Jim Himes

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, with all that we should be doing to help address middle class anxiety, to help the economy along, to help with student debt, to help with the challenges that all of our constituents face, what will we be doing this week? We will be repealing the Affordable Care Act for the 56th time--56. I get it. The first couple of times, Mr. Speaker, I get it. The first couple of times, the Republicans believed that this was a government takeover of health care, that there were death panels, that it was unconstitutional, that it would raise costs in the health care section, that it would be a job killer. None of that turned out to be true. In fact, the opposite turned out to be true. The Supreme Court said it was constitutional, it actually helped lower costs in the overall health care system, and we are now adding jobs in the private sector faster than we have added them in 10 years. None of that was true. What is true is that the Affordable Care Act has given 10 million or more Americans the security for the first time of having health insurance. It has cut the uninsured rate in my State of Connecticut in half. Do you know what that means? It means that Ann Christman--51 years old, a single mother, could never afford health care insurance--now, she has it. She went to a doctor, and her breast cancer was diagnosed early. She said: The cancer has been detected at a very early stage, which, with a 98 percent survival rate, has saved my life. Respectfully, let's leave it alone.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, now that you have yielded me time, I can say anything I want. I can offer any idea and I can criticize anything. No police force, not the greatest military in the world can stop me from speaking my mind. This is true not because I am a particularly regular source of good ideas or because we are particularly gracious to one another around here; it is true because we are humble about what we know for sure. We used to know for sure in this Chamber that women should not vote and that racial discrimination was okay. Opposing those ideas used to be offensive and provocative. In Paris yesterday, several courageous journalists were murdered because their ideas were provocative to some. They were murdered by cowards who know that their ideas and visions would and will be rejected by civilized humans everywhere. There is no courage in killing the unarmed. To those who committed these atrocities yesterday: bring your ideas to a forum like this one or to forums like this one all over the democratic world, bring your ideas to be examined and debated--that is the path of courage and honor.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Jewish Community Center of Stamford, Connecticut, for being named the 2014 S.T.R.I.V.E. (Sports Teach Respect Initiative Values and Excellence) Organization of the Year. The S.T.R.I.V.E. award is provided by the National Council of Youth Sports to organizations that implement youth sport practices that promote health and safety. Since opening its doors in 1916, the Stamford JCC has been a valuable community resource, particularly well-known for its continuum of safe, supportive, and inclusive health and fitness programs for children and youth of all abilities, backgrounds, and financial circumstances. This year, more than 1,500 kids, ages three to sixteen, have taken part in ``kids-first'' recreational activities, created to promote important attributes including teamwork, community engagement, sportsmanship, self-esteem and self-discipline. I commend the Stamford JCC for this wonderful achievement, and for their work in helping promote healthy and safe recreational activities for children in Stamford.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, like so many of us, I was home last week, listening to my constituents talk and be concerned about dysfunction, and I discovered that there is a great deal of confusion about what dysfunction is. My friend from the other side of the aisle just said they have sent all kinds of bills over to the Senate where they are held up--held up in the Senate. This is not dysfunction. It may not be happy for my friends on the other side of the aisle, but the Senate is held by the Democrats. If you send them legislation that is inspired by the Tea Party, they are not going to pass that. That is not dysfunction. That is a refusal to govern. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, over here, there are five bills, and if they were brought to the floor today, they would pass with significant majorities. Each and every one of them would help the economy and create jobs. The reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank, comprehensive immigration reform, topping up the highway trust fund, extending unemployment insurance, and terrorism risk insurance are five bills that we could pass today. The American people need to understand, as they think about dysfunction, that those bills will not be brought up. This House will not work its will. It will not be allowed to work its will. Mr. Speaker, let this House work its will.