Jim Himes

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, there are smart cuts and there are dumb cuts. The majority's continuing resolution, the reception it has received, suggests that it's full of dumb cuts. It has been rejected by pretty much everybody. Outright rejection to concerned hilarity is how it's been greeted by investment banks, by economists, by people who think about this stuff. But there is something worse than a dumb cut, and that's a counterproductive cut. In a misguided effort to reduce the number of abortions in this country, the Republican majority zeroed out title X funding for Planned Parenthood. I have a Planned Parenthood office down the hall from my congressional office in Bridgeport. I see women coming through there mainly to learn about birth control, to be responsible about their reproductive lives, to be tested for STDs. Remember, 3 percent of Planned Parenthood's activities is abortion. There are estimates that zeroing out title X, which the majority has done, will cause 400,000 more abortions in this country. That's counterproductive, it's wrong, and I would urge this House to reject a very bad idea.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Holt amendment. I was moved to come to the floor because I was stunned that in their deregulatory zeal, in their ideologically driven desire to shrink the size of government, the Republican majority would choose to leave the American consumer unprotected. I represent a lot of American consumers and I know that they don't really understand derivatives. I know that they don't really understand the concept of systemic risk, of credit-default swaps, many of the difficult things that we sought to regulate in Dodd-Frank. But they sure do understand what it means to open up that credit card bill at the end of the month and see hundreds of dollars of charges that they didn't anticipate. Millions of Americans now understand what it is to have a mortgage blow up on them, a mortgage that if we were all honest with each other we would recognize none of us really understands our own mortgages. Millions of Americans now know what it is to see interest rates hop up on a mortgage and to lose their homes. Of all the things that the Republican majority could choose to gut, that they would choose to leave the American consumer to be prey to predatory practices is unconscionable. Madam Chair, we don't allow toasters that will burn your house down. We don't allow cars that will blow up. But evidently the Republican majority would allow mortgages that would blow up your house or other financial products that would bring an American family to its knees. I've heard the counterarguments. I heard the gentleman from Georgia stand down there and say that this is an expansion of government spending. What the gentleman from Georgia didn't say is that probably the most politically unpopular bit of spending we've seen in the last several years was hundreds of billions of dollars requested by a Republican President and a Republican Secretary of the Treasury to bail out the financial industry. I'll say it again. Republicans requested the bailout. That was a terribly expensive thing to do. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will help prevent that in the future. It's a good investment. I've heard arguments about czars. I must say, I've talked to tens of thousands of my constituents and nobody is saying that czars are a problem in the United States of America today. I'm hearing a slightly better argument, but one that I don't accept as a former banker, that we are separating consumer protection from safety and soundness. As a former banker, I will say that those are not separate concepts, that when you have bank customers defaulting on their mortgages, when you have bank customers running up credit card debt and being subject to fees that they can't possibly repay, you stick a knife into the safety and soundness of that bank or whatever institution that we are talking about.

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

Mr. HIMES. I will yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HIMES. That is correct.

Mr. HIMES. Reclaiming my time, this country has long had a history of the examination of the safety and soundness of our banks. And what we are saying now is that we will assist and support the safety and soundness of our banks by keeping the customers of those banks from defaulting through good consumer protection. So I support the Holt amendment and think this is terribly, terribly important to American families and the safety and soundness of the system. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. I thank the gentlelady from California for that question. If you look at when these regulatory bodies were established in the 1930s and you look at the volatility and the growth that happened in the next 60 years, volatility was way down and growth was way up, and the American middle class took hold because they had confidence in the system. They knew that their investor dollars would be protected. Then we began in the early nineties, policymakers from both sides of the aisle, to dismantle that regulation, to take the referee off the field. And so we find ourselves where we are today--uncertainty, a financial crisis meltdown--at the very moment when the technology, the flash trading, the complicated securities are bewildering in their complexity. Now is exactly the wrong time to be gutting the SEC. We do that and people lose their confidence.

Mr. HIMES. In a more complicated and sophisticated financial world, the SEC must be faster. It must be more efficient. It must hire people who really understand the markets. It must be more robust, and it should be held accountable. One thing it should not be and cannot be is underfunded and weak, which is what the proposal of the majority would do to it.

