Jim Himes

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Massachusetts for the time and Ranking Member Waters for being willing to hear different perspectives on this bill from our side. I want to start by saying that Dodd-Frank, which I think I can say I contributed more than my share to, was, on balance, a very good and very important thing. The dragging of derivatives into the light of day, trading on exchanges, clearing through clearinghouses, the creation of the CFPB, taking steps to eliminate too big to fail, there is lots of stuff in Dodd-Frank which is important and good. But not everything in Dodd-Frank is important and good. Like all other works of mortals, there are things in this that are probably unintended and perhaps overreaching. I happen to believe that the requirement that private equity funds register with the SEC is one of those areas. Why is that? First, private equity funds, as has been pointed out on the floor today, were a million miles from the bad mortgages from Fannie Mae, from Freddie Mac, from the subprime mortgages, from all of those things that caused the failures in 2008. They weren't anywhere close. Secondly, investor protection is important, but, by law, the only people who can invest in these funds are accredited investors or institutional investors who don't just sign up. They hire attorneys to negotiate partnership agreements. They negotiate with these private equity funds for disclosure, for the terms, and all of those sorts of things. So we are not talking about retail investors here. Finally, the issue of leverage. We have finally gotten to the point where people acknowledge that these are not large leverage funds. The point is made that the leverage is at the investment company level. That is true. Private equity firms do buy companies, invest in them, and then those companies take on leverage. The average leverage across the entire universe of private equity-sponsored companies is less than 3 to 1. It is not 30 to 1, but 3 to 1. It is less than 3 to 1. By way of comparison, hedge funds, on average, are leveraged 15 to 1. Lehman Brothers, when it went down, was leveraged in excess of 30 to 1. We are talking about companies which are assuming the same kind of debt that any other small business assumes out there, less than 3 to 1. What we have happening right now is we have examiners and the intention and the resources of the SEC, which has terribly important missions around real estate and mortgages and derivatives and finding the next Bernie Madoff, going to $175 million funds and examining these funds on behalf of the sophisticated investors. That does not make sense. Dodd-Frank exempted venture capital funds from this registration requirement. Venture capital funds do the exact same thing with the exact same investors that private equity funds do; they just do it in an earlier stage in the company's history. The only reason for that exemption is that we like venture capital funds more than we like private equity funds. They sound better. They make nice things in garages in Palo Alto. Private equity sounds more ominous; therefore, they have been subjected to registration.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, we exempted venture capital funds from the Advisers Act of 1940 registration. The same set of investors, same types of investing. Actually, a more risky asset class than private equity. We exempted them for no other reason than that we like venture capital better than we like private equity. That is fine. But in statute and in regulation, we should be consistent. So I think that you can argue that venture capitalists should be subject to the same kind of registration requirements that private equity is or you can argue, as I do, that probably both types of funds don't need to be registered under the Advisers Act of 1940, but you can't support Dodd-Frank and say venture capitalists are exempt and private equity is not and be consistent in policy. So I urge my colleagues, in the interest of balancing a very good piece of legislation, to support H.R. 1105.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, since this Congress convened, it has done nothing to help create jobs. In fact, through ill-advised and overenthusiastic cutting, the sequester, the shutdown, the threat to our full faith and credit, this Congress has destroyed jobs. Mr. Speaker, what if I told you there was a jobs bill just sitting waiting to be passed that would add almost $1 trillion to our economy in a 10-year period? What if I told you this jobs bill would create 121,000 new jobs every single year for 10 years? What if I told you that this would also make us a more humane Nation that would stop the breakup of families and the deportations of moms and dads, of Dreamers? What if I told you that this jobs plan got 68 votes in the United States Senate, a divided United States Senate. Of course, I am describing the comprehensive immigration bill, which the Speaker of this House refuses to bring up. There is no principled, no logical objection to this thing. There are just scare tactics that people with funny accents and names you can't pronounce will come and take your job. That is not true. It is time to pass that jobs bill.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Engel for yielding. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for the bipartisanship with which they led this bill and which I think we will accomplish some very good things tomorrow. The figures around this program speak for themselves: the millions of lives saved, the orphanages which are no longer full, the many pregnant women who will not transmit a deadly virus to their children. These things speak for themselves. Without question, PEPFAR and the Global Fund are two of the most effective foreign aid programs ever conceived in this Chamber. But Americans might ask in good faith, Why spend money in places like Africa, Asia, and in the Caribbean when the needs are so intense right here at home? And the answer to that question could not be clearer. Africa and Asia, where PEPFAR and the Global Fund do the most good, are areas of great instability but of great promise, where countries like China are buying up commodities, are exerting their influence, and are throwing their weight around. We have the opportunity through the continuation of programs such as PEPFAR and the Global Fund to win for generations the hearts and minds of people who will think back on American assistance as the reason that their family had continuity, as the reason that their country continued to develop. So the question we are answering when we think about continuing these programs and our involvement and our taxpayer dollars should really be, Are we a country that offered the opportunity to continue to save lives? Will we do that? Do we want to save lives, if we can? Do we want to be known just for our economic and military strengths, or do we want to also be known as an unqualified force for good in this world? I would say that at this point in our history our ability to say that it is not just about economic and military power, but it is about a quality of mercy that we all cherish. And this is a wonderful opportunity for us to say who we are by supporting this legislation.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. I want to thank Mr. Scott for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, derivatives are complicated things. They are probably one of the more complicated things that we deal with in this Chamber, so it is worth describing in simple terms what H.R. 992 does. It abides by principles that I think we can all agree make some sense, which are those things which contributed to the meltdown of 2008--the terrible mortgages, the derivatives that were based on those mortgages, the proprietary trading. Those things that contributed to the meltdown of 2008 should be either made unlawful or should be much more closely regulated than they were in the past; but those things that were not related in any way, shape, or form and that did not contribute to the meltdown of 2008 we should take a little lighter hand on. H.R. 992 says that those derivatives--the currency derivatives, the commodity derivatives, the equity swaps, all of these complicated things that weren't anywhere close to the meltdown of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and the challenges at Citibank and at JPMorgan Chase-- will not be subject to a very aggressive measure saying that banks cannot trade in those derivatives. Now, banks trade in derivatives because they support their clients and trade. I emphasize ``trade'' because one of their clients will borrow $100 million to build in Japan. That exposes him to yen risk. Maybe I don't want to take yen risk, and maybe the same guy who lent me the money can help me offload that risk. That is the idea. H.R. 992 in no way allows for the risky derivatives--the collateralized bond obligations, all of those real estate derivatives-- to come back into the banking environment, and it in no way permits, as the chairman has said a number of times, a bailout of banks because of derivatives. Even though we have spent a lot of time on this today, it makes sense to spend a second on the history of this bill: Section 716 requires the full push-out of derivatives. Regulators recognize that this is dangerous, and they are very vocal about it. Then-Ranking Member Barney Frank takes a suggestion from then- Representative Nan Hayworth to repeal section 716. The then-ranking member says, Let's not repeal it. Let's allow for the plain vanilla, common derivatives to remain in the banks and push out the dangerous ones. The Democratic staff helps draft this amendment, and I am personally asked to offer this amendment to Nan Hayworth's bill. She accepts it. A voice vote is passed, and the bill is passed in the last Congress. The minority views supported it. We all supported it. This year, exactly the same bill comes before us, and we have ginned up the press, and we have ginned up the bloggers. This has become a gift to Wall Street. What is different? What is different from what passed happily and in a bipartisan fashion in the last Congress relative to this Congress-- the London Whale? JPMorgan claims that they were hedging. Hedging is permitted whether we pass this or not. The London Whale has nothing to do with this.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, what has changed is that we no longer do the hard work of finding finely balanced regulation like we do in water or in air. In financial services--in Dodd-Frank today--we have a morality play: either you repeal Dodd-Frank in its entirety because it is awful or you may not touch a word in the law. Folks, we are about finding that balance. In as much as we go in front of each other and say that this is a giveaway to Wall Street, that doesn't help explain whether we should allow commodity swaps or not. What that does is impugn our motives as individuals, and it does not inform the debate. This is well-balanced regulation that passed overwhelming bipartisanly. Let's get away from this morality play and do our jobs by finding finely balanced regulation.