Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, once again we are on the House floor debating ocean planning. The reality is that comprehensive ocean planning works. We have done it in Rhode Island, and we have done it throughout the Northeast region. Ocean planning is a success because it brings everyone to the table. Everyone is part of the dialogue and the conversation.

The process forces cooperation and compromise by, again, opening dialogue among fishermen, scientists, boaters, and others.

There is an impression, by the way, from some of my colleagues that ocean planning is a Federal land grab of the oceans. Well, it is anything but. It is about local control done at the regional level-- something many of my colleagues across the aisle often like to support.

Mr. Chairman, we can't turn back the clock on our oceans by allowing this rider to remain in the bill. We have come too far. I want to commend the work of the sponsors of this amendment. I also want to commend my colleague, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, across the aisle, who has done so much work to preserve the oceans, including creating the National Endowment for the Oceans Act.

Mr. Chairman, in the past we have driven species to the point of extension, destroyed natural habitat, and driven our oceans to the brink. I implore my colleagues not to take us back to that era. Please support this amendment and support ocean planning.

Mr. Speaker, from its earliest days, the Trump administration has embraced disastrous immigration policies. First was the unconstitutional Muslim ban rooted in fear rather than fact. Then came the obsession with an ineffective and expensive border wall. But today we have reached a new low.

In our justice system, people are held responsible for their actions. With the announcement of the end of DACA, we are throwing aside this principle. Instead, we are punishing youth who, through the actions of their parents, happen to be in the country without authorization. The average DACA recipient was barely 6 when she came to the U.S., yet the administration today has said that she should be deported to a land that she has never called home.

DACA recipients--the students, workers, and servicemembers in Rhode Island and around the Nation--are our friends. They are our neighbors. We cannot and we must not abandon them.

Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Cheryl Nimmo, CRNA, DNP, MSHSA. Ms. Nimmo will soon complete her year as national president of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA). It is an incredible honor that Ms. Nimmo was elected as the 2016-2017 president of this prestigious national organization.

As a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) for nearly 38 years, Ms. Nimmo has contributed greatly to the healthcare community in Rhode Island and nationwide. Ms. Nimmo is currently assistant professor and assistant program director for the nurse anesthesia program at the University of New England, in Portland, Maine. Hospitals in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Missouri have all benefited from Ms. Nimmo's work as both staff and chief CRNA. In addition to serving as an airway skills and pediatric anesthesia instructor, locum tenens CRNA, and clinical preceptor, she has provided expertise in office-based orthopedics and coronary care.

Ms. Nimmo has also modeled lifelong commitment to her professional education and development. She was awarded her nursing diploma from Newport Hospital School of Nursing, in Newport, R.I.; her Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from Evangel University in Springfield, Mo.; her certificate in nurse anesthesia from St. John's School of Anesthesia at Missouri State University in Springfield; her Master's Degree in Health Service Administration from Salve Regina University in Newport, RI.; and her Doctorate of Nursing Practice from Northeastern University, in Boston.

During her AANA Presidency, Ms. Nimmo has been a prominent advocate for patients and for the practice of nurse anesthesia. In addition to her service as AANA President, Ms. Nimmo has long been an active member of her state and national professional associations. She has served in multiple capacities on various committees, boards of directors, and the AANA Foundation.

I extend my sincere congratulations to Ms. Nimmo today on a job well done. Her service to the AANA and her patients and her commitment to high quality healthcare nationwide are commendable, and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing her notable career and outstanding achievements.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today to support the DOD Cyber Scholarship Program with strong bipartisan support from my good friends, Mr. Ratcliffe, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Correa, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Lieu, and Ms. Shea-Porter.

Mr. Chairman, since 2001, DOD has run the Information Assurance Scholarship Program in order to boost the Nation's cyber workforce through scholarship and capacity-building grants. Scholarship recipients are required to fulfill a service obligation by working in a cybersecurity position at DOD upon graduation.

