Jim Himes

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Chief Ray Osborne for his admirable service and exemplary leadership as the police chief in Darien, CT. Throughout his 35-year career in Darien, Chief Osborne has served the police department in many roles. During his career, Chief Osborne approved the creation of Juvenile Review Board, a local diversion program which allows first-time youth offenders to complete community service and avoiding having to go to juvenile court. Additionally, his efforts to expand the department's Domestic Violence Liaison Unit, and his recruitment of high skilled officers in the department will have a lasting impact on public safety. We have strong values in Connecticut. Protecting those values and allowing them to flourish requires constant vigilance. The law- enforcement officers and other first responders who rush into harm's way to not only ensure that our values flourish but exemplify them through their actions. The Darien community and I are grateful for Chief Osborne's years of service and we wish him the best of luck in his retirement, especially as he tackles new projects like the restoration of his '67 Mustang. Congratulations.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 3494, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Chair, I would like to thank Mr. Smith and Mr. Khanna for their leadership on this amendment and just express my disappointment at the statements made by my friend, Mr. McCaul. I never imagined that an amendment that essentially restated congressional authority as detailed in the Constitution would ever get characterized as a propaganda win for Iran, as a pro-Iran thing; and I would remind my friend, Mr. McCaul, that, yes, the President stepped away from a military conflict that might have been justified as an act of self-defense. I am not in the practice of praising the President on this floor, but he took a prudent course a few weeks ago. There is absolutely no guarantee he will do so again. This amendment does one simple thing. It is not unprecedented. Its precedent is the United States Constitution, which vests war-making authority when it is not in self-defense, as Mr. Smith points out, exclusively in the Congress. Now, we may or may not like that idea, but it is the principle that we swore to uphold. And I would just remind the Chamber that, every time we allow a Democratic or a Republican President to go to war without an authorization in this Chamber, we shirk our constitutional duty. We fail to back our warfighters with the full and robust voice of the United States Government.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, one of the proudest moments of my career in this Chamber was the passage of the Affordable Care Act, not because it was perfect--it wasn't--but because it changed the lives for the better of tens of millions of Americans. Now, of course, we are threatened with repeal. Mr. Speaker, here is what repeal would look like by the numbers. Overturning the ACA would raise the number of uninsured people in the United States by 20 to 21 million people. Due to preexisting conditions, more than 100 million Americans could face higher health insurance premiums or the possibility that they might not get insured at all. Now, remember, as you consider the claim from my Republican friends that they will preserve preexisting condition coverage, remember that they promised for 10 years to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and they didn't do it. Then they promised to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, and they didn't do it. So when they promise to preserve preexisting conditions, take that with a grain of salt. But this is not just about the numbers. This is about real people in my district. People like Tom, who was able to start his own business once insurance didn't tie him to his job, or Robert, who was forced into bankruptcy by healthcare costs, but doesn't have to fear that anymore because of the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, I do not exaggerate when I say that repealing or striking down the Affordable Care Act would be a tragedy of enormous proportions. I ask all of my colleagues to join the fight to protect Americans' healthcare.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I am not in the habit of praising the President from this perch, but I do want to say that I am very pleased that we are not in yet another shooting war in the Middle East today. I think we came very, very close, and I appreciate that the President had the courage to stand down some raids that, undoubtedly, would have led to a response and led to another war in the Middle East. I know he does that at the risk of being criticized for potentially damaging American credibility, but we are not in a war today. That is an argument for history. What is not an argument for history is that any aggression, any military action against Iran, must be approved by the Congress of the United States. It is clear in the Constitution that a decision to go to war must be made in this building. I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to reflect on the reason for that. If we are going to sacrifice blood and treasure, the Representatives of the people must make that decision, not one individual at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Now is the time for us to consider whether another Middle Eastern war makes sense for the people of the United States of America.