Jim Langevin

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of National Mentoring Month and in recognition of the great contributions that mentors make to young people and to communities across the country. Every young person deserves and needs a mentor, someone with experience and perspective to help them overcome challenges and navigate uncertainties. I would not be here today without the guidance that I received from my mentors, including Supreme Court Justice and former Mayor Frank Flaherty, former Mayor Joe Walsh, the late State Senator Eleanor Slater, and the late Senator Claiborne Pell. Mentorships like these can be life-changing, and I applaud organizations like MENTOR Rhode Island, which pairs mentors with at- risk youth. Vulnerable young people with mentors are more likely to maintain better attendance and positive attitudes toward school, and they are 55 percent more likely to go to college than their peers. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep appreciation for my mentors and the power of mentoring that I recognize January as National Mentoring Month.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great Rhode Island public servant, educator, and dear friend, my predecessor, Congressman Robert Weygand. During his time in government, Bob served as a Rhode Island State legislator from 1985 to 1993, Lieutenant Governor from 1993 to 1997, and United States Representative for the Second Congressional District of Rhode Island from 1997 to 2001. Bob has always fought passionately for the people of the State of Rhode Island, and in the decades since, he has shared his wealth of knowledge with the students at the University of Rhode Island, dedicating himself to preparing the next generation of leaders. As he retires from that position, I want to say that Bob served for the right reasons: to make a positive difference in his community and improve the lives of the people around him. I am proud to call him my predecessor in the Halls of Congress, my dear friend and mentor to this day, and I happily congratulate him on his retirement from URI. I know that, in one way or another, Bob will continue to serve his community as he always has: with integrity, passion, and wisdom.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the final version of the Republican tax bill, which I cannot support. This bill was flawed from the start. First of all, it was never deficit neutral and there was never a bipartisan negotiation. This is a Republican-only bill, and it was developed without any input at all from Democrats because they never sought our input at all. My Republican colleagues say they would like to jump-start the economy. Well, we can do just that by providing more tax cuts to working class families whose paychecks are already stretched far too thin and who would reinvest that money in the local economy. Instead, this bill provides them with crumbs, and temporary crumbs at that. Under this plan, corporate cuts, though, will be permanent. With this bill, we will see an entirely different, more expensive, individual Tax Code in 2025, when the middle class tax cuts expire. This bill also balloons the national debt, make no mistake about it. It repeals a critical healthcare provision that will result in 13 million Americans becoming uninsured. Now, these days, I hear a lot about accountability and encouraging competitiveness for the American worker, which I support. But this bill, with its novel loopholes and flawed trickle-down philosophy, does neither. It is a wasted opportunity. I believe that it is not too late, but the way this bill is written, I cannot support it. This was written for corporations and the wealthy 1 percent in this country. It was not written for a strong middle class. We can do better. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I'd like like to thank the gentlelady from Connecticut for organizing this special order and for her commitment to honoring the victims of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012. I rise to join her in remembrance and to call on my colleagues to take immediate action to end gun violence across our nation. The horrific shooting spree in Newtown, Connecticut, five years ago shocked us all. Twenty innocent children and six brave educators fell victim to unspeakable violence--the work of a deeply disturbed young man armed with a semiautomatic rifle and two handguns. More than ever, it revealed the desperate need to reform our gun laws. But five years later, we have nothing to show for it but more mass shootings--more innocent lives lost. We have made no meaningful progress, and we have not passed any commonsense legislation, like banning high-capacity magazines, which the Sandy Hook shooter used. It is far past time to enact laws to strengthen our background check system, closing loopholes that allow unlicensed gun dealers to sell firearms to Americans without background checks at gun shows and over the internet, putting us all at risk. Instead, my Republican colleagues continue to try to weaken gun safety laws by passing legislation like the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which would override state law and allow domestic abusers, teenagers, and people untrained in gun safety to carry concealed weapons freely across the nation. Moreover, they block federal funds from being used to even research gun violence, for fear it will be used to ``advocate gun control.'' This is simply unacceptable and morally irresponsible. As members of Congress, it is our duty to pass laws to make our communities safer. The only way to respond to mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary is to take action that will prevent such tragedies from happening in the future. Since 2012, more than 170,000 other lives have been ended by gun violence, more than 170,000 families devastated. The gun violence epidemic continues to plague our nation, and we must act now to stop it.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson for their dedication to improving our cybersecurity posture. Since the Chairman and I founded the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus together nearly a decade ago, I have come to firmly believe that cybersecurity is the national and economic security challenge of the 21st Century, and both Congress and the executive branch must take steps to recognize and mitigate the risks we face in our hyper-connected society. Thanks to the leadership of the Chairman and Ranking Member, the Committee on Homeland Security has consistently been at the forefront on these issues, and while much remains to be done, we are worlds away from when I originally took the cyber subcommittee gavel in 2007. The bill we have before us today is a testament to those efforts, and I strongly support this latest iteration of CISA to reorganize the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) and enhance the capabilities and the profile of DHS's cybersecurity activities. As one of its core missions, DHS is charged with helping Federal agencies and critical