Jim Himes

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of S. 1318, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act. I do so with some reluctance because the process that brought us here has been indefensible. Two weeks ago, when we walked off the floor after legislation to reauthorize 702 failed, Democrats made clear there was an open door to negotiate a bipartisan package of real reforms, perhaps one that would even pass on suspension in this Chamber. I have been discussing this issue for months now with the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Raskin, and it is clear to me that there is a path to a bill that could do more than squeak through and only by attaching unrelated legislation that may not pass the Senate. However, we are where we are, and I am going to support this legislation because in my decade on the House Intelligence Committee, I have seen countless, countless instances where the intelligence obtained through section 702 quite literally saved lives. Section 702 is the single most important foreign intelligence collection authority we have, and every day it is used by apolitical professionals throughout the IC and apolitical professionals at the FBI to keep Americans safe here and abroad. There is no way to replace the value that section 702 provides, and the loss of this authority would be devastating. Given the binary choice between reauthorization and expiration, the responsible choice is reauthorization. As President Biden's Intelligence Advisory Board put it: ``If Congress fails to reauthorize section 702, history may judge the lapse of section 702 authorities as one of the worst intelligence failures of our time.'' As I said at the outset, we should be considering a much broader array of reforms than those in this package. For example, 2 weeks ago, I proposed an amendment to the base bill in the Rules Committee that would have created a judicial process for U.S. person queries conducted by the FBI in the 702 database. I want to be clear that we have seen no evidence--let me say that again, we have seen no evidence that this administration is misusing section 702, but nonetheless, we must remain hypervigilant, given the other abuses that we have seen from this administration. My amendment to Rules would have required a Federal court approval before the FBI could access the results of a query it conducted involving a U.S. person. I regret that my amendment as well as a range of other ideas from Members on both sides of the aisle were not considered as part of this process. However, as I said, we now have a binary choice, and the reality is that 2 years ago, Congress, on a bipartisan basis, with the support of more than 70 percent of the Democratic Caucus, passed the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. That bill 2 years ago contained over 50 major reforms, the bulk of which were intended to address the longstanding and unacceptable issues of compliance at the FBI. Since enactment, the evidence shows that those reforms have been highly successful, with far fewer U.S. person queries conducted and with a compliance rate at the FBI of 99 percent. It is easy to dismiss those numbers, given the political leadership of the FBI and the DOJ. I don't trust Director Patel any more than my Democratic colleagues do. On January 6, 5 years ago, I was in this Chamber when it was attacked by the shock troops sent here to stop the peaceful transfer of power. I sat there for half an hour as police officers with guns drawn tried to defend our democracy, so I take a back seat to no one in my concern about the abuses of this administration. However, the data we have on FISA is based on oversight of the professional and apolitical staff, not Kash Patel, the professional and apolitical staff, who are there at the Department of Justice Office of Intelligence, largely the same group of public servants who performed this work under President Biden, and their findings are validated not just by the Attorney General or Tulsi Gabbard or Kash Patel, but by independent oversight, the DOJ's inspector general, the staff of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on an annual basis, and the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of both Chambers. We are not trusting this administration. We are verifying in all three branches of government. If we saw the slightest hint that these authorities were being abused, I wouldn't be standing here today to support this bill. The legislation now before the House contains several reform proposals. These proposals are modest and well short of what I would like, but they are meaningful. Most importantly, the legislation requires that all U.S. person queries of the 702 database by FBI be reviewed by ODNI's Civil Liberties and Privacy Officer, and that any improper queries be referred from there to the IG of the intelligence community. This adds yet another layer of oversight of FBI on top of internal oversight, DOJ oversight, which I may not trust, court oversight, which I do trust, and congressional oversight which, yes, I do trust, since I am involved in that. The legislation also adds new criminal penalties for FBI employees who intentionally improperly use section 702. Finally, the legislation requires that only an FBI attorney can approve a U.S. person query, building on a reform we made in 2024, which required preapproval from either an FBI lawyer or an FBI supervisor. Now, a lawyer is likely to be compliance focused rather than operations focused the way a supervisor would be, and will be especially careful and cautious before approving a proposed U.S. person query. These are modest reforms, but they are not nothing. When viewed in combination with the 50-plus reforms of 2024, Congress will have built a substantial oversight structure around 702 to prevent abuse. Section 702 is not a dragnet. It is not an authority that can be used to surveil Americans. It does not contain any commercially acquired information. It does not use artificial intelligence to analyze collected data. Despite the fact that we have heard this word a lot today, it is not unconstitutional. A Federal court certifies this program every single year. If this were deemed by the judiciary, the branch of government which determines constitutionality, to be unconstitutional, we might have heard that from the courts at some point in the last 18 years in which they have been certifying this authority. What it does have is an extremely robust set of oversight guardrails in all three branches of government, and this bill makes those guardrails marginally and modestly stronger. It is without question the most important foreign intelligence tool we have. Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, despite my frustration with the process that has led us here, I will vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and ranking member for this important debate. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully to my Republican colleagues, and they will get no argument from me on the notion that we have been at war with Iran for decades. They will get no argument at all. As Mr. Mast keeps saying, this is a bad and evil regime. Yes, we have been at war, but at no point in those decades have we been so obviously losing that war in any strategic sense. The Iranian Navy is at the bottom of the ocean. We have broken a bunch of their missile launchers, and I guess the nuclear material is a little more buried than it was when we obliterated it 9 months ago, but let's look at the balance here. Let's set aside the constitutional issues that the majority has been quite happy to set aside now for a month and a half and let's talk about the regime change which occurred. We changed the regime to a younger, much more vicious regime that is now in power in Iran. We also demonstrated that Iran can sustain the most brutal military attack that we have to offer and that regime can still survive. We have shown the regime--and this is the key point--that they have a weapon more powerful than any of ours, which is they control the energy markets on the globe right now. As we speak, each and every one of our constituents is paying about $1.25 more per gallon of gasoline than they did before this ill-advised war. By the way, we have broken the alliance with Israel. Joe Kent, the former National Counterterrorism Director, is running around saying that we are in this war because of Israel. Now, I wasn't in the Oval Office, but that is not a good thing for that alliance. We have spent billions of dollars for what? Most importantly, there are 13 dead Americans, precious lives given for something where the mission is unclear. We should support our troops, but our troops deserve a strategy. They deserve a sense of mission. They deserve to know that the people's House debated their life or their death. Yes, this is a terrible regime, and, yes, we are at war, but you are in the process of losing it. Now is the time for Congress to finally reassert its constitutional authority and give a sense of mission and give a sense of meaning to those young men and women who were deployed. Mr. Speaker, vote for H. Con. Res. 40 so we can finally do our duty.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 40th anniversary of Au Pair in America (APIA), a program of the American Institute For Foreign Study (AIFS). A pioneering cultural exchange program, it has strengthened families, expanded educational opportunity, and advanced people-to-people diplomacy between the United States and nations around the world. APIA is the longest serving au pair program in the United States, officially recognized in 1986. For four decades, the program has connected young people from abroad with American host families in a spirit of mutual learning and cultural understanding. The au pair program was made permanent when it was signed into law in 1997, reflecting its value to American families and its importance as a cultural exchange initiative. APIA offers a flexible, dependable, and enriching childcare solution for American families. Au pairs become full-fledged family members, sharing a cultural exchange experience that often leads to a life-long relationship with their host family. The program now spans more than 50 countries across six continents. Over the past 40 years, APIA has supported over 130,000 au pairs and host families. The program plays a meaningful role in advancing U.S. public diplomacy by fostering cross-cultural understanding, global citizenship, and enduring personal ties between Americans and people around the world. This milestone anniversary is an opportunity to recognize the program's lasting contributions to cultural exchange, the families who have welcomed participants into their homes, and the au pairs whose experiences in the United States have shaped lives, careers, and international friendships. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating APIA on its 40th anniversary and in acknowledging its continued role in strengthening cultural exchange and mutual understanding across borders.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of the indelible Carolyn Vermont of Bridgeport, Connecticut. As Members of Congress, we spend every day representing constituents to the best of our ability, attempting to balance competing interests, voices, and opinions. Today is a rare day when I know, as it relates to Carolyn Vermont, there is unanimity among those I have the privilege of representing: she was beloved--for who she was, for how much of herself she was willing to give to her city, for the affection she held for her neighbors, and for her zest for life. Carolyn devoted her life to serving others, always eager to tackle another structural impediment or injustice which prevented any in her community from flourishing. She helped families achieve stability through homeownership as CEO of Habitat for Humanity of Coastal Fairfield County, fought for racial justice as President of the Bridgeport NAACP, improved safety as chair of Bridgeport's Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention and Intervention, and promoted education as a trustee for Fairfield University, her alma mater. Carolyn also served as President of the Bridgeport Rotary Club, was a member of the National Coalition for 100 Black Women, and was involved with the Fairfield Community Foundation and her local chapter of the Urban League. She was an unstoppable force for good in the City of Bridgeport who constantly thought in terms of community. For all the good she did, Mr. Speaker, I want to impress upon you just how good she was. Spending a moment in Carolyn's presence brought you instant joy, lasting motivation to serve others, and the certainty of taking a selfie together. Hundreds--possibly even thousands--of my constituents have selfies with Carolyn hugging them tightly and smiling ear to ear. I know, since her passing, many of us have scrolled back to those photos to bid our friend farewell. I would like to extend my sincere condolences to the Vermont family. We in Connecticut owe her an immense debt of gratitude for sharing Carolyn with us. She will not soon be forgotten. Trust that I, along with many others, will be there to carry on her legacy--manifested in the organizations she helped build, the initiatives she led, the people she believed in, and the city she loved.