Jim Himes

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. A sincere thank you to the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of H.R. 1722, the Telework Improvements Act. We have heard articulated today a set of very powerful arguments around security, around productivity and around cost savings for the passage of this measure. I would like to note that I represent, like my friend from New Jersey, a district whose economic vitality is compromised by the commuting situation. Many of my constituents spend otherwise what could be productive hours looking at the taillights of other cars on 95 and on the Merritt Parkway as it runs through Connecticut. One additional reason why the Federal Government should lead and why we should pass this act today is that the Federal Government should lead on telecommuting, on increasing not just its productivity, but increasing the productivity of the private sector in places like Connecticut, which I represent. I am a strong backer of the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act, H.R. 2600, and a variety of other measures that will help with telecommuting. I appreciate the leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support and pass this bill.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, 8 million jobs gone; $17 trillion in savings gone; Americans' faith in their system gone. Why? Because mortgages that came in 31 flavors of insanity got bought by Americans who couldn't afford them. Banks tied them in a bow and put AAA ratings on them, and then the billion dollar betting really started. The Wall Street reform bill that we have crafted addresses every one of the links in that chain of madness. Yesterday, the minority leader called the reform killing an ant with a nuclear weapon. Mr. Speaker, I'm a human being, so I know that 8 million jobs lost and $17 trillion in savings gone is not an ant. Mr. Speaker, I worked years in the financial services industry, so I know that this reform is not a nuclear weapon. It is a critical and essential mechanism to restore the faith of the American people in their system and the prosperity that will follow.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is also that, consistent with the overall intent not to subject commercial firms to financial regulation, section 604 provides that an existing savings and loan holding company with both financial and nonfinancial businesses will cease to be an S&L holding company when it establishes an intermediate holding company under section 626. That company also may have an intermediate holding company under section 167. Am I right that the intent of this legislation is for these sections to be applied in harmony, so that an organization will have a single intermediate holding company that will be both the regulated S&L holding company and the organization and the holding company for implementing the heightened supervision of systemic financial activities under title I?

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Frank. I want to clarify a couple of important issues under section 619 of the bill, the Volcker Rule. The bill would prohibit firms from investing in traditional private equity funds and hedge funds. Because the bill uses the very broad Investment Company Act approach to define private equity and hedge funds, it could technically apply to lots of corporate structures, and not just the hedge funds and private equity funds. I want to confirm that when firms own or control subsidiaries or joint ventures that are used to hold other investments, that the Volcker Rule won't deem those things to be private equity or hedge funds and disrupt the way the firms structure their normal investment holdings.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. I thank the gentleman from New York for his eloquent treatment of the facts, and I thank him for focusing on the facts at hand. One of the most disheartening aspects of the flotilla situation was the extent to which the facts were initially set aside by much of the world, and instead, prejudice was allowed to emerge, a prejudice against our ally, Israel. And we subsequently learned, of course, that the facts are a good deal more complicated than perhaps we were led to believe initially. As my colleague from New York points out, this was a flotilla with more than one agenda, a flotilla with a clear intention of provoking the kind of response that was ultimately provoked. And make no mistake, there's not a person in this Chamber or anywhere else that isn't saddened by the loss of life in the Mediterranean. But I'd like to step back for a moment, away from the immediate facts that Mr. Weiner did such a good job at articulating, to some larger issues that cannot be lost in the week-to-week, the day-to-day of our relationship with the State of Israel. The best way I can encapsulate what I'm talking about here is that Israel, for the United States, is family. We speak of a special relationship with Great Britain. We have at least a special relationship with the nation of Israel. It is a relationship of family. In some cases, very literally. In other cases, and for this Nation as a whole, we are family because we share so many values, so many of these values that are incorporated into this building, into our constitutive documents, our Judeo-Christian values, to which we owe a debt of obligation to Israel. And, of course, it is the only democracy in a very, very dangerous region. For that reason alone, we would resonate with the State of Israel. And, of course, something that is all too often forgotten, the economic