infrastructure owners and operators secure themselves against physical and cyber attacks. For the past decade, that mission has been carried out by NPPD, a small headquarters component of the Department. Since its establishment, NPPD's role in defending the nation and the .gov domain from cyber intrusions has grown in concert with the increasing threat to our networks. It's a growth that the Committee--and the Congress as a whole--has recognized and encouraged, with the passage of laws including the National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014, which authorized the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, and the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, which made NPPD the federal government's primary hub for cyber threat indicator sharing. Today, NPPD is home to two of the premiere computer security incident response teams in the world and has been recognized as the whole-of-government asset response lead in the National Cyber Incident Response Plan. It also continues to lead efforts in protecting federal networks through the Federal Network Resilience Division, which assists other agencies with risk management, guides enterprise security policy, and implements programs like Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation and EINSTEIN. NPPD is clearly acting in an operational capacity today, but despite this fact, Congress has not yet elevated NPPD's standing to be commensurate with these added responsibilities. H.R. 3359 acknowledges the evolution of the component by transforming NPPD into an operational agency on par with TSA or Customs and Border Protection. As part of the reorganization, NPPD will be renamed the ``Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency,'' or CISA, to accurately reflect its role. This restructuring was the top legislative priority of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson before he left office, and I am grateful that Secretary Kelly took up the mantle in the new Administration. Bringing clarity with the new agency structure also stands to benefit the many cyber defenders working tirelessly at the Department to keep us safe. I have often said that all of the risk mitigation policies and intrusion detection systems in the world are nothing without a skilled workforce. Congress and the Department have been working jointly to reduce the shortage of cybersecurity analysts at NPPD, and it is my hope that an empowered Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency will be able to compete for the best cyber talent. After all, what mission is more exciting than protecting your fellow Americans from the canniest of adversaries attempting to do us harm in this new domain? I hope that all of the young people considering a career in this emerging field--young people like the brilliant CyberCorps students I enjoy speaking with--will look at Congress's support for DHS's cybersecurity work and jump at the opportunity to be in the vanguard at this new agency. Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak about the important clarity H.R. 3359 brings to a broader policy debate that has been kicking around Washington, DC, for some time now. I serve on the House Armed Services Committee, where I am privileged to act as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. In this role, I oversee United States Cyber Command, and I have the utmost respect for the service members in uniform defending our country in the digital domain. I have also had the privilege to serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where I heard weekly about the all-too-often unsung heroes of our Intelligence Community and their efforts to protect our national interests in cyberspace. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because I want to be clear that I have a deep understanding of and appreciation for our military and intelligence services' cybersecurity prowess. But I also believe that the powers and authorities of those entities are rightly constrained when it comes to domestic activities. Protecting our domestic cyber assets in peacetime needs to be the responsibility of a civilian organization, and that organization is the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency created under this bill. We saw this debate play out during consideration of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, where it was also decided in favor of a civilian hub, the NCCIC that is at the heart of NPPD. I hope passage of H.R. 3359 will help move the debate on from where authorities should be housed and instead focus on the operationalization of said authorities. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the outset, this bill owes its existence to the collaborative efforts of Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson. But it also reflects the bipartisan spirit of two of my good friends who head the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection, Mr. Ratcliffe and Mr. Richmond. And, like any effort of this body, it owes a great deal to the staff who work tirelessly behind the scenes supporting our efforts. In particular, I would like to Kirsten Duncan and Moira Bergin, the Majority and Minority staff directors for the Cyber Subcommittee for helping to get this bill to the Floor. And I would also like to thank their predecessors, Brett DeWitt and Chris Schepis, for laying the groundwork for its consideration this Congress. This bill is important. It's bipartisan. And it's overdue. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important measure, and I hope the Senate moves swiftly to pass it through their Chamber.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening, the House passed H.R. 3359, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act, and I would like to commend Homeland Security Committee Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson for their efforts getting it through the House, along with my colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee. This bipartisan bill makes long overdue changes to the organization of the National Protection and Programs Directorate, or NPPD, to reflect its growing operational role in cybersecurity. Despite it being notionally a headquarters component, NPPD is home to the government's premier cyber incident response teams; the 24/7 watch floor and information sharing hub; and the Federal Network Resilience Division, tasked with supporting other agencies in defending their networks. NPPD is also charged with leading asset response activities under the National Cyber Incident Response Plan. H.R. 3359 recognizes that these activities go far beyond NPPD's original mission and raises the renamed component to an agency on par with Customs and Border Protection or the TSA. Mr. Speaker, I hope the bill makes crystal clear that DHS is the primary agency for domestic cybersecurity in peacetime, and I encourage young people looking at cybersecurity careers to consider joining the vanguard at this new agency. I look forward to its swift passage and consideration in the Senate.