Jim Langevin

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc package, which includes my amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Act relating to air passengers with disabilities. I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including an air passengers with disabilities bill of rights in the manager's amendment. The Air Carrier Access Act was enacted in 1986 to prohibit discrimination based on disability in air travel. Despite progress, travelers with disabilities still encounter significant barriers. My amendment requires the Secretary of Transportation to review and, if necessary, revise regulations issued under the act. In particular, it focuses on providing timelier and more effective assistance to people with disabilities, including by improving hands-on training for airline personnel. Inadequate assistance for people with disabilities can lead to unacceptable delays, missed flights, and even passenger injuries. We can and must do better. Mr. Chairman, I have traveled all over the world, and I have dealt with those airlines who do things the right way and treat people with disabilities with respect and have good processes in place and other airlines that need more improvement and need to work harder at this. These amendments and this bill will help us to get there. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Autism Awareness Month. Right now, the CDC estimates that 1 in 68 children has been identified with autism spectrum disorder, but a recent parent survey indicated that as many as 1 in 45 children may be affected. As a proud uncle of a young man with autism, I understand the challenges that families across the country are facing and the need for more resources to support this in this area. But I am also aware of the positive opportunities that we can create by working together to build a better future for our loved ones with autism and the families that care for them. Mr. Speaker, I have been a proud participant in the Rhode Island Autism Project's annual Imagine Walk, which highlights the importance of research, screening, interventions, and education for the entire Ocean State community and also helps to raise resources. I look forward to continuing my work in Congress to support the Autism Project and other great organizations that help foster a more tolerant, inclusive society.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, published its first major update to its heralded cybersecurity framework. Since its release 4 years ago, countless organizations have used the framework to voluntarily assess their cybersecurity risk posture, identify gaps, and implement best practices. This update adds timely guidance about managing supply chain cybersecurity risks, like those Russia exploited to damaging effect with the NotPetya malware. Since President Obama first directed its creation, NIST has employed a collaborative approach to developing the framework with diverse stakeholders from government, private industry, academia, and civil society. The revision process reflects this public-private partnership, and I thank the NIST team for their hard work drafting this update. I firmly believe that cybersecurity is not just an IT problem, and the framework's approach reflects a broader risk-based decisionmaking process. However, an understanding of the economics of controls is essential if we expect companies to adopt them voluntarily, and I look forward to continuing my work in this Chamber to deepen that understanding.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we need to address the crisis of our federal debt. We need fiscal responsibility. As Members of Congress, we are entrusted by the public to be wise stewards of taxpayer dollars. The deficit is a long-term threat to our country's stability, but this proposed amendment is not a realistic solution to that problem. We need a bipartisan, adult conversation about the need for both budget cuts and additional revenue to bring our country's finances into balance. This shouldn't be rocket science. A Balanced Budget Amendment would be worthy of consideration if properly crafted to provide flexibility in times of war, recession, or national emergency. However, this rigid amendment fails to anticipate these unfortunate, but inevitable, contingencies. Instead, it is a cynical attempt to paper over the enormous cost of the Republican tax bill that disproportionately benefits wealthy and corporate interests in the United States. That's not a solution for serious investment in our country, nor is it a plan for smart growth. We need to have responsible discussions about how to fund our military, provide support to Americans in need, and invest in infrastructure, research, and other ways to improve Americans' lives. In short, we need to have a budget that works for its citizens. A balanced budget cannot just mean cutting for the sake of cutting. Responsible budgeting must include the revenue side as well. It's not too much to ask the wealthiest Americans and major corporations to pay their fair share, to give back to American society and help build our country up. This serious conversation about both revenue and spending has been notably absent from our recent debates. Congress has all of the legislative tools it needs to fix the deficit, it just requires making the tough choices to create real solutions. As we saw during the Clinton years, we have the potential to balance the federal budget, and even run surpluses. We simply need to join together in a bipartisan effort and muster the will to enact responsible fiscal policies that address both revenue and spending. If we see fiscal responsibility as consisting of only spending cuts, or only revenue adjustments, then we are doing a disservice to the nation, and we are not living in the real world. Our looming debt is a serious issue, and it needs to be discussed seriously. I ask my colleagues to oppose this Balanced Budget Amendment, and I implore my colleagues to join me at the table for a responsible discussion on deficits, revenue, and spending. We need to have broad- based, if difficult, conversations about our budget process. Only then will we come up with budget compromises that work for all Americans.