ties that we have, the economic similarities, economies based on innovation and creativity. All three of these things make Israel family, and we can't lose sight of this as the facts are outed. As investigations are undertaken, we can't lose track of that underlying fact, especially in a world where our family is at risk--and this room is full of fathers and mothers, and we know what that phrase means. I traveled to Israel last summer, and I stood at Sderot and saw how close and how severe the risks of Hamas, an entity dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel, how that is not abstract. In fact, that is barely an arm's length away from the State of Israel. To the north, of course, Hezbollah, another entity, sponsored by Iran, dedicated to the eradication of the State of Israel. And, of course, Iran itself, not far away and hell bent on the creation of weapons of mass destruction and leaving absolutely no ambiguity about what it would do with those weapons of mass destruction. I'm not saying that any of that changes the facts that my colleague from New York has laid on the table that will be investigated, that will be considered, that will probably be most interestingly and comprehensively investigated by Israel herself. But we cannot, any more than we lose loyalty to our sons and daughters, our cousins, our brothers and sisters and our spouses, forget that we are talking about family, and that when family is at risk, we lean in to our family, and we remind the world that there is a reason why Israel is part of our family--a reason of values, a reason of democracy, and the reason that we stand here today to remind the world that Israel is our family.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with regret that I am unable to cast my vote in support of H.R. 4213 as it stands. I am acutely aware that many families and workers across Connecticut are still struggling from the severe downturn in our economy. Last winter, I supported and voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. At the time, economists from across the spectrum were calling for a stimulus, and I continue to consider the stimulus a key element in a multi-pronged approach to turn our economy around. While the stimulus is clearly helping, we have yet to feel its full effects. Nearly $400 billion--or more than half--of Recovery Act funds remain unspent. Given this fact, I have serious reservations about authorizing additional spending at this time. The legislation settled on during this process would increase spending by $115 billion, $60 billion of which is not paid for. While I applaud efforts to trim the size and scope of this bill, it still increases our national deficit without a plan to address our long-term fiscal health. My concerns with this bill are tempered by my enthusiastic support for many of its provisions. I support, and have voted for, a permanent repeal of the flawed Sustainable Growth Formula, SGR, which threatens the financial viability of our medical providers for the sake of an accounting gimmick. I recently added my name to a letter calling upon the Senate to act on permanent reform of the SGR--these piecemeal measures like the ``fix'' in this bill, while necessary in the short term, are an irresponsible substitute for repealing and replacing this flawed formula. I support a strong safety net for our unemployed and under-employed, and I have voted in favor of extending unemployment benefits. In a time of economic upheaval, these benefits are crucial to helping families make ends meet and stimulate the demand that leads to economic recovery. And, I support a number of the expiring or expired provisions in our tax code, such as the Research and Development tax credit, which are critical to innovation and job creation. While I support many of the provisions contained in the bill, I generally will not and cannot support increased spending that does not meet the true spirit of the PAYGO legislation I cosponsored last summer and the President signed into law in February. Today, I take a step towards thoughtfully rebalancing the budget. While we all know that the economy has by no means fully recovered, it's time to pull back government spending so that we don't find ourselves in an even more dangerous fiscal predicament down the road.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, in my 16 months in Congress, the most challenging thing I have had to do has not had to do with energy or health care or our economy. The hardest thing I have had to do has been to stand in front of 700 Connecticut National Guard troops who are deploying to Afghanistan, 18, 19, 20, 21 years old, young people who had raised their hand and said, I will serve my country. I will die for you and for your freedoms. And I thought, how can we thank a young person who will say that and who will do that? The answer is we can't, we can't possibly. But we can thank them through our actions. We can do what we did in passing the GI Bill to provide college education to our troops, to give businesses a $2,400 tax credit for hiring unemployment veterans, providing nearly 2 million disabled veterans with a $250 economic recovery payment. I am proud of what this House has done for our veterans in the last 16 months and, as we approach Memorial Day, remind my colleagues of the need to do more for those who say that they will sacrifice for us.