Jim Himes

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, here we are on the final legislative day of inauguration week. As a Democrat, this was a week of mixed feelings for me and for my colleagues on this side of the aisle. I am also a genetic optimist, so on Monday, I went to the inauguration, yes, concerned, but also optimistic about new possibilities, committed as I always have been to finding ways to work with my Republican colleagues for the benefit of my constituents, and celebrating the peaceful transfer of power this time. This time because, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, 4 years and 17 days ago today, in this Chamber, a brutal, violent, criminal attempt was made to prevent the peaceful transfer of power in our democracy. Thousands of people rioted and descended on the Capitol. They broke windows, and they attacked police officers with heavy objects, with bear spray, with their fists, with anything at hand. Several carried firearms. There were 140 police officers who were assaulted. Let me say that again: There were 140 police officers who were assaulted that day. All of us have memories of that day. I started the day up in that corner of the gallery, and when it became clear that we had to evacuate, because I was in the gallery with some colleagues, it took a long time. We saw what was happening on the floor. We saw the Capitol Police with weapons drawn as an object broke the window of the main door to the House. We watched the Capitol Police move a heavy article of furniture. In this country, it was an article of furniture that prevented the rioters from getting into this Chamber. We have all seen those images. This time, we had a peaceful transfer of power. Now, on Inauguration Day, I kept that optimism until the moment that the new President took the decision to pardon not those who were wrongly convicted for their actions on that day, not those who just got caught up in the frenzy and maybe didn't know that they were committing an offense by trespassing on the Capitol Grounds. The new President pardoned every single person, including those involved in those assaults on 140 police officers--every single one of them. That was an uncomfortable moment for some of my colleagues, particularly on the Republican side. They were asked, and, well, they hadn't read the pardons, hadn't heard the story. It was an uncomfortable moment. The Speaker responded by saying, yeah, we are not looking backward; we are looking forward. Then, very shortly thereafter, he reconstituted a committee to investigate the people who investigated what happened here on January 6. The Speaker of the House said, House Republicans are proud of our work so far in exposing the false narratives peddled by the politically-motivated January 6th Select Committee during the 117th Congress; the false narratives. Mr. Speaker, I get it. I get it. Sometimes people on my side of the aisle do things with which I do not agree, and I try to have the principle and the integrity to call them out for it. You have two choices when people on your side do things that are wrong: You can call them out, you can stand with principle, and you can be clear; that is what leaders do. You can also obfuscate and try to change history, try to suggest that what we all saw and experienced traumatically wasn't what we all saw and experienced. You can make stuff up, like maybe the FBI instigated it. Maybe it was really Nancy Pelosi's responsibility. Maybe it was antifa. Oh gosh, maybe the people who assaulted 140 police officers were just, like, tourists. That is not the way of leadership. That is some dark, dark and evil way of proceeding. Why? Because it dishonors the truth on which the stability of this Republic relies and maybe just as importantly: It dishonors all of us who were there that day and who saw with our own eyes what happened. Maybe worst of all, it dishonors the brave men and women who put their lives on the line that day to protect us. Those of us who put up the signs on our office doors saying: Thank you, Capitol Police, only to turn around and remain silent when the attackers of the Capitol Police were pardoned on Monday. These were people who put their lives on the line to protect us and the democracy. I think it is worth spending a minute or two, Mr. Speaker, to remind us who these people were and what happened. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, he stood outside the gates here and fended off the attackers as they bear sprayed him in the face and eyes. The very next day, Officer Sicknick suffered two strokes and ultimately died, making him the first fatality of January 6. Officer Brian Sicknick was only the fourth Capitol Police officer to die in the line of duty. Julian Khater pled guilty to pepper-spraying Brian Sicknick, and he was pardoned on Monday. Officer Jeffrey Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department, he fought off rioters in the Capitol that day only to be struck in the face by a metal pole as the siege continued that night. You can imagine the trauma. We feel it. We didn't get struck in the face by a metal pole though. Days later, Officer Smith climbed into his Ford Mustang and shot himself in the head. Those who assaulted Officer Jeffrey Smith are now pardoned. Officer Howie Liebengood grew up in the Senate. He followed his father around. His father, at the time, was the Senate Sergeant at Arms. On January 6, Officer Liebengood was posted to Senate security where he faced down the rioters. He came back to work, despite what he had seen on January 6, on January 7, January 8, and January 9, unwilling to quit and inconvenience his fellow, similarly depleted and exhausted, officers. On the night of January 9, Howie Liebengood took out his service revolver and shot himself. Officer Gunther Hashida was a decorated Metropolitan Police Department officer. Officer Hashida earned the Medal of Valor, the Lifesaving Medal, and a variety of other medals throughout his 18-year career. He served on the Department's emergency response team and responded here on January 6. Officer Hashida took his own life at home in July of 2021. Officer Kyle DeFreytag was 26 years old. He had been on the job for 5 years when he deployed to the riot, to the insurrection. He was tasked with enforcing the curfew put in place that evening. He was 26 years old when he committed suicide. The trauma suffered by these officers was not an accident. It wasn't an act of God or an act of nature. It was done to them by people, each and every one of whom has now been pardoned. Not just pardoned, but they are out there now celebrating and thinking about what is next. I have three questions for my colleagues before I invite them to reflect on what this week has meant to them. The first question I have is: We put up the signs on the doors that say: Thank you, brave police officers. Do we honor the heroic work of those who protected us, or do we denigrate it by suggesting that it just wasn't that big a deal? Is this just about signs on office doors, or do we raise our voices and say: Those who attacked the people who protected us don't deserve a pardon and certainly don't deserve celebration. Question number two: Are we--and when I say we, each and every one of us and each and every American--are we committed, without reservation or condition, to the idea that our differences are worked out in here with words and debate, not out there with bear spray and clubs? Are we committed to that idea, or do we celebrate and pardon and elevate those who wield bear spray and clubs? I hear all too often something that is pernicious in moral thinking and a corrosive of our political dialogue: the whataboutism. Yeah, I was bad on January 6, but what about Black Lives Matter throwing bricks through Starbucks' windows in Seattle? What about the Biden pardons? Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, I am not a fan of the Biden pardons either. I am not afraid to say so because of that thing about principles. Yet, the whataboutisms that equates a violent attempt to change the peaceful transfer of power with some idiot who throws a brick through a Starbucks window in Seattle or Portland, that is a lack of discernment. More to the point, what a moral failure. We don't let 3-year-olds defend themselves with the idea that somebody else did it too. How has this become an exculpatory thing in our politics? Third and last, Mr. Speaker, and this is something that I think each and every one of us should reflect on: Where is your line? At what point do you say no? At what point do you find the courage to say no, Mr. President, that is not right? This week, we learned that for most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the pardon of the attackers of these police officers was not outside that line. At what point do you say no? At what point do you remember that the Congress is here to be a check and a balance on the President, regardless of the President's party? Mr. Speaker, if you can't answer that question, if you don't have that point, and if you don't have the commitment to principle and the courage to stand by that point, well, Mr. Speaker, I fear for the future of our Republic. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his words. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint), my fellow New Englander.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a true American hero, Captain Paul Bucha, a Medal of Honor recipient and a longtime resident of Ridgefield, Connecticut. Captain Bucha was the son of a World War II veteran, attended West Point, and ultimately earned a master's degree from Stanford University. He was deployed to Vietnam in 1967 and assumed his first command after only 2 months in country. In March 1968, Captain Bucha and his men encountered a North Vietnamese force more than 10 times the size of their own. Outgunned and outmanned, Captain Bucha rallied his troops, commanding a vigorous all-night defense that deceived the 1,500 enemy combatants into believing that his own force of 89 was much larger. He personally eliminated a fortified enemy position and directed the medical evacuation of his wounded men, all while coping with his own shrapnel wounds. President Nixon bestowed the Medal of Honor upon Captain Bucha 2 years after his courageous actions, citing his ``extraordinary heroism, inspirational example, outstanding leadership, and professional competence.'' At the time of his death, he held the distinction of being Connecticut's only living Medal of Honor recipient. Captain Paul Bucha passed away in July 2024 and is survived by his wife, Cynthia, his four children, and his nine grandchildren. A true American hero, may he rest in peace.