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that I shy away from sharp partisanship in favor of the negotiation and compromise required for law to be made. I marvel every day at how rarely the pragmatic common sense of the American people is given voice in this Chamber. But, Mr. Speaker, there are moments for calculation, for prudence, for compromise, for the careful weighing of competing interests, and there are moments for clarity and conviction. This is such a moment. The time has come, Mr. Speaker, for the House of Representatives to begin an impeachment inquiry into President Trump. From the moment of his inauguration, this President has shown contempt for the truth, has attacked our institutions, and has ignored the Constitution he swore to defend. He has refused the oversight which is Congress' long-established right and duty. In recent weeks, he has refused to comply with subpoenas, he has ordered administration officials to refuse to testify, and he has asserted executive privilege of unprecedented scope with respect to attempts to alter the Census. That we have not slouched closer to autocracy is due to the strength of the democratic safeguards and protections that we have built and defended for two-and-a-half centuries. Most Americans sense the danger and have reacted, most recently, by electing a House of Representatives with the power and desire to check this President. The President has persistently refused to acknowledge or acquiesce to that power. Mr. Speaker, the Framers of the Constitution placed the power of impeachment, not in the courts, but in the Congress so that this body might consider not just the facts and the letter of the law, but the broader interests of the Republic. I have, until now, been conflicted about those interests. Impeachment, along with the right to declare war, is the most awesome power of the Congress. The politics of impeachment are messy and uncertain and might, in the short run, serve the President's narrow political interests. But look at where we are today. Republicans in this Chamber cheer, or justify, or stand woefully silent in the face of behavior for which they would have impeached a Democratic President many times over. Our best and most proven ideas cannot get even a hearing in the United States Senate. Unless we restore respect for the law, respect for truth, and respect for common decency, we cannot hope to solve any of our other pressing problems. The American people should understand that opening an impeachment inquiry is not removal of the President. Given the behavior of the United States Senate, that outcome is probably out of the question. An impeachment inquiry will be a fair consideration of the facts that the American people must understand with both sides fairly and openly represented. Mr. Speaker, I know that I will be asked if my motive today is to pressure the Speaker of the House whose leadership of this Congress has been superb. It is not. She leads us today in the epic mission of defending our democracy. That mission requires a vigorous debate and competing ideas, but it also requires care, discipline, and a measure of deference. I represent the people of southwestern Connecticut, the Constitution State. From my house, I can walk to the hill where General Israel Putnam made a daring escape from the British cavalry in 1779, so that Americans would never have to answer to a tyrant for their opinions, politics, or religious beliefs. Just up the road is the town of Ridgefield where General David Wooster and 20 young patriots died in April of 1777 so that Americans would be spared ever living under a capricious and arbitrary power. Mr. Speaker, there are moments for careful calculation, for weighing political expediency and conflicting interests, and there are moments for clarity and conviction. This is that moment.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the opportunity we have today to lead on the crisis of climate change. The climate change crisis is unlike any other that we have faced. It cannot be defeated on the battlefield; it cannot be cured; it cannot be wished away; and it, certainly, can no longer be denied. What we can do is what we have always done and lead the community of nations to address a problem that would leave our children and their grandchildren with an unbelievable crisis and possibly a planet that they can no longer inhabit. The Paris climate agreement was a set of targets that we developed that are not mandatory. The Paris climate agreement is about making a statement that this is a problem and a crisis, and that America will lead. Today, this Chamber has an opportunity to say, yes, we will lead. We will not hide from the problem. We will not let this crisis distract us. We will lead. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 9 today and to send a statement to the world that, as we have always done, we will lead on this global crisis.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the London Philharmonic Orchestra for its remarkable work as an artistic and educational body. Since its foundation m 1932, the LPO has helped spread the joys of music through live and recorded performances, playing throughout Asia, Europe, and the United States, and recording pieces for film and videogame soundtracks. On April 16, 2019 my district will host the Philharmonic for their first-ever performance in the State of Connecticut. As one of the leading orchestras in the world, the LPO has used its reach and influence to promote music education, foster participation in the arts, and enhance performance skills with students from all socio- economic backgrounds. The London Music Masters, created by LPO Chairwoman and Greenwich-native Lady Victoria Robey, has given 1500 inner-city London students the opportunity to develop their musical skills and to model themselves after mentors both in and outside of the program. Through this program and many others, Lady Robey and the LPO have shared their love of music and made an invaluable contribution to youth development. Music is a uniquely powerful force. It brings people together, speaks volumes when words cannot, and enriches the lives of all who encounter it. The London Philharmonic Orchestra has touched the lives of its audience and established itself as an irreplaceable part of the musical world.