Jim Himes

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I'm told that this afternoon this House will vote on the Boehner default prevention bill, in direct contravention of House rules, with limited debate and no opportunity for amendment. One of the most important discussions we need to have as a country--limited debate and no opportunity for amendment. I would welcome that debate. I'd love to talk about what's involved in gutting Medicare and Social Security without asking the very wealthiest people in this country to participate in solving this problem. I'd love to have that debate. And we will, later, not today. What I'm rising to talk about today, though, is the fact that this bill would have us having exactly this discussion 6 months from today, talking about default and credit ratings and the impacts of default, instead of talking about what every American wants this Chamber to be focused on, which is what we can do to bring about jobs. This is not a good bill. But the notion that it would have us having this conversation again in 6 months is reason enough for every Member of this Chamber to reject that bill this afternoon.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on final passage of H.R. 2018, The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. I wish the record to reflect my intentions had I been able to vote. Had I been present for rollcall No. 573, I would have voted ``no.'' This bill is an assault on the fundamental water protections the American people rely on and would reverse decades of progress. It significantly undermines the Clean Water Act, jeopardizes public health, and gravely affects our environment and economy.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, I was moved to come to the floor to argue in opposition to this amendment and in opposition to the underlying legislation. I was moved because the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia are both about reports and analyses that this new agency will be required to produce. And it's odd, because to give my friends on the other side credit, they usually stand for more streamlined and efficient government, sometimes to the point that government ceases to function; but they are about efficiency and streamlining, and yet here we're hearing about more reports and more analyses, for the simple reason that this is part of a larger strategy to weigh down, to underfund, and to decapitate an agency they have no interest in seeing survive, an agency that would protect consumers, that would protect that group that was badly and most severely harmed in the disaster that we just went through. Why? One can speculate. Perhaps it's to stand for the industry, for the financial concerns. But why do that? Why do that when it has been proven time and time again, not just in the last 3 years but over hundreds of years, that financial services is a very volatile and very risky pursuit that if not adequately regulated will do what it has done in the last 3 years, will do what it did in the late 1920s, what it has done hundreds of years prior, collapse in upon itself. This is regulation that is smart, that is commonsense, and that will protect the American family from products that could destroy that family. So let's not weigh down this agency. Let's not decapitate it. Let's not underfund it. Let's let it survive to protect American families.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I stood on this floor with 3 weeks to go before August 2, the debt ceiling, to make the argument that we should abide by the commitments that we have made in the past. Today, I heard Chairman Bernanke of the Federal Reserve say that to fail to raise the debt ceiling would be devastating for jobs. So what's the holdup? Don't take it from me. Let me read you a paragraph from The Economist magazine. This is not Mother Jones. This is not even The New York Times. This is The Economist magazine. ``The sticking point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.'' Let me read that again: ``This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.''