Mr. HIMES. The average investor, the mom and pop, the widows and orphans funds, they're not necessarily financially sophisticated. They need somebody looking over the shoulder of those that are selling them stock, selling them bonds. The institutional investors that you're talking about, of course, in many instances, are exempt from regulations by the SEC. They're deemed to be sophisticated, so they can participate in private placements. They can use 144(a) or reg D to make investments. But our individual investors who are so important to this economy need somebody looking over their shoulder and protecting them from snake oil salesmen and deception and poor disclosure.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, we have on this side spoken tonight at some length about a dangerous and poorly thought out effort on the part of the majority to underfund and gut the financial services regulatory apparatus that was established in the 1930s, which, yes, failed us in the last couple of years. And let's be clear: There is a legitimate tension between the amount of regulation which creates stability and confidence in a system and that which puts undue burden on the vigor of the private market. But this effort is wrong-headed. Let's look at the SEC. The mission of the SEC is to protect investors. The notion that we should gut the funding of the SEC is anti-free market, it is anti-jobs and it is anti-growth, because we must protect those investors who take their savings and write a check and put it in the mail to a company in some town they have never visited, in a fund that they don't fully understand, because they know that there is a cop on the beat. The families who write those checks, that is not just money. That money is a college education, it is a secure retirement, and they do it because they have faith. They have faith that there is a cop on the beat, that whoever takes that check is closely watched, that they are responsible and prudent. This is the fundamental aspect of our vigorous economy--that families and pension funds invest. We have efficient and vigorous capital markets because of faith. Let's look at the lessons that have been learned in the last couple of years. It wasn't that the SEC was somehow complicit in what happened. Yeah, they fell asleep at the switch. They didn't perform any better than a myriad of other organizations. But, if anything, the lesson is that the SEC was outgunned, underfunded, and needed help. And the effort of the majority now is to further underfund and gut that agency. It's particularly wrongheaded because the SEC pays for itself. In fiscal year 2012, the SEC will be budget-neutral. Why do this? Why risk the faith of the investors that are at the very heart of our system? We hear a lot about uncertainty; there's so much uncertainty. Imagine the uncertainty for American families and pension funds and savers and small businesses if they need to send that check without knowing that there's a cop on the beat. Mr. Speaker, we've seen this movie before. When the SEC was established in the 1930s, the Republicans at the time said this would be the end of capitalism. It would be the end of the free market. It would crush the U.S. economy. Instead, putting in place a well-balanced and vigorous regulatory apparatus led to 60 years of the most aggressive and intense economic growth human history has ever seen-- because people had faith in the system.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, tonight the President of the United States will stand in this Chamber and discharge his constitutional obligation to address the State of the Union for the Congress. I understand that many of my colleagues will be sitting together in a bipartisan way, and I think that's a good thing. What I really hope, though, is that we get commonsensical about where we are tomorrow, that as we talk about the economy, we agree that we should cut regulations which serve no purpose but to stifle industry, but that we should not attack the rules which keep our air clean and our water drinkable. We can and we must reduce the deficit and get our fiscal house in order, but do not try to persuade the American public that we can fail to invest in schools, in railways, in highways, and in networks that will provide economic prosperity for decades to come. I'm glad my colleagues are going to be sitting together in this Chamber tonight. What I really hope is that tomorrow we are standing together behind commonsensical changes that will make this economy strong.