Jim Langevin

Mr. LANGEVIN

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

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

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

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a blatant attack on the use of alternative energy by the Department of Defense. So we have existing contracts right now for renewable energy, both liquid fuels and electricity, at the Department of Defense, and this amendment seeks to really pump the brakes on those policies and bury them in a web of unnecessary requirements. So requiring procurement managers to track all Federal subsidies and tax credits would be a burden to the government, and requiring suppliers to provide such information would be onerous, expensive, and may, in fact, actually drive them away. Also, this will result in less competition for contracts, and higher costs for the Department of Defense. Ultimately, it is going to result in higher costs to the taxpayer. So most alarmingly, this amendment does not include any waivers for times of emergency when a retail, time-sensitive purchase of readily available alternative fuels might be imperative to completing the mission, even if it is at a price point higher than the usual market cost. Mr. Chairman, it also does not provide consideration for renewable energy projects for military installations that, although they might not reduce costs, do have other quantifiable benefits that increase combat effectiveness or enhance mission resiliency. This amendment is also redundant. For bulk purchases, of which the DOD has many, current law already prohibits the Department from an alternative fuel purchase unless fully burdened cost is cost- competitive with traditional fuels. Burying suppliers in these requirements is an unnecessary compliance burden and could disincentivize some suppliers from doing business with the DOD. Finally, this amendment is opposed by the Department of Defense. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chair, this amendment would strike a provision that we have already thoroughly debated and approved in a bipartisan fashion within the Armed Services Committee. Section 336 acknowledges what Secretary Mattis has already said and what we already know: that a changing climate will affect our military's readiness and alter the threat landscape for years to come, and that we must study these impacts to prepare for them. I cannot see the harm in gathering information and doing an assessment. We already see the strategic implications of new sea lanes being cut in the melting Arctic, where countries are seeking an economic advantage. As we speak, along our coasts, rising seas are affecting our naval installations, including at Naval Station Norfolk, the home of the Atlantic Fleet. The report required in section 336 is not about causes of climate change, nor do we discuss specific emissions, targets, or green energy goals. Instead, my section of the Armed Service Committee is very factual. We focus squarely on the readiness of our Armed Forces to combat the coming and existing climate threat, starting with a study of the 10 most vulnerable bases in each service, and a report on how a changing climate will affect combatant commanders' strategic battle plans. As Secretary Mattis has said, ``the effects of a changing climate-- such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others--impact our security situation.'' Mr. Chairman, we need to support our leaders in the military and intelligence communities in addressing these concerns, so I urge defeat of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, as we noted in our committee markup, there would be nothing controversial about studying this threat and being prepared to mitigate the risks. In fact, that is our responsibility. The support for this climate resiliency language was truly bipartisan in committee, and I hope we will send a strong message of support to the servicemen and -women who will have to lead with the effects of climate change by opposing this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LANGEVIN