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Judge Stanley Novack of Stamford, Connecticut. Judge Novack was a pillar of the Stamford community and a scion of Jurisprudence, serving 49 years on the bench across various judicial appointments in Connecticut. First elevated to the bench in 1975, Judge Novack was one of the longest presiding Connecticut Superior Court judges who had a special affinity for his time adjudicating family law cases. He handled these particularly fraught situations with a sincerity, good-humor, and empathy that regularly left litigants and lawyers grateful to have come before him to have their cases heard. Coined ``the father of family law in Connecticut'' by his colleagues at a celebration of his 40th year on the bench, Judge Novack was the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, including the Distinguished Service Award from the Connecticut Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and the Lifetime Achievement Award by the Fairfield County Bar Association. Beyond his laudatory judicial career, Judge Novack was known to be a truly remarkable human to his colleagues and family. He was famous for his uncanny ability to remember the birthdays of his fellow judges, the lawyers who argued before him, and the legal secretaries who transcribed his notes--and even their children. Alongside his wife of over thirty years, Muriel, Judge Novack never missed one of his granddaughters' ballet recitals, theater performances, or academic graduations. And, in keeping with his devotion to our great state, he was an avid fan of the UCONN Men and Women's basketball teams, excitedly welcoming each of his alma matter's national championship victories. Judge Novack's life stands as a testament to his dedication to public service and commitment to his community. His legacy, both in the form of the case law he created and the wonderful family he leaves behind, will serve as a tribute to his many years of hard work. I thank Judge Novack for all that he did for Connecticut.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Chair, wow, the oppressed citizens of Canada, really? We have gone into conspiracy world here in what was otherwise a trajectory of remarkable bipartisan work on this new strange world of cryptocurrency and crypto assets. Now we are talking about the oppressed citizens of Canada, the surveillance state. They are going tell you what their cars and appliances are doing. I guess we can't do too much bipartisanship before we have to revert to the madness of conspiracy theories. Madam Chair, why did we do what we did yesterday with FIT21? It split my party. There were people of good will on both sides of that. The reason a number of Democrats, including myself, supported FIT21, which was not our preferred bill, was because in the context of the possibility of innovation, you open options. We don't know what this stuff is going to look like 5 or 10 years from now, so we open options. That is why we did what we did yesterday. Today, because of conspiracy world, we are closing options. Now I don't know what a CBDC might look like 5 or 10 years from now. I suspect having written a white paper on it, that there might be a portion of the population that instead of using Joe's stablecoin might actually value a stablecoin that was backed by the full faith and credit. I don't know and you don't know, so let's keep our options open. Let's allow for the possibility and research that, by the way, every other country out there, like the United Kingdom--not China but the United Kingdom--is doing, to see if we can open the path for innovation. Let's not close it. I hear China, China, China. Guess what, we do contract law and police services and public safety radically different than China does, so don't scare us with China. We can do this right. Let's just not in the context of innovation foreclose an option. Please vote against this bill, which is an anti- innovation bill.