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we absolutely need to address the crisis of our Federal debt. And we do it by coming together in a bipartisan way, having the adult conversation, the difficult conversation, addressing both revenue and spending. This is not rocket science. A balanced budget amendment would be worthy of consideration if properly crafted to provide flexibility in times of war, recession, or national emergency. In fact, I have cosponsored such a resolution. However, this rigid amendment fails to anticipate these unfortunate but inevitable contingencies. Instead, this resolution is a cynical attempt to pay for all the enormous costs of the Republican tax bill, the one that we recently passed and the one that was passed under George W. Bush, enacted to the benefit of special interests and the wealthy--overwhelmingly in their favor--and to clear the way for wholesale cuts to critical programs for children and seniors like Medicare and Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, Congress has all the legislative tools that it needs to fix the deficit, as we saw during the Clinton years, when they had the adult conversation, when they did the tough work addressing revenue and spending in a bipartisan way. Then the Federal Government ran budget surpluses as far as the eye could see when President Clinton left office. Now, we simply need to muster the will to enact responsible fiscal policies that address both spending and revenue, and the sooner we do it, the better, but it has to be bipartisan. We have to make the difficult choices on spending and revenue. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and work with me, work with our colleagues across the aisle in a bipartisan way to enact comprehensive budget solutions that work longterm for all Americans.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Dr. Stephen Hawking, who passed away last week at the age of 76. Stephen Hawking was a brilliant student of the universe, a giant of the world stage, an inspiration to me personally and to us all. Through his discoveries about black holes and quantum mechanics, Professor Hawking challenged humankind to ponder the mysteries of the cosmos. He was curiosity personified, having once remarked: ``My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.'' Yet Professor Hawking, who was diagnosed with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, at the age of 21, also personified the unconquerable human spirit. He took on the challenges of his disability with unparalleled tenacity and a trademark sense of humor, all the while reminding us ``to look up at the stars and not down at your feet.'' Mr. Speaker, in short, he was a force of nature. He made a difference.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly condemn the March 4 chemical attacks conducted by the Kremlin in Salisbury, England, against former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, the first on the scene, has also been hospitalized. Mr. Speaker, Vladimir Putin continues to display a pattern of interfering with and undermining the democratic processes and institutions in contravention of the rules-based international order. We have seen that in Russia's frequent disruptive cyber operations and now chemical warfare. How far will they push things? Mr. Speaker, that is why I, along with Representatives Meeks, Wilson, Cole, Holding, and Sires, introduced a resolution this afternoon condemning this attack, calling for accountability for this and all chemical and biological attacks and standing in firm partnership with our friends and allies in the United Kingdom. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this important statement of solidarity in condemnation and also in praying for the health of Sergei, Yulia, and Nick.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 102, and YEA on Roll Call No. 103.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending my colleague from the First Congressional District of Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline, for sponsoring this bill in the first place. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a Rhode Island hero and to support the designation of the United States Postal Service facility at 515 Hope Street in Bristol, Rhode Island, as the First Sergeant P. Andrew McKenna Jr. Post Office. First Sergeant McKenna had served with distinction for 17 years when he was killed on August 7, 2015, during an insurgent attack on Camp Integrity in Afghanistan. That previous summer, I had the privilege of meeting First Sergeant McKenna at the Bristol Fourth of July parade. Mr. Speaker, he was only 35 years old, and he died running toward incoming fire, saving the lives of his fellow soldiers. A member of the 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group out of Eglin Air Force Base, First Sergeant McKenna saw six deployments, five to Afghanistan and one to Iraq, and his extraordinary service was recognized throughout. Among his many medals are five Bronze Stars, one of which was awarded with a valor device for his actions during a mission that resulted in the death of a senior Taliban commander. Following First Sergeant McKenna's death, he was awarded a Purple Heart and Silver Star, decorations he richly deserved. In my time as ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, I have heard the stories of many of our special operators and the heroic deeds they perform to keep us safe here at home. They are the consummate quiet professionals, never far from danger, yet shying away from the spotlight. First Sergeant McKenna was ``the best of us,'' his fellow Green Beret, Sergeant First Class Tim Kennedy, remarked. He gave his life for his country, and naming the post office at 515 Hope Street in his honor is just a small way that we can thank him for his remarkable service and ensure that his memory lives on. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Cicilline, and our two Senators, Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, for coming together to offer this legislation. First Sergeant McKenna has made his parents, Peter and Carol McKenna, his friends, the town of Bristol, and the entire State of Rhode Island extraordinarily proud. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring his courage, his service, and his sacrifice today.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, no one should experience what the students of Parkland, Florida, did last week. My heart breaks for that community, for the lives of the lost, for those who were injured, and for the families that were affected. No family should ever have to bury a child because of gun violence in school. Mr. Speaker, we need sensible gun violence prevention legislation to finally begin to address these tragedies, but I want to say I cannot support the President's frightening proposal to put more guns in our Nation's schools, in our Nation's classrooms. I wholeheartedly agree that we must make our schools safer places for students to learn, but arming teachers will do just the opposite. I know firsthand that accidents can happen even when guns are in the hands of highly trained firearms experts. I speak from this wheelchair today because, when I was 16, a stray bullet hit my spine and left me paralyzed. This was at the hands of two weapons experts on the police SWAT team. My accident occurred as a police cadet in the police department among trained experts. Just imagine what could happen in a school filled with children with people who are handling firearms who are not as well trained. Mr. Speaker, we must do more to keep our students safe. More guns around them is not the answer.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, again, while I appreciate my colleague's attempt to find somewhat of a common ground on this issue, it does not address the underlying problem. The issue of the ADA being around for 30 years--it is well-known now. People are even proactive about finding out what their responsibilities are under the ADA, as opposed to just waiting until they are notified of a problem and then perhaps complying with. No, we should not treat people with disabilities any differently than anyone else who is protected under civil rights laws. That is why we have them in the first place. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Let's work together on finding a better common-ground solution. But this amendment and the underlying bill is not the answer. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise, again, in opposition to this amendment. While I thank the gentleman from California for stressing the importance of providing opportunities for places of public accommodation to learn that they are in violation of the ADA, I disagree with the premise that the onus of enforcement should be placed on people with disabilities by requiring them to issue arduous and detailed notices. There are free resources available that provide information and technical assistance to the public on the requirements of the ADA. I can't stress this enough: when someone owns a business, they have to balance a variety of regulations and requirements at both the State and Federal Government level. Why should the requirements that their business be accessible to people with disabilities, requirements that have been in existence for decades, be weakened or viewed as less important? Why should business owners be given a free pass until someone catches a violation before they comply? The suggestion that we can reduce the timeframe of a notice and cure period misses the point. There is nothing that can be done to improve a notice requirement that shouldn't exist in the first place. No other civil rights law requires people who experience discrimination to wait for justice or provide a written notice before taking legal action. Why should people with disabilities be treated any differently? Further, what are the incentives to comply with the ADA in the first place if businesses can wait to be told what is wrong and then maybe fix the issue? After all, even with a reduction in the notice and cure timeframe, there is still no clear requirement that a barrier actually be removed. Again, I appreciate my colleague's desire to find a compromise, but this is not the answer. Whether the notice and cure period is 120 days or 180 days, it does nothing to address the underlying issue of drive-by lawsuits. That is the crux of the problem happening in States that have gone beyond the requirements of the ADA and merely delays access and creates a national policy of apathy on ADA implementation. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act. This misguided piece of legislation is being sold to my colleagues and the American public as a measure that will help people with disabilities, help businesses come into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and help reduce drive-by lawsuits in States that have gone beyond the ADA to allow for monetary awards. In actuality, H.R. 620 doesn't accomplish any of these objectives. What is worse, if passed, this ill-considered bill will not only decimate the protections that people with disabilities rely on, it will turn back the clock to a more segregated society, and it will unravel the core promise of the ADA that a disability, visible or otherwise, can never be grounds to justify or tolerate discrimination. Mr. Chairman, I am angry. I am frustrated. I am insulted. But more than anything, I am disappointed. Further, neither Mr. Peters nor Mr. Poe ever even approached me to sit down and have a discussion about this bill, to try to find some common ground to try to actually fix the problem if it is about drive-by lawsuits. Has the Congress really become so divorced from the human experience of the disability community that we are willing to sacrifice their rights because it is easier than targeting the root of the problem? Are people with disabilities, people like me, so easily disregarded? I am here to say enough is enough. Mr. Chairman, whether someone is born with a disability, develops a disability, or becomes disabled due to an accident or from having served in our Armed Forces, the fundamental truth is that it happened by chance, certainly not by choice. As the first quadriplegic elected to the United States Congress, I overcame many obstacles to sit beside you as a Member of this Chamber, but I would never have had the opportunities that I cherish today without the tireless efforts of those who came before me to fight for the rights of people with disabilities. Mr. Chairman, I was injured in 1980, at just 16 years of age, a full 10 years before the passage of the ADA, and I certainly remember what life was like before the ADA became law. I remember that I couldn't go inside a public building that didn't have a ramp, couldn't travel without accessible transportation, and was excluded from gatherings in restaurants and libraries, movie theaters and sports venues that couldn't accommodate a wheelchair. I struggled to wash my hands at a sink, access a restroom, and enter a classroom. I even declined matriculation at my first-choice college because the challenge of getting around the campus would have been too difficult, if not impossible. Mr. Chairman, the ADA brought more than just the recognition that disability rights are civil rights. It brought hope and opportunity to millions of people, and it brought dignity. Mr. Chairman, after all, having a disability should not limit opportunity, and it is with opportunity that people with disabilities can lead more active, productive, and independent lives. The ADA was passed nearly 28 years ago, and instead of holding people accountable to correctly implement the law, especially when free resources and technical information are readily available, H.R. 620 weakens Federal protections under the ADA, protections that prohibit discrimination on the basis of a disability. The ADA does not allow people to sue for compensatory or punitive damages, only injunctive relief. Yet some States have gone beyond the Federal law to permit monetary awards. H.R. 620 seeks to address the issue by including a notice and cure period. Well, the idea that places of public accommodation should receive a free pass for 6 months before correctly implementing a law that has been a part of our legal framework for nearly three decades creates an obvious disincentive for ADA compliance. People with disabilities, Mr. Chairman, still face immeasurable obstacles, despite the progress of our great Nation since the passage of the ADA. This past year, the disability community has had to fight to preserve access to healthcare, the long-term services and supports that are a lifeline for so many under Medicaid, and the ability to maintain certain protections and credits under the Tax Code. Mr. Chairman, they are tired, and I am tired, of defending against efforts to weaken our rights. I urge my colleagues to see past the smoke and mirrors and irresponsible claims that H.R. 620 is anything but an appalling effort to strip away the civil rights of a protected class of Americans. Mr. Chairman, every vote in support of H.R. 620 will be a message to people with disabilities that we are not worthy of inclusion, acceptance, or deserve the same civil rights protections as others. Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, Americans with disabilities look upon us to defend their rights. Let us not vote to eliminate them. Let us make them proud and reject H.R. 620.