Mr. Chairman, this program had been extremely successful, bringing nearly 600 students into the DOD workforce. However, due to budget constraints, the Department has reduced funding and stopped recruiting new students. This year we seek to reinvigorate the

program, calling it the DOD Cyber Scholarship Program.

As the ranking member of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, I fully understand the budget pressure the Department has been facing. However, cutting the pipeline of cyber talent into the Department is incredibly shortsighted. We face a critical workforce shortage right now, as we speak, when it comes to cybersecurity across all sectors of the economy and in government.

The challenges of building up our cyber talent is something that keeps me up at night. We know that cybersecurity is the national security issue of the 21st century and that no conflict, both today or in the future, will be fought without a cyber component as a part of it.

Now, DOD has made significant strides in preparing to defend the Nation in this new domain, standing up USCYBERCOM and improving its cybersecurity posture through programs like the wildly successful Hack the Pentagon program and DARPA's Cyber Grand Challenge. But these initiatives need talented network engineers, cybersecurity researchers, and, yes, hackers.

The Cyber Scholarship Program encourages students to look at cybersecurity as an area of academic study and then exposes them to the amazing mission set at the Department. While we may not be able to compete on a dollar-to-dollar basis with the private sector in terms of salary, public service certainly is its own reward, and DOD has the most challenging and rewarding problems facing us today and the honor that comes with protecting their fellow Americans.

We need as many digital natives to enter this exciting field and experience the rewards of public service, which is why we must reinvigorate the Cyber Scholarship Program with this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I worked with the same colleagues who joined me on this amendment to include similar funding in the National Defense Authorization Act. I would like to thank my friends, Senators Kaine, Perdue, and Rounds for leading a similar effort across the Capitol in the Senate.

So I would also like to, again, thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for their steadfast commitment to our armed services. This commonsense amendment will help ensure DOD is prepared for future fights, and I urge its adoption.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I thank my colleagues that were speaking in favor of my amendment. I thank the majority for accepting the amendment and supporting the effort to build up our Nation's cyber workforce.

Cybersecurity is the national security challenge of the 21st century. We are doing great things to meet those challenges. We just need to make sure our workforce can meet those needs. I know this amendment will be a major step in helping us to achieve that goal.

I thank all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I thank the chair and ranking member for their support of this effort.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, the establishment of a National Ocean Policy was a landmark step for our country. I particularly want to commend Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island for his leadership on this issue.

Ocean planning just makes sense, as we have seen in Rhode Island during implementation of our Special Area Management Plan. Instead of haphazard policymaking or turning the ocean into a political football, we brought all stakeholders to the table, commercial and recreational fishermen, energy development companies, conservationists, and other local interests.

The National Ocean Policy builds on this type of collaboration. It is a bottom-up approach, and it empowers local communities who use our oceans.

I want to echo the words also of my colleague, the Congressman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), in support of this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to allow this forward-thinking approach to continue. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 410 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the 27th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was signed into law on July 26, 1990.

This landmark, bipartisan civil rights legislation enables people with disabilities, including me, to experience more inclusive and fulfilling lives.

The prohibition of discrimination on the basis of a disability has helped to promote equal opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have made incredible progress since 1990, but we still have work ahead. Too many people with disabilities still lack access to affordable housing, public transportation, education, healthcare, and employment. Full access and inclusion remains a fundamental aspiration, but it is not yet a reality.

Mr. Speaker, we must remain vigilant in defending the intent of the ADA so that future generations can live in an inclusive, accessible world, where the unique talents and abilities of individuals with disabilities are innately recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), my colleague, for yielding. It is an honor to join him this evening to discuss the cause and mission that is very close to my heart.

As many of my colleagues know, I was injured back in 1980, as a young police cadet, when I was accidentally shot and paralyzed in the police locker room when a police officer's gun accidentally discharged. So, the cause of finding a cure and better treatments for spinal cord injuries and supporting family members as caregivers of people with spinal cord injuries has, again, been a passion of mine and mission for many years.