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 50th anniversary of the Stamford Area Youth Philharmonic and its esteemed founder and musical director Salvatore Princiotti. Fifty years ago, Mr. Princiotti imagined an environment where young musicians could grow as artists and individuals while learning to work together toward a common goal and enriching the local community. As conductor of the string ensemble of the Junior Schubert Club of Stamford, Salvatore Princiotti organized the Schubert Club Youth Orchestra, which quickly grew into the Stamford Area Youth Philharmonic, an ensemble now recognized for both its musical excellence and community involvement. The Stamford Area Youth Philharmonic provides students the opportunity to work with their peers and talented professionals to learn and perform challenging, exciting repertoire. These experiences motivate young artists to pursue with tenacity their own musical aspirations as well as to share that enthusiasm as leaders in their school music programs. The result is an ensemble acclaimed for its musicianship, style, and expression and a membership with a passion for excellence that carries over into all endeavors they pursue. The Stamford Area Youth Philharmonic has not only continued to distinguish itself musically, but Maestro Princiotti and his students have also shown their commitment to the community. With performances throughout Southwest Connecticut, giving of their time and talent, these students and their teachers have distinguished themselves as both musicians and citizens. While the Stamford Area Youth Philharmonic is lucky to count such talented students as members, these achievements would not have been possible without the direction and commitment of their director and founder Salvatore Princiotti. In celebrating his 50 years as conductor, I am thankful for the Maestro's service and dedication to the community, music, and above all, the students. He has left an indelible mark on the minds of all those who have been given the opportunity to learn under his baton and reminded us all of the importance and value of musical education. Congratulations to the Stamford Area Youth Philharmonic, Maestro Salvatore Princiotti, and the students, parents, teachers, and volunteers who have committed themselves to creating and maintaining the impressive ensemble. Good luck and we look forward to another 50 years.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the vigilant citizens and law enforcement officials of New York City and Connecticut whose efforts resulted in bringing Faisal Shahzad into custody a mere 53 hours after his failed bomb attempt in Times Square this past weekend. From the alertness of Lance Orton and Duane Jackson, noticing a suspicious vehicle in midtown Manhattan on Saturday, to the response of the NYPD to the report, to the arrest of Mr. Shahzad late Monday evening, to the ongoing investigation into how the bombing happened, local, State, and Federal law enforcement officials have led a coordinated effort that will bring the facts forward, allow us to learn and improve, and bring the terrorist to justice. Without this interagency communication, this incident could have escalated into a far more serious and dangerous incident. We must continue to work with State and local partners to bolster preparedness and terrorism prevention efforts. To my constituents in Connecticut, I know that the discovery that the suspect in the Times Square bombing attempt has been living in Fairfield County is a jarring reminder that, due to our proximity to New York City, we face special and uncertain security concerns. Fairfield County was uniquely impacted by 9/11, and this incident is a timely reminder that we must remain sensitive and alert to our unique vulnerability. I want to specifically recognize the Bridgeport Police Department, including Captain James Viadero and members of the detective bureau, as well as the Bridgeport Police Department's patrol division and members of the FBI Safe Streets Task Force, supervised by Sergeant Juan Gonzalez, Jr., for their role in the events of the last few days. I thank all who helped avert a catastrophe.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the earthquake which struck Haiti in January was the worst cataclysm to hit the island nation in over two centuries. What you may not know, and what I would like to recognize today, is the role that sister-city relationships have played and continue to play in the efforts to provide relief to the people of Haiti. Sister-city relationships, which today involve nearly 700 American towns and cities, are critical to the often unheralded role of international cooperation and collaboration with our people. A resolution I introduced today calls upon the continuation and expansion of sister-city relationships as exemplified by the partnership between the City of Bridgeport, led by the city council, and the City of Petion-Ville. For the people of Haiti and all those who seek understanding and peace between nations, I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking sister cities and helping support them in any way we can.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, it's not even 3 years since Bear Stearns landed flat on its back, that Lehman Brothers landed flat on its back, that AIG contributed to a destruction of our economy which resulted in the destruction of $17 trillion of the household wealth of the American people. We have spent the last year assembling a commonsense, market-oriented package of reforms, bringing derivatives onto exchanges, creating an agency which prevents mortgage brokers from selling mortgages to American families that that broker knows can't possibly be repaid. Yet the other side is saying ``no,'' saying ``no'' to the kind of commonsense reform that will restore Americans' faith in their system, make them comfortable investing in America. Yesterday in the other body, a big step back was taken. The time is now if we are to be serious about addressing the crisis that this country is only now emerging from for this House to set aside partisanship and pass financial regulatory reform.