Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to memorialize Martin Martinez and to draw attention to his story and his struggle.

Martin lived for over 30 years here in the United States. He worked hard, paid taxes, learned English. He had two beautiful American children, one of them, Maria, worked for the people of the United States, the House of Representatives, and for me.

Martin was a good American, but he was also an undocumented immigrant, and even though he was putting himself at risk and he knew it, he and his wife self-reported to the government to declare their status. They followed every instruction they were given, and they stayed out of any kind of trouble, but they were still deported.

Soon after the deportation, Martin paid the ultimate price and lost his life on February 27.

Now, he had existing heart problems, but his daughter, Maria, will tell you, ``This administration separated my family and my dad died of a broken heart.''

Maria and her brother are now forced to grieve alone, for their mother was also deported and has been barred from reentering the United States for a decade.

Maria and the rest of the Martinez family are forced to suffer the real human cost of this administration's policies. And it is stories like Martin's that so clearly demonstrate the need for comprehensive immigration reform.

Martin's story is the story of millions of immigrants. It is our story. And it is our responsibility to learn from it and to act. We can't bring back Martin Martinez, but we can do something to heal our country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in honor of a young man called Daniel Keegan.

Daniel served in the Army's 82nd Airborne as an intelligence analyst for 8 years. He was deployed to Afghanistan twice. In 2009, Daniel was named Soldier of the Year of the 7th Special Forces Group at Fort Bragg. He was a remarkable young man.

Like many of our heroes, he came home with PTSD. It took too long to get him hooked up at the VA. There were a bunch of dropped balls. So he began to self-medicate. He did that with drugs that he found online. He could order the drugs right from his own couch.

Daniel lost his life in January of 2016. His mother, Stephanie, came to my office not long after. Stephanie Keegan has now dedicated her life to improving services at the VA and fighting the heroin and opioid epidemic, particularly as it relates to our men and women in uniform.

Just a couple of months ago, Stephanie joined me in Hudson Valley to announce the Stop Online Opioid Sales Act, and that is what is in this amendment.

We started looking at this issue, and we found out that we are losing the information battle in the fight to stop online drug sales. In fact, we don't even know exactly how much is coming into our country, or where it is coming from.

Earlier this year, the Senate released a report suggesting that $800 million of opioids were coming just from China alone and being sold online. I am told that 50,000 doses of fentanyl can be fit inside a business size envelope.

We need to get on top of this problem. These statistics are alarming. The trend is alarming. We don't know what is happening. We need the DEA to get in the game on this, and we need to know how much of an issue this really is.

It is really hard to keep up with the constantly evolving tech landscape when it comes to drug sales. But the first step in stopping the problem is understanding the scope.

What we know is that drug addicts, right now, can conduct their online habit without leaving their home. The drugs come in the UPS truck, or the FedEx truck, or the U.S. mail, and they can sell drugs to people who come to that location.

I have spoken to recovering addicts who never left their house, who conducted, for years, an online drug business out of their own house and fed their own habit with it.

We need to get on top of this problem. That is what is in this amendment and what it would allow us to do. We would simply require the DEA to compile a comprehensive report on the sale of drugs online within a year, and then be required to continue to issue annual reports containing this information.

Under the amendment, the reports would include the types and amounts of controlled substances and analogues sold online, the name of each entity and person selling them, and an estimate of the revenue being generated through these illegal channels.

This opioid crisis has impacted folks from every State, every party, and every walk of life, and it certainly doesn't care what party you belong to.

Mr. Chairman, I ask all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to join me in support of this amendment so that we can fight back against this scourge and stop burying young American heroes like Daniel Keegan.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I thank the gentlewoman for those comments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. If adopted, it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, we will proceed to final passage, as amended.

I offer the motion to recommit on behalf of farmers and rural communities

who are confronting threats to their livelihood, sadly, that are included within this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the communities I represent rely heavily on agriculture. Hudson Valley farmers feed New York and America, they create thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity, and they preserve the cultural heritage for generations of farmers who have done the same.

I was raised in a small town surrounded by family farms, and I am proud to say I still live in one today. Agriculture drives the economy of my district.

Suffice it to say, I didn't think I would ever oppose a farm bill. I was proud to be part of the bipartisan team that wrote the last one. That bipartisan bill was a huge win for farmers in my part of the world, but this farm bill is very different, and I am disappointed to say that we are following the best farm bill ever for the Hudson Valley with the very worst farm bill ever for the Hudson Valley.