Mr. LANGEVIN

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

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with my colleague and fellow Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus co-chair, Representative Gregg Harper. I want to mention that it is the only bipartisan amendment being offered to H.R. 620, and I think it is important to stress this point. Mr. Chairman, two Members of Congress from different political parties--who represent a caucus that exists solely to inform, educate, and highlight issues impacting the disability community--have come together to say that there is something gravely wrong with this bill. We are offering an amendment that would make it palatable. The amendment would strike H.R. 620's notice and cure requirement. As presently written, the notice and cure section mandates that someone who claims discrimination on the basis of a disability relating to an architectural barrier must provide a written notice that allows 60 days in order to acknowledge receipt of the complaint and 120 days to demonstrate substantial progress in removing the barrier before further legal action may be pursued. That is 6 months of waiting without a guarantee that the architectural barrier will be removed and access granted. So the idea that places of public accommodation must first receive a notice before correctly implementing a law that has been part of our legal framework for nearly three decades creates an obvious disincentive for ADA compliance. The proposal of a notice ignores the tenets of the ADA that support an indisputable right to inclusion and respect. No other civil rights law requires protected class members to hand a notice to people behaving in a discriminatory manner in order to educate them without any guarantee the situation will improve. This amendment would keep program funding for the ADA education. It also maintains language supporting alternative mediation pathways relating to architectural barriers outside of the existing framework within the Department of Justice. If supporters of H.R. 620 truly believe these State-based nuisance lawsuits are the result of a lack of knowledge of what the Federal ADA requires, and that businesses need less costly avenues to remedy violations, then why wouldn't they support an amendment that provides an answer to both of those claims without the harm of a notice and cure period that weakens the civil rights protections of the ADA? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences of a bill that delays justice for people with disabilities in a way that no other class protected by civil rights laws must endure when asserting their civil rights. I then urge my colleagues to consider whether the delay of a notice and cure requirement adequately addresses the underlying issue of ``drive-by'' lawsuits. I am hopeful that doing so will result in a decision to support this amendment to remove the harmful notice requirement, while maintaining provisions that increase access to education and mediation. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I proudly yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, again, I urge support of my amendment. The whole point of this amendment is to remove the notice and cure provision. Again, the ADA law has been around for nearly three decades now. People should be proactive about understanding what their responsibilities are to operate businesses or issues of public accommodation, to understand what their responsibilities are. Not, basically, taking that responsibility incentivizes people to say: Well, just wait and see if there is an issue, and only if we get notified will we then fix the problem. People need to be proactive and comply with the law, and I believe, there, everybody wins. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as the first quadriplegic elected to Congress, I am here today not just as a Member of Congress, but as someone here with a disability--and, I hope, providing a voice for so many in our country who also have disabilities--to give my perspective on H.R. 620, the misnamed ADA Education and Reform Act. Mr. Speaker, the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed nearly 30 years ago as an enduring promise to an entire population of Americans that discrimination on the basis of disability, including access to public accommodations, will not be tolerated. Now there have been decades for people and organizations to understand and implement provisions of the ADA. And for those who are just learning about the ADA or who need a refresher on the law, there are many free resources that provide information and technical assistance. The ADA provides a lifeline to so many who need access to classrooms, restrooms, businesses, restaurants, transit, and so much more. I recognize that there are some individuals who are unfairly targeted in States that have failed to protect against things like these ``drive-by lawsuits.'' But the root of the problem is not the ADA; it is the unscrupulous lawyers who take advantage of State laws that go beyond the Federal law to permit monetary damages. Now, the ADA does not allow people to sue for compensatory or punitive damages, only injunctive relief, meaning that they solve the problem. H.R. 620 does nothing to address the problem happening at the State level, nor does it target immoral lawyers. Instead, it sacrifices the rights of millions by reducing the impact and protections of the ADA which so many have come to depend on. It does so by creating a ``notice and cure'' regime, as it is called, that will create an obvious disincentive for ADA compliance. The idea that addressing architectural barriers with a written notice that gives 60 days to acknowledge receipt of a complaint and then 120 days to demonstrate ``substantial progress'' in the removal of an obstruction ignores the tenets of the ADA that support an indisputable right to inclusion and respect; and it tells people with disabilities that we are not worthy of inclusion until someone is caught, and even then, a remedy is not guaranteed. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the Rules Committee chose to make in order the bipartisan amendment that I will offer with my colleague and co-chair of the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus, Representative Gregg Harper; but, to be frank, this bill should never have been reported out of the Judiciary Committee in the first place, much less to the floor. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 620 is a blunt tool that wrongfully impedes the right of people with disabilities. If H.R. 620 passes with any kind of notice and cure period, we will return to the days when discrimination was commonplace, and it will be because elected officials voted to remove civil rights instead of protecting them.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the bipartisan Career and Technical Education Caucus, I rise in recognition of National CTE Month. CTE programs train students of all ages for jobs in high-skill, high- demand, and high-paying fields. By establishing partnerships between educators and industry leaders, CTE helps build a well-educated and skilled workforce ready to meet local business needs. In Rhode Island, the Westerly Education Center, by way of example, collaborates with Electric Boat to train pipefitting students like Stephanie and Richard to build our Nation's next generation submarines. The Genesis Center partners with CVS, Building Futures, and Apprenticeship Rhode Island to train workers, including Kathia, Jidma, and Lim, to become pharmacy technicians. Cindy was recently offered a job by CVS soon after she finished an apprenticeship. CTE is good for students, businesses, the Rhode Island economy, and economies everywhere because it narrows that gap between what we are teaching in schools and what the needs of businesses really are. I am proud to introduce a resolution celebrating CTE Month with my friend, colleague, and caucus co-chair, Representative G.T. Thompson. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring H. Res. 730.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 64.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the extraordinary career of Stephen Alfred of South Kingstown, whose time as Town Manager will soon come to a close after more than forty remarkable years of service. Mr. Alfred's sense of leadership, dedication to community, and perseverance are just a few of the reasons we will miss him upon his retirement. Alfred quickly found his way into public service after earning his bachelor's degree from Providence College in 1974. While pursuing his graduate degree from the University of Rhode Island the following year, he interned at South Kingstown Town Hall where he began working full time after concluding his studies. In 1976, at age twenty-four, he became acting Town Manager--a position made permanent the following year. Alfred's tenure has spanned an impressive twenty-one Town Councils, and he has overseen South Kingstown's growth from a town of 16,000 to one of more than 30,000 residents . Through the years, he has earned the immense respect and admiration of his colleagues and fellow citizens while focusing on fostering and maintaining a sense of community. He will retire as the longest-serving town manager or administrator in the state, which is a well-deserved reflection of his dedication to public service. I join the residents of South Kingstown and the entire state of Rhode Island in expressing deep gratitude for Mr. Alfred's contributions, and I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Cyber Diplomacy Act and efforts to increase international cooperation and promote global stability in cyberspace. As the cofounder and co-chair of the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus, I firmly believe that cybersecurity is the national and economic security challenge of the 21st century, and we must integrate cyberspace into our foreign policy if we are to successfully mitigate the many threats that we face in this new domain. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recognized this when she created the Office of the Cyber Coordinator within the State Department in 2011, and her successor, Secretary John Kerry, continued American leadership in cyber diplomacy. I had the privilege of working with the inaugural cyber coordinator, Chris Painter, and we are deeply indebted for his 6 years of service in that role. I cannot remember a meeting I had with a cybersecurity expert from a foreign government where his name did not come up as someone who is actively promoting American interest in a free, open, and secure internet. I am deeply grateful for the leadership of Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel in recognizing the importance of this role and bringing this bill forward to codify and expand it. This effort is particularly timely as, since Mr. Painter left, there has been some confusion about whether the position would even be filled or if the office would be reorganized under the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. It is my goal to see that that does not happen and that this bill prevails. That position deeply needs to be in the State Department, where we can show American leadership on a diplomatic front in cyber. As a Member who serves on two national security committees, I must emphasize that cybersecurity is not just an economic issue, and this bill appropriately recognizes the broad scope of cyber diplomacy. Mr. Speaker, every armed conflict going forward in the world today has--and all future conflicts will have--a cyber component. We have seen our cyber adversaries like Russia use cyber tools as instruments of statecraft, including efforts to undermine faith in the bedrock of our democracy, our elections. We must engage bilaterally and multilaterally with our international partners and even our adversaries in order to protect our interests and allow us to continue to reap the benefits of a connected society. The lack of policies, norms, and precedents in this new sphere of state interaction continues to increase the potential for a cyber incident to lead to escalating conflict. It is up to the hardworking and, sadly, underappreciated members of our foreign service to change this paradigm and encourage generally stabilizing rules of the road in cyberspace, and this bill will ensure they have the leadership structure to do just that. Mr. Speaker, let me again thank the chairman and ranking member for their extraordinary work on this important bill.