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to say ``Happy Birthday'' to a great Connecticut company headquartered in my district, Pitney Bowes, which was formed 90 years ago on April 23, 1920. The company was founded through the inventive genius of Arthur Pitney and Walter Bowes who created and commercialized the postage meter--a faster, more convenient way for businesses to apply postage than stamps. This meter, which has been reinvented many times--from mechanical, to electronic, to digital--is still used around the world by over two million businesses, large and small. Pitney Bowes remains the undisputed leader in offering postage metering technologies to every size business, from those who process fewer than 1,000 pieces of mail per month to those doing more than a million pieces a day. The company also offers high-speed folders, sorters, inserters and addressing systems. Their software systems add efficiency to businesses by helping optimize shipping alternatives, keeping track of mailing costs, or tracking the mail through the postal system. And, they offer a variety of mail and document management services. I am sure that many of my colleagues know that Pitney Bowes manages the mail room right here in the House of Representatives. Fewer may know that Pitney Bowes also helps screen, sanitize and even digitize the mail we receive. They do all this for other government agencies as well as thousands of commercial customers. They help companies prepare their mail to qualify for postage discounts, ensure that their communications are accurately addressed, and help more than one million people finance their postage. They help other companies identify potential customers and have worked to expand access to postal services through automated kiosks, through the Internet, and through partnerships with companies like eBay and the U.S. Postal Service. Indeed, perhaps no company better understands the essential role that the U.S. Postal Service plays in facilitating American commerce and communications than Pitney Bowes. In addition to its innovation and business prowess, Pitney Bowes is notable for its fundamental values. Pitney Bowes employees not only do smart things, they do the right things. They've been widely recognized for their diverse hiring, excellent training, and progressive health care. The people at Pitney Bowes care about their colleagues and they care about their community. For these reasons and in anticipation of their 90-year anniversary, I appreciate the opportunity to celebrate Pitney Bowes' past and I look forward to recognizing their accomplishments in the future.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. I will yield to the gentleman when I have completed my statement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am appalled that at this moment when we are here to honor our veterans the minority would bring their politics and their misinformation. And though I am appalled, while we are talking about veterans I will not stand here while that misinformation is peddled. A bill made in darkness, if I might quote my friend on the other side of the aisle. This bill has been discussed for months, for years. For decades this debate has raged. One hundred twenty Republican amendments included in this. This thing posted in the House and in the Senate and now for the requisite 72 hours, and they call that darkness. Increasing the deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, respected by both sides, has indicated clearly down to many significant figures that this will be the largest reduction in the deficit ever engineered by this House: in excess of $100 billion in the first years, in excess of $1 trillion in the second 10 years. We are hearing the same misinformation about 6 years of benefits for 10 years of taxation. How is this? Shortly after this bill's enactment children will no longer be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. Shortly after this bill's passage how is this for 6 years of benefits? Our seniors will experience immediately a reduction in the doughnut hole that has forced them in instances to choose between food and drugs. Shortly after passage of this bill, shortly after the passage of this bill young people up to the age of 26 will be able to go on their parents' insurance. Six years of benefits with 10 years of taxation. This is outrageous misinformation made all the worse by the fact that the minority chooses to bring this up at this moment when we are here to honor the sacrifice of our proud veterans. I yield to my friend on the other side.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a certain amount of outrage tonight because we are debating a resolution that, just to remind this House, expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that all people of the United States should participate in a moment of silence to reflect upon the service and sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces both at home and abroad. A noble thing, a good thing that we would honor our veterans who day in and day out put their lives on the line for the freedom and safety of every single American. And the minority stands here tonight and brings their politics into this resolution.

Mr. HIMES. I will not yield.