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, again, I think I surprised the gentleman from Virginia in saying that I will recommend a ``yes'' vote on this amendment because I think it is very, very important that this not become a debate between civil rights and perhaps those who are less concerned about civil rights. I will yield to no one in my defense of the civil rights incorporated in our Bill of Rights. I am the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. I spend my days marinating in the depredations that the Chinese would visit upon us, but I voted against the TikTok ban because I felt it had, and courts have held that it has, First Amendment equities at stake. This amendment is a good one. ``About'' collection, first of all, is not undertaken today by the IC; it is too technically difficult and too risky. There is too much of a risk that communications that are not about a target to an American get swept up in this ``about'' collection. I will be adamant and stand with the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in saying that the Biggs amendment is not addressing constitutional issues, but this is an important amendment that I support.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from Virginia. I support this amendment and will be recommending a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to the minority caucus. I surprised the gentleman from Virginia in asking for a minute, because I think it is very important that this Chamber not believe that this is an argument between civil rights and denigrating civil rights.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, I thank both the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee for this important debate. I sat here and listened to the Judiciary Committee's support for the warrant amendment, and the entire argument is constructed on the foundation of the notion that U.S. person queries violate the Constitution. That is the argument. I am not a lawyer, so I tend to defer to my good friends on the Judiciary Committee, but I am likely to defer more immediately to the people who are charged with defending our constitutional rights in the Federal courts. I am going to quote from the PCLOB report here, a statement made by the FIS court in April of 2022: ``All three United States Circuit Courts of Appeals to consider the issue [the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits] have held that the incidental collection of a U.S. person's communications under section 702 does not require a warrant and is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.'' I am not a lawyer, but I am inclined to defer to three separate circuits. So my friends on Judiciary point to the PCLOB. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) quoted the chair of the PCLOB. She did it right. She was quoting the Chair of the PCLOB in her personal capacity. The PCLOB had profound misgivings with their own warrant requirement, which was far narrower than the Biggs amendment warrant requirement. The two Republican members of the PCLOB wrote a rebuttal of the PCLOB's proposal, and I will just quote this. The Republican members--I would suggest that I am always amazed by the Chairman of Judiciary's alignment with his party. The Republicans said that: ``FISC preapproval would most negatively impact the most important and urgent queries--the ones that show a connection between foreign targets and U.S. persons, the ones that the FBI must review as quickly as possible.'' Please vote against the Biggs amendment.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his terrific work in the face of very real challenges and his commitment to bipartisanship. This is a critical and bipartisan effort, and it is one that he and I and many others have spent thousands of hours on. As we close out debate, two things are very clear: Number one, this authority must be reauthorized. I have heard too many Members saying that I will vote to reauthorize it so long as I get this amendment passed. If you are serious about keeping the American people safe, if you are serious about what you said, which is that this must be reauthorized, vote for final passage. This is our single most important tool to keep Americans safe. Secondly, the Biggs amendment is an extreme amendment, and I understand the instinct. As I mentioned before, the PCLOB, the President's Civil Liberties Oversight Board, proposed something that would require, in very limited circumstances, a judicial amendment. This amendment is far more extreme than that one, and it is not driven by constitutional concerns. Not a single Federal court after years and years of scrutiny has identified a Fourth Amendment issue. This is a policy choice, and I would say to those friends of mine on my side of the aisle, maybe you have spent more time on this collection authority than I have. I have probably spent 2,000 or 3,000 hours, so maybe you have spent more. I am willing to concede that. Maybe you know better than I do, but I would ask you to listen to the people who use this every single day at the Department of Justice, at our intelligence community. I would ask you to read the last paragraph of the administration's statement of administration policy, which concludes with the line: ``Our intelligence, defense, and public safety communities are united: The extensive harms of this proposal simply cannot be mitigated.'' We are Article I. You have probably done a lot of work. Maybe you know better on the Biggs amendment. We will find out. Pass the Biggs amendment. Do what the SAP says would badly damage our safety. We will find out. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).

