Alan Grayson

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the outstanding life and legacy of Bonnie L. Valkman, age 62, who passed away on Monday, November 24, 2014. A respected leader in her community, Bonnie will be remembered for her enthusiastic community involvement. Bonnie was born on December 22, 1951, in West Bend, Wisconsin, to the late Walter and Joan Michaels. She was a resident of Wauconda, Illinois, for 28 years. Bonnie was the beloved Wife of Greg and loving Mother of Laura Baker. Bonnie was a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. Bonnie Valkman leaves behind a legacy of kindness, devotion, and faith. She was a loving and devoted Wife and Mother, a kind and thoughtful friend, and, above all, a woman of deep faith. She attended the Willow Creek Community Church. Bonnie's outlook on life touched the lives of many and made her community a better place. I am saddened by the loss of such a valuable member of the community and extend my heartfelt condolences to her family

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of an outstanding member of our Armed Forces. Lieutenant Colonel Gregory D. ``Vader'' Soderstrom, of the United States Air Force, is the Special Assistant to the Commander, 47th Operations Group, Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas. Lt. Col. Soderstrom served as Commander of the 47th Student Squadron, where he oversaw the day-to-day activities of over 600 student pilots, 22 active duty permanent party members, and 80 civilians assigned to Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training. Additionally, Lt. Col. Soderstrom flies as an instructor pilot with the 85th and 434th Flying Training Squadrons, instructing future Air Force pilots in the T-6A. The 47th Operations Group produces over 300 new pilots each year for the Combat, Mobility and Special Operations Air Forces. Lt. Col. Soderstrom was raised in Wichita, Kansas. He received his commission in 1996 from the United States Air Force Academy. He is a Command Pilot with over 3,400 hours in the F-15C/D, T-37B, and T-6A. He has held a variety of positions at the squadron, group, wing, and Major Command level. Prior to his current assignment he served as the Commander, Headquarters Squadron, United States Air Forces in Europe, Ramstein Air Base, Germany. Lt. Col. Soderstrom is married to the former Tephanie Weber of Marysville, Kansas. They have three children, Trinity, Cole, and Logan. I thank Lt. Col. Soderstrom, and his family, for his twenty years of service to a grateful nation, and wish him the best as he begins his new career as a pilot in Italy.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and legacy of the Honorable Scott D. Polodna, who passed away on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, after losing his battle with cancer. He was 51. Judge Polodna was a respected leader in Central Florida and will be remembered as a dedicated colleague, and a dignified, compassionate person and jurist. He helped many people improve their lives. Judge Polodna began his service as a judge in 2006. Judge Polodna has served the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court for over 10 years as a circuit judge in Osceola County in the criminal division, and in the civil division specializing in probate, guardianship, and mental health issues. Born in Chicago, IL, Judge Polodna moved to Florida 40 years ago. He received a bachelor's degree in psychology and a law degree from the University of Florida. Judge Polodna taught criminal evidence at Valencia College, and served as an assistant public defender for ten years in the Orange-Osceola Public Defender's Office and as an assistant county attorney in Osceola. Judge Polodna's commitments to the community included board service with Community Vision and the Osceola Education Foundation. He was a 2002 graduate of Leadership Osceola, leading a project aimed at protecting and preserving environmentally sensitive lands. Judge Polodna's integrity, wisdom, and passionate outlook on life touched the lives of many and made Central Florida a better place. I am humbled to honor the memory, life, and outstanding achievements of Judge Scott D. Polodna.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Rafael Rodriguez Valle, a World War II veteran, entrepreneur, pastor, and late grandfather of my staff member Jose Rafael Rodriguez. Rafael was a product of America's greatest generation. He grew up during the Great Depression in Puerto Rico and moved to New York City after his service in the U.S. Army during World War II. There he married the love of his life, Josefa, with whom he spent the rest of his life. He eventually returned to his beloved Puerto Rico to raise his family and open a flower shop. On his time off, Rafael volunteered as a neighborhood watchman and a pastor in his church. His hard work allowed him to provide a safe and happy home for his family, put his children through college, and enjoy a peaceful retirement with his grandchildren and great grandchildren. Before his passing in 2011, he would reflect on his life's work saying that he was grateful because God allowed him to spend his life working around roses. Jose describes his grandfather as his best friend and role model. Rafael taught Jose the values of hard work and service to God, family, and community. These are the values that inspire Jose to dedicate his life to public service and are the legacy he passes on to his children. I am honored to recognize Rafael Rodriguez Valle for dedication to his family and service to the country.