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, it is not about informing. By the way, this Congress was not informed. Mr. Speaker, eight Members of this Congress were informed. Set aside, if you will, for a moment the Constitution. Should the Representatives of the people authorize an action that will kill many of those people and that will consume blood and treasure? Our Framers certainly said the answer to that question is yes. Mr. Speaker, let's not abrogate our constitutional duty or our constitutional power. Vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the recognition. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening closely to this debate since it began. The arguments being made by half of the Representatives of the people of the United States, the arguments as to why they should abrogate their constitutionally mandated duty, are bizarre to me. Most of the arguments have not been arguments. The arguments are that Iran is evil, that they hate the U.S., and that they mean us ill. The majority will find no argument over here that that is true. Oddly enough, when the Founders wrote the Constitution, they didn't say we shall declare war only when it is not clear that the belligerent is evil or means us ill. It was a categorical demand that the Representatives of the people, because blood and treasure would be consumed, that the Representatives of the people not just be informed but that they provide authorization. I have heard the majority say that the danger was imminent. I am the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. I can say with authority that, in the last 10 years, Iran's ability to create mayhem, while still very substantial, is at an ebb. The President himself said the nuclear capabilities were ``obliterated,'' his word. Hezbollah has been largely rolled up in Beirut by the Lebanese Armed Forces. We have a pretty good sense of what the Houthis are capable of and how to counter them. If the argument is imminence, that is absurd. There was no imminent threat to the United States on Friday or Saturday of last week. By the way, the argument that my friend from New York just made, which is that Obama did it, is beyond absurd. I wasn't here when Obama did it. We weren't asked to vote on it. I remember telling the Vice President at the time that our Constitution demands congressional assent. Congress was not notified. It was not briefed. That doesn't matter. What matters is that the Constitution is clear that, with six dead Americans, with our treasure being consumed, we must approve this action.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, not much surprises me anymore, but to sit here and to listen to the storied House Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by somebody who calls the opposition stupid, to hear our motivations as we stand up for a fundamental constitutional prerogative mocked through ad hominem attacks, shame, sir. Shame. We are here because we are standing for our constitutional right to be consulted on the most consequential decision that the United States can make: whether we engage in hostilities and put young men and women at risk. The chairman's summer stock theater and cringey antics notwithstanding, this has nothing to do with whether there are troops on the ground in Venezuela. We will stipulate to your argument, pathetic as it is, Mr. Speaker. What this is about is whether what we saw happen 3 weeks ago will happen again. There were boots on the ground 3 weeks ago, and we didn't know about it. This resolution is about saying that on the most consequential thing that this Congress can do, we have a voice--the Representatives of the people, the Article I authority. Let's set aside Venezuela. I won't use that term again. Let's stand up for our constitutional rights to be consulted for what may happen tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, or next week. Not much surprises me anymore. Mr. Speaker, I have watched my majority friends completely abandon their policy positions, brutally anti-immigration because of this President, obliterating free trade, completely leaving behind everything that the Republican Party used to stand for, praising Vladimir Putin, and attacking our NATO allies. Mr. Speaker, policy flexibility is not the worst thing in the world. I wish it weren't happening because of the reason that it is happening, but policy flexibility is one thing. Yet abrogating your constitutional duty to be consulted into authorized force and then to be mocked for it, shame, sir. Shame. We need to stand up as an institution and say that we get consulted on the most consequential things that we can do.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 334.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the time. Mr. Speaker, I came down here to debate something that this Chamber has been debating for generations, which is the push and pull between the Congress and the Chief Executive on the use of our military. I was profoundly disturbed to hear the chairman denigrate the ranking member. To suggest that he doesn't care about the losses in his district, to suggest that we want the President to do nothing about narcotics, he knows that is not true. I will tell the chairman that I have opposed every Presidential attempt to use the American Armed Forces without congressional approval since I have been here. This is about one thing, and it is not about the comity of this institution or the dignity that the majority should show in such a debate. This is about one thing and one thing only. It is not about the horrors of drug abuse. We know that over here. There is not a Democrat who doesn't believe that 100,000 overdoses is an appalling outcome. There is not a Democrat here who doesn't experience the crushing, disgusting horror of those losses. We couldn't agree with the majority more that this is a huge problem. What this is about is whether the Representatives of the people should be involved in a discussion about how we solve this problem--the Constitution says so--and the questions raised here. For the first time in 250 years, the United States military is deliberately targeting civilians. They may be awful civilians, I will grant you that, but they are deliberately targeting civilians. We have the largest military force ever assembled in the Caribbean, with no discussion, no debate in this Chamber amongst the Representatives of the people. The administration has created a war that is not a war, a non- international armed conflict. It is a war inasmuch as we have an aircraft carrier and massive amounts of military hardware in the region, and we have killed upward of 100 people in 23, 24 strikes. Yet, it is not a war that needs to be even informed to the Congress. The only question that matters--and you can show all the pictures of decapitations, horror, and overdoses. We will stand with you 100 percent about how horrible that is, but do you know what else is horrible? That the majority is comfortable with the removal of the Representatives of the people on this most consequential of issues. Let's agree that there will be a Democratic President someday who does something that the majority doesn't agree with, but every word they say here today will unbind the hands of that Democratic President to do whatever he or she wants. This is about our privileges as the Representatives of the people. This is about our fidelity to the Constitution of the United States that demands us to have this debate. Let's stop trying to scare the American people, and for the first time in a very long time, let's stand up with the dignity and decency that this topic deserves and debate how we are going to address this huge problem while preserving our privileges and prerogatives as Representatives of all the American people.