouldn't be appropriate in this case any further to continue to support this private organization, the CMP program with, ostensibly, a earmark.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her comments and support of the motion to instruct. I also want to commend her and thank her for her leadership on the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, just to once again reiterate, a priority of the overall NDAA that we worked on in a bipartisan, collaborative way, this one sticking point is this provision in the NDAA that, again, amounts to an earmark, and it could potentially put tens of thousands of additional weapons on our streets that could wind up in the wrong hands. It is an unnecessary step.

Again, when the CMP was first created, it had a legitimate purpose. That purpose is no longer needed, per se, for the military in terms of marksmanship training. There are other organizations out there that do that, but we also have the professional military.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, the provisions in the House-passed NDAA would give a multimillion-dollar handout in the form of .45-caliber pistols to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. It is an unnecessary and unwise use of taxpayer property that would potentially make our streets less safe.

My motion will instruct our House conferees to reject this earmark and allow the Army to melt down and repurpose its surplus firearms, as it does with other firearms or surplus equipment.

Congress needs to find solutions to the endemic gun violence that is plaguing our Nation right now. We saw, it seems, time after time, multiple incidents where firearms get into the wrong hands and are misused, causing loss of life and sometimes, unfortunately, sadly, in significant numbers, just as we saw, as Ms. Rosen mentioned, with the terrible shooting in Las Vegas: 58 people lost their lives and hundreds more were injured. It was a terrible tragedy for Nevada, for those who lost their lives, and for those who were injured; and, really, it was a tragedy once again that has plagued and affected our country.

It has to stop. We should not be adding to the problem by injecting tens of thousands of handguns onto our streets.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will support the motion to instruct, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate all his time and effort he is putting into bringing attention to this vital issue. It is an honor to join him this evening as we highlight the imminent need to pass a full reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Now, I represent the great State of Rhode Island, a State with over 27,000 children and pregnant women at risk of losing healthcare if CHIP is not fully funded. It is deeply troubling to me and many of my constituents, my colleagues in government; and we fought hard over the years to make sure that we did better by our young people, by the most vulnerable, and by pregnant women in making sure that they had the healthcare coverage that they desperately need and deserve.

Now, in Rhode Island, the lack of a reauthorization endangers $26 million in Federal funds that support this vulnerable population, many of whom will not otherwise have comprehensive coverage. This is particularly frustrating because congressional Republicans knew that CHIP funding would expire on September 30. They had ample time to fix this problem in a bipartisan way and have chosen not to.

Instead of proactively crafting legislation to ensure 9 million low- income children and families maintain access to affordable, high- quality healthcare, Republicans focused their efforts on gutting the Affordable Care Act to the exclusion of everything else.

Now, in the service of their political priority to eliminate coverage for 23 million, they are passing on an opportunity to govern on multiple healthcare fronts. Rather than work to find meaningful bipartisan solutions, Republicans still seek ways of systematically unraveling ACA protections and have only offered untenable options to offset the cost of CHIP. That is no way to govern responsibly or to even remotely do it in a bipartisan way, which they could do.

Now, their plan to pay for healthcare for one population by stripping access to healthcare from another is wrong. This approach of robbing Peter to pay Paul does nothing to build a foundation for a healthier future, nor does it protect the communities with sufficient healthcare access today.

Proposing to slash the ACA's Prevention and Public Health Fund and creating a greater financial burden on seniors by suggesting destructive Medicare changes are not acceptable ways to bring Democrats to the table and pass a CHIP reauthorization with bipartisan support. Which, by the way, I am sure my colleagues have mentioned as they were speaking tonight, when CHIP was first authorized, it was done collaboratively in a bipartisan way at a contentious time in Congress, back when it was first enacted. But they found a way to do the right thing for vulnerable individuals, particularly our children, and we need to come together again.

We have a responsibility to move quickly, to ensure our children continue to have access to high-quality, affordable coverage. States like Rhode Island deserve to know that we will support the efforts to provide for the children in the State. The health professionals who treat these children deserve more certainty. Most importantly, the children who benefit from CHIP deserve much better than to be threatened with coverage termination because my colleagues in the majority can't set aside their political ambitions and goals.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to again thank my colleague for raising an alarm bell on this issue, calling attention and focusing the American people on the need to reauthorize CHIP.

We take great pride in Rhode Island that over the years we have built a very strong program to cover vulnerable children and pregnant women. We have been leaders in the country in having a very low rate of uninsured. Going back even before the ACA was enacted, we had a model program with our Rite Care and Rite Share program. There were hard- fought battles that moved the ball forward for providing better and more responsible health coverage for the people who need it and deserve it the most.