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, we currently have United States military forces involved, directly and indirectly, in conflicts in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, among other places. Our use of attack drones is blurring the distinction between war and peace. Therefore, it is time to reflect on the constitutional basis for the use of military force by the United States, anywhere in the world. For more than a century and a half, Congress declared war as the framers of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 directed when they wrote that Congress had the ``power to declare war.'' But starting in the 1950's, Congress began authorizing the President to make the determination for war and voters were deprived of the power to influence their Congressional representatives. The result has been labeled an Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF. It was used in the Vietnam War of 1965-73 and the 2003 war against Iraq, 2003 to the present. I want to bring attention to a Rutgers Law Review article, ``Restoring the Congressional Duty to Declare War,'' that has challenged the Constitutionality of all United States wars fought since World War II. The article examines not only on the language of the Constitution that ``Congress shall have the power to declare war'' but also on the debates in the Constitutional Convention that began June 1, 1787. On that day, Charles Pinckney from South Carolina made clear that he opposed giving the power of war to the President because that would render him ``a Monarchy of the worst kind, to wit an elective one.'' The Convention took two votes. The first put the power of war in the Congress and the second prohibited the Congress from transferring that power to the President. In the following weeks all but one member of the Convention joined Pinckney in the conclusion that Congress, and not the President, should declare war. Later in the convention, after Pinckney pointed out that Congress might not be in session when the country was attacked, the Convention provided that the Congress could allow the President to call out the state militias in cases of insurrection, invasion, or resistance to federal laws. Congress later implemented its power by declaring a limited war on France for seizing seamen from American ships under claims that they were French. In 1880 the Supreme Court approved this procedure by interpreting the Declare War clause as encompassing ``any contention by force'' with another country, including both full-scale wars and limited wars. But the events at the Convention and the early Supreme Court opinions were not considered by Congress and the lower Federal Courts when the president was allowed to determine war in Vietnam in 1964 and against Iraq in 2003. The authors found that the Federal judicial system had ignored the decision of the Constitutional Convention and the early Supreme Court opinions. Mr. Speaker, I urge all interested in this subject to refer to Restoring the Congressional Duty to Declare War, 63 Rutgers U.L. Rev. 407 (2011).

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Natalie Ramos for her tireless work as Constituent Advocate for Florida's Ninth Congressional District in Central Florida. Beginning as an intern in 2015, Natalie showed great promise from the start. She excelled and went on to become a Constituent Advocate where she played a vital role as part of the casework team. With her help, the office was able to assist members of the community, namely immigrants, veterans, and those seeking urgent assistance. She has a bright future ahead of her as a public servant. I am honored to recognize Natalie Ramos for her service to my office and the constituents of Florida's Ninth Congressional District.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service and commitment of my Deputy Director of Constituent Services, Mr. Justin Taylor, for his tireless dedication to the residents of Florida's Ninth Congressional District. Throughout his tenure with my district office, Justin has proven himself to be a vital part of our team. As a caseworker, he has collaborated with management to improve our casework system so that my constituents could better receive meaningful, timely responses to their requests for assistance. Although Justin is not a native of Central Florida, his commitment to serving our diverse community is apparent. Since joining my office in 2014, he has made a positive difference in the lives of countless individuals. Some highlights of his work include assisting veterans in obtaining critical financial benefits, as well as helping to secure medical care for the sick and elderly. Furthermore, as an advocate for LGBT rights in Florida and across the country, Justin played an important role in assisting family members of the deceased following the tragedy at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. As the 114th Congress comes to an end, so too will Justin's tenure in my office. I wish him all the best in the next stage of his career in public service.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Juan R. Lopez for his tireless work as my District Director. Starting in 2004, Juan R. Lopez began his career working as a Constituent Advocate in the United States Senate. In 2008, I was elected to serve Florida's Eighth Congressional District for the 111th Congress. I asked Juan to join my team as my Director of Constituent Services. During the 111th Congress, Juan was instrumental to managing staff, casework, and assisting thousands of constituents. His work on behalf of veterans was outstanding. When I returned to Congress in the 113th Congress, this time representing Florida's Ninth Congressional District, I once again asked Juan to join my team as my Director of Constituent Services. During the 113th Congress, Juan continued to excel at assisting my constituents and worked his way up to Deputy District Director, and in the 114th Congress, District Director. As District Director, Juan was instrumental in assisting thousands of Floridians. In Juan's spare time, he ran for and won Chairman of the Orange County Florida, Democratic Executive Committee. Under his leadership, he helped guide the Orange County Democratic Party to wins in almost every local, state, and Congressional race in Orange County. In recognition of all those in Florida that Juan has helped, I am honored to recognize Juan R. Lopez for his service to my office and the constituents of Florida's Ninth Congressional District.