In late 2001, it was my privilege to join Christopher and Dana Reeve, two very dear friends of mine whom I got to know very well over the years, in announcing the creation of the Paralysis Resource Center, or the PRC, which was officially established in 2002 as part of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. These were two remarkable individuals, as I said, I got to know and who became friends of mine over the years.

I can remember back when Christopher Reeve was paralyzed in his horse riding accident and how, instead of being quiet and introverted and just dealing with his recovery, he made it his mission to call attention to the cause of spinal cord injuries and the need for further research to be done and support services to be provided. He was an amazing inspiration to me because he gave voice and was a face of spinal cord injuries and the work that needed to be done to find a cure.

Because of his work and that of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, we are getting closer and closer every day to finding a cure for spinal cord injuries; and we are getting closer and closer every day to providing support for better quality of life for people with disabilities and paralysis and further support for the families of those who care for people with disabilities, especially those with spinal cord injuries.

In 2009, I was so proud to support the enactment of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, which formally authorized some of the programs that have led to the success of the PRC. This center has grown to include a network of information specialists, a number of veterans programs, a Peer and Family Support Program, a substantial Quality of Life Grants Program, and a neurorecovery rehabilitation network.

It really is an inclusive center. It conveys the message that people dealing with spinal cord injuries or nerve-related conditions are not alone, that there are people and organizations around them who care and are willing to give the advice and counsel support that they need. So whether you are living with paralysis or you are the caregiver of a loved one who is paralyzed, the PRC provides resources and information to help serve the specific needs of those affected by spinal cord injuries.

We know there are more than 43 million caregivers in the U.S. providing support to loved ones with chronic disabling conditions on a variety of disabilities, whether it is a sick child or a

sick parent or, in particular, those living with spinal cord injuries and paralysis.

Reports estimate that the annual economic value, if we had to put a price tag on this uncompensated care of family caregivers, to be somewhere approximately at the level of $470 billion annually--$470 billion annually, if we had to put a dollar figure on this uncompensated care. That is more than the total Medicaid spending was in 2013. That is when this study was done and those statistics were made public.

The benefits of family caregiving, of course, are plentiful and it is what families do for one another. If you have a sick child or a sick parent or a loved one, families so often step up to the plate and they provide that uncompensated care. Again, it is what families do. But, at the same time, it can also take an emotional, mental, and physical toll.

As a result, respite is the most frequently requested support service among family caregivers. Respite is that little bit of assistance where you have someone coming in to give the caregiver a break during the course of a week. Maybe it is an hour or two a day or a few hours during the course of a week that can make all the difference in allowing the caregiver themselves to go to the doctor or go do their grocery shopping, the things that are important to the rest of the family, or bringing a child to a baseball game or soccer practice; again, just those little everyday things that maybe we often take for granted that a family caregiver may not be able to do but for the fact that they have respite coming in. As a result, respite is, again, the most frequently requested support services among family caregivers.

Supported by the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, the Lifespan Respite Care Program, which I helped to create back in 1996 with then- Congressman Mike Ferguson, a Republican from Pennsylvania, it was a bipartisan effort in creating this program, which operates now in 35 States and the District of Columbia, complements the PRC's efforts to help paralyzed individuals achieve a high quality of life by ensuring that caregivers who help them also receive relief and care, again, and support themselves.

Access to respite services has been shown to promote caregiver health and well-being, promote family stability, reduce the likelihood of abuse and neglect, and delay or even avoid the need for admission to costlier, long-term institutional settings, resulting in significant savings for the healthcare system and ultimately taxpayers, but ultimately helping the loved one who needs the care receive better care, because the loved one providing the care gets the support and the break that they need.

So beyond supporting access to respite for caregivers, we know the PRC's services and programs have touched the lives of people across the country, including those residing in the Ocean State, where I am from in Rhode Island.

