Jim Langevin

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member Smith for speaking on behalf of this motion to instruct. I deeply appreciate his leadership on the Armed Services Committee and his years of service, as I do, again, have deep respect for Chairman Thornberry and his leadership as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Case in point, the NDAA this year, and as has been the case in past years, has been truly a bipartisan effort, and it's one of the reasons I truly enjoy serving in the Armed Services Committee is because of the bipartisan cooperation that is demonstrated when it comes to protecting our country, when it comes to providing for our national defense, especially supporting our men and women in uniform. It is a bipartisan effort. It is unfortunate that in this one particular case we have this difference of opinion. We are, again, a program that was initially intended to train marksmen years ago when we didn't have a professional military. Maybe it had merit and the organization was supported, but we have a professional military now, great marksmanship programs and training programs, as well as private organizations that do this. But it doesn't require or need a government subsidy, and so it wouldn't be appropriate in this case any further to continue to support this private organization, the CMP program with, ostensibly, a earmark. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her comments and support of the motion to instruct. I also want to commend her and thank her for her leadership on the Armed Services Committee. Mr. Speaker, just to once again reiterate, a priority of the overall NDAA that we worked on in a bipartisan, collaborative way, this one sticking point is this provision in the NDAA that, again, amounts to an earmark, and it could potentially put tens of thousands of additional weapons on our streets that could wind up in the wrong hands. It is an unnecessary step. Again, when the CMP was first created, it had a legitimate purpose. That purpose is no longer needed, per se, for the military in terms of marksmanship training. There are other organizations out there that do that, but we also have the professional military. Mr. Speaker, in closing, the provisions in the House-passed NDAA would give a multimillion-dollar handout in the form of .45-caliber pistols to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. It is an unnecessary and unwise use of taxpayer property that would potentially make our streets less safe. My motion will instruct our House conferees to reject this earmark and allow the Army to melt down and repurpose its surplus firearms, as it does with other firearms or surplus equipment. Congress needs to find solutions to the endemic gun violence that is plaguing our Nation right now. We saw, it seems, time after time, multiple incidents where firearms get into the wrong hands and are misused, causing loss of life and sometimes, unfortunately, sadly, in significant numbers, just as we saw, as Ms. Rosen mentioned, with the terrible shooting in Las Vegas: 58 people lost their lives and hundreds more were injured. It was a terrible tragedy for Nevada, for those who lost their lives, and for those who were injured; and, really, it was a tragedy once again that has plagued and affected our country. It has to stop. We should not be adding to the problem by injecting tens of thousands of handguns onto our streets. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will support the motion to instruct, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate all his time and effort he is putting into bringing attention to this vital issue. It is an honor to join him this evening as we highlight the imminent need to pass a full reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. Now, I represent the great State of Rhode Island, a State with over 27,000 children and pregnant women at risk of losing healthcare if CHIP is not fully funded. It is deeply troubling to me and many of my constituents, my colleagues in government; and we fought hard over the years to make sure that we did better by our young people, by the most vulnerable, and by pregnant women in making sure that they had the healthcare coverage that they desperately need and deserve. Now, in Rhode Island, the lack of a reauthorization endangers $26 million in Federal funds that support this vulnerable population, many of whom will not otherwise have comprehensive coverage. This is particularly frustrating because congressional Republicans knew that CHIP funding would expire on September 30. They had ample time to fix this problem in a bipartisan way and have chosen not to. Instead of proactively crafting legislation to ensure 9 million low- income children and families maintain access to affordable, high- quality healthcare, Republicans focused their efforts on gutting the Affordable Care Act to the exclusion of everything else. Now, in the service of their political priority to eliminate coverage for 23 million, they are passing on an opportunity to govern on multiple healthcare fronts. Rather than work to find meaningful bipartisan solutions, Republicans still seek ways of systematically unraveling ACA protections and have only offered untenable options to offset the cost of CHIP. That is no way to govern responsibly or to even remotely do it in a bipartisan way, which they could do. Now, their plan to pay for healthcare for one population by stripping access to healthcare from another is wrong. This approach of robbing Peter to pay Paul does nothing to build a foundation for a healthier future, nor does it protect the communities with sufficient healthcare access today. Proposing to slash the ACA's Prevention and Public Health Fund and creating a greater financial burden on seniors by suggesting destructive Medicare changes are not acceptable ways to bring Democrats to the table and pass a CHIP reauthorization with bipartisan support. Which, by the way, I am sure my colleagues have mentioned as they were speaking tonight, when CHIP was first authorized, it was done collaboratively in a bipartisan way at a contentious time in Congress, back when it was first enacted. But they found a way to do the right thing for vulnerable individuals, particularly our children, and we need to come together again. We have a responsibility to move quickly, to ensure our children continue to have access to high-quality, affordable coverage. States like Rhode Island deserve to know that we will support the efforts to provide for the children in the State. The health professionals who treat these children deserve more certainty. Most importantly, the children who benefit from CHIP deserve much better than to be threatened with coverage termination because my colleagues in the majority can't set aside their political ambitions and goals. Mr. Speaker, I just want to again thank my colleague for raising an alarm bell on this issue, calling attention and focusing the American people on the need to reauthorize CHIP. We take great pride in Rhode Island that over the years we have built a very strong program to cover vulnerable children and pregnant women. We have been leaders in the country in having a very low rate of uninsured. Going back even before the ACA was enacted, we had a model program with our Rite Care and Rite Share program. There were hard- fought battles that moved the ball forward for providing better and more responsible health coverage for the people who need it and deserve it the most. We need to come together now in a bipartisan way to make sure that CHIP is reauthorized. We cannot let this program fail. We cannot fail our children, our most vulnerable populations. We can come together in a bipartisan way. Democrats stand ready to do just that, come together in a bipartisan way to reauthorize CHIP, just as it had been authorized in a bipartisan way when it was first created. Now, I know that there are many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who care as passionately about covering low-income children, providing affordable healthcare, doing the right thing by our children, and I look forward to reaching out across the aisle to do just that. Let's do this in a bipartisan way. Let's do the right thing and put partisan politics aside and cover our children. Mr. Speaker, I thank again Mr. O'Halleran for his leadership on this vital issue, and I look forward to continuing to work with him as we reauthorize CHIP, hopefully in the very near future. Again, we got to do this together.

