F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, due to a medical emergency, I was physically absent from the House of Representatives on July 22, 2020. On that day, I missed 4 recorded votes. Had I been present for those votes. I would have voted as follows: On Roll Call No. 153 on the adoption of the Rep. Chu House Amendment to Senate Amendment to H.R. 2486, had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 154 on the adoption of the Rep. Jayapal House Amendment to Senate Amendment to H.R. 2486, had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 155 on the concurring in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1957, had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 156 on the passage of H.R. 7573, had I been present, I would have voted ``Yay.'

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the No BAN Act. This bill is being framed as a ``religious freedom'' initiative. I have fought for religious freedom throughout my career. I know what religious freedom means. This bill is not about religious freedom. It is about scoring cheap political points against President Trump. The President is granted broad authority to take quick action to limit the entry of foreign nationals into the United States. This is needed for a variety of reasons, including national security and public health. Whether it is addressing shortcomings in a certain country's vetting and information sharing or limiting the potential influx of coronavirus cases, we entrust the Executive Branch to keep America safe. President Trump's actions have been mislabeled as a ``Muslim Ban.'' But that is not the case. There is no religious test anywhere in the President's travel restrictions. North Korea, an essentially religious- less society, is one of the countries included. Myanmar, another country affected, is more than 80 percent Buddhist. Indonesia, which was not included in the covered travel restrictions, has the largest percentage of the world's Muslim population at over 12 percent. Rather than try to paint with a broad brush, we should look at the causes of these travel restrictions. Eritrea--Does not comply with the established identity-management and information-sharing criteria. Kyrgyzstan--Does not comply with the established identity-management and information-sharing criteria. Nigeria--Does not comply with the established identity-management and information-sharing criteria. And so on. This isn't about religious freedom. It is only about convincing people it is. In addition to the deficiencies of the underlying policy, the Majority has made a mistake in including the Senate version of pharmaceutical legislation as its pay-for. Last year, the House Judiciary Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to advance two important bills. One to reduce the burdens of patent litigation when a company seeks to bring a complicated biosimilar drug to market. And another to create a new antitrust authority to prevent companies from playing games that could artificially suppress generic competition. Chairmen Jerrold Nadler and David Cicilline were great partners to me and then-Hanking Member Doug Collins in that effort. It was refreshing during a time of increasingly partisan hostility to work together in a thoughtful manner to address drug pricing in the country. Unfortunately, rather than take up that bill, the Majority has simply ignored our weeks of careful negotiation and has chosen instead to blindly attach the Senate language. The shortcomings of this version of the legislation were already addressed in committee. The text included in the No BAN Act gives the FTC the authority to find a company liable even if all they do is introduce an improved version of a product and then make truthful and non-misleading statements about the new product. This will undoubtedly stifle innovation. Why would any company invest the necessary research dollars to introduce a new product, if they can be held liable for truthful marketing of that product? In Committee, we fixed that. The bill we're voting on today is also out of step with current antitrust law. It would completely change the remedy and enforcement authority under traditional antitrust law, and for no obvious reason, apply those changes exclusively to just one industry. In Committee, we fixed that. I find it troubling that the Majority is choosing to abandon the good faith negotiations and bipartisan work. The gentlemen from New York and Rhode Island worked with the Minority to come up with a good product that addresses drug pricing through regular order. The committee process works. We should be voting on the legislation that passed the Judiciary Committee by a voice vote. Not this version. I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, one of the few things that deans do around here, aside from using our institutional memory, is to ask unanimous consent that people who are elected in special elections from their State be permitted to take the oath of office. Today it is my great honor and, indeed, a privilege, to ask that Tom Tiffany be able to take the oath of office, and to join the list of fewer than 11,000 people that have been honored by their constituents to serve in this House. Tom spent a lot of his life being a successful small businessman. He was elected to the Wisconsin Assembly in 2008, and 2 years later was elected to the first of two terms in the Wisconsin Senate. He has been a very strong and vocal proponent of the interests of people in northern and western Wisconsin, and he will continue to do so on the national stage. Madam Speaker, it is now my honor to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin, the Honorable Thomas P. Tiffany, be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I am no stranger to this debate. In the aftermath of 9/11, I stood on this floor to advance the USA PATRIOT Act. I still believe, as I did at the time, in its necessity to protect our country from terrorist attacks. In 2015, after abuses of the surveillance authorities were brought to light, I fought for reforms that resulted in the passage of the USA FREEDOM Act. Today I rise in support of this reauthorization bill. The expiring provisions are still necessary to the national security of the