For instance, Sarah Galli of Rhode Island spoke about her brother, Jeff, who was injured in 1998, and I would like to share her impactful words on the importance of the PRC now. She wrote:

``July 4, 1998, was the day that my family changed forever. My healthy, strong, athletic 17-year-old brother dove into the shallow end of a swimming pool and was rendered a high-level quadriplegic.

``Each Independence Day that followed has been a reminder of how quickly and irrevocably Jeff had his physical independence taken from him. It is also a reminder of how grateful I am for the support that has enveloped my family with care.

``I can't speak for my brother's experiences as a quad. That is his story to tell. But here is mine. In the years following his accident, I have counted on the Paralysis Resource Center and the Reeve Foundation for support. I have referred friends and strangers to them who require information and advocacy.

``And as a theater major in college, I started a student cabaret, Born for Broadway, that expanded an annual gala in the years since, raising awareness and funds for paralysis organizations, including Reeve. And I have also picked up the phone on several occasions to call the PRC and cry. Sometimes you just need to know that you are not alone.

``A friend of mine, Reeve supporter Jeff Ruben, wrote a song about a pal who lives with paralysis, using the lyrics, `I believe in miracles.'

``I don't believe in miracles, but I do believe in Jeff. And I believe in Reeve. Do you?''

Mr. Speaker, we know the PRC's network of support remains strong to this day. When another Rhode Islander, 21-year-old Jack Calbi, was injured in a mountain bike accident this past April and left paralyzed from the chest down, the PRC immediately reached out to Jack's family to discuss the array of resources available.

Nearly 6 million Americans live with paralysis, depend on robust services and supports, respite for caregivers that love them, and a continued investment in the science and innovation that will lead to the treatments and cures of tomorrow.

The PRC has become a beacon of hope for so many. And as my dear friend Christopher Reeve said, ``Once you choose hope, anything is possible.''

Christopher and Dana Reeve were friends of mine. I miss them dearly. They truly did provide hope to me and millions of others, whether affected by paralysis or some other nerve disorder or disabilities in general, or the families that are affected by this condition as well. They made a difference, as has the PRC. I am grateful for their work and I am grateful for all the efforts to keep the PRC going strong so that they can continue to help those living with paralysis, their families, and for those who may be affected in the future.

And together I know that one day, because of all the efforts that are going on through amazing research right now, as we get closer step by step every day to finding a cure for spinal cord injuries, that families will know that they are not alone, that we are in this together, and that PRC and the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation are helping us to one day get one step closer to finding the cures and those treatments that we so desperately look for.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for raising attention to this issue and for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, today, homeless advocates from Rhode Island, including from Crossroads Rhode Island and from Rhode Island Housing, came to visit my office.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to express in words how important their work is. These groups take care of the least among us. They provide shelter for the working poor and those affected by the opioid crisis, and they assist those not working because of age, infirmity, or disability. They help keep lives together. They help keep families together.

Mr. Speaker, we must continue to provide strong funding for these programs in our appropriations bills. We still have not fully emerged from the financial crisis and people are still trying to make ends meet. Foster youth are particularly vulnerable, with as many as 40 percent who age out of the system becoming homeless.

Mr. Speaker, social services organizations and nonprofits can only do so much on their own. They need support to keep our vulnerable brothers and sisters from falling off a cliff. We can do better and we deserve to support them.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a blatant attack on the use of alternative energy by the Department of Defense. So we have existing contracts right now for renewable energy, both liquid fuels and electricity, at the Department of Defense, and this amendment seeks to really pump the brakes on those policies and bury them in a web of unnecessary requirements.

So requiring procurement managers to track all Federal subsidies and tax credits would be a burden to the government, and requiring suppliers to provide such information would be onerous, expensive, and may, in fact, actually drive them away. Also, this will result in less competition for contracts, and higher costs for the Department of Defense. Ultimately, it is going to result in higher costs to the taxpayer.

So most alarmingly, this amendment does not include any waivers for times of emergency when a retail, time-sensitive purchase of readily available alternative fuels might be imperative to completing the mission, even if it is at a price point higher than the usual market cost.