It claims to create efficiencies, but really just ends up going after people who need a hand, the ones we are supposed to focus on in this bill.

One instance is simply the mandate that parents pay their child support or lose their SNAP benefits. Now, that, on its face, sounds like it makes sense: You don't pay your child support when you have kids, that should be a problem, but this bill goes about it in all the wrong ways and it ends up hurting the very children who rely on that child support, and it would actually end up costing more than it would save us.

It also goes after critical trade programs just as millions of our farmers are reeling from a trade war and the renegotiation of NAFTA.

Earlier this week, my Hudson Valley district was slammed by a series of storms, which destroyed acres and acres worth of crops. My office has been inundated with calls from farmers whose very livelihoods are in jeopardy as a result.

One farmer named Josh Morgenthau, who runs the famous farm called Fishkill Farms, may have lost $1 million worth of crops. That is just one farmer in Duchess County.

So the very same week when we faced these deadly storms, we are now talking about responding to millions of dollars in crop damages without improving the very crop insurance programs that farmers like Josh depend on today, right now. That is a kick in the teeth to the guys I represent.

But the problems with this bill don't stop with crop insurance, as bad as those are.

This bill eliminates America's largest conservation program, and that is a killer for rural New York because of growing urban sprawl and the loss of farmland around New York City. In fact, in New York State, we lose 10 times more farmland than we preserve every single year. Now, you don't need your slide ruler to figure out that is a big problem for us.

This bill does too little to help small, diverse family farms like I represent, but it is a huge win for corporate industrial agriculture. It doesn't add a penny to the very research foundation that is funding local efforts in my part of the world to fight invasive species like the allium leafminer, which threatens the entire onion crop of the black dirt region, one of the Nation's largest.

This is all happening against the backdrop of aging farmers, and that fact threatens the sustainability of the industry. New farmers can't get access to crop insurance or farmland they need to start a viable business. The land costs too much. These kids are loaded up with student debt.

Don't take my word for it. The National Young Farmers Coalition adamantly opposes the Republican bill.

We can't wait for the next farm bill to fix these problems. The average age of our farmers is going up all the time. It used to be 50; today it is 60 years old, the average farmer. It keeps going in the wrong direction.

We should be doing more in this bill to support young and beginning farmers and to incentivize careers in agriculture.

I promised my farmers, including my agricultural advisory board, on which Josh Morgenthau and other young farmers sit, that I would fight for them in Washington.

In our motion, we provide almost $400 million for the Market Access Program, Foreign Market Development, and Technical Assistance for Specialty Crop Farms over 5 years.

For the scholarships at 1890s institutions and Historically Black Colleges that help to prepare our next generation, we provide $95 million, and we fund the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Program at $120 million.

We provide $80 million for organics research. We commit $140 million to promote farmers markets and local foods, and we invest $125 million in outreach and assistance for socially disadvantaged farmers.

For research on specialty crops to advance the fruit, vegetable, flower, and nut growers that contribute the largest portion of our Nation's farm gate value, we provide $175 million.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to memorialize two beloved elected officials from the Hudson Valley who passed away this weekend: Assemblyman Frank Skartados and Newburgh mayor, Judy Kennedy.

First, Assemblyman Frank Skartados represented a number of communities up and down the Hudson Valley. He lost a battle with cancer early Sunday morning. Even though he was struggling through his sickness, Frank still fought relentlessly for his neighbors up in Albany.

Frank was an immigrant from Greece, grew up on a small Greek island, came to America as a teenager, learned English, paid his way through school, and built a successful business. He went on to represent the people of the Hudson Valley and the State Assembly for nearly a decade. Now, if that is not the American Dream, I don't know what is. My heart goes out to the Skartados family and to everyone else grieving his loss. We will miss Frank sorely.

I would also like to memorialize Judy Kennedy, the mayor of Newburgh, New York. Judy and I shared a love for the city of Newburgh. Judy also passed away from cancer this weekend. She fought through her sickness to serve the people she cared so much about and the city she loved.

She was a relentless warrior for the people she represented. She brought the city of Newburgh through an economic crisis and presided over a real revitalization throughout that city. Our thoughts are with the Kennedy family as well, and, of course, the entire Newburgh community that will miss her leadership.