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my Republican colleague from North Carolina for that very powerful statement, and I am very glad that Congresswoman Woolsey was in the Chamber to hear that, Congresswoman Woolsey who has worked so hard to remind us of the terrible consequences of war. I often sit here as we debate and seize from time to time at the statements of Republican colleagues, but that was profoundly moving, and I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I stand today, Madam Speaker, to talk on another issue that should unite our parties, and that is the fundamental question about whether or not the United States honors its commitments. Today is July 12, exactly 3 weeks before August 2. August 2 is the date at which this government can no longer honor its commitments, at which time it will be forced to choose between paying those soldiers that we heard so movingly described and sending out Social Security checks, running a court system, paying Social Security and Medicare. Do we honor our commitments in the United States of America? I would think that both parties would say ``yes'' to that question. The Treasury Secretary, CEOs of American corporations and economist after economist have told us, Do not play around with the debt ceiling. What is this debt ceiling, by the way, that is putting into peril the question of whether we honor our commitments? The debt ceiling is a pernicious fiction. It is a fiction that was put in place by this body decades ago to try to convince the American people that we could control our debts. And since then, it has never done that. It has been raised dozens of times as this body took the spending decisions and the tax cut decisions that required borrowing. Under the Bush administration, the debt ceiling was raised seven times. Dozens and dozens of times, the debt ceiling has been raised. It is a fiction. It is a particularly pernicious set of smoke and mirrors that this institution uses to make people feel better while the debt rises, as it did under President Reagan, as it did under the first President Bush, as it did not under President Clinton, and as it did under President George W. Bush and President Obama. So now the question is, do we honor the commitments made historically in this Chamber? We raise the debt ceiling not to spend more new money, to start new programs or to cut new taxes, but because we honor the commitments that were made in this Chamber to cut taxes in '01 and '03, to go to war twice in the last decade and to add an expensive new drug benefit in Medicare. Look, these are all things that people supported and opposed, but we committed to do them as a body. And you cannot make those decisions, you cannot vote to lower taxes or to increase spending and then turn around and say, I'm not going to pay for that. That is the worst sort of hypocrisy. I'm glad that my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Landry) talked about credit cards, but he got it a little bit wrong. The debt ceiling is sort of like a credit card, but what we're talking about right now, because we are talking about paying for past decisions and commitments, would be as if I went to the electronics store and I bought myself a big screen TV, I bought myself a new microwave, and I bought myself a new home security system, and then I get home and a month later I get the credit card bill and I say, uh, I don't know if I'm going to pay this credit card bill. I took the decisions. I made the commitments. And now the time has come to honor those commitments. Do we act as stewards of one of the best assets that this country has, our full faith and credit, the belief that the United States honors its commitments? This is a critical asset, particularly now at a time of great economic uncertainty. Do we act as stewards of that full faith and credit? Or do we use the debt ceiling as a gun to the head to say that unless you do X, Y and Z, unless you cut 2 trillion or 3 trillion, we won't raise the debt ceiling, which is what we are hearing from the Republican side today? Do you use it? Do you hold it hostage, the full faith and credit of the United States? That is what we are seeing today. Look, there is no question we need to address the deficit. We need to address the long-term sustainability of Medicare and Social Security in an equitable way. We should do that. And this President has basically put everything on the table, including making some of my colleagues on the Democratic side very uncomfortable with Social Security and Medicare. But he has put them on the table because there can be no sacred cows, unless you're John Boehner, or a Republican, and not everything is on the table because we won't put the immense amount of spending we do through the Tax Code for advantages for oil companies, for advantages for big agriculture and for all sorts of tax breaks for corporations and others. We won't even talk about that. My friends, this comes down to the question of do we honor our commitments? The answer to that question must be yes.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HIMES. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Oregon. And with all due respect to the ranking member, I think the effort to limit these subsidies is both fiscally responsible, more in keeping with the kind of market economics that so many of us in this Chamber believe are the right way to go, and will help the health of the American people, something that will have a dramatic impact on the rising health care costs in this country. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would limit the total title I payments to farm entities to less than $125,000 a year. It doesn't eliminate them; it simply limits them. Under current law, market loan payments, loan deficiency payments, and commodity certificates are not capped, and entities can receive unlimited title I dollars. Mr. Chairman, 4 hours ago in this Chamber, we debated amendments that would eliminate and gut the WIC program, WIC--women, infants and children. This is a program that seeks to provide basic food to poor children, to poor families. There were amendments that would eliminate the Food for Peace program whereby we send food--in those bags that we've all seen, ``A gift from the people of the United States of America''--to people who are starving around this planet, a gift from the people of the United States of America at a moment when we can use friends. And we said we're going to gut them, we're going to reduce them. Why would you do that? You would only do that if you face the kind of budget constraints that we face today. A brutal necessity to find savings. Here we have an opportunity to save nearly $1 billion in subsidies to large producers. These are not small farmers, as my colleague from Oregon said. The top 10 percent of subsidy recipients receive almost three-quarters of these funds. This is not the small farmer; these are big conglomerates. These subsidies are bailouts. We hear a lot about bailouts in this Chamber. And nobody thinks bailouts are a good thing. These are slow- motion, year-in-and-year-out bailouts of an industry. Many of my colleagues support both the goals of fiscal responsibility and the idea that markets are efficient. Here, not only are we taking taxpayer dollars and sending them to a slow motion, perpetual bailout, but we're doing it in such a way that it creates cheap corn sugars and other things that go into the fast-food that exacerbate the obesity problem in this country. This is a bad idea. And I urge my colleagues to support this amendment for both fiscal health and sheer market grounds. I yield to my colleague from Oregon.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to talk about something that most Americans don't know much about: derivatives. Derivatives are basically big bets on the future of the housing market, the future of oil prices that, amongst other things, AIG used to destroy itself, requiring the Bush administration to put together a bailout package that was so controversial that we got to pay for. Derivatives are also used by speculators to take position in energy markets. Don't take it from me. Goldman Sachs says that $20 to $30 of the price of a barrel of oil today is associated with speculation in the energy markets. Now, you'd think given all this that we might regulate derivatives, which we haven't done before, and you'd be right, except for the fact that the bill that we're talking about today, the Agriculture bill, would gut money for the CFTC, which will be the regulator of the derivatives markets. Now, the majority can't say we shouldn't regulate them. So, instead, in their zeal to deregulate everything, they're saying let's gut the regulators' ability to look after these contractors. Sounds crazy? It is.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the many achievements of Dr. Charles MacCormack, whose tireless work to improve the lives of children around the world serves as an example to all of us. As President and CEO of Save the Children, Dr. MacCormack has overseen humanitarian aid programs in more than 50 countries. In the wake of natural disasters and in regions of the world torn apart by war, Save the Children helps children avoid unbearable pain and suffering. Dr. MacCormack's retirement creates a void at Save the Children that will be difficult to fill and he will be missed by friends, colleagues and the countless children across the world whose lives are better, because of him. As many as a billion children around the world go to sleep hungry each night. For nearly two decades, Dr. MacCormack has led a global organization that protects the most vulnerable children and creates real change in the lives of those most in need. Throughout his life, Dr. MacCormack has conducted research, taught, and led organizations that promote greater mutual understanding among cultures, provide basic necessities to those in need, and defend the defenseless. Before joining Save the Children, Dr. MacCormack was President of World Learning, a non-profit organization that promotes understanding among people from diverse cultures through educational exchanges and research. He serves on the Board of InterAction, an association of more than 160 humanitarian and development organizations, and on the Boards of the Basic Education Coalition and the Campaign for Effective Global Leadership. Dr. MacCormack has taken leadership roles with the Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid, the Food Security Advisory Committee, and the Non-Governmental Committee on UNICEF and is a founding board member of Malaria No More. Dr. MacCormack has enriched the lives of people around the world. But today, let us all turn our attention to him and express our gratitude for his lifetime of service. As a Representative, I am proud to honor him here today; and as a fellow citizen and friend. I am indebted to Charlie for all he has done and continues to do--for the children of the world.