Mr. HIMES. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for bringing the discussion back to its proper topic of the honoring that this House and that the people of America can do for our veterans. I thank the gentleman for that, and would like to note to this gentleman that I spent this morning fighting to make sure that we would vote on the bill in an up and down fashion. And in fact that is what we will do. I will note to the gentleman that he has had ample opportunity to discuss this over many, many months. But again I thank him for bringing this discussion back to where it should be, which is debating whether and how we honor our veterans.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, for a long time I have started discussions about health care with the phrase, ``Setting aside the moral dimension, let's talk about the costs and the need to bring down costs.'' I want to come back to that moral dimension. I want to come back to the fact that at the core of that moral dimension is the belief that we look after our own; that if you were attacked by your enemies, we send the best military in the world for hundreds of billions of dollars. If your house catches fire, we will send men and equipment to put out that fire. If an assailant enters your home, we will send men and equipment to look after our own. But if you're one of the tens of thousands of people diagnosed with breast cancer, coronary disease, leukemia, well, then we're not sure. We might look after you if you have a job, if you can keep that job, if you don't have preexisting conditions, if you haven't committed the sin of getting older. Madam Speaker, if we are to be true to what is the value of this country, that we look after our own, we will finally join the company of civilized nations and say, Every American, we will look after you; you will not die needlessly, by passing health care reform.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, here we are a day away from a very big vote. The bill has been read, the details have been debated, the amendments have been offered, the fights have been fought, the misinformation has been peddled. But now we are left with the facts. We are left with the facts that the bill we are voting on tomorrow will, according to the Congressional Budget Office, reduce the deficit of this Nation by over $100 billion in the first 10 years of its existence and by over $1 trillion in the second 10 years of its existence. This bill contains every reasonable and good idea that has been offered by credible health care economists for how to bring down the costs of our health care. Is there risk? Of course there is risk. This body may choose not to do some of the things it has said it will do. Some ideas will work. Some will fail. There is risk. But to try to do nothing is the biggest risk of all. We have spent so much time on the economics and the cost, and now I think, as we reflect on the last day, that we return to the moral question associated with health care reform. At the core of the moral question, to my way of thinking, is the fact that this Nation protects its own, that we look after each other, that we won't let you die. I need to tell you about my friend, Dave Roberson. He was a good, close friend, and a fellow parishioner at the First Presbyterian Church at Greenwich. A volunteer, an activist, a former NASA engineer, a kind, thoughtful smart man who lost his job at NASA 6 years ago. And with that loss of his job, he lost his health insurance. Dave had a heart condition. He didn't see a doctor for 6 years. He got no advice. He got no help. And 2 weeks ago, driving home, he lost consciousness for reasons that they believe had to do with his heart condition and drove his car into a wall and was killed. We buried Dave Roberson today, a good, fine man whom we did not stand for, whom the health care system failed. Dave worked his career so that his Nation could explore space. But his Nation, our country, couldn't do what was needed to keep Dave on Earth. And by the way, Dave is no lone individual. One hundred twenty-three people will die every single day because they don't have adequate health care coverage, 123 Americans every day like Dave Roberson. We don't do this. If our enemies attack, we spend billions to send men, women, and equipment to defend the lives and the values of this Nation. If your house is on fire, we send men, women, and equipment to put out that fire. If you're assaulted, if an intruder enters your home, we don't ask, we send police, equipment, the resources to save your life. But if you get breast cancer, if you have diabetes, if you get leukemia, we don't make that same promise. We might help you if you have a job and can keep that job, if you're not too old, if you're not maybe a woman with a history of domestic violence, we might help you. But we didn't help Dave Roberson. And we don't help the 123 Americans who die every day because we do not live true to the promise that we look out after each other. On this we can do better. And it's not just the Democrats who think so. It is 250 organizations, including the AARP, the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the Catholic Health Association, the Consumers Union, the League of Women Voters, the list goes on and on of organizations who say, we can do better, we can live more true to the values of this Nation. I hope that each and every one of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle when the vote comes tomorrow will say, we'll send the military. We'll send the fire. We'll send the police to save your life. And now being true to the values of this Nation, we will save your life if you get sick.