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the recent passing of a constituent, humanitarian, and friend, Robert C., Bob, Macauley, who recently passed away of natural causes at the age of 87. In addition to being a beloved husband and father, Bob Macauley was a tremendous activist and patron. As a veteran, businessman, and philanthropist, Bob dedicated his life to helping others. His first ventures into philanthropy began during the Vietnam war, with the founding of the Shoeshine Boys Foundation to support orphaned Vietnamese children. In 1975, he mortgaged his home to charter the first jet of what became known as Operation Babylift, rescuing babies injured in a plane crash as Saigon fell. Bob then became involved in the Covenant House, which grew with his support and guidance from a small outpost in New York City to one of the largest privately funded childcare agencies in the U.S. However, it was after meeting with Pope John Paul II that Bob fully realized the potential of his efforts. After raising $1.5 million in aid for Poland at the Pope's request, Bob recognized that what he had done for Poland, he could do for people in need worldwide. This effort became AmeriCares, a humanitarian organization that has delivered more than $10 billion in medicines, medical supplies, and aid around the world and across the United States. Bob served as CEO of the organization until 2002, and as chairman until his death. Mr. Macauley has been widely recognized for his philanthropic endeavors. He was the recipient of many humanitarian awards, including the President's Volunteer Action Award, the Cross of Grand Officer of the Order of Malta, the Caring Award, the Albert Schweitzer Humanitarian Award, the FREDDIE Award, and the Jefferson Award for Lifetime Achievement, and has received honorary doctorates from Fairfield University, Siena College, Saint Michael's College, and Saint Lawrence University. He has been featured by ABC News as ``Person of the Week,'' and has been the subject of numerous profiles by major media outlets such as NBC Today and People magazine. His biography, written by Bill Halamandaris, is entitled ``His Name is Today.'' Bob's activism and generosity to the global community should remind us all of what the actions of one person can do. While he did not work alone, we all have him to thank for making the world a better place. His charity should be admired and his citizenship should serve as a model for us all.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, the new Republican majority has decided that today we will read the United States Constitution, which I guess is a good thing. But like every other American, I can and do read it for myself. In fact, I did it this morning and came across the phrase ``promote the general welfare.'' Next week, the new Republican majority will put forward a bill to repeal health care reform; to tell seniors, go back to a world where you can choose between your prescriptions and your food; to tell our children, go back to a world where an insurance company can deny you coverage because you had the misfortune to be born with a disease. That is what they are doing next week. Listen hard, listen hard today to those words, ``promote the general welfare.''

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, what does the Congress owe the American people? I think it owes a young man or a young woman who will put on the uniform of this Nation and agree to sacrifice his or her life the right to serve. The Republicans, all but a handful of courageous Republicans, disagree. I think that it owes a child who was brought here by their parents from a country they don't know, who speaks a language they don't speak, the opportunity to serve, to get a degree, to ultimately become an American. The Republicans disagree. But I know, Madam Speaker, that we owe those brave responders who went to the site of 9/11 and risked their health and risked their lives to serve others in this Nation's moment of pain, we owe them health care. The Republican Party disagrees. And it is to the shame of this institution and it will be to the eternal shame of the Republican Party if they do not allow us, after helping the banks, after helping the auto companies, after helping Americans, if they do not allow us to help the volunteers of 9/11.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the Senate amendments to H.R. 6523.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I make a point every day to look in The Times at that black box, usually on page 7 or 8, that lists the names of those young men and women who have given their lives in Afghanistan. Yesterday, it struck me, as we go into Christmas, that there were seven names on that list--six of them under the age of 25. Two of them, Ken Necochea and Derek Simonetta, were only 21 years old. I wonder if they'd ever bought a drink in a bar or in the country in which they were serving. On the front page of The New York Times: U.S. Intelligence Offers Dim View of Afghan War. I say all this because this time last year I was in Afghanistan, watching the good work that these young men and women are doing-- building roads, building markets, building a nation--and reflecting on the fact that this is a nation that, for 1,000 years, has spit out foreigners as sport. As we go into Christmas and I think about the kids in my city of Bridgeport, whose schools have leaking roofs, whose highways are crumbling, whose rails are coming apart, I wonder, Mr. Speaker: Is it not time that we start rebuilding this Nation, not one that seems to not want us there?