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 25th anniversary of the Au Pair in America Program. Based in Stamford, Connecticut, the American Institute for Foreign Study (AIFS) and its Au Pair in America Program have been leaders in providing young people with exceptional cultural exchange programs. The Au Pair in America program began in 1986 with the goal of providing young people with unique cultural exchange opportunities. The first authorized sponsor for au pair programs, Au Pair in America has brought more than 87,000 au pairs from over 60 countries to live with an American family, care for children, and pursue educational interests for a year. On June 9, 2011, the State Department will be hosting a reception in honor of the program's 25th anniversary. I congratulate AIFS and Au Pair in America on the continued success of this educational and cultural program, and extend my best wishes to all the program participants in their work to foster global exchange.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered today by the gentleman from New York. At its core, this amendment is simple, but its impact is significant. The bill we are currently debating contains a provision that would arbitrarily limit UASI eligibility for 2012 to areas within the country deemed to be the top 10 high-risk cities. If passed as it is, this bill would reduce the number of communities eligible for UASI grants by more than 50 cities, many of them named by my colleague from Wisconsin, among them, the Bridgeport/Stamford metropolitan area, which includes the majority of the cities and towns in my district. I strongly support this amendment, which removes the language from the bill that illogically restricts UASI funding to just 10 cities. Since its creation in 2003, the intent of the UASI program has been to enhance regional preparedness in and around major metropolitan areas, and to assist participating jurisdictions in developing integrated regional systems for prevention, protection, response, and recovery. Setting an arbitrary limit on the number of locations eligible to receive funding under this program is contrary to the intent of the program and contrary to our efforts to address the growing and evolving threats of homegrown terrorism. Moreover, this restriction is dangerous. Localities with the highest risk of being attacked are often not the locality where those attacks are being planned and can be stopped. In my district, the loss of UASI funding would completely derail a major interagency communications project. In addition, much of the counterterrorism work underway in Fairfield County has been implemented in phases. A reduction in funds at this point will effectively waste the work that has already been done. The risks to my constituents are very real. My district's proximity to New York City not only increases the likelihood of a terrorist attack, but also increases the potential that someone in our area will plan an attack with the intention of inflicting the attack on New York City. We have seen this time and time again. After local law enforcement officials from Fairfield County helped to capture Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber last year--Faisal Shahzad who had operated in my district--it is unfathomable to think that their work would be deemed nonessential in the fight against terrorism. And just 2 weeks ago, on May 19, a Bridgeport resident accused of making and selling pipe bombs was arrested after allegedly attempting to sell eight of these explosive cylinders in the Bronx. While we can all agree that shared sacrifice is required to bring our Federal deficit under control, I cannot support cuts to a national security program which has proven to be not just effective, but also essential to our safety. This is a time for our communities to stay vigilant. Without the proper resources, our communities cannot maintain the proper level of readiness and cannot ensure that they are properly secured. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of my dear friend Susan Ross, who is stepping down from her role as President and CEO of the Fairfield County Community Foundation, a position she has held for the last 15 years. Since 1992, the Fairfield County Community Foundation has promoted philanthropy to build and sustain a vital and prosperous community where all have the opportunity to participate and thrive. Susan became the President and CEO of the Foundation in 1996 and, along with her first-rate staff, is responsible for the Foundation's increasing visibility, growth and relevance to donors and the community. Fairfield County includes populations of immense wealth as well as communities of significant challenge, disenfranchisement and poverty. Susan's tireless efforts to educate and to bridge these communities have proven invaluable and have changed many lives for the better. During her tenure, the Foundation has awarded more than $115 million in grants. Last year alone, the Foundation gave away 782 grants in Fairfield County totaling roughly $6.4 million. Under Susan's leadership, tens of thousands of Fairfield County children, adults and families have had the opportunity to achieve their potential. Susan's leadership and tenure at the Fairfield County Community Foundation embody the right answer to that ancient question: ``Am I my brother's keeper?''