The public servants we lost this weekend were truly special people. They dedicated their lives to the people they served, and the best way for us to honor their legacy is to finish their work, to look out for the communities they represented, and to make sure they stay the wonderful places to live, work, and raise a family that they are.

Frank and Judy, thank you for all you have done for us. I hope everyone in the Hudson Valley joins me in saying a prayer in remembrance of their service, and, of course, we will see them; we will see them whenever we see the government doing something right. We will see them when we see the city of Newburgh continue to thrive. We will see them when we see the State government improving our environment-- looking out for working families, fighting for people without a voice. That is where we will see their legacy, when we continue the work they fought so nobly and so long to advance.

Rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can turn our attention to the issue that is so critical for this body to address right now. I speak of the Federal Communications Commission's decision and its assault on net neutrality.

The FCC is expected to vote tomorrow to eliminate the rules that protect

our internet. They are about to fix something that is not broken.

Now, maybe the words ``net neutrality'' make your eyes glaze over, but this issue is critical to anyone who uses the internet, which is really all of us, and it is not that complicated.

We call the rules that protect the current internet ``net neutrality'' because they, more or less, keep the internet neutral for everyone. A neutral internet means we all have access to the same legal content and services no matter where or how we get our internet.

These rules aren't new, and they are working. In fact, when you think about it, one of the last places where quality really reigns in our society is on the internet. We don't discriminate against the content or the intellectual creations of one young entrepreneur versus a big business or an established entity. It is one of the few places left in America where we are all on equal footing.

That is the current net neutrality system that we must protect. The folks who want to end net neutrality say they need to rewrite these rules to spur innovation.

Really, Mr. Speaker?

It is hard to look at the internet as it has blossomed in America and say we lack innovation. Innovation is everywhere. Look at all the new apps, websites, devices, and services that we all rely on every day.

This innovation exists not in spite of net neutrality. This innovation exists, in large part, because of net neutrality. Net neutrality is not a bug, Mr. Speaker. Net neutrality is a feature, and that is why we must protect it.

Of course, the real reason that people want to end net neutrality is money and profitability. Getting rid of net neutrality would expose consumers to all sorts of practices that, right now, are banned; practices like throttling, which means the internet company doesn't have to provide the same access to all companies. So they don't like one company, they can slow down your access to that site. They could block the site entirely.

They could tell a streaming service, like Netflix, that they have to pay more or make their site work differently. These extra costs for Netflix are going to get passed on to all of us, the consumers.

While some of us have a few choices when it comes to internet service providers, most of us don't.

How many have more than one option when it comes to internet in your home or office?

These companies have a functional monopoly, so many of them can do basically whatever they want and not lose customers. That is why we need some commonsense rules in place to protect consumers. These rules are called net neutrality.

So what can we do to stop the FCC from harming this free internet?

Well, I have introduced legislation in just the last couple of days that would block this proposal and protect the internet. H.R. 4585, the Save Net Neutrality Act, would simply prevent the FCC from relying on this process they have used to roll these rules back. It is really that simple. And we know the FCC's rulemaking process was so messed up, so corrupted, so screwed up that it is being investigated right now by the New York attorney general.

So I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to defeat the previous question so we can move to debate my bill, the Save Net Neutrality Act, and address this critical issue. This is our chance to protect the internet, as it has always existed, an internet that is working fine as it is.

To the FCC, we say: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to suggest a new rule.

All my life, I have heard the Republican Party preach family values and fiscal discipline, but in the course of a single week, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Republican Party in this House vote to add more than $1 trillion of new debt because tax cuts for rich people matter more. We have seen the Republican President and the Republican Party in the Senate choose to support a credibly accused pedophile because power matters more.

So, I will tell you what, Mr. Speaker, new rule: After today, the Republican Party can choose to support massive new debts and politicians who abuse kids, but it cannot lecture the rest of us about it. The rest of us have listened to our last lecture from Republicans about family values or fiscal discipline. From now on, that party has no credibility on either issue.

So I will tell you what. When it comes to family values or fiscal responsibility, please keep it to yourselves. We have heard enough of it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a giant of the Hudson Valley, former Congressman Maurice Hinchey.