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

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). The Speaker Emerita is the single longest serving member of the Committee on Intelligence ever. She is a member whose, as my Republican colleagues regularly remind me, progressive bona fides are unchallengeable and who came to this institution to fight for civil liberties.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this legislation. First, let me emphasize again that, as the chairman said, section 702 is our single most important intelligence authority. We use it every day to protect the Nation from threats ranging from China and Russia to terrorist plots, fentanyl traffickers, and much more. It cannot be allowed to expire. It is also true that the 702 program requires substantial reform. We have done this before, and we are doing it in this base bill. I would also make a critical point here, which is that this is arguably our most heavily scrutinized and overseen intelligence authority. It is approved--and I am going to say this twice--every single year and has been since 2009 by Federal judges, Federal judges who crawl all over this program looking for constitutional violations and looking for violations of law, and since 2009, they have recertified this program. It is also overseen by the Congress. The chairman and I see problems with the program. It is overseen inside by the Attorney General. It is the most scrutinized intelligence collection program that we have. The bill before the House today is the product of very serious oversight, resulting in a base text that preserves the value of 702 while putting in place more than 50 significant reforms aimed at preventing its misuse, those misuses that were detailed and that the chairman referred to, which, by the way, are down to the tune of 90 percent. This bill would codify those reforms and require that the FBI continue to follow those rules. This legislation contains the most significant reforms to 702 ever. Among many other proposals, this bill will continue the progress already made, which I referred to, by the Biden administration and others to ensure compliance. The bill would ban queries conducted to find evidence of a crime and cut by 90 percent--90 percent--the number of FBI personnel that can approve U.S. person queries. That is what we give up if we don't pass this bill. We will consider several amendments to the bill, most of which I will support. However, I am opposed to the Biggs amendment. It is an extreme and misguided proposal that seriously undermines our national security. I understand the instinct. There is no way to collect intelligence on foreign emails and texts without having some Americans on the other side of this. This bill puts in place protections to make sure that the abuses of the past don't continue into the future. I would add that I understand the concern. Federal judges crawl all over this program every single year, and not one Federal judge--not one--has found constitutional issues with U.S. person queries. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the PCLOB, proposed a warrant that is much less extreme than the one in the Biggs amendment. The PCLOB--and by the way, this proposal was split on the PCLOB--proposed that only in the event that a U.S. person query produces information, only in that event, which is about 2 percent of all queries, would a warrant be required. The Biggs amendment would require a warrant for every single U.S. person query that the government makes inside information that it already has. The narrow exceptions included in this amendment will also not work. You don't need to take that from me, Mr. Chair. Talk to anybody in the government who uses this program. We don't know if a query is about something that is an exigency until we know what is in the information that that query would turn up. Enacting this amendment would make us far less safe. We will lose the ability to disrupt terrorist plots, identify spies, interdict fentanyl, and much more, not because it was constitutionally required but because we simply chose not to look. As Jake Sullivan said this week: ``The extensive harms of this proposal simply cannot be mitigated.'' I would point my colleagues, particularly on my side of the aisle, to the President's extraordinarily strong Statement of Administration Policy in which he reiterates the damage that will be done by this amendment should it pass. Mr. Chair, with a lot of what we do here, the consequences don't appear immediately. If we turn off the ability of the government to query U.S. person data, then the consequences will be known soon, and we will audit why what happened happened. The consequences will be known soon, and accountability will be visited. Once again, Mr. Chair, I urge Members to vote for the underlying bill and to oppose the Biggs amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow), who, prior to coming here, defended this Nation's security at risk to his own life in the uniform of the 75th Ranger Regiment.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the American Institute For Foreign Study (AIFS) in Stamford, Connecticut, as they celebrate their 60th anniversary. Since their inception in 1964, AIFS has pioneered cultural exchange and educational enrichment, having impacted the lives of over 1.8 million individuals and deepened relationships across international borders. In partnership with the U.S. Department of State, AIFS continues to operate a diverse selection of programs for their nearly 40,000 annual participants, including study and travel abroad, high school exchange, camp counselor, and intern/trainee programs, which epitomize the Administration's dedication to diverse partnerships. It is my unique honor to recognize the American Institute For Foreign Study for their 60th anniversary. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating AIFS and their dedication to cross-cultural exchange.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, every generation or so, our country is challenged with a fight. It is a fight in which we invariably line up on the side of freedom, of liberty, of the right of all individuals to make their own decisions, to not be told by dictators or by mullahs or by totalitarians what to think, how to pray, or who will lead them--every generation. My generation was 9/11 when we were brutally attacked by extremists who hated our way of life; my grandparents' generation was the Cold War in which we stood against totalitarianism and communism in Europe and elsewhere; my great-grandparents' generation was World War II in which we stood up to fascism--always on the side of freedom, always on the side of liberty. While we don't always get it precisely right, and the cost in blood and treasure has often been horrendous, we are invariably there. We have stood against the odds for freedom and democracy. Now we waver. This generation, now we waver. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, something that we didn't imagine we would ever see again: Russia invades a sovereign country, crosses a border with tanks. Now we waver. Our parents and our grandparents, who fought those wars and the Cold War against Nazism, are saying: What is wrong with you? What has become of the instinct to stand for freedom and democracy? Mr. Speaker, we hear these objections about the border over and over again. My Republican friends are right about the border. We need to move. By the way, we did move. We had a bipartisan agreement supported by Republicans in the Senate, and the Republicans in the House said no. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? This country, this body, can do more than one thing at the same time. We can stand for freedom and democracy and fix the border. Do not tell me that we choose between the two. We hear that the objectives in Ukraine are unclear. The objectives are as clear as can be. We will sustain this fight until Vladimir Putin realizes it is too expensive for him to stay in that fight. We hear that the Ukrainians are corrupt. We didn't hear that about our Afghan allies or about our Iraqi allies, but we hear that about the Ukrainians. Meanwhile, China, North Korea, and Iran are watching. What they are seeing is that Republicans--forget about loss of life--if it is a little bit of money, we don't sustain the fight. Do you think President Xi is not watching this moment carefully? Can you imagine what the implications are down the road for Taiwan? Failure to respond to Russian aggression will be something that we pay the cost for in years to come. A leader of this body said it: A failure to respond to that aggression ``empowers other dictators, other terrorists and tyrants around the world, because if they perceive that America is weak or unable to act decisively, then it invites aggression in many different ways.'' That was Speaker Johnson, the leader of this body. Mr. Speaker, in 1938, Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister, went to Munich, where a bunch of us just were, and he appeased. He came back to England and said, I have achieved ``peace for our time.'' Of course, that was not true; that was appeasement. As a result, the name ``Neville Chamberlain'' stands in history for the legacy of appeasement. Is that the legacy that you want for yourselves? Do we want to abandon, for the first time in hundreds of years, our tradition of standing for democracy and freedom? I don't think so. Maybe you do. Maybe you do because Donald Trump wants that to happen. At least bring the bipartisan Senate bill to the floor so that those who are infused with the legacy of this country's fight for freedom, and not infused by doing whatever Donald Trump demands of us on this particular day, can stand up for what this American country has always stood for. Bring the Senate bill to the floor.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service of Master Sergeant Kevin Johnson, Sr. Originally of Philadelphia, MSG Johnson enlisted in the Army in 1984, marking the beginning of his lifelong career in service to his country. After completing basic training at Ft. Jackson in South Carolina, MSG Johnson went on to Advanced Individual Training at Ft. Gordon, Georgia and later participated in the Home Town Recruiting Assistance Program where he helped to recruit 10 soldiers and prepare them for entry into the Army by assisting them to pass their ASVAB tests and improve their physical fitness. MSG Johnson would go on to serve in several different posts including as a Station Technical Controller in Germany with the 581st Signal Company and as a member of the White House Communications Agency where he supported the critical Direct Communication Link between the White House and the Kremlin during an era of heightened diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and United States. Later in his career, MSG Johnson transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve, proudly serving with the 80th division for 25 years during which he dedicated himself to training new soldiers, first as a Drill Sergeant and then as a Senior Drill Sergeant with B Company in Suffolk, VA. Deploying with the 80th during Operation Iraqi Freedom, he served as a Platoon Sergeant for the 3rd Iraqi Army Division Basic Combat Training. Holder of multiple professional certifications in IT and Telecommunications, MSG Johnson has spent his career preparing generations of soldiers for the tasks they face during deployment and building upon his own education to ensure his instruction is of the highest quality possible. Throughout his service, MSG Johnson received a number of awards including the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Army Achievement Medal. The proud father to Kevin Jr., Yasmeen, Courtney, and Kazmir I and husband to Tiniko Johnson, MSG Johnson is a shining example of dedication to service and patriotism. I extend my most sincere thank you to MSG Johnson and his family for their sacrifice and commend him for a career of selflessness.