Jim Himes

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, on July 12, 2017, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on Amendment No. 5, offered by Mr. DeSaulnier of California, to the Gaining Responsibility on Water Act of 2017 (H.R. 23). Had I been present for roll call No. 350, I would have voted AYE.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning because yesterday the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan organization that we rely on in this Chamber for truth, told us that the Senate healthcare bill--so- called healthcare bill--will throw 22 million Americans off of their insurance. Two-thirds of those, 14 million, are Medicaid patients--the poorest people in America, elderly people in nursing homes. I don't have a voice in the Senate, Mr. Speaker, but if I did, I would say: I understand how important it is to deliver on the promise you have been making for 7 years to repeal ObamaCare. The Republican base is demanding it, but it can't possibly be demanding the throwing off of their healthcare 22 million Americans. Mr. Speaker, I also don't have a voice in the oval office, but if I did, I would ask this President, I would say: Sir, you promised to do three things: you promised to increase coverage, to lower deductibles, and to lower premiums for the American people. I would say: Mr. President, this bill in the Senate does the exact opposite of all three of those things. So I would say: Mr. President, if you keep your word, stop this Senate bill from passing.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dear friend and public servant, Devon Joan Pfeifer of Weston, Connecticut, who we lost far too soon. A dedicated and loving mother, beloved community leader, and passionate activist, Devon lived her life devoted to helping the lives of others, fighting for equal rights for all, and championing opportunities for the poor and working class. The daughter of a carpenter and labor leader, Devon embraced the struggle she found in the labor movement: fair pay and a helping hand for the least fortunate. She brought this spirit of compassion to many volunteer causes throughout Fairfield County, caring for those with disabilities and helping struggling schoolchildren learn to read. She cared deeply for the people she helped, and encouraged everyone to do as much good as they can, for all they can, as long as they can. A lifelong Democrat and progressive, Devon served terms as Chair of the Weston and Fairfield Democratic Town Committees and as a member of the Weston Board of Education. She worked tirelessly behind the scenes to elect Democrats to local, state and federal offices. Her work embodied the very best of local political organizing; people coming together to support a shared vision for a brighter future. She drew people in to the hard work of creating change with powerful words, an infectious laugh, and seemingly endless energy. She inspired many young people in Fairfield County to pursue public service, mentoring and grooming them into leaders, and I know that today she is proud of their progress and the great work that they do. She always served as our collective conscience, willing us to do more and to do better. Her activism lives on through her children--Conor and Maevereen-- whom she loved so dearly and within whom she instilled a rebel attitude and fierce sense of civic duty. Devon always strove for equal rights for all people, and her love for her children made her even more dedicated to the fight to make a more equal world for them. Fairfield County and the State of Connecticut have lost a titan. We owe a debt of gratitude to Devon and I know I, and many others, will continue to be inspired and guided by her. Her legacy is and will continue to be one of service, love, and dedication.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because we are told that this week is Infrastructure Week. After four contentious months of a new President, and all that has been contained in those 4 months, I actually saw a glimmer of hope and possibility around the idea that we might finally come together to do something for our constituents in an area that they tell us is absolutely essential. I worry, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to let this opportunity be lost in the political roil that is already consuming this idea of a week that we devote to infrastructure. So I want to stand here, Mr. Speaker, and say, let's not let this idea go. It is too important. The improvement of our roadways and our bridges, our airports, and our railways is absolutely essential to the quality of life of every single constituent of every single Member of this House. As I talk to the business leaders in my district, the fact that they have a challenge in moving their people and their goods, that sometimes getting to work is a 2-hour proposition, are the things that hold them back. I know that the Republicans and the Democrats disagree on an awful lot, but we have to be able to agree on the fundamental notion that if we don't have a functioning transportation infrastructure, if our airplanes and ships and rails and cars don't move well, this country cannot be great, and our economy will be damaged. These last 4 months have been pretty rough. We got--kicked off with a repeal of the Affordable Care Act; and I understand that my Republican friends had been promising that for years, but it was a brutal experience. It failed on the floor. The American public hates the bill that so many of my Republican friends were cajoled into voting for, much to their political peril. There was an alternative start to this Presidency. There was this fantasy alternative start that has the President, shortly after his inauguration, saying to the American people: I know that this campaign was tough and the rhetoric was as ugly as it ever has been in an American campaign, but we are going to come together now, in January of 2017, to restitch