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lizy Price for her tireless work as Director of Constituent Services. During her time as a staffer in my office, Lizy managed our staff, casework, and the processing of over 3,000 constituent requests for assistance. Her commitment to improving the lives of constituents in my district resulted in the release of over a million dollars in benefit payments. Lizy's dedication led to many families in our district securing much- needed answers and resolutions as they waited to be reunited with their loved ones. Whether they were parents adopting children from a foreign country or constituents with spouses, parents, or siblings hoping to immigrate to the United States, they were all aided through Lizy's tireless efforts. Her work on behalf of veterans was also invaluable to many who felt they were being ignored in their hour of need. Veterans seeking immediate appointments at VA Medical Centers, veterans whose claims were among the many in the VA backlog, and veterans seeking aid and attendance benefits, were all grateful to not only have received help in obtaining answers, but grateful for her showing them the respect and attention they rightfully deserve for their service to our country. Lizy's parents, Jorge and Martha, immigrated to New York City from Honduras. Together they raised four daughters, Lizy, Peggy, Esther and Patricia in The Bronx. Lizy attended the Academy of Mount St. Ursula, the oldest continuously operating Catholic college preparatory high school in New York State. She has been a resident of Central Florida since 2004 and is the proud mother of Alexander. Her grandson Elijah is the apple of her eye. I am honored to recognize Lizy Price for her service to my office and the constituents of Florida's Ninth Congressional District.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jose R. Rodriguez for his tireless work as Director of Operations and Grants Coordinator. I first met Jose when he began an internship in my office in 2013 and from the beginning he stood out as an exceptional worker. After only a few weeks, he was hired as Constituent Services Representatives where he helped many of my constituents and their families with housing, immigration, and veterans issues. He was part of the team of caseworkers that helped recover and save over $500,000 for residents of Florida's Ninth Congressional District. After a few months on the job, he proved to be a valuable asset, capable of handling multiple roles with great knowledge and skill. For this reason he was promoted to Director of Operations, where he was responsible, among other things, for overseeing the administrative operations of my district offices. He also served in a dual role as Grants Coordinator and helped many local municipalities and nonprofit organizations seek federal funding. Jose was able to help bring over $7 million dollars in federal funds for various local organizations, including money for education and first responders. As further proof of his tenacity, Jose was able to complete his law degree while working fulltime and raising two beautiful children, Josue and Deborah. As Jose's tenure in my office comes to an end, I want to recognize his service to my office and the community, and I wish all the best to him and his family.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, for more than a century and a half, Congress declared war as the framers of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 directed when they wrote that Congress had the ``power to declare war.'' But starting in the 1950's, Congress began authorizing the President to make the determination for war and voters were deprived of the power to influence their Congressional representatives. The result has been labeled an Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF. It was used in the Vietnam War of 1965-73 and the 2003 war against Iraq, 2003 to the present. I want to bring attention to a Rutgers Law Review article, ``Restoring the Congressional Duty to Declare War,'' that has challenged the constitutionality of all United States wars fought since World War II. Rutgers School of Law Professor Emeritus Alfred W. Blumrosen and Steven M. Blumrosen, the authors of ``Restoring the Congressional Duty to Declare War,'' rely not only on the language of the Constitution that ``Congress shall have the power to declare war'' but also on the debates in the Constitutional Convention that began June 1, 1787. On that day, Charles Pinckney from South Carolina made clear that he opposed giving the power of war to the President because that would render him ``a Monarchy of the worst kind, to wit an elective one.'' The Convention took two votes. The first put the power of war in the Congress and the second prohibited the Congress from transferring that power to the President. In the following weeks all but one member of the Convention joined Pinckney in the conclusion that Congress, and not the President, should declare war. Later in the convention, after Pinckney pointed out that Congress might not be in session when the country was attacked, the Convention provided that the Congress could allow the President to call out the state militias in cases of insurrection, invasion, or resistance to federal laws. Congress later implemented its power by declaring a limited war on France for seizing seamen from American ships under claims that they were French. In 1880 the Supreme Court approved this procedure by interpreting the Declare War clause as encompassing ``any contention by force'' with another country, including both full-scale wars and limited wars. But the events at the Convention and the early Supreme Court opinions were not considered by Congress and the lower Federal Courts when the president was allowed to determine war in Vietnam in 1964 and against Iraq in 2003. The authors found that the Federal judicial system had ignored the decision of the Constitutional Convention and the early Supreme Court opinions. Mr. Speaker, I urge all interested in this subject to refer to Alfred W. Blumrosen & Steven M. Blumrosen, Restoring the Congressional Duty to Declare War, 63 Rutgers U.L. Rev. 407 (2011).