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect and admiration that I recognize the outstanding contributions of Nick Alton, who has served as Minister Counsellor Political at the British Embassy in Washington for the past four years. Throughout his tenure, Nick has been instrumental in strengthening the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. His work ensured that the ties between our nations remain robust and responsive to the challenges of a changing world, fostering collaboration on issues of shared importance and reinforcing the values that unite us. Nick's efforts extended far beyond the day-to-day responsibilities of diplomacy. He played a pivotal role in coordinating and supporting visits by Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, Members of Parliament, and Members of the Royal Family to Washington and across the United States. His meticulous attention to detail and deep understanding of both British and American political landscapes ensured that these engagements were not only successful but also meaningful, advancing dialogue and cooperation at the highest levels of government and society. In addition to his work on political affairs, Nick demonstrated remarkable versatility by engaging across a wide range of fields, from security and defense to economic and cultural initiatives. Nick's dedication, professionalism, and unwavering commitment to public service exemplify the very best of diplomatic tradition. Nick is transitioning back to the Foreign Office in London, and I wish him the very best for his future endeavors.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the hard-working chairman and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the FY26 National Defense Authorization Act. Importantly, the bill reforms the outdated acquisition process at the Department of Defense. It provides a pay raise for our servicemembers, supports our allies in Europe, including Ukraine, and takes other steps to strengthen our security. I am pleased that this bill includes the Intelligence Authorization Act. I thank, again, the chairman and ranking member. I thank Chairman Crawford and all members and staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who contributed to this important legislation. In both the unclassified text and the classified annex, the bill enhances congressional oversight of the intelligence community to ensure they conduct their work effectively, efficiently, and within the bounds of law. Among other provisions, it increases oversight of the FBI's terrorist watch listing process, requires the NSA to notify Congress of significant changes in its collection posture, and improves our visibility in counter-narcotics-related operations. It requires each IC element to designate a senior official to oversee work on biotechnology issues, an emerging priority. It also extends the requirement that there be an IC coordinator to ensure accountability for Russian atrocities and adds Russia's forcible transfer of Ukrainian children to the list of matters under the coordinator's purview. It requires each IC agency to develop metrics for the adoption of critical emerging technology. Finally, it provides a narrowly tailored authority to the CIA to protect its domestic facilities from unmanned drones, a gap in the law that we have been seeking to close for more than 5 years. Once again, I appreciate the strong bipartisan efforts on the IAA, as well as the NDAA, and I am pleased to support the final product.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. If the definition of socialism is political control over the means of production, welcome to the great socialist state of the United States of America. The other definition, by the way, has to do with command and control. Those are words we remember from the Communist era, command and control. Well, holy smokes, there is not a media company, a law firm, or a university that has not been subject to the command and control of the Oval Office. The President has demanded money. It looks a little like extortion to me, but in order to avoid making a personality, let's just call it dividends. The President has demanded dividends from any number of companies. This is command and control. I am not actually interested in having that debate because I think we would all agree on much of this stuff, including the fact that we are now living in one of the most socialist countries on the planet. What I really want to do is talk about affordability, which is what the American people care about.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Waters for the time, although I must say that I am a little bit confused. I am not going to frame this as a parliamentary inquiry, but I am very confused. We have just gotten back from a 2-month paid vacation in which Federal employees didn't get paid, in which we started a war without congressional approval, in which electricity prices went up for 70 million Americans, and in which inflation is rocking along at 3\1/2\ percent. I thought we were going to be in this Chamber talking about affordability. By the way, my friends on the Republican side just got shellacked in an election, from sea to shining sea, where the word is affordability. They got shellacked on affordability. What did we do this week? Congressman Norman, a guy who put a .38 Smith & Wesson on the table when he met with Moms Demand Action on Gun Safety and who called for martial law to stop the peaceful transfer of power to stop Joe Biden from becoming President, decided that Stacey Plaskett should no longer be on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. We spent half a day on that. Congresswoman Mace decided that Cory Mills should no longer be on committees. Apparently, we may do another one. I prepared a speech on affordability with lots of good ideas on how to make stuff cheaper. It says it right there: Lots of good ideas on how to