the Nation, literally and figuratively. Literally means we are going to work together to rebuild the infrastructure of this country. Sadly, that is an alternate reality that did not happen, and so we are consumed in Twitter feuds and partisanship and some of the most difficult to pass legislation that ultimately is not likely to become law, but which will continue to split the parties in this Chamber. It is not too late, though, Mr. Speaker. I think we can still turn this around. I have the privilege of chairing the New Democrat Coalition, 61 Democratic Members who, as challenged as they feel by this President's positions and behavior, are hoping for that moment when we can work with Republicans, when we can get something done with this President that will be meaningful to our constituents. And I know they, and many other Democrats, will be there for that conversation. To my conservative, even to my Freedom Caucus friends, there is nothing more conservative than the idea that you keep your house in order; that you invest so that your children can have the kind of prosperity that we were able to experience. And to the President, I would say: Sir, you seem to be a builder. You seem to have recognized the need for this kind of program when you promised a $1 trillion infrastructure investment. And, sir, I would say, if you look at some of our highways that were built in the 1950s, at the entrance ramp to those highways you will see a sign that says the Dwight D. Eisenhower Interstate Highway System. Sir, there is no reason why those signs couldn't have your name on them. So, Mr. Speaker, this problem is so urgent, it is so potentially bipartisan in its solution, that I want to close with the observation that we need to lift this out of the partisan maw and observe, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday we celebrated the Greatest Generation because, 73 years ago yesterday, they stormed the beaches of Normandy. That is part of why we call them the Greatest Generation. But the other part and the other reason we call them that is because they came back to America and they set aside their differences and they invested in projects like the Interstate Highway System that we all use every day. That is a big part of why we call them the Greatest Generation. They built our country. And now that generation looks at us and they have a question, and that question is: What will you do with that legacy that we built for you? Mr. Speaker, let's answer that question in a way that will make them proud.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a globally-engaged and welcoming United States. Historically, hosting international students and scholars at our colleges and universities has been one of the most important ways America reinforces those values. I urge my colleagues and the administration to recognize the vital contribution international students, scholars, and their families make to the United States. The cross-cultural partnerships formed through international education and exchanges offer widespread benefits for the United States. Students and their families supported 400,000 jobs in the 2015- 2016 year, contributing nearly $33 billion to our national economy. Their financial and academic contributions allow universities to offer more advanced courses--often in STEM subjects--to American students. These students, the vast majority of whom do not study abroad, gain invaluable knowledge towards succeeding as global citizens through cooperation and interaction with their international peers. As co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on International Exchange and Study and as a student who studied abroad, I recognize the enormous benefits offered by a cross-cultural education. May is a critical month on the college calendar, a time when college seniors graduate and enter the global world while high school seniors finalize their choice on where to study in the fall. The new administration's immigration policies, specifically the Travel Ban Executive Order, harvest uncertainty for students making these decisions. Our nation's security must remain our top priority, but we must balance that with the need to remain open, welcoming and committed to driving future economic growth and opportunity. We must reassure international scholars who may be unsure about coming that their contributions are valued and that they are welcome here

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, April 23rd marked the thirtieth anniversary of one of the gravest tragedies in the history of the State of Connecticut: the collapse of L'Ambiance Plaza, a 16-story tower under construction in Bridgeport. I rise today to extend my condolences and pay tribute to the 28 workers who lost their lives in the collapse, the 22 survivors whose lives were forever changed, and the countless first responders and volunteers who spent ten days searching the debris for their friends and neighbors. The victims were family in the House of Labor--a collection of carpenters, ironworkers, and pipefitters--whose tragic and preventable deaths remind us that we must never give up the fight for safer workplaces. Today, 30 years on since this tragedy at L'Ambiance Plaza, I give my sincere thanks to the Fairfield County Labor Council, the Fairfield County Building Trades, the Connecticut State Building Trades and the Connecticut AFL-CIO--all of whom have advocated for safer construction sites and workplaces. We owe it to the victims of this disaster to advocate for measures that make Connecticut's workplaces safer and protect the good men and women of Connecticut's workforce.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, on March 28, 2017, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on H. Res. 229, the rule providing for consideration of the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 (H.R. 1430). Had I been present for roll call No. 198, I would have voted ``NAY.''