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, imagine you wake up one morning to discover that the U.S. Government will be sending you under duress to Guatemala or Mexico or the Ukraine. You don't speak the language; you have never visited. These places are as foreign as foreign can be, but you are being deported because of the crime of a parent. That's inhumane. It's also dumb economics. The CBO tells us that the DREAM Act, if we pass it, will cut the deficit by $1.4 billion. It's dumb for our security. Secretary of Defense Gates says that passing the DREAM Act would be to the advantage of military readiness and recruiting. We can do these things. We can fix these things. We can create a more humane, secure, and economically prosperous Nation by passing the DREAM Act today.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, in 1857, just down the hall, the Supreme Court, which met in this building at the time, decided Dred Scott, in which they said that a black American was not entitled to the rights of the Constitution promised to all men. The good news is that over the years this institution has done the right thing--civil rights legislation, any number of things--to expiate that sin, but 17 years ago this body passed legislation which discriminated against our soldiers that said if you are gay, you can't serve your country; that regardless of how much we spent to train you, regardless of how critical your expertise is to keeping this country safe, you cannot serve your country. A report came out yesterday which indicates that there is, at most, a negligible threat, a negligible problem if we get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Now is the time to fix that sin of 17 years ago and say to gay Americans that if you're patriotic enough to serve this country, we welcome you in the armed services. I urge the Senate to act to repeal this act and to really get us closer to our founding creed.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, today this House will take up the question of whether we should extend the temporary unemployment insurance programs currently in place. If this House chooses not to do that, 2 million Americans will go into the holidays wondering not whether they will just have a holiday meal, but whether they will have a meal at all. But let's set aside what is probably the most important thing that each and every one of us should think about, which is those people and how the holidays will look for them. Let's talk history for a second. The fact is that the Congress of the United States has never cut unemployment insurance benefits when unemployment was anywhere near where it is today. In fact, following the 2001 recession, the Republican-controlled Congress maintained temporary unemployment insurance until the unemployment rate fell below 6 percent, well below where we are today. Let's do something else. Let's talk economics. Every Member of this House knows that the most important thing we can do right now is to help this economy recover: Jobs. Financial institutions that look at this stuff tell us that if we allow unemployment insurance to go away, it will have a profoundly negative effect on the economy; a number of banks estimate half a percentage point of GDP. We must renew unemployment benefits.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, September 29, 2010, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote number 564. Had I been available, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, a week ago the City of Bridgeport lost a friend, spiritual leader and powerful force for good in the community. Bishop Kenneth H. Moales, whose humble origins in Father Panik Village public housing foreshadowed little of his lifelong leadership, dedicated his life to shepherding the souls and improving the worldly conditions of some of the least fortunate people in Fairfield County. I worshipped in his church just 3 weeks ago, and the ministries of the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit and his presence among his flock reminded me of the saying of St. Francis of Assisi when he said, ``Always preach the gospel. Sometimes use words.'' The bishop was an accomplished musician, and his choirs enriched those who heard them and those who sang in them. At one time or another, the bishop was contributing to just about every civic institution in Bridgeport, from the police to the YMCA. Mr. Speaker, we will miss Bishop Moales, but we celebrate a life well lived. And we take confidence in the fact that, as of last week, the music in heaven got a whole lot better.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I rise today to support the Latham Amendment to the Transportation, Housing & Urban Development Appropriations bill. I support this amendment in lieu of the very similar amendment I sponsored to cut unnecessary and duplicative programs in an effort to save taxpayer dollars. As the economy begins its recovery, it is critical that we begin to get our fiscal house in order. Our nation's deficit grows larger every day; our national debt now tops $13 trillion. Earlier this year, I stood before you and called for serious and smart reductions in spending. I committed to opposing any spending that would not lead to at least a one percent total cut in the budget, excluding entitlements such as Medicare, veterans' pensions, and Social Security. According to last year's budget numbers, a cut of this size would save approximately $12 billion in just one year. Going above and beyond that promise, and frustrated with the current approach to deficit spending, I joined three of my house colleagues in introducing 4 bills, each highlighting specific programmatic cuts that together would save $70 billion over the next ten years. While small, across the board, percentage cuts on spending bills as many of my colleagues in the House support is one way to begin to reduce our overall spending, I believe that now is the time to bring specific ideas to the table. This prospect is not easy, and must be done carefully and thoughtfully. To that end, I joined with a group of colleagues similarly committed to cutting spending and drafted an amendment that would have put in place