Mr. Hinchey passed away last week, but 21 years ago, I had the opportunity to be a young volunteer on his campaign for Congress. A few days ago, I attended his wake with hundreds of my neighbors in the Hudson Valley.

When you met Maurice Hinchey, you met, first and foremost, a real, live, flesh-and-blood human being who was strong, principled, and passionate. That person became a real hero to many of us in the Hudson Valley.

We celebrate his life of service in the Navy, in the New York Assembly, and, of course, here in the Congress.

I am blessed to represent a district that includes many of the same communities that Maurice Hinchey represented. When I took office, I heard the same thing again and again: if you want to succeed, just do what Maurice Hinchey did. That advice is easier said than done, but I have tried.

He was one of a kind: a leader, a fighter, a gentleman, and a statesman. He was a tireless advocate for the Hudson River and for the larger environment.

We are all blessed to have been served by him, and he will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of thousands of DREAMers across the country.

This week, as you know, President Trump threatened to kick these children out of the only country they have ever known.

In New York, we have over 40,000 DACA kids who work hard and contribute to our communities. And if the President or anyone thinks these DREAMers are somehow a threat to our country, well, I would like you to meet Laura Garcia.

Laura is a neighbor of mine who lives in Orange County, New York. She was brought here from Mexico at 8 years old. She has lived here for nearly her entire life and done everything the right way, right here in the United States.

Laura was elected vice president of her high school. She works three jobs to pay her way through Dutchess Community College. In the few spare moments she has, she volunteers to help others.

Laura has DACA status, which means she is registered with the program. She paid a fee, she passed a criminal background check, and she has stayed out of trouble. She has done everything we have asked her to do, and she has done it the right way.

All of us would be proud to have a daughter like Laura. America has hundreds of thousands of sons and daughters just like Laura. These are our children.

So for those who say that DREAMers like Laura should go home, I say they can't go home because they are home. This is their home.

Mr. Speaker, last week, we learned the terrible news that we had lost 16 of the very best and brightest members of the United States Marine Corps and the United States Navy when the plane they were traveling on crashed in Mississippi.

I stand here with my colleagues who lost citizens of their districts, in particular, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones). This is, of course, a national tragedy, though.

The gentleman from North Carolina represents Camp Lejeune, where six marines and one Navy corpsman were stationed. Those seven servicemembers include Staff Sergeant Robert Cox, Staff Sergeant William Kundrat, Sergeant Chad Jenson, Sergeant Talon Leach, Sergeant Joseph Murray, Sergeant Dietrich Schmieman, and Petty Officer 2nd Class Ryan Lohrey.

I, of course, represent Stewart Air National Guard Base, where nine marines who lost their lives in that terrible crash were stationed.

In my time in Congress, I have had many opportunities to visit with the brave men and women who serve our country and were based at Stewart Air National Guard Base. As you know, they are all truly American heroes.

Those we lost are as follows: Major Caine Goyette, Captain Sean Elliott, Gunnery Sergeant Mark Hopkins, Gunnery Sergeant Brendan Johnson, Staff Sergeant Joshua Snowden, Sergeant Julian Kevianne, Sergeant Owen Lennon, Corporal Daniel Baldassare, and Corporal Collin Schaaff.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues standing behind me, all of our communities, and our Nation, I ask for a moment of silence for these 16 brave servicemembers who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.

Mr. Chair, I would note to my colleague from California that perhaps the members of their family are supposed to decide on all their future medical care, because this relates to their healthcare, and not just to the servicemembers'.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Hartzler amendment. No one in the Pentagon has called for this. In fact, we know right now Secretary of Defense Mattis is running a review of this issue. He does not need to be micromanaged by Members of this body to advance their own agenda.

Until last night, all of us had worked in good faith across the aisle to keep this important Defense bill free from political booby traps and land mines, but if you are feeling deja vu, well, don't worry, because I am, too. You may remember that I stood here last year and fought against a similar amendment, again to the Defense bill. That amendment would have allowed Federal contractors to fire LGBT workers under the pretense of religious observance.

I told you then that my dad was a disabled veteran, that he taught me to support and honor the military, but also to speak the truth and know the difference between right and wrong.

I told you that I had never voted against the Defense bill, and I never imagined I would. And then, after a lot of twists and turns, 43 of our Republican colleagues joined with us to vote down that discriminatory amendment, and I want to publicly thank them for their courage.