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 38, which unconscionably combines a needed reform to improve background checks with a wholesale abandonment of sanity with respect to gun permitting. The Fix NICS Act would improve notifications about criminal activity for background checks, which I strongly support. A system, by the way, that tragically failed prior to the Sutherland Springs shooting. Unfortunately, this reform is tied to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which would endanger millions of Americans and undermine well- established State laws with respect to concealed carry. My home State of Rhode Island has strong, sensible procedures for getting a concealed carry permit. In Rhode Island, you must be at least 21 years old, trained in gun safety, and must have just cause to carry a concealed weapon. Domestic abusers are not eligible. H.R. 38 would override these commonsense laws, putting our residents at risk. It would allow anyone denied a permit in Rhode Island to permit shop in States with weaker laws, and it would allow residents of States with weaker requirements to carry freely in our neighborhoods. Mr. Speaker, gun violence is an epidemic in this country. We should not be taking steps to put more guns on our streets. I urge my colleagues to heed the warnings of law enforcement officers and reject this dangerous bill.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the importance of preserving net neutrality. As many of my colleagues are aware, cybersecurity is a top priority of mine, as I believe it is the national and economy security challenge of the 21st century. As co-chair of the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus, I have fought for years to help reduce security risks while preserving the amazing benefits of an open interoperable internet. But the internet was not designed with security in mind, so I haven't been surprised by the work needed to better protect our networks and data. But the internet was designed to be free and open. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I have been stunned by the Federal Communication Commission's recent proposal to end net neutrality and allow a small group of large companies to control what we see online. This is absolutely outrageous. I have heard from countless constituents back home in Rhode Island about this misguided effort, and I join them in calling for the FCC to reject it. Mr. Speaker, we do need to better protect ourselves on the internet, but we better make sure there is still a free and open internet to protect.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of National Family Caregivers Month. Caregivers are our Nation's hidden heroes. They foster family stability and help those with chronic and disabling conditions avoid costly out-of-home placements. In fact, family caregivers are very often the difference between costly institutional care or staying in their home. Family caregivers not only deserve our respect and gratitude, but also respite from the physical and emotional toll of ensuring their loved ones receive the care that they need. But if the caregivers themselves aren't taking care of their own needs, they are not going to be very effective at taking care of their loved ones. Mr. Speaker, almost 44 million Americans are providing over $470 billion in uncompensated care each year, if we had to put a dollar figure on it. These caregivers are our grandparents, parents, spouses, siblings, children, and even our grandchildren. They are often the lifeline to accessible, quality care at home. We in Congress need to do our part to support these heroes by passing the Lifespan Respite Care Reauthorization Act, which my good friend Representative Gregg Harper and I have introduced. It is the least that we can do in appreciation of the sacrifice these family caregivers make each and every day.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize Lieutenant Colonel Michael Manning of the United States Army for his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to our Nation. Colonel Manning will soon transition from his current assignment as the Rhode Island Army National Guard Liaison to serve as the Battalion Commander of the Guard's Recruiting and Retention Battalion. Colonel Manning began his military career as Distinguished Military Graduate of Providence College's ROTC Class of 1997. He then deployed to the Republic of Germany with the 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division. He subsequently deployed to Kosovo in support of Operation Joint Guardian II as a Brigade Reconnaissance Troop Leader for Task Force Falcon. In 2002, after joining the Rhode Island Army National Guard, he was appointed Commander of the 173rd Infantry Detachment Long Range Surveillance, which was mobilized in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom III in 2004. He again deployed, this time with Special Operations Detachment Global, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom Caribbean and Central America in 2008, where he served as the Deputy Chief for the Regional Engagement Branch. He then graduated with distinction from the College of Naval Command and Staff at the U.S. Naval War College with a Master of Arts in National Security and Strategic Studies before once again deploying with Special Operations Detachment Global, serving with the Senior Special Operations to the Afghan Ministry of Defense. Having served as an Assistant Professor of Military Science at Providence College and as a State Partnership Program Coordinator, he continues to impart his wisdom to those around him as the current Secretary of the General Staff. As the primary liaison between the Rhode Island Congressional delegation and the Rhode Island Army National Guard, Colonel Manning has provided me and my staff with the ability to better comprehend and appreciate the National Guard and its unique mission set both at home in the Ocean State and in Washington, D.C., his first-hand knowledge of the military, its culture, and its traditions has been of tremendous benefit. Throughout my time working with Colonel Manning, I found him to be a thoughtful, intelligent, and dedicated Soldier in the best traditions of those called to serve from the great state of Rhode Island, and his future is extremely bright. Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with Colonel Manning during his time as a National Guard Liaison in Rhode Island. On behalf of a grateful Nation, it is my honor to recognize the selfless service and sacrifice of Lieutenant Colonel Michael Manning, his wife, Meg, and their children, Michael, Jack, and Shannon. I wish them the very best as they continue their journey in the United States Army National Guard and thank them for dedicating their lives to the service of our Nation.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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. LANGEVIN

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

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