We need to come together now in a bipartisan way to make sure that CHIP is reauthorized. We cannot let this program fail. We cannot fail our children, our most vulnerable populations. We can come together in a bipartisan way. Democrats stand ready to do just that, come together in a bipartisan way to reauthorize CHIP, just as it had been authorized in a bipartisan way when it was first created.

Now, I know that there are many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who care as passionately about covering low-income children, providing affordable healthcare, doing the right thing by our children, and I look forward to reaching out across the aisle to do just that. Let's do this in a bipartisan way. Let's do the right thing and put partisan politics aside and cover our children.

Mr. Speaker, I thank again Mr. O'Halleran for his leadership on this vital issue, and I look forward to continuing to work with him as we reauthorize CHIP, hopefully in the very near future. Again, we got to do this together.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 544.

Mr. Speaker, last night we witnessed another unspeakable act of gun violence that took too many innocent lives.

Today my heart breaks once again for those victims of the Las Vegas shooting and for the families whose

lives have been irrevocably changed by this terrible tragedy. Each of them is in my prayers today.

Mr. Speaker, prayers alone are not enough. We cannot, in good conscience, sit idly by as innocent people continue to die.

Mr. Speaker, there are reasonable steps that we can take to make our communities safer, things like limiting high-capacity magazines and banning assault weapons--weapons, by the way, that are weapons of war and have no business being on the streets in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, we have a solemn responsibility as Members of Congress to ensure that our communities are safe. Let us honor the victims of the Las Vegas shooting by doing something to prevent such tragedies from happening in the future.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to express my strong opposition to H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act, which recently passed out of the Judiciary Committee.

For 27 years, the Americans with Disabilities Act has made a difference in millions of lives, including my own, by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a disability and requiring accessibility in places of public accommodation.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 620 decimates the underlying intent of the ADA by allowing entities to wait before addressing barriers to access. It would roll back years of progress, and it sends a message to the disability community that we are not worthy of being included like everyone else. I urge my colleagues to consider the true implications of this policy.

Mr. Speaker, I was injured in 1980, a full 10 years before the ADA was enacted. I remember what our country was like before the ADA. I do not wish to go back. Instead of weakening our civil rights, let us work together to protect them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Arts in Education Week and the power of art to improve student learning, inspire creativity, and boost academic achievement at all ages.

The arts speak to all of us in different ways. I am inspired by the performing arts, while others are drawn to design and, still, others express themselves through music. The exposure to and participation in creative disciplines empowers us to courageously innovate, a key to success in school and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, in my home State of Rhode Island, music education is encouraged, actually, in State law. Unfortunately, Congress has not demonstrated the same commitment. I am extremely disappointed that the Republican appropriations package for fiscal year 2018 eliminates the Arts in Education program, a vital source of funding for arts programs across the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, we must invest in the arts, not cut funding, and empower the next generation to realize their potential to create.

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

Mr. Chairman, before I actually get to my amendment, I just want to say in reference to the previous discussion about properly funding the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, I commend the discussion on both sides and the commitment to properly fund those programs.

The National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities holds a special place in Rhode Island in that both of those programs were championed by and helped to have been created by our late senior Senator Claiborne Pell. We understand the importance of the arts and humanities in Rhode Island, the jobs they create, the quality of life they enhance, and I wholeheartedly support properly funding both of those programs.

I had led a Special Order when the President's budget came out and those programs had been zeroed out in funding. Several of my colleagues and I got together and talked about the impact the arts and humanities have on our States, on our districts, and on the country as a whole. I just want to reiterate my support for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities and all they do for the country.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment that we have before us would restore some funding to the southern New England estuaries program, which is currently zeroed out in the underlying bill.

This program, part of the EPA's geographic programs, has been a thriving success, and anyone who has been to New England knows the beauty of where the ocean meets the land. Our estuaries are in South County, Rhode Island, and all along the Narragansett Bay; along Mount Hope Bay and Buzzards Bay and throughout Cape Cod.

These areas are the lungs of our coastal areas and sustain the diversity of plant and animal life. These funds are vital to conserving this wetland habitat which is frequently under attack by human and natural damage. So I implore the majority to support this program, as they have supported similar programs for Puget Sound, the Chesapeake Bay, and other areas.

I am proud to be joined by Representatives Cicilline, Keating, and Kennedy as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, finally, I just want to say that I intend to offer and withdraw this amendment provided that my colleague, Chairman Calvert, is open to continuing the discussion on the importance of this program.

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

Mr. Chairman, as I said, I have offered to withdraw the amendment as long as the chairman would continue discussion with me.

I thank the chairman, and I am grateful for his consideration, and I look forward to working with him.

I yield back the balance of my time and withdraw my amendment.