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this 15th day of the government shutdown, a shutdown which has put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work, that will have untold damage on what is already a hesitant economic recovery; and I rise as we contemplate the last maybe 24, 36 hours before an event unprecedented in American history: the possibility that, for the first time in this great Nation's history, we may not pay our bills--we may default on our obligations--with a plea for sanity and a last-minute plea that we set aside the irresponsibility and recklessness that has consumed this Congress for years now, culminating in this moment. What has it profited anybody? Seventy-four percent of Americans disapprove of the way the Republican majority has handled this. Democrats could not have dreamed of a better plan to cut the ground out from under the Republicans. This week, the International Monetary Fund met here in Washington, and global leader after global leader stood up and basically said: What has become of the United States? How can you be so irresponsible? How can this one indispensable Nation now be a laughingstock? My constituents are certainly disturbed. I had a conversation with one of them, a guy I have known for probably 25 years now, and he said: Explain to me what is going on in Washington. The Republicans, Senator Cruz, the House majority are demanding a negotiation. I said: Yes, they are demanding a negotiation. They are using the shutdown and the debt ceiling as leverage to achieve their goals. He said: What are those goals? It started out with a repeal of the Affordable Care Act--that is where Senator Cruz started a couple of weeks ago--and then it moved on to we want Congress to not have its employer contribution; and then it moved on to simply talk to us; and then there was a long list of things--we want the XL pipeline approved; we want the Affordable Care Act delayed for 2 years--a long, long list of policy wishes that the Republicans have said they want in this negotiation. And my friend says: So what do you get? What do the Democrats get? If you build the XL pipeline--whatever it is--and if you give them five of the things they want, what do you get? Do you get investment in roads and railways and networks? I said: No, we don't get that. Do you get a commitment to improve the education of America's children? No, no, we don't get that. Do you get something that pretty much most Americans think is a good idea, which is some kind of comprehensive immigration reform? I said: No, we don't get that. He said: Well, what do you get? What do you get in this negotiation? I said: All we get is that the government runs. Really? The government runs. That is what Democrats get in this negotiation? Yes. He said: That is not a negotiation. I said: That is exactly right. That is not a negotiation. That is something more akin to extortion. And here we sit, where it is not just the government shutdown which is causing pain to Head Start kids in Bridgeport or fear amongst workers at Sikorsky who are building the Black Hawks that ferry our troops in and out of danger. Here we stand on the cusp of saying to the world that you can no longer rely on the full faith and credit of the United States Government. Folks, I used to work in finance, and there is nothing in finance-- there is no share of stock, there is no bond, there is no income- producing property, there is no asset out there--whose value doesn't rest on the unalterable proposition that the United States Treasury is risk free. But the House majority is saying, first of all, that that may not be true, that maybe a default is not a big problem. Maybe it can be managed. It never happened before, but maybe it can be managed. This bedrock, I like to say in doing finance without the concept of a risk-free rate, is like trying to do physics without gravity. Nobody knows what it means, and we are putting this at risk. So I plead for sanity, and I point out the fact that there are very real costs. The Macroeconomic Advisers, a research firm, has said that the last couple of years have resulted in 900,000 jobs not being created because of this constant hostage taking, this idea that we are going to run the country by crisis. Almost 1 million American jobs are not there because this Congress has done that. Colleagues, the American people deserve better. It is time at this moment to come together, to be responsible, and to do right by the country.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, when Senator Cruz took to the Senate floor for 21 hours to explain to the American public why the Congress had to shut down the government and breach the debt ceiling in order to repeal the Affordable Care Act, I listened carefully. One of the themes was, make D.C. listen. Make D.C. listen. We know, from polling, that 70 percent of Americans oppose shutting down the government to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But I went, on Monday, to listen to a couple of my constituents, Tamika Younger and Carla Carey, of Bridgeport. These are two young mothers who drop their children at Head Start in Bridgeport every single day so that they can go off to their jobs to make the money to give those children some quality of life. Thanks to the Republican government shutdown, there is no Head Start in Bridgeport now, and they are scrambling and putting their jobs at risk to find something to do with those children they love. So, Mr. Speaker, let's make D.C. listen to 70 percent of Americans and to Tamika and to Carla, who have very real problems today.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to follow the rank, partisan remarks of Mrs. Blackburn's, because I wanted to speak this morning on the subject of compromise. Compromise is not an easy subject to speak on because, of course, we all have it in our minds here that the right thing to do is to lead great ideological battles--to stand unbending by your principles, to stand up for what you think is right--and it is the right thing to do to stand up for what you think is right. Compromise is a hard thing to discuss because, of course, those on the fringes, those on the extreme--those who are unbending--will accuse us of not standing by our ideals if we compromise; but the fact is that most, if not all, of the accomplishments in the history of this country that have been achieved by the United States Congress have been achieved through compromise. Let's talk for a moment about one of the reasons I am happy to represent the State of Connecticut. The Congress in which Mrs. Blackburn and I serve--the very structure and architecture of that Congress--was formed by something known as the Connecticut Compromise of 1787, when Roger Sherman and a group of