Well, here we go again. The Hartzler amendment would single out and rob a small group of military servicemembers and their families of their healthcare merely because these folks or members of their family experience gender a little differently.

Mr. Chair, it is that simple. We are talking about Americans who right now are risking their lives to keep us safe, and we should not undermine their military service.

Amendment XI:

``The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my bill, H.R. 357, the Human Trafficking Prevention Act.

I would like to thank my colleagues Mr. Royce and Mr. Cicilline and my cosponsors, and I would like to acknowledge Majority Leader McCarthy for his leadership on taking up this legislation at the beginning of this new Congress.

No matter what part of the country you are from, human trafficking is an issue that we have to address now because lives are at stake. The State Department estimates that millions of children, women, and men are trafficked each year and forced into modern-day slavery as part of an evil and fast-growing industry.

We know that the crime of human trafficking is dramatically underreported, and most of it happens invisibly; therefore, a critical part of the work we are doing today is to bring human trafficking out in the open, so we can raise awareness and prevent it from happening to more of the world's most vulnerable populations.

We must also remember that this happens right here in our communities, all across our own country. Behind all of these numbers and statistics, there are real faces and real stories of women, men, and, too often, children--women like Mandy Palmer of western New York who 4 years ago met a man named Ryan online. Ryan was not who he pretended to be. Ryan turned out to be a human trafficker, a pimp who forced Mandy into prostitution and threatened her family.

New York continues to be one of the top hubs of human trafficking where sex trafficking, child labor, and indentured servitude happen all too frequently. Just one organization in New York, Safe Horizon, has worked with more than 600 victims in recent years.

In the Hudson Valley, we have seen it in Newburgh, in Poughkeepsie, places like Wappingers Falls, places like New Windsor, and even small villages like Pound Ridge. Story after story tells us that this disgusting, this horrifying practice of modern-day slavery happens right here, right in our own neighborhoods, in our own backyards.

Just 10 days ago, authorities took action against a major sex trafficking ring in Albany, New York. Nine women who had traveled here from a foreign country were forced into prostitution at four different massage parlors.

In another community in the Hudson Valley, about an hour away from New York City, a man tricked teenage girls to travel to the United States on tourist visas from countries like Brazil, Hungary, and France. He instructed these women to lie to both Immigration and State Department officials in order to gain access to our country.

It is precisely this type of situation that my legislation seeks to stop. We must ensure that our men and women on the front lines of our borders have the resources and training they need in order to identify and stop human trafficking at its source, before these women, children, and men enter the United States out of their own culture, away from their own language many times, and become isolated and become victims.

As part of our goal to end human trafficking, we can make sure that our Foreign Service officers and other government personnel have the tools and training they need to spot and to identify these victims and to stop this trafficking across international borders.

In the past, the State Department estimated that between 14,000 and 17,000 foreign nationals were trafficked into the United States every single year. Although the Federal Government has a zero tolerance policy on human trafficking, our Foreign Service officers, who often have face-to-face contact with these victims when they are obtaining U.S. visas, currently undergo minimal training to define, identify, and recognize the indicators of this human trafficking so they can stop it at the source.

My legislation would expand new minimum training procedures for Foreign Service officers and other government personnel in order to identify and stop this human trafficking before people cross these boundaries and end up in our own communities, before it becomes too late, when they are here and victimized.

We know criminals will do just about anything to adapt to our new methods and to avoid getting caught, so this bipartisan legislation also requires annual updates to keep on top of key problems, threats, the new methods, and to identify new warning signs of trafficking.

I want to thank my colleagues across the aisle because, by working together, we have a new opportunity to come together to combat this monstrous practice of trafficking in children, women, and men. Victims of human trafficking cannot wait another day. Today, we have an opportunity to do something together to combat this growing problem.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support my legislation, H.R. 357, the Human Trafficking Prevention Act.

Amendment XXI:

Section 1:

``The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.''

Section 2:

``The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.''

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, I am.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill it or send it back to committee. If it is adopted, it will move immediately to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, since 1978, the Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board has been tasked with external, independent advice on the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues to help inform environmental decisions, and this commonsense amendment is critical to protecting the integrity of the SAB.