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, haven't we learned anything? In 1899, Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem called The White Man's Burden, urging America to bring ``civilization'' to the Philippines. The results were 250,000 deaths, war crimes, and denial of Philippine independence for half a century. Haven't we learned anything? U.S. forces occupied Iraq for nine years, until the Iraqis insisted that we leave. The results were more than 600,000 deaths, a cost of $4 trillion (8 percent of our national net worth), and a Sunni vacuum that the Islamic State terror group has filled. Haven't we learned anything? I've been to every country in the world recognized by the United Nations. There are a few universals. Everywhere, people want to fall in love; they love children and pets; they're acquisitive. And everywhere, people don't want to see foreigners with guns. They'd prefer a local dictatorship to a foreign military occupation. So please don't tell me that sending U.S. troops back to Iraq would be ``for their own good.'' Some argue that we must send U.S. troops to Mosul for our sake, regardless of what the Iraqis want or need. That's called ``colonialism.'' It pits us against one of the great narratives of our times, world decolonization. It invites the hatred not only of more than 1 billion Muslims but the entire world. They will see us not as liberators but as the enemy. It is a bizarre misconception to think that sending U.S. troops 8,000 miles from home somehow makes us safer. It doesn't. And it is a great disservice to our troops to fight in a place where they don't understand the language, the religion or the customs. As a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I asked 10 nearby Sunni Muslim countries whether they would send ground forces to fight ISIL. Four said yes. Then I asked Secretary of State John Kerry whether he had asked the same question. He said ``no.'' If Iraq actually is a thing, then it should be capable of defending itself. If it can't or won't, then fighters who look and sound like locals should do the job. It isn't the white man's burden. It never was.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on Congress to give the people of Puerto Rico the most basic of rights, the right to vote for our national leader. In all of the world's democracies, Puerto Rico is the largest territory by population that cannot choose our national elected official. Three-and-a-half million Americans in Puerto Rico have no say in who serves as President of the United States. Women and African Americans were once denied this basic voting right. Now it is American citizens who reside in Puerto Rico who suffer this disenfranchisement. The contradictions are painfully clear. Puerto Ricans participate in the Presidential primary process, they send pledged delegates to each major party's convention, but they do not participate directly in the choice of President of the United States. If these same American citizens move to the mainland, they can quickly and easily help to elect our national leader, but they are denied this very basic right to help choose the President and Vice President merely for living where they do. The solution to this problem is a simple one, and we have accomplished it before. Fifty-five years ago, the District of Columbia was granted electors to the electoral college with the passage of the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution. Like Puerto Rico now, the District of Columbia was not and is not a State.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. GRAYSON. I will simply say we must give Puerto Ricans the right to vote for President.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, we have gone through a terrible and traumatic experience in the last year called a U.S. Presidential election. I don't know how many countless people were utterly mortified by this whether or not their chosen candidate won. As it happened, the candidate whom I voted for lost last Tuesday, but I would be foolish if I ignored the fact that people all across America had a miserable, terrible experience with this Presidential election whether or not their candidate won or lost. You ask yourself: How could that be? Why don't we cherish the opportunity to choose our national leader? How is it that we have been sucked into this negative vortex of hatred and vilification called choosing a President of the United States? It seems utterly imponderable. I was watching Saturday Night Live just a couple days before the election, and the not-Hillary actor and the not-Donald actor could agree on only one thing. This is what they said: ``This whole election has been mean. Don't you guys feel gross all the time about this?'' They were speaking to us, not to each other. They were speaking to us, the American people. They are right. It is gross. But the question for us is very simple: Does it really have to be that way? Or could we somehow transform this into what it is supposed to be, an exhilarating jubilee revolving around choosing a leader who will make America a better place? But you have to understand that we are in a deep, deep hole here. Both major Presidential candidates entered this campaign with deeply negative favorability ratings, so negative they were in double digits. For the past 6 months, it has been a commonplace observation that both candidates were the most unpopular candidates in the history of Presidential polling--about as popular as getting a root canal on your birthday. It has been 13 long years since the Gallup Poll indicated that most people in this country thought that the country was heading in the right direction, 13 years; some Republican leadership, some Democratic leadership, and it all ends up the same way. Most people think the country is heading in the wrong direction. And it has been 13 years, not coincidentally, since the majority of Americans thought that Congress was doing a good job and approved of it. In fact, we reached a nadir during the government shutdown: only 16 percent of the country thought we were heading in the right direction, and