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4247, the Keeping All Students Safe Act. Children with autism, many of whom are nonverbal or have other communications challenges, are especially vulnerable to dangerous interventions at school by staff who can at times be ill- prepared to deal with unique behavioral issues. I sat recently with a constituent from Greenwich, whose autistic daughter suffered terrible isolation and trauma in her school years, and who herself founded a group of volunteer advocates whose sole mission is to prevent other autistic children from suffering these same abuses. The GAO study cited by my colleagues included stories which shock the conscience: a 7-year-old who died after being held face down for hours by school staff, and 5-year-olds allegedly being tied to chairs with bungee cords and duct tape by their teacher and suffering broken arms and bloody noses. These could have been your children or mine. This legislation is an important step toward ending inhumane treatment of children with autism and other disabilities who, like all students, should be able to trust their educators and feel completely safe in their school environments. There are, of course, rare and extreme emergencies where it may be necessary to physically intervene. But we affirm today, Mr. Speaker, that any behavioral intervention must be consistent with a child's right to be treated with dignity and to be free from abuse. With the help of this bill, teachers and school personnel will be trained regularly, and parents will be kept informed on the policies which keep our schools orderly and safe and on the alternatives available to traditional forms of restraint and seclusion. I'm grateful to my friends in the autism advocacy community, including Autism Speaks and the Greenwich-based Friends of Autistic People, for their tireless work on this issue. Children with autism deserve the same rights available to all children, a free and appropriate education, safety and dignity. This bill is a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, despite the economic pain felt by so many American families, we've seen something truly amazing in the extent to which Americans have come together to address the tragedy of our brothers and sisters in Haiti. I'm proud to stand here this morning to highlight two organizations based in my district who have done wonderful work. Save the Children, Westport, Connecticut, run by Charlie McCormack, has 50 people on the ground that have touched half a million Haitians with medical, food and other sorts of aid. Americare is based in Stanford, Connecticut, and run by Curt Welling. The earthquake had barely stopped before they had teams on the ground providing medical relief; and they have pledged $50 million to rebuild the Haitian health care system. I rise today to highlight, to honor and to thank these two wonderful organizations and to urge them to keep up the good work. Thank you, Save the Children, thank you, Americare, for all that you have done.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the last week perhaps of our session, and I think we can look back at some accomplishments. I think we can take some comfort in the fact that when this Congress sat in January, 11 months ago, Americans were losing their jobs at 20,000 every single day. Because of the stimulus bill, that has slowed and almost stopped. The stimulus bill is rebuilding bridges in my district, rebuilding highways, and rebuilding community health clinics. But slowing the rate at which Americans lose their job is nobody's idea of a Christmas present. We have hard work to do. I had occasion in church this weekend to hear the words of Handel's ``Messiah,'' ``and the government shall be upon his shoulders.'' That is prophetic, meaning in the future. Right now, the government is on our shoulders. And I hope that when we reconvene in January, we set aside the partisanship, the misinformation, and the anger to get back to the serious business of creating jobs for the American people.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, today when this House passes the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, it will take a huge step to the protection of the American citizen, the American taxpayer, and American business. Never again will Wall Street take massive risks with the expectation that they will be bailed out when they fail. Never again will mortgage brokers sell mortgages that they know can't possibly be repaid. Never again will the credit card companies make billions from sowing confusion amongst American consumers. I have been struck in this debate by how closely what we are doing today mirrors what happened in the 1930s when this Congress created a regulatory structure. The opposition said this would be the end of capitalism, the end of markets. And instead, that reform led to 60 or 70 years of the most intense prosperity the human race has ever seen. Word for word, those charges have been repeated. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. What this House does today will be a tremendous step forward for the American people and the American economy.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. I thank Chairman Peterson for his leadership on the bill and Chairman Frank for his good work on this terribly important work that we now do to try to restore a sense of faith and trust in the financial system, which American companies and families rely on for the credit that allows them to create jobs and offer employment. One of the least understood portions of this bill, Madam Chair, but one of the most important is the work that has been done on derivatives, instruments that allow our farmers to get rid of the risk of future soybean prices if they don't want to bear those risks, that allow our exporters to get rid of currency risk that they don't want to bear, but instruments that, despite the comments of my good friend from New Jersey, were very, very much at the core of the financial meltdown that we have seen and are now living through. My friend seems to forget three letters: AIG. He forgets that that great enemy of American capitalism, that wild-eyed critic of markets, Warren Buffett, called credit default swaps ``weapons of financial mass destruction.'' And in reviewing some of these, he said these must have been contracts that were devised by madmen. This is Warren Buffett. The Democratic amendment would do several market-friendly things. One, it would say that these contracts will trade in the light of day, that they will clear in clearinghouses. This is an idea that is thousands of years old, Economics 101. Markets are healthier if we know who is selling what to whom and for what price, if we can see who is taking on what risk, something that if the market had known in the AIG experience, we might have been saved the awful spectacle of taxpayer dollars being injected into private companies. The Democratic amendment says it will trade in the light of day. That is not a radical, heavy- handed, Byzantine, or cumbersome idea; it's plain good market economics. The Democratic amendment would say that if you take big bets, we're going to make sure you've got the capital to make good on those bets. Again not a terribly radical idea. But if you are going to insure somebody, we will make sure you've got the capital to make good on the insurance that you have sold. Lastly and importantly, a derivative contract always involves somebody getting rid of risk, that farmer, that company. We protect those end users and say you will not be subject to regulation. But the people who buy that risk, the financial entities that brought us to this place, will be subject to oversight. So, my colleagues, this is a good, smart, market-friendly amendment, and I urge its passage and support.