a number of these types of cuts. However, it became clear that my amendment did not have the support it needed to pass. The Majority party was unwilling to make the tough choices to cut spending, and the Minority party refused to support an amendment offered by the opposite party. The intent of the Latham Amendment mirrors the intent Peters Amendment. The cuts in this amendment are also in the spirit of the recommendations set forth by the Administration. In his budget proposal, the President worked with the Secretaries of each federal agency to determine which programs work and which programs don't work. They worked to determine which programs need more funding to reach their intended goal, and which programs must be reorganized and even in some cases terminated because they are ineffective or duplicative. We must listen to our cabinet secretaries, those with the most acute knowledge of the inner workings of their agencies, and fund their programmatic needs while cutting funding for programs that they deem either ineffective or complete in achieving their intended purpose. Cutting budgets is never easy. Vulnerable people who need assistance depend on our help. Forward-thinking investment is critical to long- term prosperity. Of particular importance to me are housing programs-- programs that I have dedicated a significant portion of my career to improving and creating. I support these programs in principle and am committed to ensuring their functions remain fulfilled. However, in these situations where duplicate, inefficient, and nonexistent programs are still receiving funding, we must take action and make cuts, both to protect taxpayer dollars and to protect the populations these programs are intended to serve. I am also acutely aware of the struggles of those in the transportation industry, especially in Connecticut, where the unemployment rate continues to grow. I intend to continue to look for ways to spur job creation while bringing down our federal deficit. The federal budgeting process should reflect an effort to make cuts where alternative programs--public or private--could work better; make investments in areas, like education and infrastructure, the will fuel future prosperity; and change programs where efficiencies can be achieved. The amendment I supported today maintains those priorities while helping put our country on a path toward fiscal sustainability.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, the tragic death of two brave firemen from Bridgeport, CT, did not permit me to vote today on the House floor, but I wish to share my position on the votes taken Friday, July 30, 2010. On H. Res. 1574, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3534, Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources Act and H.R. 5851, Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act, I would have voted ``yes.'' On H. Res. 1558, the resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that fruit and vegetable and commodity producers are encouraged to display the American flag on labels of products grown in the United States, reminding us all to take pride in the healthy bounty produced by American farmers and workers, I would have voted ``yes.'' On H.R. 5901, the Real Estate Jobs and Investment Act, I would have voted ``yes.'' On H. Res. 1566, the resolution recognizing the commemorating The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the National Sit-In Movement, I would have voted ``yes.'' On the motion to recommit to H.R. 5851, I would have voted ``yes.'' On the final passage of H.R. 585, Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act, I would have voted ``yes.'' On the amendments to H.R. 3534: On The Rahall manager's amendment, I would have voted ``yes.'' On the Kind Kratovil/Heinrich/Perriello/Titus/Kissel/Arcuri amendment, I would have voted ``yes.'' On the Teague Jackson Lee (TX) amendment, I would have voted ``yes.'' On the Oberstar/Himes amendment, I would have voted ``yes.'' On the Melancon/Childers amendment, I would have voted ``no.'' On the motion to recommit on H.R. 3534, I would have voted ``no.'' On the final passage of H.R. 3534, Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources Act, I would have voted ``yes.'' On H.R. 5982, Small Business Tax Relief Act (Representatives Levin/ Murphy (NY)/Owens), I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I wonder if we aren't loose in the way we use the word ``hero.'' We sometimes call those who die unexpectedly, innocents who are killed, heroes. I wonder if in doing so we don't cheapen the extent to which the word ``hero'' must be applied to men like Michael Baik and Steven Velazquez, two firefighters in Bridgeport who gave their lives in the line of duty this weekend, two men who woke up every day and said, ``I will risk my life and my well-being for you, my fellow citizens,'' and now leave behind wives, and in the case of Michael, three children, and in the case of Steven, two children. These were men who exemplify, I think, the best of what we mean when we say that we care about each other. And speaking as their Representative, and I hope on behalf of all my colleagues, we thank them, we thank their families, and wish them Godspeed.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 75th anniversary of the Social Security program, two things are very clear. First, the program which keeps fully half of our seniors from living in poverty must be preserved and sustained for the long run. Second, preservation of Social Security must not, cannot mean increasing the risk that we ask our seniors to take. Already, just a year or two after financial disaster obliterated $17 trillion of American household wealth, we hear the proposals of privatization, of turning Social Security money over to the vagaries of the market. Mr. Speaker, could you imagine if that monthly Social Security check that 50 million Americans get was hammered the way retirement accounts have been hammered? Every American who can should have private accounts that they fund with their savings. They shouldn't just rely on Social Security. But when things go wrong, they need to be able to rely on that Social Security with no risk that it disappears.