Mr. Chairman, it also does not provide consideration for renewable energy projects for military installations that, although they might not reduce costs, do have other quantifiable benefits that increase combat effectiveness or enhance mission resiliency.

This amendment is also redundant. For bulk purchases, of which the DOD has many, current law already prohibits the Department from an alternative fuel purchase unless fully burdened cost is cost- competitive with traditional fuels.

Burying suppliers in these requirements is an unnecessary compliance burden and could disincentivize some suppliers from doing business with the DOD.

Finally, this amendment is opposed by the Department of Defense.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).

Mr. Chairman, as I said, I believe this amendment would significantly hinder the Department of Defense's ability to procure energy, and I urge its defeat. As I stated previously, this amendment is opposed by the Department of Defense.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would strike a provision that we have already thoroughly debated and approved in a bipartisan fashion within the Armed Services Committee. Section 336 acknowledges what Secretary Mattis has already said and what we already know: that a changing climate will affect our military's readiness and alter the threat landscape for years to come, and that we must study these impacts to prepare for them.

I cannot see the harm in gathering information and doing an assessment. We already see the strategic implications of new sea lanes being cut in the melting Arctic, where countries are seeking an economic advantage. As we speak, along our coasts, rising seas are affecting our naval installations, including at Naval Station Norfolk, the home of the Atlantic Fleet.

The report required in section 336 is not about causes of climate change, nor do we discuss specific emissions, targets, or green energy goals. Instead, my section of the Armed Service Committee is very factual. We focus squarely on the readiness of our Armed Forces to combat the coming and existing climate threat, starting with a study of the 10 most vulnerable bases in each service, and a report on how a changing climate will affect combatant commanders' strategic battle plans.

As Secretary Mattis has said, ``the effects of a changing climate-- such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others--impact our security situation.''

Mr. Chairman, we need to support our leaders in the military and intelligence communities in addressing these concerns, so I urge defeat of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), who is my good friend and the chair of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).

Mr. Chairman, as we noted in our committee markup, there would be nothing controversial about studying this threat and being prepared to mitigate the risks. In fact, that is our responsibility.

The support for this climate resiliency language was truly bipartisan in

committee, and I hope we will send a strong message of support to the servicemen and -women who will have to lead with the effects of climate change by opposing this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply not necessary, as it is a solution in search of a problem.

Now, the budget request for fiscal year 2018 has no funding for reducing the level or reducing the number of deployed ICBMs below 400, and there are no plans to do so in the future.

It also presupposes the completion of the nuclear posture review, which is currently ongoing and is expected at the end of this year. So instead of jumping the gun and acting precipitously, we should allow the administration time to finish the review and base our actions on its findings.

This is particularly true because it may be that reducing the number of ICBMs and reducing alert levels could, in fact, be beneficial to enhance strategic stability. Preventing such a reduction also disregards the crucial and fundamental role of our Nation's submarines, which provide an assured, survivable second-strike capability, and which dissuades an adversary from thinking they could launch a disarming attack against the United States.

ICBMs can be seen as destabilizing in that they would force a very rapid decision by the President and are use-or-lose nuclear weapons. History has shown us concerns about the potential for a rushed decision in response to a false alarm that none of us wish to see repeated.

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to talk about keeping ICBMs, it should be done in a meaningful, informed discussion based on the findings of the Nuclear Posture Review instead of yet another annual amendment driven by what seems like a parochial interest, which does not consider the other legs of the nuclear deterrent.

Instead, we should focus on increasing accountability and ensuring that we are improving the morale and culture inside the Air Force with regard to nuclear weapons so that some of the serious and embarrassing problems that have plagued the ICBM missileers and security forces in recent years may be properly addressed.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the distinguished ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe, as I said before, this amendment is an unnecessary amendment. It does not meaningfully address the three legs of the nuclear triad. Let's wait until the Nuclear Posture Review is done and base our decision then on facts and not on speculation.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding. And, Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and Chairwoman Stefanik for their collective efforts in crafting this bill that is before us this evening.