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to talk about a word that is everywhere, a word that is the response to every idea that we come up with, and that word is ``socialism.'' It is a scary word. It is a magical word. It is the word that comes up every time Democrats propose a plan to better educate America's children--socialism; to make the elderly more secure in their retirement--socialism; to make healthcare available to people in this country who still can't see a doctor--socialism. It is a magical word because, if you say ``socialism,'' then it allows you to hide the fact that you actually don't have a counterplan, that when the Democrats say here are a bunch of plans to make healthcare better and you don't have a plan, you just say ``socialism,'' and that could end the conversation. It is a magical word because it allows you to distract from the fact that, if you actually do the things to better educate America's children or to make America's retirees more secure in their retirement or to make healthcare more available, that costs a little money. The problem with that is that, for my Republican colleagues, that money needs to go into tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country and for corporations. That is a problem. By the way, it is not a new thing. This has been going on for 100 years. I have a quote here from President Reagan. He is talking about Medicare here: And behind it will come other Federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we know it in this country until, one day, we will awake to find that we have socialism. Ronald Reagan promised us that Medicare, probably one of the most successful programs this country has ever put forward, would lead to socialism. It goes back before that. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who did so much to make for the decency that is endemic in this country after the Depression, the Securities and Exchange Commission so that our capitalist economy would be a fair economy, the progressive income tax so we could actually fund our military and fund education--all socialism. He was a traitor to his class. He was a socialist. This goes way back. So having quoted Ronald Reagan, let me quote another great leader, Inigo Montoya, in ``The Princess Bride.'' He says: ``You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.'' So what does socialism mean? What is socialism? Here is the dictionary definition. It is a system in which there is no private property or a system in which the government owns the means of production. What is that? Is Medicare socialist? At Mount Sinai or Sloan Kettering, are those hospitals or doctors working for the government? Of course not. Was Dodd-Frank socialist? No. Dodd-Frank put in place regulations that have allowed JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo, and all those banks to be more profitable than ever before. That is not socialism. What is particularly interesting is socialism is just a lot of government in your economy. I took time to look at States where government is actually a big part of the economy. You can look this up, Mr. Speaker. There is an article called, ``The Top Five Most Socialist States.'' West Virginia, Alaska, Wyoming, Mississippi, and Arkansas are the five States with the largest percentage of government spending as part of their economy--deep, deep red States. The top five socialist States, Republican. Now, what about those socialist States that my Republican friends call socialist? Here are a couple of them: California, New York, Massachusetts--that is Taxachusettes. California: My friend, Devin Nunes, the Representative from California, because they are trying to take plastic out of the Pacific Ocean, called California socialist. These are the economic powerhouses of the Nation. They have GDPs that look like small countries. They have innovators; they start companies. And the reason for that is because innovators and business people want to start businesses in communities where there are good schools, access to healthcare, and people have the wages to actually buy their products. So, Mr. Speaker, don't be fooled by that magical word, ``socialism.'' Socialism is what is used to address every effort that we make to make for a more fair and just society. That is not socialism. These things--increased wages, better healthcare, and better access to education--are not socialism. They are in the finest tradition of making sure that opportunity is available to every American and that the American Dream will not die.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, on March 27, 2019, I was unable to be present for the vote on the motion to agree to H. Res. 252, offered by Rep. Torres of California. Had I been present for rollcall No. 131, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, today, I join the rest of Connecticut in mourning the loss of State Rep. Ezequiel Santiago. Zeke was a dedicated public servant and a dear friend who was taken from his family, and his community, far too soon. Zeke was kind, welcoming, and a strong leader. He dedicated himself to bettering the Bridgeport community and those around him. Raised in Bridgeport, Zeke entered politics at a young age, volunteering on numerous campaigns before running for office. He was a tireless advocate for underrepresented and minority communities, bettering the lives of thousands of his fellow citizens. His work was integral in securing funding for community organizations that benefitted families and children like the South End Community Center, the Sheehan Center, and the YMCA. Without any pomp or self- aggrandizement, he dedicated his life to doing the hard, necessary work that makes our government function. Zeke's loss is felt by everyone lucky enough to know him and has created a hole that will not soon be filled. A grateful state and nation will strive to preserve his memory and carry on his legacy.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. And I also thank the ranking member. I very much appreciate his comments that he will support this concurrent resolution. Mr. Speaker, I will just observe, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, that we have seen our politics twisted into almost unrecognizable form by the unprecedented attacks of the President on the Department of Justice, on the FBI, on the investigation as a whole. This report must see the light of day and must be made available to the American public for a catharsis that will allow us to start with the facts, to understand what happened and to rebuild the faith that the American people did and should have in the Department of Justice, in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and in the government in general. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Congress, in strong, bipartisan fashion, passing this bill so that the American people will understand that the truth will be out there and it will help fix our politics.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, it is Valentine's Day, and we have all spent the evening together, which is kind of funny. We did it in the service of keeping the government open with a bill that funds the government in a strong, bipartisan vote, and that is a good thing. But, Madam Speaker, Valentine's Day will never again be a truly happy day because, of course, it is the 1-year anniversary of the Douglas shootings in Florida in which 17 young people, with their lives ahead of them, had those lives snuffed out at the end of a gun. It is a particularly poignant moment for me and for those of us from Connecticut because we still can't forget, of course, the 20 children, 6 to 7 years old, and six adult staff who lost their lives in December of 2012 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. So, Madam Speaker, I just rise to point out that we are hearing a lot tonight about an emergency declaration; and if 30,000 to 40,000 Americans, including these young angels, losing their lives every single year is not an emergency, I don't know what is. This House, after 8 years of inaction and pathetic moments of silence, moved a bill, H.R. 8, for universal background checks out of committee yesterday. The least we can do as an institution is to take the small step of passing that bill into law to keep young and all Americans safe.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 624) to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to carry out a study of Rule 10b5-1 trading plans, and for other purposes.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in support of H.R. 624 and to recognize the bipartisan fashion in which this bill is being brought to the floor and, in particular, thank Ranking Member McHenry for his work on this bipartisan bill. It is terrific to see the first bill out of the committee and onto the floor be not only a bipartisan bill, but the kind of thing that I think we should be able to find agreement on in this Congress. We have a robust debate in the committee and in this Congress around the question of how we establish well-balanced regulation on the capital markets and the financial services industry. That is a good debate in which the answer is always moving, but it is terrific to see that we can agree that wherever there is an opportunity either for fraudulent behavior, insider trading, or rent-seeking to occur--that is to say, when there is an advantage for a particular player in the market--that the parties can come together to move legislation like H.R. 624. Whatever we may think and however we may argue over the proper balance of regulation, if market participants do not have confidence in those markets, we have a huge problem. And nothing erodes confidence so much as the suspicion that there may be players in the market who have an inside advantage who are operating fraudulently. So, again, I thank Mr. McHenry for his work on this bill. I thank Chairwoman Waters, in particular, for her hard work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much Madam Chairwoman for yielding, and, again, to the ranking member. It is a delight, as I said before, to come right out with a bipartisan bill that really addresses the fundamental question of confidence in our markets. H.R. 624--and I will be proud to vote for it and urge my colleagues to do the same--closes a number of technical loopholes that have allowed corporate insiders over time flexibility to actually trade possibly on inside information. That, of course, has the effect of causing regular investors to wonder whether they want to compete with that sort of player in the market. H.R. 624 is a terrific bipartisan, thoughtful bill right out of the gates in the Financial Services Committee. I want to just take 30 seconds, though, to reflect on the fact that at this point in time, there is currently no Federal law explicitly prohibiting insider trading. That requires the SEC and the Department of Justice to rely on general antifraud provisions in the law to go after people suspected of insider trading. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to urge the committee, the chairwoman and the ranking member, to reflect on the words of U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, who wrote: ``But if unlawful insider trading is to be properly deterred, it must be adequately defined. The appropriate body to do so, one would think, is Congress.'' Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman and ranking member for their hard work on this bill. I hope we can take it to the next step of making it very clear that insider trading itself is a crime for the lack of confidence that it generates in our capital markets. Mr. Speaker, I again thank the chairwoman and the ranking member, and I urge passage of H.R. 624.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, on January 23, 2019, I was unable to be present for the vote on the motion to recommit on H.R. 648, offered by Rep. Granger of Texas. Had I been present for roll call No. 48, I would have voted ``NAY.'' I was also unable to be present for the vote on passage of H.R. 648, offered by Rep. Lowey of New York. Had I been present for roll call No. 49, I would have voted ``AYE.''