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

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

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply not necessary, as it is a solution in search of a problem. Now, the budget request for fiscal year 2018 has no funding for reducing the level or reducing the number of deployed ICBMs below 400, and there are no plans to do so in the future. It also presupposes the completion of the nuclear posture review, which is currently ongoing and is expected at the end of this year. So instead of jumping the gun and acting precipitously, we should allow the administration time to finish the review and base our actions on its findings. This is particularly true because it may be that reducing the number of ICBMs and reducing alert levels could, in fact, be beneficial to enhance strategic stability. Preventing such a reduction also disregards the crucial and fundamental role of our Nation's submarines, which provide an assured, survivable second-strike capability, and which dissuades an adversary from thinking they could launch a disarming attack against the United States. ICBMs can be seen as destabilizing in that they would force a very rapid decision by the President and are use-or-lose nuclear weapons. History has shown us concerns about the potential for a rushed decision in response to a false alarm that none of us wish to see repeated. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to talk about keeping ICBMs, it should be done in a meaningful, informed discussion based on the findings of the Nuclear Posture Review instead of yet another annual amendment driven by what seems like a parochial interest, which does not consider the other legs of the nuclear deterrent. Instead, we should focus on increasing accountability and ensuring that we are improving the morale and culture inside the Air Force with regard to nuclear weapons so that some of the serious and embarrassing problems that have plagued the ICBM missileers and security forces in recent years may be properly addressed. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I believe, as I said before, this amendment is an unnecessary amendment. It does not meaningfully address the three legs of the nuclear triad. Let's wait until the Nuclear Posture Review is done and base our decision then on facts and not on speculation. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding. And, Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and Chairwoman Stefanik for their collective efforts in crafting this bill that is before us this evening. I would also like to thank the staff who worked tirelessly on this productive and forward-thinking legislation. It is an honor and a privilege to serve as a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee on behalf of the selfless servicemen and women who protect our Nation every day, and I am proud of the very strong bipartisan effort represented by this year's NDAA. Mr. Chair, we accomplish a number of important objectives in this bill. First of all, we enhance our deterrence capabilities in Europe and support our Nation's submarine force. I am very proud of the Virginia class submarines that we build starting right in my district, and we also provide strong support for the Columbia class program that will be the Ohio replacement program. We also make it clear that climate security is, indeed, national security, backing the Department in its efforts to build resilience, reduce risk, and prepare for all types of threats that may come our way, even if those threats come from climate change. But as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, I am particularly proud of the provisions we have included on cybersecurity, special operations, and research and development. We strengthen our cyber cooperation with our partners and allies through both training and collaboration with the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. We better leverage the U.S. Global Engagement Center to combat propaganda and information warfare operations conducted against America and her allies, and we grant permanent authority for family support programs within Special Operations Command that reflect the unique needs of these warfighters and their families. We also reinvigorate the DOD scholarship program so that students are encouraged to pursue information security degrees and can come to work defending our Nation from the get-go. We can have all of the cyber policies in place that we want, but if we don't have the trained workforce to execute those policies, we are going to be behind the curve, and this helps to close that gap. We advance hypersonic weapons research, development, and especially transition efforts. We prioritized the readiness of U.S. Cyber Command in our Cyber Mission Force, and we strengthen congressional oversight of sensitive cyber military operations and command cyber warfare tools and capabilities. This approach was deliberate in nature, and it moves us closer to a military that will be able to address the variety of threats that we face in the 21st century. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and Chairwoman Stefanik, and all of my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee, as well as the staff, for their hard work on this very important bill.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, during the full committee markup of the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, the House Armed Services Committee came together to produce a strong bipartisan bill that will ensure investment in and oversight of our military. We also recognized how valuable the Department is to international humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts as well. During markup, I offered an amendment that will require the Department to assess the viability of unmanned aircraft systems in support of international humanitarian aid missions. Although it is well understood that the DOD has operated UAS platforms effectively for over a decade in offensive roles, I believe it is also important we recognize the capabilities of UAS platforms to increase the speed and quality of response forces providing disaster relief and medical assistance to those suffering around the world. Think of critical disaster efforts, whereby vital medicine and supplies are needed quickly. UAS could very well make all the difference between life and death. I am pleased that this amendment was adopted during markup, and I thank my colleagues for their support of this endeavor.

Mr. LANGEVIN

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

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the Career and Technical Education Caucus, I rise in strong support of the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act. This bipartisan bill, Mr. Speaker, is long overdue. The Carl D. Perkins CTE Act, the primary Federal investment in CTE, has not been reauthorized in over a decade. I want to thank my colleagues, particularly Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, Representative Thompson, and Representative Krishnamoorthi for their leadership and collaboration on this important bill, and a particular thanks to my co-chair of the CTE Caucus, Mr. Thompson, for his outstanding leadership and partnership on this issue over the years. Mr. Speaker, CTE provides students of all ages with the skills they need to succeed in high-demand, high-paying, high-skilled jobs. At a time right now when hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing, IT, and other skilled trades remain unfilled, Congress has a responsibility to empower workers with appropriate education and training. If we fail to modernize and invest in CTE, we will be unable to build a skilled workforce, and American businesses will pay the price. H.R. 2353 aligns CTE programs with industry needs, promotes work- based learning, and supports career counselors.