Mr. LANGEVIN

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

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, last night we witnessed another unspeakable act of gun violence that took too many innocent lives. Today my heart breaks once again for those victims of the Las Vegas shooting and for the families whose lives have been irrevocably changed by this terrible tragedy. Each of them is in my prayers today. Mr. Speaker, prayers alone are not enough. We cannot, in good conscience, sit idly by as innocent people continue to die. Mr. Speaker, there are reasonable steps that we can take to make our communities safer, things like limiting high-capacity magazines and banning assault weapons--weapons, by the way, that are weapons of war and have no business being on the streets in the first place. Mr. Speaker, we have a solemn responsibility as Members of Congress to ensure that our communities are safe. Let us honor the victims of the Las Vegas shooting by doing something to prevent such tragedies from happening in the future.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to express my strong opposition to H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act, which recently passed out of the Judiciary Committee. For 27 years, the Americans with Disabilities Act has made a difference in millions of lives, including my own, by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a disability and requiring accessibility in places of public accommodation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 620 decimates the underlying intent of the ADA by allowing entities to wait before addressing barriers to access. It would roll back years of progress, and it sends a message to the disability community that we are not worthy of being included like everyone else. I urge my colleagues to consider the true implications of this policy. Mr. Speaker, I was injured in 1980, a full 10 years before the ADA was enacted. I remember what our country was like before the ADA. I do not wish to go back. Instead of weakening our civil rights, let us work together to protect them.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Arts in Education Week and the power of art to improve student learning, inspire creativity, and boost academic achievement at all ages. The arts speak to all of us in different ways. I am inspired by the performing arts, while others are drawn to design and, still, others express themselves through music. The exposure to and participation in creative disciplines empowers us to courageously innovate, a key to success in school and beyond. Mr. Speaker, in my home State of Rhode Island, music education is encouraged, actually, in State law. Unfortunately, Congress has not demonstrated the same commitment. I am extremely disappointed that the Republican appropriations package for fiscal year 2018 eliminates the Arts in Education program, a vital source of funding for arts programs across the Nation. Mr. Speaker, we must invest in the arts, not cut funding, and empower the next generation to realize their potential to create.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the chairman, and I am grateful for his consideration, and I look forward to working with him. I yield back the balance of my time and withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, before I actually get to my amendment, I just want to say in reference to the previous discussion about properly funding the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, I commend the discussion on both sides and the commitment to properly fund those programs. The National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities holds a special place in Rhode Island in that both of those programs were championed by and helped to have been created by our late senior Senator Claiborne Pell. We understand the importance of the arts and humanities in Rhode Island, the jobs they create, the quality of life they enhance, and I wholeheartedly support properly funding both of those programs. I had led a Special Order when the President's budget came out and those programs had been zeroed out in funding. Several of my colleagues and I got together and talked about the impact the arts and humanities have on our States, on our districts, and on the country as a whole. I just want to reiterate my support for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities and all they do for the country. Mr. Chairman, my amendment that we have before us would restore some funding to the southern New England estuaries program, which is currently zeroed out in the underlying bill. This program, part of the EPA's geographic programs, has been a thriving success, and anyone who has been to New England knows the beauty of where the ocean meets the land. Our estuaries are in South County, Rhode Island, and all along the Narragansett Bay; along Mount Hope Bay and Buzzards Bay and throughout Cape Cod. These areas are the lungs of our coastal areas and sustain the diversity of plant and animal life. These funds are vital to conserving this wetland habitat which is frequently under attack by human and natural damage. So I implore the majority to support this program, as they have supported similar programs for Puget Sound, the Chesapeake Bay, and other areas. I am proud to be joined by Representatives Cicilline, Keating, and Kennedy as cosponsors of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, finally, I just want to say that I intend to offer and withdraw this amendment provided that my colleague, Chairman Calvert, is open to continuing the discussion on the importance of this program. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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.

Mr. LANGEVIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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.

Mr. LANGEVIN

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

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. 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. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.