make stuff cheaper. Good idea number one: Get rid of tariffs, which are a tax on bananas, coffee, vegetables, pasta sauce, pasta, televisions, automobiles, and burgundy, a fine French claret for my Republican friends over there. Number two: Stop canceling generation projects, which will make electricity cheaper. That was my speech. Instead, we are here to denounce the horrors of socialism. That is not what I was prepared to talk about. If I were prepared to talk about it, I would point out two things. Number one, if you have ever cracked a book or talked to somebody, you would know that socialism is different than communism. The chairman and I both come out of a highly capitalist industry, banking. There are socialist countries that have exhibited horrors, like Denmark, like Finland, any other number of socialist countries. Communism, in fact, if this resolution said communism, I suspect we wouldn't even have to debate it because who likes communism. Anyway, I would make that point if I were interested in having this debate, or I might point out--and I welcome the Republican majority in finally catching on--the fact that we are living in the most socialist administration in two and a half centuries. What is the definition of socialism? Again, if you crack a book, you will see that it is state control over the means of production. This President has taken a 10 percent stake in Intel, a 15 percent stake in MP Materials, a 10 percent stake in Lithium Americas, and a 10 percent stake in Trilogy Metals, and we have a golden share in U.S. Steel-- state control of the means of production.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak today about Jeffrey Epstein or January 6. I am going to confine my remarks to two things that I know about. I am going to take a deep breath right now because to stand here and have to listen to the gentleman from Louisiana, in the guise of just asking questions, besmirch one of the finest Members I have had the honor of serving with, I think, would offend the sensibility of anybody in this Chamber. I am going to limit my remarks to two things I know very well: number one, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and what we need to do to preserve that very special environment; and, number two, the character of Delegate Stacey Plaskett. On HPSCI, I have served for 10 years, and with Chairman Turner and now with Chairman Crawford, we have fought for that decade to keep the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence immunized from the sewage that flows through this Chamber, the partisan attacks, the hideousness. By and large, we have been pretty successful, with one exception, when that committee got involved in the political investigation around Ukraine in the first Trump administration. Every single day, the leaders of that committee work hard, establish friendships, and do the work we need to do to make sure that the toxicity and the sewage that we are hearing right now don't impinge the critical work of making sure that our intelligence communities are keeping Americans safe, not violating civil liberties, and not doing things inconsistent with the desires and character of the American people. This effort put forward by a bunch of people who haven't served on that committee and who have no idea the comity and the grace with which that committee serves, you, sirs, will hurt this committee badly. I expect every Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence--and I will say it again--I expect every Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who knows Ms. Plaskett and knows the committee to vote ``no'' on the idea that, without evidence and without due process, Ms. Plaskett should be removed from that very special committee. This resolution would strike a devastating blow to HPSCI's ability to work effectively. By removing a member in good standing based on a newspaper article about texts--no due process, no evidence, nothing offered other than a newspaper article which has moved the gentleman from South Carolina--a member who has consistently engaged in a bipartisan and productive way with the committee's work, to make some unrelated political statement will do profound damage to this essential committee. Now, let me just talk for a moment about Ms. Plaskett. I have served in this institution for 17 years, longer, I think, than most people in this Chamber. I have not had the honor of serving with somebody with the integrity, the commitment, and the hardworking bona fides as Ms. Plaskett. We can argue about the wisdom or the judgment associated with those texts. I am told that, apparently, Mr. Epstein was a constituent. For any one of us, on our worst day, our biggest misjudgment is not to be judged without any due process, especially in the context of this superb Member, this critical, critical member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The result of this resolution, if it were to pass, will be to undo the efforts of the Republican Speaker and the Republican chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Crawford, to restore the committee to what it was intended to be. While the bill for that decision won't come due immediately, it will come due over time in the form of a less accountable and less effective intelligence community with less effective oversight for Congress. I don't expect the gentlemen who have offered this up to back down now, but I do expect every single member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that elect, those few who understand what it is we need to do, to close the door on the flow of partisan sewage, which we see now threatening the critical work that we do. Vote ``no'' on this appalling resolution.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to the United States. His first visit since 2021, he joins us on his eighth Apostolic trip to our country during which he will receive the prestigious Templeton Prize for his environmental advocacy. The ``Green Patriarch's'' landmark 1997 speech in Santa Barbara--in which he first posited the notion of ecological sin--is striking for how revolutionary it was then, and how prescient it remains today. In particular, one line from His All-Holliness' remarks 28 years ago struck me as worthy of meditating upon in the tumultuous times in which we find ourselves. In his speech, His All-Holliness offers the following: ``we lovingly suggest to all the people of the earth, that they seek to help one another to understand the myriad ways in which we are related to the earth, and to one another. Now, perhaps more than any time in my recollection, that call to engage with one another, identify our commonalities, eschew clinging to our differences, and help--how we can, where we can--feels vital to the moral health of the American people and the long-term viability of our global environment. On behalf of the Eastern Orthodox Christian community of Southwestern Connecticut, I would like to extend my congratulations to His All- Holiness for his Templeton Prize; it is a well-deserved acknowledgement of his years of advocacy. I hope his trip is a success and that he enjoys his time in the United States.