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my sincere congratulations to Tom McCarthy for being awarded the title of Grand Marshal of the 34th Annual Greater Bridgeport St. Patrick's Day Parade. In his fifteen years as City Councilman, nine of which he has served as President, Tom McCarthy has dedicated himself to serving Bridgeport and representing its citizens with thoughtfulness, competence and ability. Tom McCarthy's hard work and dedication to the City of Bridgeport is much appreciated, and this honor is well deserved.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, this Sunday I was out on the road amongst my constituents when at about midday, I started to get panicked emails from the doctors of Yale New Haven Hospital because one of their own, Tarek Alasil, an ophthalmologist of Syrian dissent, an ophthalmologist who has made his home here in the United States, who has U.S. citizen children, who has his family in New Haven, had been detained in the Caribbean in the Bahamas. He had been in the Caribbean doing cataract surgery for people who might otherwise not have access to the surgery that might allow them to see again; stepping forward, as all that we think is best about a country that was founded and strengthened by immigrants abroad, doing God's work as an ambassador--informal, though, he may have been--that America is a good and decent place. But he was detained and sat there in the Bahamas detained by the customs and border patrol, wondering if he would ever see his family again, wondering if he might ever become the United States citizen that he hoped to be, wondering if he was going to get sent back to his native city of Aleppo, which now is a smoking ruin. Of course, we hear story after story like that. The worst I heard was an elderly lady in her eighties, Hamidyah Al Saeedi. Hamidyah Al Saeedi has a son who is a sergeant in the 82nd Airborne. She hadn't seen Sergeant Al Saeedi for 5 years, and she was on her way to the United States to see her son, a sergeant in the United States Army, for the first time in 5 years. She spent 33 hours in detention; some of those hours handcuffed--this mother of an 82nd Airborne soldier--because of the actions of Donald Trump. She thought she was going to be deported. She was told she would be deported. Thank God she wasn't, this mother of an 82nd Airborne soldier. Madam Speaker, I serve on the Intelligence Committee and have for some 4 years. I know a little something about national security, and the executive order signed by President Trump on Saturday is not only about national security, it is profoundly dangerous to the security of this country because it gives our enemies a logic to say the United States is bigoted; it is anti-Muslim; and it does not stand for its principles. What is this executive order? It is a travesty. It is dangerous security theater. It is a knife in the heart of the values that founded this country. What it is most assuredly not is a mechanism to keep us safer. It opens with a preamble on 9/11--a devastating day for all of us. Yet, not one of the countries that produced the 9/11 hijackers is on the list of countries affected by this order. How do you explain that? All over the world right now radical Muslims are saying: We told you so. And we are hearing this from our generals. We are hearing this from our national security experts; not one of whom has stood up and said that this is a good idea which will keep us safer. It comes at a huge cost to our country. The costs to our values that we are a decent country are incalculable and we will be bearing them for a long time. We are the Congress of the United States. We are the House of Representatives. We are the people's House. Article I of the Constitution--now is the time to stand up against this madness. I plead with my Republican colleagues: Now is the time to stand up for national security, for safety, and for the values enshrined by the Constitution to which we all pledged an oath. I understand I am a Democrat, so maybe I don't have that much credibility with my Republican colleagues. Let me quote to you what Eliot Cohen, noted conservative, national security strategist, former State Department official said: ``Either you stand up for your principles and for what you know is decent behavior, or you go down, if not now, then years from now, as a coward or opportunist. Your reputation will never recover, nor should it.'' History is staring us in the face right now. It doesn't happen very often, but it is staring us in the face right now. And when history stares you in the face, that is not a gaze that wavers. It stays for generations. And how you respond to that gaze and how you behave will be the stuff of the stories of your children and your grandchildren. So now is the time for the Congress of the United States to stand up to the bigotry, to the national security theater, to the destruction of our values, with legislation that reverses this travesty of a decision that we saw this weekend.