It simply says:

No person shall be a member of the Environmental Protection

Agency Science Advisory Board if they represent a corporation

or a trade association that has a direct or indirect

financial interest in the outcome of decisions based on

recommendations made by the board.

My colleagues, a simple notion, a commonsense notion: if someone has a financial interest, they should not serve on the board.

The Science Advisory Board has some of the most distinguished scientists in their fields, folks like Dr. William Schlesinger, from Dutchess County in the Hudson Valley, in my neck of the woods, who has served as a member of the Science Advisory Board. Dr. Schlesinger is a good example of the kind of people we have on this board. He is the president emeritus of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, an ecological research institute in Millbrook, New York. He has spent 30 years investigating the link between environmental chemistry and global climate change, and his expertise has informed numerous pieces of legislation, such as the Clean Air Act.

America is the world leader in research, with an unprecedented number of scientists like Dr. Schlesinger in academic institutions, not because we politicize science, but because we don't politicize science. Their entire life's work has been devoted to serving the public and to leaving our country a better place. It is why it is imperative that we continue to allow the most knowledgeable scientific and technical experts from our research institutions to serve without conflict, without a paycheck in the offing. So far, scientists on the SAB have been instrumental in creating real reforms to the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Science is not political. We shouldn't fear science, and we shouldn't politicize science. We should not monetize science, and we should not make it political today. We should ban these conflicts and trust in our scientists. We must continue to allow the SAB to implement impartial scientific recommendations, and we simply must prohibit scientists who can profit from decisions from making recommendations as part of the board.

This bill now requires a new disclosure requirement for SAB members, but there is a glaring omission. It fails to effectively prevent persons with key financial conflicts from serving. That is why I urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment. We must not allow corporations to influence this process by sending corporation-funded scientists onto the board. We must not allow corporation-funded scientists to drown out genuine scientific debate. My goodness. This amendment would simply ensure that the science board continues its integrity of serving science, not serving itself or any one political agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today, we celebrate Constitution Day--a holiday that falls 227 years after our founding fathers George Washington, James Madison, and their colleagues signed the original Constitution and sent it to the states for ratification. We should all use this important holiday as an opportunity to reflect on the achievements of the Founding generation-- who wrote the most durable and successful charter of government in world history--but we should also remember that the Framers only wrote the opening chapter in a much longer constitutional story. And this is precisely what the Framers themselves intended--leaving it up to future generations to use the Article V amendment process to improve upon their handiwork and ``form a more perfect Union.''

Perhaps the most important set of constitutional changes occurred after the Civil War, when President Lincoln and his generation ratified a series of transformational Amendments that many scholars have rightly described as our nation's ``Second Founding.'' As we approach the 150th anniversaries of these key Second Founding Amendments--the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth--it's worth pausing for a moment on this Constitution Day to consider their centrality to America's constitutional story.

The Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery and forced labor--redeeming us from the Founding generation's original sin. Following his reelection in November 1864, President Lincoln worked furiously to convince members of Congress to support the Thirteenth Amendment, eventually securing congressional approval on January 31, 1865. The following day, Lincoln took the unusual step of signing the Thirteenth Amendment before sending it to the states for ratification, calling it a ``King's cure'' for the evil of slavery.

The Fourteenth Amendment is arguably the most important constitutional provision ratified after the Bill of Rights, enshrining a host of new constitutional guarantees in our nation's charter. It granted U.S. citizenship to everyone born on American soil--a guarantee worthy of special reflection on a day also set aside as Citizenship Day. It protected fundamental rights like free speech from state abuses and ensured due process of law for everyone. Finally, it wrote Jefferson's famous Declaration into the Constitution and perfected it by changing ``all men'' to ``any person.'' This universal language guarantees equality for everyone--whether black or white, woman or man, gay or heterosexual.

Finally, the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote free of racial discrimination--beginning the most sustained project of constitutional improvement in American history. This project produced a total of six Voting Rights Amendments that established the right to vote as the most fundamental of all rights in our constitutional system.

Beginning this Constitution Day, we should use the 150th anniversary of the Second Founding to begin a national conversation about its enduring meaning and our nation's unfinished project of living up to the constitutional principles enshrined in its transformational Amendments. While our country has made tremendous progress since that day 227 years ago, our nation's story is not over and together we must continue building on our strong foundation to improve upon our more perfect union.