Jim Himes

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking Chairman French Hill and Ranking Member Maxine Waters for doing a remarkable thing. In this polarized and angry Congress, we are actually getting something done, and we are getting something done that is really important. Throughout my district, from Greenwich to Bridgeport, from Ridgefield to Oxford, I don't spend a day where I don't hear somebody say: I can't afford the rent. I can't afford to buy. We have a crisis of housing in this country. While this won't fix everything, this is a huge step in the right direction. There is a lot of work that remains to be done. Our colleagues at the State and municipal levels need to take a hard look at the regulations, at the land use policies, and at the zoning. It continues to inhibit the ability to build housing and, therefore, offer affordable rent and affordable mortgages to America. What we are doing right here is big. I was delighted to be able to contribute a couple of things to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues at this point in time: Let's listen to the American people. Let's do something for them. Let's make housing more affordable.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. I rise very sadly tonight in opposition to this legislation. I have spent hundreds of hours negotiating this, including with the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, my friends on the Republican side, reauthorization after reauthorization. I have the scars to show for how much work has been done. Here we are on the verge of a great deal. The Senate has a bill that reauthorizes FISA and puts in stronger safeguards than the bill that we passed here in the House. We are all ready to go, and we move on, and then the President of the United States decides that Bill Pulte, a man who has never held a security clearance, a man who I am not sure 2 days ago could have told you what the initials DNI stand for, a man who has distinguished himself in the role he currently has as an attack dog to go after the political enemies, that gets thrown in, and we are asked for yet more indulgence at that moment in time. There is a simple way out of this conundrum. The President can follow the law and allow the Principal Deputy DNI, a Senate-confirmed appointee of the President, to assume the role of acting DNI until a suitable nominee can be confirmed by the Senate. That is all that needs to happen, and none of us needs to swallow what has just happened. This is a funny moment because I have lots of Republican friends, and in person they have told me what a catastrophic appointment this is. We are not going to hear that on the floor or in public, but we all know that this is the path. It did not need to be this way. There is still time, though very little, to choose a new and responsible path consistent with our obligations to national security. When this vote fails, and it will, I hope that the President sees the writing on the wall and puts national security first.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Meeks for yielding me the time. Five days ago, I was in Ukraine, and I saw what so many of us have seen: truly remarkable courage, absolute commitment to fighting for their freedom, innovation like you would not believe, and, interestingly, something I had not seen before in my previous trips to Ukraine, which was the optimism and joy in the face of missiles and destruction that the Ukrainians are winning. They are winning because they are executing deep strikes into Russia, which have resulted in 30 percent of Russia's refining capacity being eliminated. They are winning because they are retaking territory, and they are winning because they are inflicting a staggering and horrible number of casualties, 30,000 a month, on the Russians. The Russians are responding to the fact that they are losing by lashing out in desperate fashion, saying diplomats should leave Kyiv, attacking Romania with a drone, because they know they are losing. This is an inflection point. We could debate for 6 months or 12 months. We have done that before, and the Ukrainians paid with their lives for that delay, or we could join the fight at the moment that it is being won. The Ukrainians that I spoke to are the bravest people I have ever seen fighting for their freedom. They want to know one thing. They are wondering whether the people here, in the home of the free and the land of the brave, will be side by side with them. That is all they are wondering. They just want a little help. They don't want our people. They want our technology, and they want to know that we are there with them. Look around this Chamber. This is the Chamber in which we made the sacrifices to defeat communism. This is the Chamber in which we made the decisions to defeat Nazism. Since 1857, when we have been meeting in this Chamber, we have stood for freedom and liberty. Those who opposed it with buts and conditions, history was not kind to their memory. Let's do what we have always done and support the brave Ukrainians in their desire for freedom.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Look, if this body chooses to maintain the military action, I will respect the body.

Mr. HIMES. Well, I think what we should do is pause our military activities while we exercise the constitutional and just the smart act of debating a war which has now affected every single--

Mr. HIMES. If I could point out to the chairman--and I respect his military service--if he were, in fact, in a foxhole facing a .50- caliber machine gun, at least for the last 100 years, he almost certainly would have been in that position pursuant to an Authorization for Use of Military Force by this body.

Mr. HIMES. Sir, the definition of ``imminent''--and you can look it up--is that they are about to attack us. I can tell you, as the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee who did not leave, that they were not about to attack us. You can make up a different definition for ``imminent,'' but that does not make it correct.

Mr. HIMES. They are certainly not. Does the gentleman, therefore, believe that we should take military action against all the other regimes that would like to attack America?

Mr. HIMES. Does the gentleman believe that the Iranian regime is the only regime on the planet that would like to attack the United States of America?

Mr. HIMES. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. HIMES. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. HIMES. Simply because a regime is evil does not authorize a war against it. The chairman knows that.

Mr. HIMES. It therefore does not follow that we must attack them.