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, today, December 1, 2016, marks the 28th World AIDS Day--a day to come together in support of people around the world who live with HIV/AIDS, to remember those we've lost, and to commit ourselves to eradicating this vile disease once and for all. For me, this day conjures back a memory I have of visiting the Names Project AIDS Memorial Quilt on the National Mall on a sweltering day in Washington a few summers ago. Although I was sweating through my suit, it was impossible not to stand there without being profoundly moved. I was moved when I thought about the fathers, mothers, cousins, sisters, brothers, friends, and other loved ones whose lives were cut short by this wretched disease--many of whom had their stories memorialized on a panel of the AIDS quilt for the world to see. Stories like that of Ryan White, an Indiana teenager who was diagnosed with HIV in 1984 after receiving a contaminated blood treatment for Hemophilia. Just 13 years old, Ryan was barred from returning to school, cast asunder by a society that did not yet comprehend that the disease transmits independently of lifestyle. But he spent the rest of his young life advocating for understanding and against an unjust stigma, finally perishing far too young at 18. Countless stories like Ryan's are a reminder that we must never forget how far we've come, and how far we have left to go. That said, we've made tremendous progress since the first World AIDS Day in 1988. So many people today are alive because of the investment, hard work, activism and commitment of those who fought for this progress, like Ryan--for housing, for prevention, for a fair shake for those who today live with this wretched disease. In Congress, I have worked with my colleagues on the Congressional HIV/AIDS caucus to support policies that promote research, prevention, and, most importantly, a cure. Through my work with these magnificent colleagues--many of whom have been fighting this battle since long before I dreamed of running for Congress--I have resolved that we must fully fund programs that fight AIDS at home and abroad. Programs like the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria--both of which provide antiretroviral HIV treatments and screenings to millions of children and adults around the world. And the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS--a program that allows Americans with AIDS to access subsidized, low-income housing. Today, our government has made stopping the proliferation of HIV/ AIDS a priority, and the impact is real. Last year, the U.S. government spent $26.42 billion on HIV/AIDS treatment, prevention, and accommodations domestically, and $6.57 billion for international programs. Between 2005 and 2014, the annual total of new cases has fallen 19 percent largely due to increased screenings and prevention measures. Even still, the lifetime cost of treating an HIV infection is $379,000--a staggering amount considering that 30 percent of those living with the disease lack health insurance. I am especially pleased by news that the National Institutes of Health started a grant program in July of this year to fund research into a cure--$30 million per year over the next five years. amFAR, a non-profit research organization, has committed to investing $100 million to form the scientific basis for a cure by 2020. The scientists tell us the moment is now. A cure is possible if we commit ourselves to it. As long as I am in Congress, I will fight to make the necessary resources available to eradicate HIV/AIDS and realize our shared dream of an AIDS-free generation.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from Michigan, once again, we find ourselves in this dreary and dangerous ritual of considering a bill which, without question, would cause us to violate our agreement under the JCPOA. We get the same arguments about how bad the Iranian regime is, and we get the same misstatements like: This is President Obama's deal. It is not President Obama's deal. It is a deal of the United Nations Security Council, of China, of Russia, of Great Britain, of France, of Germany, the U.K., and the rest of the world who combined working for a period of almost 15 years hammered out a deal--and I say this as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence--which today has removed Iran as a nuclear threat. Yet, here again, we are offered a bill that would compromise our obligations and almost certainly result in centrifuges spinning once again in Tehran and then leading on to the very likely prospect of yet another Middle Eastern war. Yes, Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. Yes, it is a bad place. You will get no argument from this side of the aisle that this is a bad regime. Once again, I remind my Republican friends that their patron saint, Ronald Reagan, made a nuclear deal with the Soviet Union, also a sponsor of terrorism, an appalling regime; but Ronald Reagan was smart enough to know that you can make a deal that makes everybody safer even with some