only 9 percent of the country thought that Congress was doing a good job. I pointed out at the time, standing exactly where I am standing right now, that, according to recent polling, Congress was literally less popular than dog poop. In one election after another, the voters feel completely ignored. Little or no effort is made to explain to them how their lives might be improved by any candidates running for office. It is all just an ad hominem personality-driven crap-storm. People feel that they are left to choose between the lesser of two evils. Well, take it from me, the choice between two evils is evil. One sort of commonsense observation when you are left with two major candidates, both of whom are overwhelmingly unpopular, is that part of the problem we face is that almost 80 percent of the people who are in America and eligible to vote had no part in choosing the candidates. So maybe it should come as no surprise that we end up in a situation like this. I did an interesting poll just 3 days before the election, a national poll, and let me show you what I found regarding how these candidates, the nominees of their parties, stacked up against other alternative opponents. Let me show you. Let's play fantasy politics for a few minutes. If the matchup had been President Obama versus Donald Trump, President Obama would have won by 2 percent of the vote. If the matchup had been Bill Clinton versus Donald Trump, Bill Clinton would have won with 4 percent of the vote. If the matchup had been Joe Biden, the Vice President, versus Donald Trump, Biden would have won by 8 percent of the vote. And if the matchup had been Bernie Sanders versus Donald Trump, as reported in the Huffington Post recently, Bernie Sanders would have won by 12 percent of the vote. Note one thing: every single alternative candidate performed better than the actual candidate who was the nominee of my party in these matchups. Also note that you can't possibly attribute that only to the negativity of the campaign because, frankly, there have been a few hard knocks over the years against Barack Obama and against Bill Clinton and against Joe Biden and against Bernie Sanders. Let's play some more fantasy politics. Let's look at alternative opponents against Hillary Clinton. Now, bear in mind that, according to the current results, although Hillary Clinton lost the Presidential election, she nevertheless won the popular vote by around 1 percent of the vote, as I speak to you tonight. Let's take a look at what would have happened if she had been pitted against alternative Republican candidates. Hillary Clinton would have lost to Ted Cruz in the popular vote by 4 percent. Hillary Clinton would have lost to George W. Bush by 8 percent. She would have lost to Marco Rubio by 10 percent, Mitt Romney by 12 percent, and she would have lost to the Speaker of this House, Paul Ryan, by 14 percent. Again, note one thing that draws all of these matchups together: the fact that the candidate who actually was the nominee of his party would have done worse against any alternative opponent, and the candidate who would have been the nominee of her party would have done worse against any alternative opponent that was tested here. Let's continue, just for those who are curious. If neither of the candidates had been nominated by their parties, we would have had some interesting matchups. I will just give you three examples here. I told you already that Senator Sanders would have defeated Donald Trump by 12 points. He would have defeated Ted Cruz by 10 points, and he would have defeated Marco Rubio by 4 points. Interesting matchups all. But here is the thing. The fact is that the great majority of Americans had no choice at all in selecting the candidates who we ended up voting for. We might consider it somehow a good thing that 58 million Americans actually voted in the Presidential primaries, until we consider that 191 million Americans did not. Our grievances as a country and our divisions are massive, deep, intractable, and widely shared. That makes me wonder whether we can declare our independence from a system that constantly and perpetually generates unappealing and, frankly, sometimes appalling alternatives. We can't go on like this. You know what I am talking about. As Leonard Cohen said, we all feel like our dog just died. We have to change the way that we do politics in America. Now, I am not suggesting that we choose our leaders like the Athenians did. They chose their leaders by lottery. I am not suggesting that we adopt Jonathan Swift's suggestions, but I agree with him that people are the riches of a nation. And I am not going to suggest sitting it out. I realize the temptation. I have heard so many people say over the years, ``Don't vote; it only encourages them,'' but I think that is wrong. What we need is a better political system that actually manifests itself in a positive way and leads to a choice between candidates whom--imagine--we respect, we admire, we look up to as they engage in a battle of ideas and principles, not a battle of personalities and personal attacks. I am also not going to suggest that the answer would be a third party. If there is one thing that is clear, the two parties we have aren't functioning that well. I am not sure that a third party is likely to make much of a difference. And I don't think that we are likely to see a messiah running for the third party as a Presidential candidate when one we had this year couldn't even tell us what ``a leppo'' was. It is a good thing nobody asked him, ``What's a henway?'' The answer is 4 to 6 pounds. I think what is missing, after giving this a great deal of thought for the past week, is something very simple. We Americans desperately need and deserve the right to reject all of the candidates on the ballot. Now, I realize that that is an unusual notion, but I want you to think about it because I am introducing a bill called the None of the Above Act, whereby, if the last line on the ballot, ``none of the above,'' gets more votes than any candidate does, then ``none of the above'' actually wins. I am not talking about the