United States. However, much like in 2015, we have been made aware of surveillance abuses that require our attention. I believe this bill offers substantial reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, reforms that are imperative for accountability and the restoration of Americans' confidence in our intelligence system. The FISA abuses in the Carter Page case were staggering. We learned about these when Inspector General Michael Horowitz released his report on December 9, 2019. I said at the time that Congress had the responsibility to fully examine his findings and to take corrective actions. Unfortunately, we have not fully examined this report. Despite being released 3 months ago, we have not held one hearing on the House side. There is documented evidence of errors, missteps, and omissions that resulted in the degradation of Carter Page's constitutional rights, and, to date, the House majority has largely ignored it. So I am glad that the majority is finally acknowledging the abuses in the Horowitz report by introducing corrective actions in this bill. There are several good provisions for accountability in the bill. For instance, the Attorney General must now approve, in writing, the FISA investigation of an elected official or candidate for Federal office. Also, the legislation expands the use of an amicus in cases involving the political activities of U.S. citizens. The legislation creates checks to ensure that information being presented to the FISC is accurate. It is impossible to legislate away bad behavior by malicious actors, but this legislation places much-needed safeguards to prevent another Carter Page-type scandal from happening again. My colleagues who wish we should do more are right; we should do more. But with a deadline on Sunday, we must either act now or let these important national security authorities expire. Since the inception of the PATRIOT Act, I have fought for oversight of powerful surveillance apparatus. I believe that the reforms presented in this bill are a good step to restoring the oversight. The reauthorization reinforces essential and effective tools that have been in place since 9/11, while also strengthening the protection of citizen civil liberties in the United States.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I appeal that ruling of the Chair as well, which I believe is appealable.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I appeal the decision of the Chair.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I make the point of order that a two-thirds vote is required for passage of this joint resolution because it does have the effect of amending the Constitution. And on the point of order, Madam Speaker, there was an extension that was passed in 1978, where this issue came up, which extended the deadline until 1982. In 1982, the Equal Rights Amendment deadlines expired. In 1983, Chairman Peter Rodino, of the Judiciary Committee, decided to introduce H.J. Res. 1, which started the process over again. The difference between what happened in 1978 and 1983 is that Chairman Rodino, and those who supported re-introducing and attempting to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, realized that it had expired and required a start-over. I believe that this does fall under that, and that it does require a start-over, and I would ask the Chair to rule on whether or not the point of order is well-taken and this does require a two-thirds vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, do I put the question before or after it is passed?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, it is my intention to raise a point of order that this resolution requires a two-thirds vote. I will argue the point of order when it is made, but I need to know when the proper time is to raise the point of order.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. Listening to people on the other side say that there is a cornucopia of benefits awaiting women should the ERA become a part of the Constitution, I am here to ask Members on both sides of the aisle to look past what looks nice on a bumper sticker or a 40-second sound bite to realize that there are going to be many consequences that will hurt women should this be ratified. I will just talk about insurance, because insurance is regulated by the States. Girls get substantially lower rates on auto insurance because they are better drivers. With the ERA and the State regulation, that would become unconstitutional, and girls are going to have to pay boy drivers' rates for auto insurance, which really does not reflect the actuarial exposure of that at all. Secondly, look at life insurance. Women live longer than men and, as a result, in life insurance, also regulated by the States, you see women's rates being lower than men's rates becoming unconstitutional, and women are going to be paying more to life insurance companies for the coverage that they decide on. I could go on and on and on. We had a lot of hearings on this in 1973. I am here to say that, when the ERA was originally passed in 1972, women's rights were not enshrined in a lot of State laws. There has been tremendous progress in this area both at the Federal level and in the States. The proponents of this resolution completely ignore that happening. We don't. We think that the statutory protections that have been passed all around the country in the last almost 50 years have advanced women and have addressed a lot of the complaints that we hear from that side of the aisle. This is going to unleash a Pandora's box of lots of litigation that has been raised by this, some of which has been brought up by my colleagues on this side. Let's not enrich the lawyers. Let's do the right thing. Don't pass this resolution. Enforce the laws that have been passed both here and in the State capitols.