people who disagreed on stunning issues of the day--and some of the people who were disagreeing were inviting foreign powers in to stand with them--came together and said, Do you know what? We will have a bicameral legislature--a Senate and a House--that will balance the big States and the small States. And Roger Sherman's statue is here in the Capitol. By the way, the capital is here because Madison and Jefferson and others of our Founding Fathers made a compromise in which they said the Federal Government will assume the remaining Revolutionary debt of the States in exchange for putting the capital in the Southern States. Compromise is how we get things done around here. For those who might challenge my own credentials on compromise, I will point out that I was one of 38 Members of this body--less than 10 percent of the House of Representatives--who voted for the Simpson- Bowles' budget. Everyone else said, No, I am not going to compromise because that's too difficult. So what about the crossroads at which we find ourselves today--the possibility of a government shutdown that would hurt our economy and certainly hurt an awful lot of Americans and the even more egregious possibility that we would not honor the full faith and credit of the United States Government for the very first time in our 240-year history? Is this a great national battle between North and South? between Republicans and Democrats? No, it is not. It is something far more unnecessary and uninspiring. On one side of this debate, we have got, actually, the majority of Republicans and the majority of Democrats who say, Let's come together. Let's not bring an unnecessary crisis to our country--a manufactured, artificial crisis. Let's compromise. On the other side, you've got a handful of, maybe, three or four Senators and of maybe 30 or 40 Members of the House of Representatives who are so possessed of the Lord's wisdom--they so embody the tradition of our Founding Fathers--that they will listen to no one, and they will refuse to compromise. But who are these people? These are people who believe that the best way today to spur economic growth is to put in place savage cuts that will fire teachers and firefighters and nurses, because that will help--despite all evidence to the contrary. These are people who believe that the storms and the tornadoes that have ravaged just about every State in this country have absolutely nothing to do with climate change--despite all evidence to the contrary. These are people who believe that ObamaCare today is doing great damage to this Nation--despite all evidence to the contrary. These are people who don't believe that the President of the United States was born in this country--despite all evidence to the contrary. So much could get done--comprehensive immigration reform, a budget that looks a little something like the Simpson-Bowles' budget for which I voted. So many things could get done, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Ohio would set aside this small rump group of dead-enders and say, We will govern. We will govern this Nation in the tradition of Roger Sherman, of James Madison, of Thomas Jefferson by listening to the other side, by shutting down the extremes and by thinking about the long-term interests of this great country.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the defeat of this rule and of the underlying bill which will throw millions of Americans off of food stamps at a time when they need it. And I urge that on behalf of my constituent Jenenne Smalls, a 37-year-old formerly homeless veteran with three children who my office helped get on food stamps. I urge it on behalf of a semi-deity to the Republicans, Ronald Reagan, who said, As long as there is one person in the country who is hungry, that is one person too many. And I urge it on behalf of a real deity, Mr. Speaker. Above my head are the words, ``In God we trust.'' In my Christian faith, the notion that we feed the hungry is unimpeachable and nonconditional. Matthew does not say, Feed the hungry, so long as you can do it with 100 percent efficiency. Mark does not say, Feed the hungry, so long as you pass the XL pipeline. Luke does not say, Feed the hungry, so long as you loosen environmental regulations. Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill, which is deeply, deeply flawed, must not pass.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I'm thrilled tonight to join my colleagues in honoring these extraordinary men and women who have been awarded the Medal of Honor. I rise today to honor the manifest bravery and courage of my constituent, Captain Paul William Bucha of the United States Army, Ridgefield, Connecticut. Captain Bucha was awarded the Medal of Honor for gallantry in action during March 16-19, 1968, in Vietnam. For 3 days, on a mission to seek and destroy enemy positions, Captain Bucha led his 89-man unit through intense combat. On March 18, a North Vietnamese battalion with numerical superiority pinned down the forward units of his company. When Captain Bucha discovered the origins of the heaviest fire, he maneuvered into position and single-handedly eliminated the enemy position. Due to his exceptional leadership and guidance during the 3- day engagement, Captain Bucha's men held their position, refused to yield, and inflicted considerable casualties upon the superior enemy force. It is for his extraordinary heroism and exemplary leadership that I'm proud to honor and remember the actions of Captain Paul William Bucha.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, on September 10, 2013, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 454 on S. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 25, 2013, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 415, 416 nd 417 on H.R. 2218. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall vote 415, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 416, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 417.