very bad people. Ronald Reagan. One thing I know as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is that what used to be a mortal national security threat to the United States--2 to 3 months from breakout time, 2 to 3 months over which would almost certainly be involved in yet another war in the Middle East--has been taken off the table. Now, the Republicans not only seek to scuttle that deal with all of the implications, but they do it by stopping an American company from selling a flagship American product around the world. If you use the Department of Commerce's multiplier, the bill they are pushing today would result in 100,000 American jobs not created so that they can continue with this fetish of eliminating a deal, which has made us safer. If there is any question about whether this has made us safer, let me again quote General Gadi Eizenkot, who is the chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces. He said the deal has actually removed the most serious danger to Israel's existence for the foreseeable future and greatly reduced the threat over the longer term. That is the chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, but my friends in the Republican Party know better about what is good for Israel. These sad charades end pretty soon because the bluff has been called. President Trump has said he will tear up the Iran deal. When he does that--because this, of course, is not becoming law--the centrifuges will spin again. To my friends on the other side of the aisle, when the centrifuges are spinning, we and I will stand here and we will tell the American people why centrifuges are spinning again. And where we were 2 years ago when we thought we were going to war with Iran, if we go to Iran, when Israeli planes are bombing Iran, we will stand here and explain why we are now in another Middle Eastern war. We can avoid that by ending these charades and finally accepting this deal.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Pallone for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Dangerous Synthetic Drug Control Act, which will reclassify 22 dangerous synthetic substances as schedule I substances subject to the control and enforcement associated with schedule I substances. Mr. Speaker, the community I represent, like every community represented in this Chamber, has been visited by the tragedy of fatal drug overdoses. We know the statistics nationally--opioid deaths are in the 30,000 neighborhood. That is a tragedy around the country. The substances that we reclassify today include some of the fentanyl substances that are often associated with the most gruesome overdoses often mixed with heroin. My colleagues will remember that fentanyl is the drug actually responsible for the overdose death of the musician Prince and, sadly, is pervasive through our communities. The synthetic drugs that are being scheduled today through this bill are particularly pernicious because they are marketed often in corner retail establishments and often in ways designed to appeal to young people in colored packages with names like K2 and Spice, clearly targeting our youngest constituents. We are engaged, of course, in a cat-and-mouse game with the producers of these substances because as soon as a substance is scheduled, a chemist somewhere figures out a slight alteration to the formula in such a way that now they have a drug which is untested and unproven but mimics some of the effects of a scheduled drug; but we have no idea what the effects are, and all too often those effects can be devastating to the individual using them. This bill, again, will take 22 of those dangerous substances and classify them into schedule I. This is going to make my community in southwestern Connecticut safer, and it will make communities throughout this country safer. I really want to thank, in particular, Congressman Dent for his very hard work on this, and Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone for expediting this bill in a way that I know is going to make a very positive difference in our communities.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill, with all due respect to my friends, Mr. Poliquin and Mr. Hill. The Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act is one of those bills that sounds like a good idea. And I am sure many of my colleagues are thinking, Why not? Transparency is a good thing. The Iranian regime is a bad thing. Let's support this thing. What could possibly go wrong? I have a couple of points to make in that respect. The first one is that--again, with all due respect to my friends on the other side--this bill, if it is intended to get at the wealth of the Iranian leadership, will fail, and it will fail in an embarrassing and spectacular and almost laughable fashion. The reason I say that, of course, is that the bill specifies that the estimated total funds or assets held in accounts at U.S. and foreign financial institutions shall be enumerated. Funds are defined as cash, equity, and bonds. So if we pass this bill, we are going to know that the Supreme Leader has a thousand shares of IBM down at the local Merrill Lynch office. But European real estate, private jets, boats, piles of gold bars, stacks of unrefined heroin, Swiss watches, shell businesses in South America, we won't know about any of them. I ask my colleagues: How many shares of IBM do you think the Iranian regime has down at the local Merrill Lynch office? Probably not a lot. We froze their assets for a very, very long time. This bill, if it passes, will get at some tiny fraction of the wealth of the Iranian regime in a way that will, frankly, embarrass our country because we will show how little we know, which brings me to the second problem I have with this bill. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am very concerned about what this bill would do with respect to disclosing or at least pointing at our sources and methods for intelligence gathering. I think there are probably very few assets of the kinds captured by this bill in U.S. banks or banks that we would have ready access to in Europe, but I am not so sure there aren't perhaps cash or securities in Albanian, Pakistani, or Russian banks. If we enumerate those assets, we will be inevitably pointing at a capacity we may or may not have to determine what is going on inside those banks. I would suggest that this bill does not provide nearly enough good to put at risk the sources and methods of our intelligence gathering. We know what is happening here. This bill is an installment in the relentless attempt by the majority to tank the Iranian nuclear bill. Look, we can disagree over whether that bill was a good idea. Certainly, we did. But the fact is--and I say this as a member of the Intelligence Committee--it is working. Iran is in compliance with their nuclear obligations. The Prime Minister of Israel stood in the General Assembly a couple of years ago and had a little drawing of a bomb and said: We are 2 to 3 months away from breakout. Today we are probably 12 to 15 months away from an Iranian nuclear breakout, in the worst case scenario. Yet the Republican majority, in this latest installment, wants to make that go away. Moreover, they do that without a backup plan. If they succeed in tanking this bill and we are right back where we were a year ago, 2 to 3 months away from breakout, what then? We are isolated. We have lost the moral high ground and we are probably a lot closer to another war in the Middle East. I don't understand that. So think about where we wind up if the majority succeeds. We would be isolated, we would be closer to war, and we would be standing alone, clutching the moral low ground. I ask my colleagues to think about these points, as well as the good points made by the ranking member, and to oppose this bill.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask, to beseech, really, that this House take immediate action to fully fund our country's response to the spreading horror of Zika. Mr. Speaker, there are now thousands of confirmed cases of Zika in the United States. Hundreds of these cases are pregnant women. Can you imagine the terror they experience wondering whether their child will be born with horrible disabilities? What must they think as they see our public health experts coming to Congress? These are the people who helped end the Ebola crisis. They come to Congress and they say: We need these resources. The call has been made, but it has not been answered because some in this House think that, yes, your concerns are real, but we have to continue the fight about Planned Parenthood. Yes, my pregnant friend, your concerns are real, but we have unfinished business about the Confederate flag. What must they think? Mr. Speaker, the call has been issued. This is a national emergency. We need to act not tomorrow, not next week, but today to help these people with the Zika virus.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, on July 13, 2016, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on amendments Number 76 and Number 78 to H.R. 5538, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017. I wish to reflect that had I been present for roll calls No. 453 and 454, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4992 precisely because the passage of H.R. 4992, were it to become law--and I say this as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence--would put me and this Congress and the rest of us in the United States back in a position of walking on eggshells, if I might borrow a phrase used by the Republican majority. It would put me back in the position of every single week going to the spaces of the Intelligence Committee and asking the question, What kind of progress has Iran made this week in their efforts to deliver nuclear weapons, and then hearing answers that I would not like and nobody in this Chamber would like. There is no question and there is no legal opinion of any credibility that suggests that H.R. 4992 is not a very clear violation of our obligations under the JCPOA. The