Nevada version that we already have where the ``none of the above'' vote gets ignored. I am talking about ``none of the above'' winning and forcing a mulligan, a do-over. We make them do it over until they get it right and give us candidates whom we want to vote for, someone who we feel will actually do a good job in leadership and make the country a better place. Now, I want you to know that this is not unprecedented. I want you to know that in Communist Poland, ``none of the above,'' actually crossing the candidate's name off the ballot, which is a version of ``none of the above,'' defeated the Prime Minister in 1989. In 1991, 200 candidates for the Soviet Congress of People's Deputies were defeated the same way. If the end of communism isn't enough to motivate you for favoring this reform, here are some more benefits: First and most importantly, we eliminate the need, the terrible need, to try to choose between the lesser of two evils. Remember the Louisiana Governor's race 25 years ago when we were forced to choose in Louisiana between corrupt Edwin Edwards and racist David Duke? Do you remember the bumper stickers that said, ``Vote for the crook. It's important''? According to a poll at that time, two-thirds of Louisiana voters wished they could have voted for neither, for ``none of the above.'' And they were right. They were right. If primary voters haven't identified the best candidates for the job--not just decent candidates, but actually the best candidates for the job--the general election voters should be able to wave their fingers and say: Uh-uh, no way. I am not going for that until you convince we, the people, that you are the best candidate for the job, and we are going to insist on other choices until we find somebody who is. Now, this will have a wonderful effect, a very important effect, on what we saw drenching us, the tsunami of negative advertising and negative campaigning that we saw on our TV screens and now on our computer screens and even our phones, this incessant drumbeat of negative campaigning. Why? Because both sides will understand that, if you indulge yourself that way, all you are doing is driving down votes below ``none of the above'' and elevating ``none of the above'' above your candidate. Let's replace this terrible malignant notion of vote against him/vote against her with something called vote for me--and here is why. Here is what I will do to improve your life. What am I going to do for you, not what am I going to do to you. Now, in addition to that, I see a big boost in turnout. Last time I checked, which was a few days ago, the total number of votes in the 2016 Presidential election was lower than the total number of votes in the 2012 Presidential election and the 2008 Presidential election and the 2004 Presidential election. As of a few days ago, you had to go all the way back to 2000 to find any national Presidential election where fewer people voted. And here is the really strange thing: back in 2000, we had 40 million fewer Americans. I think there are a lot of people who will show up for the specific purpose of voting for ``none of the above.'' I think we will see a massive increase in turnout if we simply convey to people the right to reject all the candidates, which is exactly how they feel. In addition to that, we will be keeping elected officials on their toes. Ninety percent of the elected officials in this body, the House of Representatives, face uncompetitive races time after time after time. Two-thirds of all the races down the hall in the Senate are uncompetitive. When Members of Congress represent deep red or deep blue districts, they often run unopposed and they win with 100 percent of the so-called vote, which isn't really a vote at all. So knowing that, no matter what kind of district they are--red, blue, purple--no matter whom they represent, they will be facing ``none of the above'' on that ballot will put the fear of God in them. We need to do that. We need to make sure that the comfortable here in this room and down the hall aren't too comfortable, and that even pampered incumbents in gerrymandered districts would have to work diligently to defeat the specter of ``none of the above.'' Also, we clearly need to defeat the dictatorship of the primary voters. As I indicated before, 58 million American adults voted in the primary elections, and 191 million did not. What was the result of that? People who were deeply dissatisfied with the choices that they had. Let me show you what I mean. Two days before the Presidential election, I asked in a national poll: How do you feel about those Presidential primary elections? How do you feel about them? Almost 52 percent said they were disappointed. Only 48 percent said that they were pleased. Interestingly enough, that sentiment of disappointment was widely shared. Among Democrats, 38 percent said that they were disappointed. Among Republicans, 53 percent said that they were disappointed. Among Independents, who, in many States, didn't even have the legal right to vote to choose a Presidential candidate in either party, 69 percent said that they were disappointed. That explains, in part, why we end up with a terrible Hobson's choice on the ballot. Above all, though, to be able to choose ``none of the above'' on each Federal ballot would show respect for the voters. In my State--the State of Florida--the Constitution of the State begins with these words: ``All political power is inherent with the people.'' If you really believe that in your heart--if you believe that the sovereign in this country, the royalty in this country are the people of the United States, the voters--then how can you possibly explain to them why we wouldn't allow them to reject all of the candidates? This is a practical proposal. I don't know how many people have noticed this, but we have more than 2 months between the election and when the President is sworn in under the 20th Amendment. We have almost 2 months between the election and when the House of Representatives and the Senate are sworn in here in this building. It is not that difficult to put on a new election within 2 