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, over 60 years ago, the United States President sent advisers to a nation in Asia. He did so because a regime that was perceived as friendly to U.S. interests, but which was, in fact, deeply corrupt and rotten, was threatened. He promised that those advisers would not engage in combat, that they were there to protect American military equipment. Years later, with 60,000 dead Americans and billions and billions of dollars expended, the helicopters lifted off from Saigon, and the Vietnamese regime fell. Today, another U.S. President is sending advisers to a nation in Asia and contemplating air strikes in a three-way civil war in Iraq. This President is doing it purportedly to preserve a nation which was the creation, as Secretary Albright says, of British and French diplomats lying to each other almost a hundred years ago. It is a Nation which, while we have paid gravely in blood and treasure to preserve, may not have the support of its own people. As usual, politics are intruding. The architects of the Iraq war under George W. Bush see the possibility of redemption for their mistakes, so unbelievably, they are accusing this President of losing Iraq. Let's be very clear: Iraq cannot be lost or won. A brutal dictator or the United States military can sit on top of conflicts between Sunni and Shiite and Saxon tribes that have roiled that society for centuries, but remove that dictator or remove the U.S. military, and those conflicts will reemerge. At the end of the day, it is Iraqis and Iraqis alone who have to decide whether their Nation will be preserved, whether there will be multiple countries reflecting multiple fates, or whether there will be one pluralistic nation. Whether they will live in the 21st century, the 7th century, a caliphate, what kind of nation they will have is up for them to determine. There is an argument, of course, that ISIS--the terrorists who have made such astounding gains in regions of Iraq--are bad and brutal people. This is true. I sit on the Intelligence Committee and see, every day, the outrages that they perpetrate. They have made two mistakes: one, their brutality will ultimately be their undoing with their own people; and, second, they are now occupying territory--this means that they have addresses. Just as there are terrorists in Nigeria, in Somalia, in Libya, in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, in Iran, in Egypt, and Morocco--the list goes on--there are terrorists in the Sunni areas of Iraq, but the answer cannot be that the United States military will be there to prevent them from doing what they would wish to do. Our interests--let's be clear about what our interests are--it must first and foremost be up to the citizens of those nations that I just listed to determine what sort of society they will live in. We cannot do it for them, and when we try, it does not end well. We must say to these nations that: if you work to craft an inclusive society respecting your minorities, respecting the rights of the individual and of women in particular, if you abide by international norms, we will be at your side. We did this 240 years ago, and we know a little something about how one might do it, and if not, we will not be at your side. Number two, our interest is to say to them that: if, in the birthing pains of your new societies, you nurture or support or in any way assist those terrorists that would target us or that would target our ally Israel or would target other civilized nations, we will find them, we will fix them, and we will take them off the battlefield, as we are doing around the world today. Those are our national interests. Those goals are worth our time, our treasure, and our talent. Coaching a team in a three-way civil war is not. Colleagues, let us not expend one more dollar or one more life on military activity that is not in the clear service of our essential national interests.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join happily in the amendment offered by my neighbor and close friend from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentlewoman from California, Ranking Member Waters. One of the crucial achievements of the Dodd-Frank bill, of course, was to drag a massive and, in some cases, very dangerous derivatives market into the light of day by giving CFTC authority to look at the instruments which brought down AIG, which were involved in the London Whale, which when used incorrectly can create a systemic risk to the system, and this is a market that has been growing very, very rapidly. In 2010, the total derivatives market was about $124 trillion. That is trillion with a t. That is a multiple of the size of the U.S. economy. Today, it has almost doubled that, $223 trillion. Now, these are securities that can cause all sorts of havoc if not adequately regulated. This amendment, as Ms. DeLauro pointed out, in no way expands bureaucracy. We are not saying spend more money, though there is a very powerful argument for spending more money on an agency that has been tasked to take on a massive new market. It is simply providing flexibility. The question before this House on this amendment comes down to a very simple question: We are either going to provide discretion to the CFTC to run to where they think the danger is--and if they think that their IT is insufficient, they can spend this money on the IT--they are either going to run to where the danger is or we, as a House, are going to decide that we are such crack IT professionals that we should tell the CFTC that they must spend this money on their system. Folks, that doesn't make any sense. Therefore, I urge support for this amendment to provide the CFTC the flexibility that they need in regulating this market.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I am moved to rise today because this House, starting yesterday and continuing into today, is considering a complicated bill called the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Mr. Speaker, that is a complicated set of words. This is the bill, of course, in which we fund the Nation's transportation infrastructure. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, because this bill is not just bad policy, but it is a danger to the safety and economic health of my constituents and to all Americans. What is it that we are talking about here? We are talking about the money that the Congress appropriates to build and improve our highways, our bridges, and our railways. I wonder who in this House doesn't have bridges or highways or railways in their district? This is the bone, it is the arteries on which we build our economic growth and on which the jobs that we spend so much time talking about are created. Without good highways, without the ability to move people, goods, and services around this country, we are nothing. We will not be serious about creating jobs. Now, let's take a little tour on how we are doing on our highways, our bridges, and our railways. Just last Friday, I got caught on a Metro-North train in my district because a 100-year-old bridge in Norwalk got stuck in the open position. Thousands of my constituents sitting on trains and in train stations at Grand Central, at Norwalk, and at Stanford were unable to get home. There have been derailments on this rail line, including some that have been fatal. I live about a mile upstream of a bridge on Interstate 95, the single biggest artery in the Northeast of the United States, that just shy of 20 years ago fell down, killing a bunch of people and creating huge economic havoc. This is true nationally. The stats are out there. The amount of investment that we need to make in this country to be competitive with the Chinese, with the Europeans, who are spending far more on the bones and sinew of their economies, is huge numbers. So, what are we doing about it? What are we doing about it right now in this House? Well, the bill I mentioned proposes to spend $70 billion on transportation. That sounds like a big number--a lot of zeros. But let's put that into context. A couple of weeks ago, this House decided to spend about $600 billion on our military, which is fine. It is an incredible military that we have. Add in security and intelligence, and you get a number of about $700 billion that this House chose to spend on our national security. That is 10 times what we are now choosing to spend on transportation. We are spending 10 times protecting this Nation than we are on actually building this Nation and providing the economic infrastructure that will create the economic growth and jobs that we all say we need--$70 billion. By the way, that is 1 percent less than we spent last year, and $20 billion less than the President's request. Amtrak--now I understand that many of my colleagues don't rely on Amtrak. I rely on it every single week, and, by the way, an awful lot of my colleagues do. I see them on my way down here. Amtrak is proposed to be reduced in funding by 15 percent--half of what the President thinks is necessary in his budget. Who thinks that this is a good idea, Mr. Speaker? Who thinks that it is a good idea in a country where we are supposedly serious about creating jobs to underinvest in the artery, the bone, and the sinew that allows us to grow jobs in this country? That is not a good idea. And, yet, we are fending off amendments to cut investment even more in our transportation infrastructure. Are there people in this country who don't sit in traffic wasting time that they could be spending with their family, taking away their focus on their businesses that they would like to grow? There aren't many of them, and yet this House chooses to reduce the investment in the country that we supposedly hold dear. I am tired of it, Mr. Speaker. I am tired of my constituents having their lives damaged, having their safety put at risk, and having their businesses jeopardized because we have not invested enough in our infrastructure. Is there a State out there, by the way, that has an extra billion or two dollars lying around? Because some of my colleagues think that maybe the States should be investing. But I am curious. Is there a State out there that has an extra $5 billion in their budget to step in where the Federal Government should be active? I don't think so. I don't hear that. And yet this House is about to reduce the spending on transportation. Mr. Speaker, this cannot stand.

Mr. HIMES

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

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues, Mr. Ross of Florida and Mr. Delaney of Maryland, for cosponsoring this amendment. I would like to briefly outline the amendment by saying that this is an amendment that is a bipartisan proposal that has been included in the Senate T-HUD appropriations and the bipartisan Shaheen-Portman energy bill. It was also included in the President's budget, and more than 24 separate groups support this amendment. It presents no risk to the Federal Government, is budget neutral, and actually has the potential to reduce utility costs for HUD up to $7 billion annually. In brief, HUD-assisted properties are generally older stock, with inefficient energy and water usage. There are lot of barriers to improving that situation and, therefore, realizing those savings. Under the pilot program proposed by this amendment, an intermediary will contract with HUD or with property owners to produce energy and water savings in exchange for a share of those ongoing savings. Relying on this contract, the intermediary will raise the capital to pay for energy and water conservation for the affected property. This private capital would be used to pay energy efficiency experts, such as NAESCO, to perform energy and water efficiency upgrades in HUD-assisted housing, such as housing for seniors and people with disabilities. Multifamily building owners would not take on any risk and would not need to spend any capital. The bill leverages the private sector to more effectively direct government resources and to ensure the best outcomes for the taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, we may not agree on some things in the underlying bill, but smart, innovative approaches to financing energy savings improvements are simply common sense. I hope the chairman and the ranking member will work with me and my fellow bipartisan cosponsors to ensure that this measure is ultimately enacted into law. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, on May 7, 2014, I was unable to cast my vote for H.R. 863, rollcall vote 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because today the Democrats will present a discharge petition to force a vote in this House on something that so many Americans know to be absolutely essential, which is comprehensive immigration reform. The Senate has weighed in with 78 ``yes'' votes. This is a Senate where you don't get 78 votes for just about anything--bipartisan support for comprehensive immigration reform. The reason I rise today, Mr. Speaker, is because yesterday in Financial Services we had a very interesting hearing on why debt matters. We talked a lot about what we need to do to continue to put our country on a sustainable path and to help this recovery be stronger. We had David Cote, CEO of Honeywell; Alice Rivlin of Brookings; Doug Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum; and Jared Bernstein from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. They agreed on one thing enthusiastically: that one of the most important steps we can take to spur growth in our economy, and to help our fiscal situation and balance our budget, would be to pass comprehensive immigration reform. The Senate has done so. It is time for this House to do the same and stand up for the economy and American families.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on the Previous Question, rollcall vote 93, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote Agreeing to the Resolution, rollcall vote 94, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote 95 on passage of H.R. 938, I would have voted ``aye.'' I am proud that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle came together in support of continuing our nation's strong relationship with Israel and promoting Israel's right to defend itself against threats and unprecedented challenges in the Middle East.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions, rollcall vote 96, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote On Passage of H.R. 4118, rollcall vote 97, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speakers, had I been present for rollcall vote 98 on passage of H.R. 2126, I would have voted ``aye.'' I am proud of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for coming together in support of much-needed energy savings measures. Personal Explanation

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly just to salute the leadership of Representative McKinley and my good friend from Vermont, Peter Welch, for a bill which does some spectacular things. Specifically, it really enshrines the idea that the cheapest and cleanest energy that we have is that energy which we conserve and don't use, that we make available for the future. This--and I draw on my history now of building affordable housing in a green fashion--is a real win-win. It means that people are paying lower utility bills if they employ the methods that will be encouraged by this bill. It means that we are putting less carbon in the atmosphere, and this coming from somebody recently down from Connecticut where we have experienced, in the last several years, climate problems unlike any that we have ever seen. And of course, we are doing the right thing by the future. This is also, in a challenging time for this Chamber, a remarkable example of Democrats and Republicans working together to achieve something that will benefit not just the people in this Chamber, but will benefit the country and future generations. This is something we should build on. There is so much more we can do with respect to reconfiguring our economy and our industry and our residences so that they are clean and driven by cheap, sustainable, American energy. So, Mr. Speaker, I close now just as I opened, by thanking Representative McKinley and Representative Welch for their tremendous leadership and say that I very much look forward to supporting this bill later on today.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, on February 5, 2014, I was unable to cast my vote for the amendment offered by Representative Napolitano to H.R. 3964, rollcall vote No. 42. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Matsui

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, President Barack Obama has awarded Mary Servino of Bridgeport, Connecticut, the annual Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. Ms. Servino is a science teacher at Interdistrict Discovery Magnet School in Bridgeport, where she has taught for nine years. During that time, she has instilled in her students an impressive curiosity and passion for science. Ms. Servino told a Connecticut newspaper that her students ``are constantly discovering new ways to help them explain what is in our world and how things impact their lives.'' It is this academic curiosity that will help inspire the next generation of scientists, inventors, and innovators who will drive our economy and keep America competitive in the 21st century. Congratulations to Ms. Servino on receiving this prestigious award. Ms. Servino exemplifies the type of teaching that will turn the students of today into the leaders of tomorrow. This recognition is a testament to her long-standing commitment and dedication to her students, and I want to thank Ms. Servino for her service to the community of Bridgeport and to the future of our city and our nation.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Alabama for yielding me time, and my friend from New Jersey and Mr. Huizenga for the sponsorship and leadership on this bill. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2274. We spend a lot of time in this Chamber talking about the American Dream, and of course in many cases the apex of the American Dream is when that entrepreneur who started a bunch of restaurants or car washes or a local retailer or a local service organization, after working hard over a period of a lifetime, has the opportunity to reap the rewards of that labor, to sell that business, and to really achieve that success an individual worked a lifetime to do. Of course, if you have run car washes or restaurants or retail operations, you probably know very little about the very complicated task of selling a small business. There is no reason in the world why that transaction, which again is at the very apex of the American Dream, should be overburdened by regulatory costs that don't make sense. At the end of the day, the M&A brokers that we are talking about here are not selling stocks to retail investors. They are not marketing mortgages. They are doing a very technical transaction that, again, is so important to wealth creation in this country. So I thank my colleagues on the other side. I don't want to let the moment go by without reminding my good friend from New Jersey that, as he blanket condemns regulation today on the floor, there are 300,000 people without drinking water in West Virginia today, in the greatest country on Earth, not because there is too much regulation, but because the regulations weren't good enough. Years ago in west Texas, a fertilizer train blew up, killing 15 people and injuring 160 people, not because there was too much regulation, but because there was poor regulation. In the area of our expertise, financial services, this economy was also devastated, not because there was too much regulation, but because there was effectively no regulation under derivatives--complicated, large instruments that brought down institutions like AIG and others because, before Dodd-Frank, you could go into a neighborhood and sell somebody a mortgage without asking for their income. We succeed and the economy succeeds because we do exactly this, because we find the right balance. We acknowledge that good regulation can save lives in Texas, drinking water in West Virginia, and prevent the destruction of $17 trillion of American's wealth as occurred 5 years ago. Again, I celebrate and thank my good friend from New Jersey and promise to continue this dialogue on how we don't condemn all regulation, but seek a balance that allows our economy to thrive as it always has.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I, once again, thank Chairman Garrett, chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, for his support and leadership on this bill. I particularly thank my cosponsors on this bill: Mr. Womack, with whom I have worked before; Mrs. Wagner; and Mr. Delaney. Additional cosponsors of the bill are Mr. Polis, Mr. Quigley, and Mr. Renacci. I thank them for their hard work. This is a rare example of a wise bipartisan bill that will achieve something important, which is to basically undertake a technical fix to the JOBS Act, passed into law in April of 2012, which allowed banks to put off becoming public until they reached a threshold of 2,000 shareholders. That sounds like a small and technical point, but it put a tremendous burden on banks that perhaps were not ready to go public with more than 500 shareholders at the time. The legislation did not directly specify that savings and loans would also receive the same treatment. It was, I believe, the intent of Congress that that be the case. So H.R. 801 goes back to seek to remedy this issue. The Holding Company Registration Threshold Equalization Act, a rather awkward name for H.R. 801, extends the shareholder registration thresholds to savings and loan holding companies. This bill will ensure that savings and loan institutions operate under the same rules as banks, trying to create a more uniform and simple regulatory apparatus. This will help these institutions raise capital so that they have the resources to make the loans which drive the economic growth--the businesses, the colleges, the mortgages, the purchases that drive the economic growth of this country. Madam Speaker, again, I thank Mr. Garrett for his support. As we seek creative solutions to the Nation's job crisis, we should do everything we can to stimulate the consumer demand that we know drives so much of this economy. This bill is one small, commonsense step we can take in that direction. Again, I thank Mr. Womack, Mrs. Wagner, and Mr. Delaney for their leadership. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider), my colleague.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just close by thanking you for our partnership and our work on this bill. I hope we can do more of the same. I thank Mrs. Wagner and Mr. Delaney, cosponsors of this bill, and Chairman Garrett for pushing this through. As we have said, H.R. 801 is a good idea, a bipartisan idea, and something that I hope we can see the Senate take up. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H.R. 801 and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, now that the notorious problems with the ACA Web site healthcare.gov appear to be largely behind us, it is important that we cut through the partisan noise and look at some facts. One fact is that in 2 days--Sunday and Monday alone--almost 30,000 Americans have gone to healthcare.gov to sign up for health insurance. Many of these families are families with preexisting conditions that would have no way to get health insurance other than healthcare.gov and the ACA. In my own State of Connecticut, with less than 1 percent of the American population, 22,000 families have signed up for health insurance. Mr. Speaker, from the President down, we were concerned by people losing their health care plans in the rather small individual market. But it is important for the American people to understand that when they hear the word ``repeal,'' they need to understand that repeal means that the tens of thousands, the hundreds of thousands, the millions of Americans who will get insurance because of the ACA will lose it. Millions of Americans will lose their new-found insurance if this word ``repeal'' ever becomes law. That is not right; and on that, I think we should agree.