majority has talked a lot about denying access to the U.S. infrastructure financial system, which the Treasury Secretary has said we will do. What they are not telling you is that H.R. 4992 would subject non-U.S. banks to the same restrictions on U.S. banks regarding dollar-denominated transactions. So we would say to a French bank: You cannot undertake a transaction with a German hotel developer if it were denominated in dollars. Now, apart from the jurisdictional questions and the damage that would do to the United States dollar as the global reserve currency, it is a very clear violation of the JCPOA. There is no legal interpretation of any credibility that would suggest otherwise. Now, let me be clear about some things that we all agree on--and I have a profound amount of respect for Chairman Royce, and we agree on some things. I have heard a steady stream from the other side of the truth that Iran is money laundering, that they are sponsoring terrorism, that they are destabilizing the region, and that they treat their people terribly. You are 100 percent right on that issue. You will find no disagreement on this side of the aisle with any of those allegations. But the fact of the matter is that the Iran nuclear deal, which is jeopardized by this bill, was a deal that said: In exchange for stopping your development of nuclear weapons, we will provide you with access to some of your own money. That was the deal. The deal did not include: You will stop destabilizing the region and that you will stop your terrorist activity. By the way, I am sorry about that. I would have liked to have seen a deal that would have brought Iran entirely into the community of nations, but that was not the deal. By the way, there was a time in American history when we were a bit more adult in the way we thought about foreign relations where Ronald Reagan would go to the Soviet Union--what he called the evil empire--and do an Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces deal that was about nuclear weapons while the Soviet Union was murderous to their own people, destabilizing the globe, and threatening us with annihilation. But we said it was worth preserving the deal and preserving the safety that we had against ballistic weapons under Ronald Reagan. Now, we can't disagree on some facts. I heard Chairman Royce say that tens of billions of dollars are going to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. That is simply not true. Secretary Kerry estimated--and he was referring to actual dollars into the country--that some $3 billion had come into Iran. So, yes, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, sadly, will benefit in some small way from the sanctions relief. But the figure of tens of billions of dollars is simply inaccurate. We disagree fundamentally on the Iran nuclear deal. The fact of the matter--and I have heard allegations from the other side to the contrary--is that not the IAEA--not any global bodies--are suggesting that Iran isn't anything other than in compliance with the deal. As a consequence, instead of being 2 months away, as we were, from the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon, we are probably 12 months or more away from the development of a nuclear weapon. Is that perfect? Of course, it is not. It is speaking as somebody who every week considers the threats to this country being 12 months away is a heck of a lot safer than being 2 months away. I have heard from the other side that this is a flawed deal and that it jeopardizes U.S. national security and the security of Israel. Let me quote somebody who knows something about the security of Israel, Lieutenant General Gadi Eizenkot, Chief of Staff of Israel Defense Forces. Six months ago he said: ``The deal has actually removed the most serious danger to Israel's existence for the foreseeable future and greatly reduced the threat over the longer term.'' If it is true for Israel, it is true for the United States. Stand up for peace, stand up for our international obligations, and oppose H.R. 4992.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, to my friend from New York (Mr. Zeldin), perhaps we didn't get a signature, but we got compliance from Iran on their obligations to stop their production of nuclear weapons. I want to take the rest of my time to hopefully clear up a factual matter. I have profound respect for Chairman Royce, and Congressman Schweikert is one of my closest friends in this Chamber. We seem to have a disagreement as to whether this would jeopardize the JCPOA. This bill would subject non-U.S. banks to the same restrictions that are put on U.S. banks regarding dollar-denominated securities. I would point to, in the JCPOA, annex II, which lists the sanctions to be lifted under the JCPOA, 4.1.3, which lifts sanctions on the provision of U.S. bank notes. This would clearly violate our obligations under the JCPOA, and I would hope that my friends in the majority would acknowledge that fact as they push this bill. I continue to urge its rejection.