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of the University of Bridgeport women's soccer team following their 2018 NCAA Division II Championship win. After a successful season, including winning the East Coast Conference Championship tournament, the team made history with their first NCAA Division II National Championship appearance. The team was seeded third in the tournament and defeated the number one ranked team, the previously undefeated Grand Valley State University. The 1-0 win came after a previous 6-0 loss to Grand Valley State in September, showing the true growth and determination that the team embodied. Madam Speaker, I ask that you join me in recognizing everyone who made this championship win a reality; the coaches, Magnus Nilerud, Jack Abelson, Jonathan Macadam, and Andre Lindsay who devoted countless hours developing these athletes into the winning team they became; and the players--Jennifer Wendelius, Mikayla Duhaime, Rebecca Niblett, Annie Bjork, Shyla Murray, Amanda Ebbesson, Sara Berglund, Rebekka Skaasheim, Nara DaCosta, Maegen Doyle, Carolina Rico, Alyssa Samson, Andrea Jozefczyk, Baylee Houston, Anisha Hill, Cailin Alcock, Eleonore Freby, Lara Heather, Karin Oberg, Eva Maria Becerra, Abigail Befford, Elin Eklund, Anne-Marie Fjeld, Andrea Basilicato, Valentina Florez, Sloane Hugges, Manu Costa, Marieke Kramer, Karoline Vieira, and Annelise Jennings--who represent the University of Bridgeport with pride.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, on January 24, 2019, I was unable to be present for the vote on the motion to recommit on H.J. Res. 31, offered by Rep. Granger of Texas. Had I been present for roll call No. 50, I would have voted ``nay.'' I was also unable to be present for the vote on passage of H.J. Res. 31, offered by Rep. Lowey of New York. Had I been present for roll call No. 51, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, so here we are together in the House of Representatives on day 33 of the government shutdown. We have all been back in our districts, and like me, I suspect have all heard from people who are really starting to suffer as a result of this government shutdown: TSA agents, other people essential to our security, other Federal workers, and people who receive food stamps who are wondering whether 2 weeks from now they will be able to feed their children. I don't know about you, but I come back to Washington thinking one thing, which is: We need to stop calling this a government shutdown. That sort of makes it sound like a machine isn't working somewhere. Let's call this what it is. The President's decision to sign no budget until he gets his wall is not a government shutdown. It is taking the happiness, the prosperity, and the opportunity of millions of Americans hostage until he gets his wall. It is not too strong to say that this is torturing millions of Americans with anxiety until the President gets his wall. It is saying to Americans that you will work for weeks, and maybe months, but we won't pay you because he needs his wall. If you are one of the millions of Americans who rely on SNAP benefits so that you can look at your child and know that that child has had nourishment that day, you may not get those benefits because he needs his wall. If you are a contractor, you are not getting any back pay, and I am sorry, because he needs his wall. I have got the stories from my district that everybody else does in this Chamber. The worst one was when I talked to a woman named Debbie. Debbie is fighting stage IV melanoma. Her husband is a Department of Transportation executive who was called back to D.C. to work without pay, leaving Debbie to raise three children and battle cancer without pay, with the insecurity of whether she will be able to pay her copays to keep herself alive. Why? Apparently, holding hostage the American people is okay because the President's wall is that important. Well, if that is so important, why, when the Republicans controlled the House, and the Senate, and Presidency until a few weeks ago, why did we not hear about the wall then? Why are we torturing the American people now? I have been here for 10 years. We haven't ever had a debate or an argument about a wall, but now it is okay for the President to torture the American people, to keep them without money, to keep them in insecurity, to keep them in anxiety, because right now the wall is absolutely essential. Let's talk for a second about where this came from and what kind of a tool this hostage taking is. Remember, during the campaign the President said, we will build a wall from sea to shining sea, a big beautiful wall that will be paid for by Mexico. What we are doing right now is not delivering on the campaign promise of the President of the United States. We are cleaning up around the fact that he could not deliver on a campaign promise to have Mexico pay for the wall. Instead, security workers and the American people are being asked not just to pay for his wall, but to suffer for his wall. This is a dealmaker. The art of the deal. I was in the majority once when we had the Senate, and Presidency, and the House. There was lots of stuff we wanted but we couldn't get done. A public option in the Affordable Care Act, we couldn't get that done. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, we couldn't get that done. Something to address climate change, we couldn't get that done. But we never dreamed that the tool that we had in our pocket was to say we will torture the American people unless we get what we want. I would remind my Republican colleagues that there will be a Democratic President someday, and they are setting this precedent. Set this precedent because it is an awesome tool. Maybe we will decide not to pay the military until we can get truly universal health coverage. Maybe we will decide not to man the borders or to decriminalize marijuana because that is what we want, and we won't pay people until we get what we want. It is a terrible precedent, and my Republican friends know that. So what do we do now? There are two things that can happen. The President can maybe turn off ``FOX News'' long enough to see that this is hurting his politics very badly. He could maybe experience some empathy; something that I am not holding my breath for. Or maybe, Congress could act like Congress and say we are a coequal branch and we stand for the people who we are currently torturing. The Senate majority leader said, I will not move a bill that the President will not sign. Think about that. The United States Senate, the greatest deliberative body on the planet is, by design now, a rubber stamp to the President. It is not hard to override a veto. It just requires us to do what we are paid to do and stand for the American people who are suffering right now.