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a big thank you to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member, and to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my good friend, for their support of this bill. I just want to elaborate for a minute on what I think the need is for this bill. This grew out of the work we did many, many years ago on the JOBS Act, in which we observed that the regulatory expenses faced by a company seeking to go public were roughly $2 million to $4 million in size. It is also true that a small IPO, a medium-sized IPO, anything up to about $200 million, is subject almost always to a 7 percent gross spread. That is 7 percent of the proceeds, or in the case of a $200 million offering, $14 million. On a $150 million offering, it is $10 million, well more than twice the regulatory cost that we identified in working on the JOBS Act. What is very strange about that 7 percent fee is that, regardless of what period of time you examine, IPOs from about $30 million up to about $200 million are always subject to a 7 percent fee. Now, all of us who observe markets know that that is odd behavior in what should be a competitive market. This is money, of course, that goes to the investment banks that underwrite these IPOs. I know this because I spent many years working in those investment banks. The bill here simply says, having done the work that we did on the JOBS Act, what can we do to examine the underlying market forces or nonmarket forces creating this 7 percent gross spread and costs of many, many millions of dollars for companies when they are small and capital is at a premium. This study, I think, would illustrate some things that would allow us to do even better than we did in the JOBS Act and make it that much more possible, maybe even probable for companies to seek capital in our public markets. Mr. Speaker, I thank once again the chairman and the ranking member of the committee for their support.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, for all the rah-rah patriotism, think about this. Again, I will acknowledge that we don't know if this is a good idea or a bad idea, and we ought to find out. Let's imagine that the European Union, which Mr. Barr wants to dissociate himself with, puts out a CBDC that picks up real usage. Now all of a sudden, we have a threat to the dollar because we are still handing around pieces of paper because the Republican majority said we shouldn't even research something that may or may not be a good part of a modern, 21st century economy. Don't go with ignorance. You are too smart for that. Don't risk putting us behind on something that could be really important to the future of the American dollar. Vote ``no'' on this ignorant bill.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for this opportunity to speak because this is one of the most ignorant things I have seen this House produce in a very long time. It stuns me, frankly, that my good friends, Congressmen Hill, Steil, and Barr, are associating themselves with this bill. Let's be super clear about this. Nobody knows whether a CBDC is a good idea. A couple of years ago, I wrote a white paper on CBDC, and I concluded that it is not clear. The arguments for and against are being mooted today. Yes, it could be abused by an overwhelming executive if we had a President, for example, who showed disdain for the Constitution, who was comfortable acting illegally, and who wasn't comfortable with judicial rulings. It is hard for us to imagine that President, but this could be abused. It could be used for monetary policy, a bad idea. It could be used for taxation, a bad idea. It could also, by the way, be a trusted electronic currency for an unbanked population. It could be a way of supporting the primacy of the American dollar. I don't know. The truth is that nobody on that side of the aisle or this side of the aisle knows either, but we are going to forbid any inquiry around this to figure out whether it is a good idea or a bad idea. We are going to say we can't even research it. This is a stunning definition of ignorance. Imagine if 100 years ago we had said that electricity is scary. It can kill you and is produced by burning coal, which is dangerous, so we are not going to research electricity or atomic power or the automobile. Tens of thousands of Americans die every year because of the automobile. We don't know, and the majority says let's not learn because they have some ideological fixation that, frankly, I don't understand. Two hundred years ago, the private sector, which my friends on the other side of the aisle hold up, had issued currency. It was called scrip. Companies and banks issued their own currency, and this country learned that this was a terrible idea and that, in fact, the central bank should issue currency, which is one of the reasons we are who we are today. You might give the CBDC at least some benefit of the doubt instead of being ignorant about whether we want to know the truth. We need to stop this. We held this institution up for 2 days over a bizarre MAGA obsession which is rooted in insanity and ignorance. Don't even find out the answer. The ranking member said that this is like a boy who is hiding from the truth. I have another metaphor. This is like a young 5-year-old who is angry and covers his eyes and ears and believes he is invisible. Just imagine my good friend Andy Barr saying we are not like China, we are not like--what if there is a sterling or--