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, all I've got to say about that is, wow. Here we are talking about the DOD and what we should do with savings found in the DOD, and the gentleman from Virginia is bringing up stimulus and TARP and $800 billion, which has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand, a mechanism that is used all too often by the other side. The gentleman mentions the Constitution. Nobody in this room is saying that we shouldn't adequately fund the Department of Defense. That's not what this is about any more than this is about TARP or stimulus or any of the other things that my colleague spoke about. The Constitution also says that it is this body--this body--that will determine how funds are spent. My colleague from Virginia is saying that extra money at the DOD that is saved in a mechanism that we all agree makes sense, that it should be a slush fund, if you will, that the DOD should decide how they use that. The Constitution of the United States is very clear. That's our job. Nobody is saying that we should underfund defense; that is not what this is about. And I am delighted that the gentleman takes such great pride in having voted against the stimulus and the TARP, which by the way, I would say the day after Chrysler has repaid its government loan 6 years early, the gentleman might revisit his point on that, but that is not what this is about. This is about good government and deficit reduction and abiding by the spirit of the Constitution that says we decide how money is used, not the agencies. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HIMES. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on behalf of my amendment to H.R. 1540. The underlying text of the National Defense Authorization Act calls for the shift of certain inherently governmental functions, currently being performed by contractors, to civilian employees within the Department of Defense. My amendment is simple. It requires that any cost savings achieved by this transfer be used for deficit reduction. I'm going to say that again. Any cost savings associated with shifting work from contractors to civilian employees will get used for deficit reduction. Reaching the debt limit last week was a stark reminder of the consequences of ballooning spending throughout the Federal Government, including defense spending. Committing cost savings to deficit reduction is the first step toward returning to a fiscally sustainable budget. By reducing the deficit with identified savings from the Department of Defense, we will help to ensure that we have enough to invest in education, infrastructure, and job-creating priorities that we all share while cutting spending to reduce the deficit. This is a smart and fiscally responsible amendment. I urge my colleagues to adopt it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the argument of my colleague from Virginia, he is saying that by taking away money for the purposes of debt reduction from the DOD that we will be disincentivizing action, which we all know to be the right thing to do here. So let me just toss out a couple of facts. Fact No. 1, Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has identified the debt of this country as perhaps the single largest strategic threat to the security of the country. Fact No. 2, in DOD, we are talking about people who, if anywhere in the government are dedicated to doing the right thing by all of us, sacrificing for the good of this Nation, and their leader said that the single largest strategic threat to this country is our debt, how can you make an argument against this amendment? Think about the words of Admiral Mullen. The argument seems to me to be an insider Washington argument, which is if you take away their cheese, they're going to be angry. They won't do the right thing because you're taking away their cheese. I will stop speaking, but I will just ask my colleague from Virginia whether he believes in the context of what Admiral Mullen said about deficit reduction and the debt and whether he really believes that the DOD will do the wrong thing here. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a thrill and an honor this morning on this propitious day in which a joint session of the United States Congress will be addressed by Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel to introduce and welcome our guest chaplain of the day, Rabbi Jeremy Wiederhorn. Rabbi Wiederhorn is a friend, he is the spiritual leader of The Conservative Synagogue of Westport, and has been so since 2008. Prior to doing that, he gave service in Henderson, Nevada, for 8 years. He is a leader in the community and in his synagogue. He is also true to the ministry dictated by his and so many of our faiths, including, over time, having led and mobilized his community to send an emergency mission to Israel in response to the missile strikes from Hamas in Gaza. It is a real honor. I know Rabbi Wiederhorn has served as an important leader in Westport and throughout Fairfield County. He has served as a friend to me. I would say that in addition to his spiritual guidance, he introduced me to cholent, which for this Presbyterian was a new experience. I think I thank him for introducing me to that part of his history and culture, if not exactly for the culinary experience. Welcome, Rabbi Wiederhorn.