Mr. HIMES. The chairman can say it over and over and over again that we agree that the Iranian regime is evil.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, here we are again, debating something that is not debatable. It is in the Constitution that every single one of us pledges to uphold. You can read it. It says that the Congress authorizes military action. It doesn't matter how good or bad or evil or close to a nuclear weapon a foe is. What matters is that the Constitution says we debate and approve military action. Today, of course, we are well beyond the 60 days of the start of this hostility. Not only is this action unconstitutional, completely unapproved by the Congress, but it is now illegal. The War Powers Act requires that troops be withdrawn, absent the approval of Congress, after 60 days. The chairman says over and over and over again that the Democrats said that it is an evil regime. Yes, we can all agree that it is an evil regime, but the chairman knows that the world is full of evil regimes. It doesn't, therefore, follow that you declare war and go to war and raise Americans' gas prices by $1.50 a gallon and spit in the face of the Constitution just because we all stipulate that the Iranian regime is evil. Let's take a quick tour backward here. We have had no explanation for this war, beyond the fact that we all understand that the regime in Iran is evil. The President himself told us that the nuclear program was obliterated 9 months ago. Iran, as awful and as dangerous as they were--which, again, isn't a license to go to war--was perhaps in the weakest position it had been in a generation due to the war of 9 months ago, so the notion of imminence is absurd. You are hearing that from the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. Where we find ourselves now is that gasoline prices are up $1.50; food prices are rising; the inflation print of last week was pretty terrifying; and my friends in the majority know how utterly politically toxic this war is. They will not do their constitutional duty because they saw what we all saw, which is that this President decides who amongst Republican Members of the House and the Senate get to survive. The Senator from Louisiana crosses the President; he is gone. The gentleman from Kentucky crosses the President; he is gone. As a political matter, it is fascinating to me that any President has that kind of choke hold over his party, but that is not a reason to spit in the face of the Constitution. Lose your job for what you pledge to uphold and defend. No career is worth abnegating a pledge you took to the Constitution of the United States, especially when it is creating massive economic hardship for the people who we represent. Do you think this is ending quickly? It is not. The Iranians are now in the strategic position to decide when this is over because they know the pain that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is causing. The only responsible action, the only legal action, and the only constitutional action is to debate this war and to stop it in the meantime. Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of this resolution.

Mr. HIMES

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

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee for his friendship and partnership, which I value. This program is controversial for all the right reasons, and what we are doing here is what we have been doing for almost 20 years, which is finding the balance between an authority that keeps not just us but the world safe and protecting the civil liberties of Americans whose information is incidentally collected just as it is collected when there is a traditional police wiretap. I wish we had had a more fulsome process. I wish I had been able to work with Ranking Member Raskin to have a more robust package of safeguards, particularly in the context of an administration that has demonstrated day in and day out their lawlessness, but we are where we are, and it is a binary choice. Allowing this authority to expire, which I think we are close to, is not an option. Let's acknowledge to each other that this is not an unconstitutional authority but that we have work to do to continue to protect the civil liberties of Americans and move forward passing this bill with an eye toward what we can do in the coming years to make sure this is a better balanced authority. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a minute here to address the question of the Fourth Amendment. Every Member in this Chamber swears an oath to support the Constitution, and it is important in this debate to remember that all of us care profoundly about the Fourth Amendment. I think it is wrong to suggest that the opposite is the case. I want to draw an analogy for people who may be watching. In the law enforcement context, which is more familiar to most Americans than 702 is, a probable cause Fourth Amendment warrant is required. You have to get from the judge a Fourth Amendment warrant to take, for example, a wiretap on somebody that you suspect of selling fentanyl. Let's just imagine under my example that Bill Smith is suspected of selling fentanyl, and law enforcement goes in front of a judge and gets a warrant to wiretap Bill Smith. Now, Bill Smith, as the police listen, is talking to his brother, Joe Smith, and Joe Smith says, I will help you sell that fentanyl. The police don't need another warrant on Joe Smith. That has been incidentally collected, and no court has ever held that Joe Smith's admission and incidental collection requires the Fourth Amendment for that to be used as evidence in court, which is the argument that the opponents of U.S. person queries are making. I am not here to say that this is uncontroversial. We have to be obsessed with the protection of Americans' data, but let's not suggest that this is unconstitutional because it has had annual reviews by a Federal court. You might have thought that in 18 years, if a Federal court had thought that this was unconstitutional, they might not have certified. Let us not say that this authority should be subject to a radically different standard than a typical law enforcement warrant would be. Lastly, I want to make this point. One of the reasons that we are hesitant to rush into a warrant is because many U.S. person queries are not done because we believe that an individual is complicit in a crime. If we hear ISIS talking about Jim Himes, it is unlikely that I am complicit in terrorism. It is quite likely that I may be a victim, and the FBI and Jim Himes would like to know that if that is the case. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), my good friend and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the former majority leader of the House of Representatives.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.