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, on this consequential day, when this body is likely to make law and debate critical things, it has already been a good and blessed day because our day was opened with a prayer by Reverend Dr. Lindsay Curtis. Dr. Curtis is well into his second decade leading as senior pastor at Grace Baptist Church, a 129-year-old faith community in the center of my district, Norwalk, Connecticut. The church has thrived under Pastor Curtis' leadership, and I admire him as a friend, as a mentor, and as a spiritual guide not just for his understanding of the Scripture, but for his deep commitment to ministry. Dr. Curtis, over the course of his career, has served as president of the Connecticut State Missionary Baptist Convention. He has served as chairman of the Advisory Board of Directors of Norwalk ACTS, which is a partnership of civic leaders. He has acted as the president of the Norwalk NAACP, commissioner of the Judicial Selection Commission, and when he sees a problem, he uses ministry to solve it. Just this summer, out of nowhere, he conjured up a summer camp for 150 children in Norwalk, Connecticut, who might not otherwise have a way to constructively spend their days. I have always loved the quote attributed to St. Francis of Assisi. That quote is familiar to so many of you: Always preach the Gospel. Sometimes use words. Lindsay Curtis embodies that idea in his ministry, and his superb record is blemished perhaps only by my suspicion--and it is a suspicion--that he thinks that somehow the Chicago Bulls fit into the Trinity, but above all else, our God is a forgiving God, so I am sure that that will not be a problem. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Curtis so much for opening us up today.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Corporal Edmund ``Ed'' Burke of Wilton, Connecticut who will celebrate his 100th birthday next week. Born and raised in the Bronx, he attended Fordham Prep High School and was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1944. Just eighteen at the time, Corporal Burke reported for basic training at Camp Wheeler, Georgia without hesitation, knowing his call to serve came when his country needed him most. Assigned to the Seventh Armored Division, he was an Infantry Machine Gunner in the European theatre of World War II. He saw action at the Battle of the Bulge, where his division took over 100,000 German prisoners, with Corporal Burke personally capturing enemy soldiers. His bravery earned him multiple commendations, including: a Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, ETO ribbon with four battle stars, Presidential Unit Citation, Meritorious Unit Citation, Belgian Fourregiare, and the Combat Infantry Badge. After receiving an honorable discharge in 1946, Corporal Burke pursued engineering degrees on the G.I. Bill, first at Manhattan College where he earned his Bachelor of Civil Engineering, later at Columbia University, where he completed his Masters in the same field. Throughout his tenure as an engineer, Corporal Burke would join the New York State Department of Public Works, as well as Corbett, Tinghir & Co. Engineers, ending his career as a partner at Moran, Proctor, Mueser, and Rutledge. There, he was renowned for meticulously and thoughtfully applying his expertise in foundational engineering to the projects on which he worked, including over one hundred sites right here in Washington, D.C. Corporal Burke's life stands as an all-American success story, one which we would all do well to share with our constituents as a model of how service, hard work, and patriotism come together to form a life well-led. On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to Ed Burke for his service, our congratulations on reaching this milestone in a full life, and a sincere happy birthday. May this be his best one yet.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of the Honorable Mia Bourdeau Love, a trailblazing public servant, devoted wife and mother, proud Haitian American, and the first Black Republican woman elected to the United States Congress. I enjoyed serving with Congresswoman Love during her time in this body and considered her a friend. Born Ludmya Bourdeau in Brooklyn, New York, to Haitian immigrant parents Jean Maxime and Marie Bourdeau, Mia embodied the values of compassion, resilience, freedom, and service to others--principles instilled in her from childhood and manifested through decades of unwavering commitment to family, faith, and public leadership. At age five, she and her family moved to Norwalk in Southwestern Connecticut where she would grow up and later attend Norwalk High School. Mia inspired countless individuals through her historic example-- serving as a councilwoman, mayor, congresswoman, commentator, mentor, and friend. Her light, wisdom, authenticity, and spirit of service have left an indelible mark on both the Haitian American community and the state of Connecticut, and her voice will continue to resonate across generations. I offer my deepest condolences to the Love and Bourdeau families and all who knew and loved Mia. I look forward to partnering with the Haitian American Collaborative, a national organization located in Mia's former hometown of Norwalk, to honor her memory by continuing her work of uplifting Haitian communities, building legacies of impact, and preserving the rich cultural heritage she so proudly represented.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber, as early as today, we may be passing legislation that is explicitly designed to maintain historically low tax rates on the Nation's wealthiest people. The richest people in America will be served by this institution so that they can pay the lowest tax amounts possible. The corporations in this country must have their record-low tax rates maintained. The problem is this comes with a cost, and that cost will be paid, as the Republicans have laid it out for us to see, by the Medicaid program and by the addition of trillions of dollars to the United States debt. Let's talk for a second about Medicaid because it serves about 80 million Americans. Not all Americans have experience with it, but an awful lot do. We are told, and the fantasy is, that the money can be saved by identifying waste, fraud, and abuse. Make no mistake, that is a fantasy. If you are rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse, you hire more people, investigators, and auditors to go after it. We are doing the exact opposite. Elon Musk and DOGE are firing the people who go after waste, fraud, and abuse. It turns out that people don't wear signs around their necks saying: ``I am committing waste, fraud, and abuse.'' No, it is hard to identify this stuff. It exists, but it does not exist in any conceivable number that the Republicans are talking about cutting out of the Medicaid program. That number is almost $100 billion a year, $100 billion out of roughly $600 billion in spending. Mind you, that is not trimming. That is taking a wheel off the car. Here is what is going to happen. As I said, Medicaid covers 80 million Americans with health insurance. It also provides the funding that allows grandma to stay in an assisted living facility after she has run out of assets. What I really want to do is tell you about Conner Curran. Conner is a 14-year-old from the town of Ridgefield, which I have the honor of representing. His mom is a teacher. His dad works for a local municipality. These are wonderful, middle-class folks just like anyone else in this country. The problem is that 10 years ago, when he was 4 years old, Conner was diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a