I would also like to thank the staff who worked tirelessly on this productive and forward-thinking legislation.

It is an honor and a privilege to serve as a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee on behalf of the selfless servicemen and women who protect our Nation every day, and I am proud of the very strong bipartisan effort represented by this year's NDAA.

Mr. Chair, we accomplish a number of important objectives in this bill. First of all, we enhance our deterrence capabilities in Europe and support our Nation's submarine force. I am very proud of the Virginia class submarines that we build starting right in my district, and we also provide strong support for the Columbia class program that will be the Ohio replacement program.

We also make it clear that climate security is, indeed, national security, backing the Department in its efforts to build resilience, reduce risk, and prepare for all types of threats that may come our way, even if those threats come from climate change.

But as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, I am particularly proud of the provisions we have included on cybersecurity, special operations, and research and development. We strengthen our cyber cooperation with our partners and allies through both training and collaboration with the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence.

We better leverage the U.S. Global Engagement Center to combat propaganda and information warfare operations conducted against America and her allies, and we grant permanent authority for family support programs within Special Operations Command that reflect the unique needs of these warfighters and their families.

We also reinvigorate the DOD scholarship program so that students are encouraged to pursue information security degrees and can come to work defending our Nation from the get-go. We can have all of the cyber policies in place that we want, but if we don't have the trained workforce to execute those policies, we are going to be behind the curve, and this helps to close that gap.

We advance hypersonic weapons research, development, and especially transition efforts. We prioritized the readiness of U.S. Cyber Command in our Cyber Mission Force, and we strengthen congressional oversight of sensitive cyber military operations and command cyber warfare tools and capabilities.

This approach was deliberate in nature, and it moves us closer to a military that will be able to address the variety of threats that we face in the 21st century.

Again, I would like to thank Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and Chairwoman Stefanik, and all of my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee, as well as the staff, for their hard work on this very important bill.

Mr. Speaker, during the full committee markup of the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, the House Armed Services Committee came together to produce a strong bipartisan bill that will ensure investment in and oversight of our military. We also recognized how valuable the Department is to international humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts as well.

During markup, I offered an amendment that will require the Department to assess the viability of unmanned aircraft systems in support of international humanitarian aid missions. Although it is well understood that the DOD has operated UAS platforms effectively for over a decade in offensive roles, I believe it is also important we recognize the capabilities of UAS platforms to increase the speed and quality of response forces providing disaster relief and medical assistance to those suffering around the world. Think of critical disaster efforts, whereby vital medicine and supplies are needed quickly. UAS could very well make all the difference between life and death.

I am pleased that this amendment was adopted during markup, and I thank my colleagues for their support of this endeavor.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall vote 335, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the Career and Technical Education Caucus, I rise in strong support of the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act. This bipartisan bill, Mr. Speaker, is long overdue. The Carl D. Perkins CTE Act, the primary Federal investment in CTE, has not been reauthorized in over a decade.

I want to thank my colleagues, particularly Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, Representative Thompson, and Representative Krishnamoorthi for their leadership and collaboration on this important bill, and a particular thanks to my co-chair of the CTE Caucus, Mr. Thompson, for his outstanding leadership and partnership on this issue over the years.

Mr. Speaker, CTE provides students of all ages with the skills they need to succeed in high-demand, high-paying, high-skilled jobs. At a time right now when hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing, IT, and other skilled trades remain unfilled, Congress has a responsibility to empower workers with appropriate education and training. If we fail to modernize and invest in CTE, we will be unable to build a skilled workforce, and American businesses will pay the price.

H.R. 2353 aligns CTE programs with industry needs, promotes work- based learning, and supports career counselors.

H.R. 2353 aligns CTE programs with industry needs, promotes work-based learning, and supports career counselors while strengthening Federal investment in CTE.

I encourage my colleagues to support students, businesses, and their local economies by supporting this bill.