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, maybe I can help my confused friend from New York so that he might understand what is at stake here and why Democrats are going to vote ``no.'' I stand here with some trepidation because, for a decade and a half, I have stood here and proudly voted to support Israel, and Israel has been attacked. I know that we will pass Israel aid. Make no mistake, what we are seeing today is a profoundly cynical political maneuver. For my friend from New York, let me explain it. Mr. Calvert, Ms. DeLauro, and I were in the White House when the Speaker--all of 2 days as Speaker of the House--looked at the National Security Advisor and said that we will do border first, Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel. He demanded that. The White House said, no, we shouldn't bind those things up because that creates the possibility that we don't get any of that done. Then, we made very real progress. We have a bipartisan package that does all of those things. It counters Putin's murderousness in Ukraine, supports Taiwan, stands with Israel, and provides humanitarian aid. It offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do a border and immigration deal, an immigration deal that the Border Patrol union has endorsed. My Republican colleagues trot out the Border Patrol every day and say, look at these poor guys. The Border Patrol union has endorsed this bill. This should pass. It is a historic opportunity to stand up for what we believe as Americans, but then something happened. Donald Trump called. Donald Trump called the Speaker, and the Speaker said it. He said, we know how he feels about Ukraine. He said, don't do the border deal, a border deal negotiated with one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate. Mr. Calvert, Ms. DeLauro, and I heard Mitch McConnell say: This is a better deal than we get if Donald Trump is President and we have the House and the Senate, but Donald Trump called. I need to put another name out there: Neville Chamberlain, 1938, ``peace for our time'' because he kowtowed to a dictator. That is what is at stake. We will hang the legacy of Neville Chamberlain around our necks if we don't seize this historic opportunity to do a comprehensive security bill and reject this political cynical maneuver.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Jeffrey S. Ramer for his contributions to the Town of Greenwich and service on the Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET). Jeff has been a trusted member of the Greenwich community for over 50 years. As a Board Member, Jeff spent countless volunteer hours on behalf of the Town of Greenwich. He served for 16 years on the BET, including 10 years on the Budget Committee as well as time on the Audit Committee, Law Committee and Policies & Procedures Committee. Jeff's work on behalf of Greenwich included bringing the original federal court action to shut down the Cos Cob Power Plant. These efforts ultimately led to the Town's purchase of the property and the creation of Cos Cob Park that provides access to recreation and entertainment for all in the community. Jeff has served as a distinguished public servant and member of the community. Outside of Town government, Jeff served on the Board of Directors of the Greenwich United Way twice over the course of 30 years and was a trustee of Greenwich Library, president of the Riverside Association, a PTA president twice and served on committees at First Congregational Church. As Congressman for Connecticut's Fourth District, I have had the pleasure of working with Jeff and have seen firsthand how he has served as a leader and advocate for the people of Greenwich. As Jeff moves on from the BET, I thank him for all that he has done to improve our community for generations to come.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Laura Erickson for her contributions to the Town of Greenwich and service on the Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET). Laura has been a trusted member of the Greenwich community for over 30 years. As a Board Member, she spent countless volunteer hours on behalf of the Town of Greenwich. Laura has served on the BET since 2019, where she was a member of the Budget and Audit Committees and served as the BET's liaison to the Department of Public Works, the Nathaniel Witherell skilled nursing facility, and information technology/cybersecurity. Laura has long been a distinguished public servant committed to expanding educational opportunities for all. Prior to her time on the BET, she served on the Greenwich Board of Education for four years from November 2013 to November 2017, a tenure that included being Chair of the Board during two budget cycles. While on the Board of Education, Laura served on the New Lebanon School and MISA Building Committees and chaired both the Superintendent Search Committee and the Budget Committee. Laura is currently a board member of the Norwalk Community College Foundation and has previously served as a board member of the Greenwich Alliance for Education and the Greenwich United Way. As Congressman for Connecticut's Fourth District, I have had the pleasure of working with Laura and have seen firsthand her leadership and advocacy for our community. As Laura moves on from the BET, I thank her for her dedication and public service.