Mr. LANGEVIN. H.R. 2353 aligns CTE programs with industry needs, promotes work-based learning, and supports career counselors while strengthening Federal investment in CTE. I encourage my colleagues to support students, businesses, and their local economies by supporting this bill.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the latest plan to gut the Affordable Care Act. Senate Republicans, as has been reported, just unveiled their draft of their healthcare bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act, which was developed entirely behind closed doors and will be rushed to a vote, from what I understand, without additional input or public debate. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, this bill will not provide Americans access to better care and it will not create more affordable coverage. Changes to Medicaid will mean Americans in the expansion population will eventually lose access to crucial services and supports, and shrinking the program will force States to cut services to the poor, the sick, and the elderly. Like the House Republican version to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, the Senate's bill is an attack on the preservation of essential health benefits, and it will not ensure middle-income Americans can receive sufficient financial support to obtain coverage. The Senate Republican Better Care Reconciliation Act does not deviate from the damage of the core policies found in the Republican House version of the American Health Care Act, and I just hope my Republican colleagues have a chance to realize this before they take a vote on a bill that will only undermine health coverage for the American people.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank Representative Smucker for holding this Special Order. Madam Speaker, as co-chair of the Career and Technical Education Caucus, I rise to highlight the importance of career and technical education for our Nation's workforce. I really appreciate all of the comments that the gentleman just mentioned, and I concur. Madam Speaker, across Rhode Island, I continue to hear from employers struggling to find skilled workers to fill open jobs in fields such as manufacturing, IT, and other trades. Hundreds of thousands of high-skilled, high-paying jobs are right now unfulfilled in our country, and this number is continuing to grow. Especially as we hear about bringing jobs back from overseas, manufacturing, just by way of example, has changed dramatically. These factories are no longer the old, dirty, noisy manufacturing factories of old that, say, our fathers or grandfathers were used to. They are now all high-tech. You see robots doing a lot of the manufacturing that require both programming and sophisticated knowledge how to run this advanced equipment. So the jobs are coming back, but they are coming back in different ways, needing different skills. And right now we need to ensure that our workforce is equipped with the tools to meet the demands of the economy to close our Nation's skills gap. We can do this by better aligning education and industry. Our students, Madam Speaker, should be learning the skills they need to succeed in growing economic sectors. This is one of the most important investments that we can make in our Nation's future. The Governor of Rhode Island, Governor Raimondo, likes to say: We need to give our workers the skills that matter for jobs that pay. In the Ocean State, the newly opened Westerly Education Center right now is working to promote CTE, providing a range of courses to help Rhode Islanders to meet the current and projected needs of the region's economy. The Westerly Education Center effectively brings together higher education, industry, and community partners to ensure students of all ages are prepared for workforce opportunities in Rhode Island. Classes range from industry-specific skills training to courses in critical thinking, management, and also soft skills. CTE courses, Madam Speaker, are in demand. Approximately 12.5 million high school and college students are enrolled in CTE across the Nation. But Federal investment in this area has decreased, actually, since 2011, and the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act hasn't been authorized since 2006. I am hoping that we are going to be able to see this act reauthorized very soon. Perkins is the primary Federal investment in CTE, and the most important thing that we can do to support CTE across the country, to support students and businesses across the country, is to reauthorize this legislation. It needs to be updated for our changing economy, and funding for CTE programs must be increased to support growing programs across the Nation. Last Congress, I know that the House overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan Strengthening Career and Technical Education Act, and I call on my colleagues to do the same in this Congress as well. It was, in some ways, a rare moment of bipartisanship in the Congress and a great example of how we can work together. Hopefully, that will lead to other things as well. H.R. 2353 recently passed unanimously by the Education and the Workforce Committee, and it is, again, the product of an inclusive and thoughtful process. I commend the chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee and the ranking member and all of the members on both sides of the aisle for working so closely together--again, a very complicated piece of legislation that passed unanimously out of committee. So, again, I thank my fellow CTE Caucus co-chair as well, Representative Thompson from Pennsylvania, for all of his great work on this bill. He is a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and he is the co-chair of the CTE Caucus. We work in lockstep on these matters. It has been a pleasure to work with him. I am grateful for his leadership, along with many other colleagues. It makes many necessary updates to Perkins, with an emphasis on training students for the skills that they will need in high-growth economic sectors. The bill contains several important reforms, including increasing collaboration between education and industry, expanding student access to apprenticeships, supporting career counselors, and aligning State performance indicators with local labor markets, among other things. Unfortunately, at a time when it is more crucial than ever to invest in CTE, the President's budget has proposed, though, a budget for fiscal year 2018 that cuts Perkins State grants by 15 percent. That is more than $168 million across the country. In Rhode Island, that Perkins funding cut would mean a cut of more than $800,000. If enacted, the President's budget would not only slash a crucial investment in our students, but it would deeply hurt businesses. If we want businesses to come back to the country from overseas, if we want to relocate those jobs here, we need to make sure that we have the workforce that can actually do the jobs that would be available and that are, in fact, available right now. This is the time to invest in workforce development, not undermine it. Demand for CTE is growing from students and industry, and our economy desperately needs it. Madam Speaker, in closing, let me just say that I encourage my colleagues to prioritize CTE. It matters for your constituents, and it yields big returns for our States' economies and for our Nation's economy as a whole. Put simply, providing workers with the skills necessary to thrive in the economy is essential to our economic prosperity. It is the right thing to do, giving our workers the skills they need for jobs that pay.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, as co-chair of the Congressional Foster Youth Caucus, I rise in recognition of National Foster Care Month and in honor of the remarkable foster youth alumnus that I am fortunate to host this week: Kennath Forsyth-Sears. Kennath hails from the Ocean State, where he attends my alma mater, Rhode Island College, and aspires to work with children with disabilities. Kennath is a reminder of why we must ensure every child has the opportunity to reach their full potential. Madam Speaker, all children need the support and love of a family, yet finding ``forever families'' for foster youth is one of our biggest challenges. Madam Speaker, it is our moral duty to care for these children as we would our own, including by supporting permanency for foster youth. I thank my co-chair of the Congressional Foster Youth Caucus and the leader of our Caucus, Congresswoman Karen Bass of California, for bringing young people like Kennath to Capitol Hill for Foster Youth Shadow Day, and I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring National Foster Care Month.