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my serious concern regarding the revenue provisions of H.R. 4213, The Tax Extenders Act of 2009, specifically the provision affecting the treatment of ``carried interest'' in our tax code. I believe this provision, as currently worded, does not represent an optimal solution to the underlying challenge of fairly and appropriately taxing investment management professionals. My concerns are tempered by my enthusiastic support for many of the provisions in the bill as a whole, which would provide individuals and businesses with approximately $31 billion in tax relief in 2009. As families and businesses in my district struggle to make ends meet, these provisions will provide swift and cost-effective support to research and development, to alternative fuels, and to the ability of U.S. companies to serve customers in foreign markets. My concerns with the legislation rest with the changes it would make to the tax treatment of ``carried interest'' on investment managers. Current law treats carried interest the same as all other profits derived from a partnership and thus characterizes carried interest as being derived from an interest in the partnership's capital. In a broad-brush fashion, the legislation would transform these capital gains into ordinary income for tax purposes, a change that would increase taxes on carried interest income from the current 15 percent capital gains rate to as much as 35 percent beginning next year. It should be noted that this date is a good deal more aggressive than a similar provision in President Obama's budget, which in the interest of economic recovery would start taxing carried interest as regular income only in 2011. While I respect the view that in some cases carried interest represents a form of compensation for services provided by the general partner, this distinction is far from clear in every case. Professionals in this industry should be taxed fairly and appropriately, but I disagree that the only way to achieve this goal is to apply one of two pre-existing categories to their services. Industry analysts generally base their characterization of carried interest upon the degree to which a general partner's own assets are at risk and differences in the profit interest of the general and limited partners. Many observers, such as Professor Victor Fleischer of the University of Colorado School of Law, argue with sound legal justification that these professionals should be taxed somewhere between that of pure capital and pure ordinary income. Given the widespread reliance of partnerships on these rules, I believe we in Congress must be more cautious in enacting such a significant change in the rules at this juncture. Such a reformulation at the least deserves a greater hearing of views in a full and deliberate committee process. Our venture capitalists risk significant quantities of time, money, and effort to assist the most compelling business models to improve the way that Americans live and work. Before we enact changes to our tax system which could threaten existing incentives to innovation and investment, I believe such changes deserve the fullest possible consideration to arrive at the most practical and fair solution. I am hopeful that the underlying legislation will undergo revisions to its revenue-raising provisions which enable me to support it. Given the concerns voiced above, however, I regret that I am unable to cast my vote in support of the bill as it stands.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, after years of aspiration and planning, after too many families bankrupted and too many lives lost, this House stands ready to do something both great and necessary. We will soon join every other civilized nation on this planet in offering each and every citizen decent, affordable health care. For me, a new Member of this body, it has been an incredible exercise in democracy. I participated in more than 60 town hall meetings, visits with doctors, nurses, patients, and listened to advocates with every conceivable point of view. Almost everyone agrees that we must do something and do something bold. Too many Americans know the fear that losing a job means losing access to doctors and to lifesaving drugs. Too many Americans have watched as illness or injury has driven their family into bankruptcy. Too many small businesses, nonprofits, and small town mayors have seen their budgets wrecked by exploding costs of health care insurance. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago in the city of Bridgeport, I met Marta, who lost her job of 23 years and is currently relying on her COBRA coverage to pay for the management of her diabetes. She is terrified. Her COBRA will end soon, and she has been refused private coverage time and time again. I've also gotten to know a young man named Eugene who makes his living laying bricks. He can only work during the warm weather construction months when he has good coverage through his union, but in the wintertime when he can't work, he joins Marta in the ranks of the fearful. He prays that nothing happens. He asked me, ``Even the phone company has rollover minutes. Why not our insurance plans?'' When this House passes the Affordable Health Care for America Act, no American will ever be denied coverage because they have a preexisting condition. When this bill passes, we will begin to close the Medicare doughnut hole so that no senior will have to choose between their prescription and buying food. When this bill passes, our small businesses, our nonprofits, and our mayors will no longer watch as exploding health care costs wreck their budgets. Is the bill perfect? No. But in this of all things, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There is too much at stake--the lives of those who die because they can't see a doctor, the peace of mind of millions of Americans who know that bankruptcy is one illness away, the moral standing of this great Nation that has fallen too short for too long in keeping its people healthy. Mr. Speaker, now is the time. Mr. Speaker, ``yes'' is the answer. I join my colleagues in urging that tomorrow we make history.