Mr. HIMES

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

Mr. HIMES. I rise briefly to engage the chairman and the ranking member in a colloquy. First, I would like to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Kaptur for their work on this bill and in particular for their willingness to hear my concerns regarding the needs of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I think I speak for all of us when I say that a well- funded Army Corps means good jobs and important infrastructure improvements in the regions helped by their projects. Of particular interest to me is the special role that the Army Corps plays in mitigating the impact of floods caused by an increasing number of severe weather events in our communities. I know that I'm not the only Member in this room whose district was ravaged by Superstorm Sandy as it swept up the east coast last year. Chairman Frelinghuysen's district in New Jersey was also severely affected by the storm. And Sandy is just one example of the magnitude of damage our cities and towns suffer year after year when they are not adequately prepared. With limited resources available after a storm like Sandy, flood mitigation efforts have become more important than ever. An ounce of prevention is, as they say, worth a pound of cure. Madam Chairman, back in 2010, I was able to secure an authorization for the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct flood mitigation studies in my area--studies that would culminate in important recommendations for preventing future flood damage in Fairfield County like that which occurred during Sandy, Irene, and countless other storms in recent years. Unfortunately, with the current backlog at the Corps, it is unlikely that these studies or any other so-called New Start projects will receive the funding they need to move forward as promised and needed years ago. I know there are dozens, if not hundreds, of projects waiting for Army Corps funding, and I have no delusion that my district is more deserving than others of this funding. But perhaps it is time to reevaluate the necessity of these older projects, re-prioritizing the projects that are still necessary and those that are most urgent. We must find a way to begin new projects and ensure our cities and towns are prepared for the next big storm. I would ask the chairman and ranking member whether this ban on New Start projects is something that merits further consideration, and I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HIMES. I look forward to working with the chairman as well. I yield now to the ranking member, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. HIMES. I thank the ranking member and look forward to working with her on this as well, and yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, this morning in striking down the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court stood for an idea that permeates this institution: that regardless of who you are, the color of your skin, or whom you choose to love, the United States will not discriminate against you. Unfortunately, yesterday the Supreme Court went in exactly the wrong direction on an even more fundamental issue: that those of us who serve here, our laws, our President, our Members of Congress, are elected by the people of the United States in a truly equal fashion. We acknowledge that progress has been made in those regions that historically discriminated against minorities, but we also acknowledge that the problem is still there. Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion has example after example of discrimination. For example, in 2004, Waller County, Texas, threatened to prosecute two black students after they announced their intention to run for office. Mr. Speaker, business should cease on this floor until we take up the Supreme Court's challenge to modernize and reinstitute the heart of the Voting Rights Act so that we can all look each other in the eye and say, We are here because the American people, all of them, elected us.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, the American people need to understand what's happening on the floor of the House this week with respect to the farm bill. Now, it's a complicated thing with agricultural subsidies, commodity treatments, and food stamps. And here's where the American public needs to pay attention, because the Republican majority in this Chamber is using unprecedented and massive cuts to food stamps to get an agriculture bill passed. What are food stamps? Food stamps are about $4.50 a day to hungry children and to vulnerable seniors. I'm not going to dignify this amoral effort with a counterargument. I'm just going to observe that I'm standing under 4 words: ``In God we trust.'' I'm going to observe that the minister this morning opened the House with a prayer to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and I will say two things: Proverbs 22:9: Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor. Matthew 25:37: Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you or thirsty and give you drink? And the King will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it to the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Thank you, Madam Ranking Member, and thank you for your leadership of our side on this committee. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1062. I find it curious that Chairman Hensarling, a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, frames this legislation in the context of the huge impact that financial regulation is supposedly having on jobs in his district and on jobs in this country. I've read all of the economic reports from the Federal Reserve to economists on the left and the right, and not one of them says that our economy is recovering slowly because of financial regulation. They talk about the austerity. They talk about the sequester as meaningfully reducing the number of jobs in this country. By the way, they're policies that Chairman Hensarling's party has supported from moment one. They talk about Europe. They talk about housing. They talk about inadequate demand. Nobody says that financial regulation is materially impeding our recovery. Curious that that's on the table. Curious also that 2 days ago this House passes legislation to demand the SEC to speed up its rule writing on the JOBS