months. I know a lot of people who would favor having elections that take place in less than 2 months instead of approaching 2 years. In fact, it would be a blessed relief. Now, I understand that most people who are elected officials would want to fight against this for their own selfish purposes. In fact, one of the liberating elements is the fact that I will be leaving this body in a couple of months. I will be leaving because I was defeated. I will be leaving this body, and that gives me the freedom to be able to do and say what is right and not what is for my own personal benefit. I will point out that many, many, many people across the country believe that term limits are a good thing and that, somehow or another, term limits have been maneuvered through the Florida legislature and the legislatures of many other States. And, of course, term limits limit the terms of elected officials. In the same sense, if term limits can ever be enacted anywhere, that shows that it is possible to actually put a choice on the ballot like ``none of the above'' that doesn't favor any elected official anywhere--ever--but favors, instead, the voters and gives them a right that they should have but that they don't have. In case you are curious, you may wonder what would have happened a week ago last Tuesday if we had had that choice on the ballot. I know, and I would like to show you. According to my poll, 40 percent of the American people would have voted a week ago last Tuesday for ``none of the above.'' If you were to delve further into it, you would see, of those 60 percent, 28 percent would have voted for Hillary Clinton; 27 percent would have voted for Donald Trump; 4 percent would have voted for the third-party candidate put up by the Libertarians; and 1 percent would have voted for the third-party candidate put up by the Green Party. In short, think about what this really means. ``None of the above'' would have won, and we would have had the choice that human dignity suggests we should have--a choice involving new candidates to decide who rules over this Nation of 300 million-plus people and becomes the leader of the free world--a new set of choices, a better set of candidates, and a brighter future. If we simply can't stand the candidates we have got, we need new ones. Isn't that obvious? Think of it as voting with your middle finger. We deserve this choice. As human beings, as Americans--as people who deserve to have full control over our own sovereign fate--we deserve the choice of ``none of the above.'' Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, my flight, US 1782, was delayed by 90 minutes because of thunderstorms, so I arrived after votes were over. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 557, and YEA on Roll Call No. 558.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, I want to make a statement regarding the passage of H.R. 5538, the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017. Specifically I would like to make a statement about my amendment, Grayson Number 113. My amendment simply put the House on record of supporting a final funding amount of $27,191,000 for the National Estuary Program and Coastal Waterways. It does so by removing and then reapplying $468,000 within the $2.5 billion appropriation for the environmental programs and management account within the Environmental Protection Agency. The report accompanying this bill originally called for $26,723,000 for the National Estuary Program and Coastal Waterways, which is $468,000 below both the Senate's proposed appropriations level and the President's request for fiscal year 2017. Hence, the amount specified in my amendment. The National Estuary Program and Coastal Waterways subaccount within the EPA does important work, including work in my State, especially on the Atlantic Coast. This program addresses ocean acidification, seeks to remove coastal watersheds, furthers the National Estuary Program's restoration goals, and assists in the implementation of the very important Gulf of Mexico hypoxia action plan. This past March, in Central Florida, the Indian River Lagoon, which has been part of the National Estuary Program since 1990, experienced the worst fish kill in the history of the watershed. This fish kill is the result of hypoxia, caused by a recent algae blooming in the lagoon. Nobody knows how many fish died. And what's worse, nobody understands how ``brown tide,'' the algae which caused the hypoxia, and is typically found in salty water, got into the Indian River Lagoon. With ecological disasters like this, we should be moving to fully fund the President's request. Part of the funding for this program is used to try to overcome the hypoxia situation that has arisen in the Indian River Lagoon, while learning what happened, and more importantly, how to return the lagoon to a healthy ecosystem. This is just one of the 28 estuaries funded by this program, located along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts. The estuarine regions of the United States comprise just 12 percent of land area of the United States, but they contain 43 percent of the U.S. population and provide 49 percent of all U.S. economic output. The economic value of coastal recreation alone in the United States--beach going, fishing, bird watching, snorkeling, diving, and so on--has conservatively been estimated by NOAA to be between $20 billion and $60 billion annually. Clearly, the $468,000 increase in funding for the National Estuary Program and Coastal Waterways will result in real returns for the American economy, an enhanced quality of life for the American people, and a healthy ecosystem which supports endangered and threatened species. I thank Chairman Calvert and my colleagues for their support of my amendment.