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the police officers who have dedicated their lives to serving the people of Norwalk, Connecticut. Since its formation in 1913, the Norwalk Police Department has improved the quality of life for generations of citizens. Its officers' vigilant protection of the city's residents and their property has formed the foundation of public peace, order and tranquility that has allowed Norwalk to prosper. Every day, Norwalk's police officers take on the responsibility of keeping the city safe. It can be a dangerous job. Five times in its history, the Norwalk Police Department has suffered the loss of one of its own in the line of duty. Sergeants Frank S. Stratton and Nicholas W. Fera, and Officers Sherrald Gorton, Marco Carias and Matthew Morelli each lost their lives in service to the community they sought to protect. We are forever indebted to them, and I join the people of Norwalk in honoring their memory today. We also remember the retired officers of the Norwalk Police Department who passed away this year. All who serve today carry on a proud tradition inherited from those who wore the uniform in days gone by. We commemorate their service and we celebrate their lives. Every officer deserves our praise. Their daily work makes it possible for each of us to enjoy the benefits of liberty, secure in the knowledge that our neighborhoods and places of business are safe. The dedication of Norwalk's officers to preventing crime and educating the public has spared so many families from experiencing unnecessary tragedy. And their collaboration with residents and business owners has promoted a sense of shared responsibility that makes the city an example to other communities nationwide. To every officer who has served Norwalk with pride in years past, and every officer serving today, I offer my gratitude. And to the families of those men who gave their lives in the line of duty, I express the eternal thanks of a city, a state and a nation that can never say ``thank you'' enough.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I rise this morning with a question, which is: What are we doing? What are we doing here? Like all 434 of my colleagues, I just spent 2 weeks at home listening to my constituents, and I heard one message: Do everything you can. Don't let a second go by. Work to restore jobs in this country. Improve the economy. And I get down here on Monday, and what did we do this week? We voted in this Chamber to eliminate funding for school-based health centers, funding for kids who don't have any other way to see a doctor. Today, thanks to the Republican majority, we will vote to try to scale back the right of women to have access to reproductive health care. And later on this week, we are going to take up measures that will keep the gravy train flowing to the oil companies, the $4 billion in our taxpayer money that goes to companies like ExxonMobil, which last week reported $10 billion in profits. I'm glad ExxonMobil is making money, but you know what? They don't need ours. So what are we doing? When is the Republican majority going to get serious about the one thing that my constituents care about--jobs?

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the mentors and high school students participating in the ACE Mentor Program, headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. ACE brings together nearly 6,000 volunteers in the integrated construction industry to mentor more than 10,000 students in 32 States each year. Most of the high school students in this program come from disadvantaged backgrounds. ACE matches teams of these young men and women with volunteers in the construction industry, creating career and education pathways for disadvantaged youth. Each year, leading companies in the construction industry contribute an estimated $22 million in volunteer time to this program. Connecticut-based companies providing volunteers to ACE include the EMCOR Group, United Technologies, and Lane Construction. I applaud the volunteers, students, and companies involved in the ACE Mentor Program, and I'm encouraged by their commitment to create jobs and improve young lives.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. I thank my good friend from New Jersey for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the amendment at the desk. This amendment addresses the FAA's redesign of the airspace over New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia with noble motives to actually improve our air travel. But the fact of the matter is that the redesign was badly implemented from the start and used flawed procedures. Plans for this redesign have moved forward without proper and appropriate input from stakeholders and without regard to the parties who are most affected, notably, many of our constituents. As planes have been rerouted to fly over southwestern Connecticut upon descent into New York's airports, my constituents have begun experiencing unnecessary and unprecedented noise levels. A day does not go by that I don't hear this concern from my constituents. I have joined with my colleagues in a bipartisan effort to call upon the FAA to simply study alternatives. We know that there are good alternatives. This should be done prudently and carefully. Families who have moved to my district to find a quiet refuge are now faced with the prospect of daily disturbances. Alternatives must be considered before any more action is taken.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a sad duty: to honor the life and service of Private First Class David Richard Fahey, Junior, who was killed in the service of our Nation. He was born only 23 years ago in Norwalk, Connecticut. On February 28, his life was taken from us in Kandahar province, Afghanistan. I never had the honor of meeting David Fahey, but I've read the remembrances of his family and friends as they mourn his passing and celebrate his life. I learned that he was a young man who was blessed with a singular sense of humor--David was always ready to cheer up others with a joke or a prank--and I learned that he was a man of faith who would spend hours comforting friends in need. David Fahey was a man who put the needs of others first, so it is no surprise that he chose to serve his country as a soldier and MP. Today, on behalf of the people of Connecticut and the Nation, I thank PFC David Richard Fahey, Junior, and I offer our perpetual gratitude for his legacy of service and commitment to the defense of all that we cherish.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on one amendment to H.R. 1. I wish the Record to reflect my intention had I been able to vote. Had I been present for rollcall No. 125, I would have voted ``aye.''