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the advocacy of Chairwoman Waters, but this is fundamentally not a partisan issue, and I appreciate the ranking member making the point. This is a reputational issue, and I want everyone in the Chamber to understand that this is about the reputation of the United States, about the Congress, about the Treasury, and about each individual Member who votes today. This is a complicated deal. I have spent hours understanding this deal. But there is a big question that every Member ought to ask themselves: Is this the moment to relax sanctions on a Russian company; on a Russian oligarch? Is this the moment to sign off on a deal that allows an oligarch to hand his shares to a Russian bank, which is also sanctioned and controlled by the Russian Government? At the end of this deal, if this deal goes through, Mr. Deripaska will continue to own and vote 35 percent of the shares of this company. Mr. Speaker, you can control the company with 35 percent of the shares. But an additional 28 percent of those shares will be owned and controlled by affiliates of Mr. Deripaska. Now, Treasury says that doesn't matter because there will be somebody independently voting those shares. I have asked three times now, and Treasury has not told me who those people are. So what is the rush? There is no problem in the aluminum markets today. The price of aluminum today is lower than it was before this company was listed. This is reputational. The architect of this deal, Lord Barker of Battle, is a British peer who has been denied access to classified information in the Parliament and who is under investigation by the Parliament because of possible ties to the Russians. So I will just close, Mr. Speaker, by making this point: there is no rush. I have become an expert on this deal. Members who vote against this resolution, if Deripaska turns out to be worse than we think he is, if Lord Battle turns out to be worse than we think he is, and if the Russians and Deripaska continue to control this company after this vote, you too will become an expert on this deal, and not in a good way.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and I want to start by thanking Mr. Takano, Governor-elect Walz, and Dr. Roe for their work on this bill. As I have sat here and listened to not so much a debate, but a celebration of the bipartisan work that was done to create this bill, including so many things that I know will assist our veterans, it is great to see the parties working together as we close out this Congress. Mr. Takano was very kind in saying that the SERVE Act, which is included in this legislation, was my idea. It wasn't actually my idea. It was better than that, because it grew out of a conversation I had with a retired marine at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut, in which I simply asked Nicholas Quinzi of the Marine Corps, ``What can we do to make your life a little easier?'' And he said, ``You know, the problem I have, like so many of my fellow veterans, I have post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, but there is no way for me, when I go to a landlord to rent an apartment to be here at school, there is no way for me to verify that income, and as a result, I have had a rough time getting housing even though I have got this stipend from the Federal Government which comes to me as a result of my service.'' So there it was: a problem with an easy solution. The SERVE Act, which is now incorporated into the amendment to S. 2248 will simply require the VA to provide proof of that stipend so that landlords and other housing organizations can see that our veterans have a steady source of income to help them pay that rent. It is a small thing, but it is something that matters an awful lot to Nicholas Quinzi and the roughly 1.1 million other veterans who are getting this kind of benefit. So this is an example of what happens when you listen to your constituents. It wasn't my idea, but I am just so thrilled that Republicans and Democrats were able to come together around this small, good thing for a lot of young veterans who are post-service, trying to get educated, trying to get the kind of tools they will need to succeed. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Roe for his hard work. I thank Tim Walz and wish him well as he goes off to other things. And to Chairman-elect Takano, I thank him for his good work on this bill.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Anthony Crisci for his leadership in the LGBTQ+ community of Fairfield County. After five years, Anthony will be stepping down as the Triangle Community Center's (TCC) Executive Director. Starting in 2013 as TCC's first full-time staff member, Anthony breathed new life into the organization, carrying a fresh perspective and boundless energy. Under Anthony's guidance, TCC's budget increased eight-fold and its staff quintupled, enabling it to expand its core mission to include case assistance, regular programming and educational initiatives for over 300 individuals. As a community leader, Anthony has also prioritized cultivating LGBTQ+ pride in our state. He worked to revive Pride in the Park, Connecticut's largest pride march, where thousands of individuals from around the region gather to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community's accomplishments. Through his dedication and advocacy, Anthony has worked tirelessly to ensure LGBTQ+ individuals feel welcome in Fairfield County, that their civil rights are upheld, and that their contributions to the community are celebrated. Anthony is a passionate advocate for equality, a pillar of the community, and I'm proud to call him my friend. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to represent Anthony Crisci in the United States Congress. I ask you and our colleagues to join me in commending Anthony for his commitment to the TCC, the LGBTQ+ community, and the continuing effort for equality.