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Juan Ramon Guerrero, a resident of my district who lived in Orlando, Florida. Juan lost his life during the tragic shooting at Pulse nightclub on June 12, 2016. He was 22 years old. Juan Ramon Guerrero was a third year student of finance at the University of Central Florida and worked part-time as a telemarketer. He is remembered as someone who was loved instantly by anyone who met him. He was always telling jokes and making people laugh. Juan came out to his family not long ago. For his upcoming birthday his family were planning a party, with his mother cooking his favorite foods. Juan and his boyfriend, Christopher ``Drew'' Leinonen, lived together and had been dating for nearly two years. The Guerrero family were loving and accepting of Juan and Drew and their relationship. Juan's sister remembers that ``They were so in love. They were soul mates. You could tell by how they looked at each other,'' she said. Juan and Drew were together at the club on the night of the shooting. They loved dancing, which is what brought them to the club that terrible night. The two died together. Drew was 32. The two families honored the love Juan and Drew shared with one another in a joint funeral service, a side-by-side farewell. Juan Ramon Guerrero will never be forgotten in our pursuit of a more just and loving world. His memory, and his acts of kindness will live forever in the hearts and minds of those who knew him. May his family, relatives and friends eventually find solace and comfort, and may he rest in eternal peace.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Amanda Alvear, a resident of my district who lived in Davenport, Florida. Amanda's life was cut short during the tragic shooting at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, in the early morning hours of June 12, 2016. Amanda was only 25 years old and had a bright future ahead of her. She was a graduate of Ridge Community High School and worked as a pharmacy technician. She was studying to become a nurse. She had reshaped herself over the last two years, shedding 180 pounds with the help of gastric bypass surgery and daily workouts. Amanda proudly documented her transformation with her phone. Amanda's brother, Brian, remembers her positive energy and enthusiasm and that, ``People got caught up in her wake. Whatever she was doing, that's what they were going to do.'' Amanda was the aunt who spoiled Brian's daughters, Bella and Zatanna with clothes. ``She was a fashionista,'' he would say, ``and she liked them to look good. She wanted my girls--her girls--to look good.'' Amanda frequented gay and lesbian clubs because she believed they were places where she could have fun and feel safe being herself. She visited Pulse to enjoy Latin night with a group of friends. One of her closest friends, Mercedez Marisol Flores, also died in the nightclub that night. Amanda Alvear will never be forgotten in our pursuit of a more just and loving world. Her memory, the love she had for family and her acts kindness will live forever in the hearts and minds of those who knew her. May Amanda's family, relatives and friends eventually find solace and comfort, and may she rest in eternal peace.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Jean Carlos Mendez Perez, who lived in Kissimmee, Florida, and was a resident of my district. Jean lost his life during the tragic shooting at Pulse nightclub in the early morning hours of June 12, 2016. He was 35 years old. Jean moved to Florida from Puerto Rico when he was a teenager. He quickly made friends and built a new life for himself. He was charming, full of life and had a warmth that everyone loved to be around. Jean loved indulging his nieces and nephews with candy and ice cream. He was humorous and fun-loving. Jean was a salesman at a perfume store. He assisted a customer, Luis Daniel Wilson-Leon, several years ago, who would become his partner in life. Their friends described the moment they met as ``love at first sight,'' and the beginning of their nine-year relationship. The two shared a home, frequented their favorite Hispanic restaurants and loved going to Latin Night at the Pulse club. Jean and Luis were together at the club on the night of the shooting. The couple died alongside one another that night. Jean Carlos Mendez Perez will never be forgotten in our pursuit of a more just and loving world. His loving spirit and acts of kindness will live forever in the hearts and minds of those who knew him. May his family, relatives and friends eventually find solace and comfort, and may he rest in eternal peace.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Speaker, I would like to express my concern about events that are happening now in Brazil. In Brazil, President Dilma Rousseff was reelected because a majority of Brazilians wanted to pursue her progressive policies further. But shortly after her reelection, some members of the rightwing opposition started to question the election results and, aided by the conservative media in Brazil, they accused her of manipulating the state budget in order to pay for social programs. But now they have taken it further than that, and beyond mere accusations, and they have forced her temporarily out of office by impeaching her and putting her out of power while those proceedings take place. The interim government is implementing the exact policies that were rejected by a majority of Brazilian voters, austerity, cutting social programs, cutting education, cutting housing, cutting health care. These are the things that people wanted; it is what they voted for. Yet, the interim government is undermining democracy by denying these things to the people who voted for them. My message is simple. Democracy matters. Votes matter. All around the world we are seeing rightwingers trying to deny the democratic forces their rightful power for winning elections. In Britain, we have seen an effort to undermine the results of Brexit. In Portugal, the same thing happened when a leftwing majority won parliament. And here in the United States, we have efforts to undermine the President. This must end. Democracy matters.

Mr. GRAYSON

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

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

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is nearly identical to an amendment that passed by voice vote last year. I hope we will agree on its passage again this year.