terrible disease. Your muscles waste away, including your heart and your lung muscles. As a consequence, people who have this terrible diagnosis tend to live between 20 and 30 years. Conner is 14. Lately, because of breakthrough research, some people diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy are living into their forties and fifties. You might imagine what the Curran family felt when those research programs were devastated by Elon Musk and DOGE. Imagine that. The real threat to Conner is what is going to happen in this Chamber this week as they find a way to slash Medicaid. Conner's medicines, the medicines that have kept him alive, cost thousands of dollars a month. A middle-class family can't pay that. Medicaid does. His lung function is compromised, so he needs a $12,000 machine to breathe. He needs help in school. He wants to go to college, but he needs a little help because he is severely handicapped by this terrible disease. Conner comes to my office almost every year to tell me about his aspirations and to beg that we keep funding not just the research that may provide him with a normal lifespan but those things that give him a reasonable quality of life, a shot of achieving that dream of going to college. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are not voting on numbers this week, although there are billions involved. My colleagues are certainly not voting on waste, fraud, or abuse. Let's leave that fantasy behind. My colleagues are voting this week on what kind of future, if any, Conner can expect and what kind of future, if any, 80 million Americans who rely on Medicaid will have. My colleagues must take seriously the pain that is about to be caused to some of the most vulnerable Americans out there as they think about their vote, as they think about what they are trying to achieve, as they think about what they aspire this country to be.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, it is evident to me that 2 weeks into the new administration, we no longer have a Congress and that we no longer take care that laws be faithfully executed. We passed a law that says TikTok must either be sold or be shut down, but that doesn't matter. It will not be shut down. The Constitution of the United States says that birthright citizenship is a fundamental constitutional right, but that doesn't matter. Apparently, it is not. We have happily given up the power of the purse. USAID is a legally established organization, whatever you may think of it. We have given up the power of the purse. Mr. Speaker, what we cannot give up in this institution is our obligation to keep the American people safe, safe from terrorism, safe from gang violence, safe from fentanyl. What concerns me as the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, much of what I am seeing out there is the attack, the purge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, which Americans know is the premier law enforcement agency on this planet. Thousands of FBI agents go to work every single day, going after fentanyl dealers, going after violent crime, uncovering terrorist plots. I tell you this as a person who represents a district that was badly hurt on 9/11. It is now part of the catechism of the Republican Party in the House and the Senate that the FBI is a corrupt and evil organization that must be turned on its head and that people who have dedicated their lives to the service of keeping Americans safe must be fired. Mr. Speaker, the list is unbelievable: Executive Assistant Director Tim Dunham, 22 years of service; EAD Bobby Wells, 21 years of service; EAD Mike Nordwall, 22 years of dedicated service; Jackie Maguire, 24 years of dedicated service; Ryan Young--I could go on for my full 5 minutes of senior people who have been told that they must either resign from the FBI or be fired. We hear that the FBI is being told that anyone who worked on the January 6 prosecutions, when this building was attacked and 140 police officers were assaulted, that they must be on a list, undoubtedly for retribution. What does the FBI actually do? In June of 2024, the FBI arrested several people with suspected ISIS ties; October 2024, the FBI arrested an Afghan national for plotting a terrorist attack in the name of ISIS on election day. This goes on and on. The FBI investigated the assassination attempt on President Trump. Every day, all day, FBI agents are out there keeping us safe. Why this attack on the FBI? I heard my colleague, Jim Jordan, just this weekend on Fox News once again promoting the conspiracy theory that the FBI was somehow involved in the attack on this Capitol on January 6. That is false. Yes, there were 26 confidential human sources. These are people who know drug dealers and terrorists that the FBI talks to. Not one of them was authorized to break any law or to participate in January 6. There were no undercover FBI agents here in the Capitol on January 6. Yet, this continues because Donald Trump insists that that conspiracy theory animated rage against the FBI. I am the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and we can get away with a lot of foolish things in this institution, but keep up the attacks on the FBI, keep it up, because there will be terrorist attacks. There will be an increase in drug deaths. There will be an increase in violent crime, and I promise you, Mr. Speaker, I will stand right here to hold those accountable for the attack on this storied American institution and the carnage it will visit on the American people if this keeps up. The FBI deserves our support. They are not perfect, but they go to work every single day to keep our people safe. It is time for the majority in this Chamber to stop their attacks on these patriotic Americans.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vermont for her words as we close this up. As is so often true in this Chamber, we heard lots of words, and I think they were powerful words, honoring those who protected us and honoring the truth, but what can we do? What is the action? What can we actually do? Under the law passed a few years ago, Congress is required to produce a plaque to honor those officers who sacrificed so much on that fateful day 4 years and 17 days ago. I have a little photograph of it here. The plaque reads: ``On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on January 6, 2021. Their heroism will never be forgotten.'' You can only look at the photo of the plaque because the plaque has never been put up, as required by law, in the Capitol of the United States. It is a little curious. We say, ``Their heroism will never be forgotten,'' yet the plaque, as required by law, is not yet displayed in the Capitol of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).