Mr. HIMES

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), I offer amendment No. 3.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to offer an amendment that was authored by my good friend and colleague, Joe Courtney of Connecticut. This is an amendment that would provide, on a budget-neutral basis, $300,000 to the national park system for the New England National Scenic Trail. This is something that is very important to us in the region of New England. It is an environmental treasure that is located in the backyards of millions of Connecticut and Massachusetts residents. The trail was officially designated as a National Scenic Trail in 2009, but has long been enjoyed by all southern New Englanders. The New England National Scenic Trail winds through 40 communities, and nearly 2 million people live within 10 miles of it. Starting in Guilford, Connecticut, just outside my district, on the shores of the Long Island Sound, the trail winds northward on a ridgeline tracing the Connecticut River, across the Pioneer Valley highlands in Massachusetts, and ends at Royalston Falls on the Massachusetts-New Hampshire border. This budget-neutral amendment simply ensures that $300,000 within the operation of the National Park System account will be set aside to fund the New England National Scenic Trail. Over a decade ago, the National Park Trail feasibility study recommended that the New England Trail would need an annual operating budget of $271,000 in Federal funding; but the trail has, unfortunately, received an average of less than half that--$127,000 annually, in the NPS operations funding. Of this funding, the National Park Service takes one-third, leaving only about $43,000 for each State to manage this 223-mile-long trail, a trail that winds through some of the most scenic areas of New England and some of the most historic parts of our country with respect to the Revolutionary War. The Massachusetts-based Appalachian Mountain Club and the Connecticut Forest and Park Association have done an outstanding job leveraging the minimal $127,000 in funding, raising $1.5 million in non-Federal dollars in 2015 alone. Mr. Chair, this amendment will ensure stable funding for the New England Trail and safeguard a high-quality recreational and wilderness experience for the many thousands of trail users in our small, densely populated region of the country. I respectfully urge my colleagues to support this budget-neutral amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HIMES

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

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, my amendment does one very simple thing, which is to increase the funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission by $50 million, bringing the funding in this bill for the Securities and Exchange Commission to the level of funding for the SEC in 2016. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that this level of funding is still significantly lower than the President's request of $1.78 billion. I would further point out, Mr. Chairman, that the work of the SEC, at its core, is about protecting investors who are essential to the functioning of our capital markets and to protecting the long-term sustainability of the U.S. financial system. Mr. Chairman, as I think this body knows, the Dodd-Frank Act--which I understand is controversial in this Chamber, but which has gone a very long way to avoiding the kind of meltdown that we had in 2008 and which destroyed $17 trillion in American asset value at its worst--as well as the JOBS Act, which attracted strong bipartisan support in this Chamber, those two bills required the SEC to write some 70 new regulations. And yet despite that requirement and all of the advocacy that we saw, particularly from my friends on the Republican side of the aisle for more alacrity in the writing of the rules for the JOBS Act, we are now seeing a real cut in the budget for the SEC. Just to give you a sense of what the SEC does, it is now responsible for overseeing some 26,000 market participants and over 9,000 public companies. The assets managed by SEC-registered investment advisers have increased 210 percent since 2005 to almost $70 trillion. That is a lot of money. That is a lot of investment. This is an organization which is really essential to one of the chief competitive advantages that the United States has, which is the liquidity and the respect that the world has for our capital markets. Again, $50 million bringing the SEC up to the level of funding that it had last year. And as a final point, let me point out that the SEC is funded not by taxes, but by fees that it collects. So this would not have the effect of cutting another program or of raising anybody's taxes; but it would, in fact, simply authorize $50 million in fees that would be used for the SEC's budget. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the opportunity to offer this amendment, and I would like to thank the cosponsors of this amendment, Representatives Maloney, Hinojosa, Perlmutter, and Sewell. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's perspective, but I disagree. He is correct that, in fact, the funding for the SEC has risen in the last 8 years, but so has the dramatic amount of work that is required of it. Mr. Chair, I will close with just one important point, which is that we saw over the course of the last 2 weeks the dramatic market volatility that was introduced by Great Britain's decision to remove itself from the EU. There was not a stock market or an asset market anywhere on the globe that didn't suffer a significant jolt. These are moments of uncertainty--maybe even of chaos--in the capital markets. We have a fairly significant election coming up this November. We are not looking at a moment in which the capital markets are likely to experience smooth sailing off into the foreseeable future. We saw, in the last 2 weeks, precisely the volatility that warrants the need to have a cop on the beat to watch. This is not the moment to cut the SEC's funding. I would urge my colleagues in this Chamber to pass this amendment and to fully fund the cop that we need on this beat. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.