Act, and today we are here to pass a measure that would actually slow down the SEC. Curious. Why is that? Curious that the other side, my friends in the Republican Party, have consistently sought to underfund the SEC at the very moment in history when we have added dramatically to their purview--the derivatives market, the mortgage market--that they now must regulate. Yet, in 2011, when they were first to assume these responsibilities, the Republicans sought to cut the SEC budget by $300 million against what was ultimately paid for. So what is really happening? If I may quote the chairman, what is this really about? None of that makes sense. What this is really about is an ongoing ideological effort to tie the regulatory agencies up by cutting their budgets, by refusing to confirm their leadership, by imposing litigation hurdles and cost-benefit analyses ad nauseam such that they cannot do their job; and if they can't do their job, this country loses jobs.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, it is the fashion amongst many of us to blame the press for our troubles, and that's, of course, because the press reports our troubles. At their best, the media keeps us honest, it keeps us in our constitutional lanes, and it reports our failures. It is essential for democracy. There is a reason why freedom of the press is not the Second or Fourth or 10th Amendment. It's the First Amendment. So, Mr. Speaker, I am profoundly concerned over the Department of Justice's overbroad and chilling behavior with respect to the Associated Press. Seeking records for 20 phone lines, giving the AP no notice, refusing at this point to discuss their behavior feels to me like overreach. Mr. Speaker, it's time for the Department of Justice to stand back. You can imagine that there is somebody out there today who has a failure to report who is chilled and says, I will not do that because of the approach that the Department of Justice has taken. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve in the very core of democracy, but this Chamber rests on foundations, and a key part of that foundation is a free and competent press.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, last week was a profoundly disturbing week for those of us from Connecticut and for Americans as a whole. When this body, when the institution of Congress failed to do anything to promote gun safety in the face of the tragedy at Newtown, this institution let the American people down. When a Senator on the Republican side with an ``A'' rating from the NRA and a Senator from the Democratic side with an ``A'' rating from the NRA put forward a background check measure that fails, we fail. Look, we can and we should debate what kind of weapons Americans should have a right to. We can and we should debate how many bullets can go into a magazine. There is no principled argument for why we should not check out someone who wants to buy a weapon. And yet, we couldn't make that argument in the Congress of the United States. So as a result, some time soon, a terrorist will buy a gun at a gun show. Some time soon, a violent felon will buy a gun online. And as a result, Americans will die. And this institution will bear the blame. This was not a proud moment, Mr. Speaker, for the Congress of the United States.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, on March 15, I was unable to be present for a series of votes. Had I been present for rollcall vote 73 on H.R. 803, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall vote 74 on H.R. 803, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall vote 75 on final passage of H.R. 803, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 70 on H.R. 803. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 71 on H.R. 803. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 72 on Approving the Journal. I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, while I supported today's continuing resolution in an effort to ensure that essential governmental operations are funded beyond March 27, there remain many questions about the application of the sequester. One area that few Members of Congress or the administration are discussing is whether sequestration should apply to certain entities that Congress clearly intended to be legally independent of the federal government. Congress recognized the crucial importance of maintaining the objectivity of each of these entities and insulated them from the federal appropriations process in order to maintain their independence. For example, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (``FASB''), the entity that establishes generally accepted accounting principles is a private entity that is explicitly not part of the Congressional appropriations process under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Indeed, that Act specifically states that FASB revenues are not to be considered ``public monies.'' Unfortunately, the Office of Management and Budget's sequestration order would require the private fee income on which FASB relies for its operations to be subject to the sequester. This is despite Congress' explicit intent in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to keep FASB independent. More fundamentally, sequestration of these monies makes no sense. FASB's funding does not come from the federal government and is instead collected from accounting support fees allocated among public issuers. As a result, sequestration of FASB funding has no effect on reducing the federal deficit. It does, however, undermine FASB's independence and important role in setting accounting standards for U.S. public issuers. Other entities similar to FASB are also being sequestered despite Congress' clear intent to keep them separate from the federal budget process. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation are all entities subject to the sequester notwithstanding the fact that they collect fee income independent of the federal budget process. Subjecting these entities to sequestration would seriously undermine the intent of Congress to keep them apart from the federal budget process as independent organizations. As we consider the effect of sequestration in the coming days and weeks, I urge my colleagues to support a legislative remedy that would ensure that entities like FASB are not subject to sequestration.