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3201. Without this 15-month extension, dangerous fentanyl analogues will fall through a legal loophole in just 8 days. If there ever was a must-pass bill, this it is. Importantly though, the scourge of fentanyl analogues needs to be addressed permanently. Drug traffickers are increasingly savvy and sophisticated; they can alter the chemical composition of these drugs, creating analogues that don't fall under the drug-scheduling protocol. DEA has taken emergency steps to combat these analogues which we will temporarily extend today, but we owe it to our constituents to permanently schedule these drugs. This is about saving lives. I have legislation, the Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues Act, or SOFA, to place these drugs on schedule I and to give the DEA the authority to combat new analogues that arise. We need to pass SOFA to protect our communities, and we need to pass SOFA to save lives. I want to highlight how dangerous these substances are. One teaspoon of fentanyl is enough to kill 2,000 people. This lethality puts fentanyl and its analogues in a class with chemical warfare agents like VX nerve gas and ricin. Scheduling fentanyl analogues is a matter of life or death. We must choose life. The attorneys general of all 50 States and the Attorney General of the United States have all called for the passage of SOFA and the permanent scheduling of fentanyl analogues. I urge my colleagues to do our part to protect the American people to save lives. Pass this bill, and then let's pass SOFA.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, due to a previously scheduled engagement, I was physically absent from the House of Representatives on January 27, 2020. On that day, I missed 2 recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: on Roll Call No. 23 on the Passage of H.R. 943, I would have voted Yea, and on Roll Call No. 24 on the Passage of H.R. 4704, I would have voted Yea.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I proudly recognize the 47th annual March for Life. I am incredibly proud of the thousands of Americans, especially those from Wisconsin, who have traveled to Washington this week to defend the sanctity of life and protect the rights of the unborn. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have been a staunch advocate for pro-life issues and have always supported efforts to preserve human life at every stage of development. As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I shepherded the partial-birth abortion ban through Congress. It was one of my greatest honors to watch President George W. Bush sign it into law. I have also fully supported every effort in Congress to stop federally funded abortions, both in the United States and abroad. I want to thank everyone who participated in this year's march and am grateful for all who stand for the unborn, but were unable to make it to Washington. We still have much work ahead of us to advance pro-life protections and your voices must be heard.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to impeaching the President. The Constitution says that any civil officer, including the President, may be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Unlike the Nixon and Clinton cases, there are no allegations that the President has committed a crime. We have had almost 3 years of nonstop investigations. We have had the Mueller report, we have had the Schiff investigation, we have had the Nadler investigation, and at no time has there been any evidence that indicates that Donald J. Trump violated any criminal statute of the United States. So why are we here? We are here because the majority caucus, the Democratic Caucus, has been hijacked by the radical left. They have wanted to reverse the course of the 2016 election ever since Donald J. Trump won that election. So let's look at these two phony Articles of Impeachment. First of all, abuse of power. The phone call in question had the President say, ``our country has been through a lot. I want you to do us a favor.'' Not ``me'' a favor; ``us'' a favor. And there he was referring to our country, the United States of America, not a personal political gain. He was not afraid to let this transcript go public, and he released the transcript almost immediately after the call. Now, the second Article of Impeachment, obstruction of Congress, basically says that, unless the President gives us everything we want, when we want it, then he has committed an impeachable offense. That is a bunch of bunk. Now, the President has certain individual and executive privileges by virtue of his office. Whenever there has been a dispute between the executive and legislative branches heretofore, they have gone to court. The Supreme Court a couple weeks ago said they would take jurisdiction over deciding whether the President has to comply with one subpoena relating to his tax returns. Now, here, the Democrats have been bent to impeach the President of the United States before the court decides this. This means that there is a rush job to do this. Why is there a rush job? Because they want to influence the 2020 elections. They have spent 3 years doing this; they have spent millions of taxpayer dollars, including the Mueller report, putting together this impeachment; and they also have had this Congress wrapped around impeachment and not doing their jobs until the dam broke this week. Stop this charade. Vote ``no.''

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, due to a previously scheduled engagement, I was physically absent from the House of Representatives on December 10, 2019. On that day, I missed 3 recorded votes. I include in the Record how I would have voted had I been present for those votes. On Roll Call No. 657 on Ordering the Previous Question, had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 658 on the Adoption of H. Res. 748, had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 659 on the Passage of H.R. 5363, had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay.''

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 2019, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the forty preceding years I have served in the Congress. Assets

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. The Family Farmer Relief Act of 2019 brings urgently needed help to a critical link in America's economy and a vital part of American community life, the family farmer. In 2005, Congress permanently enacted chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code. Chapter 12 is specially designed to help family farmers reorganize their debts in time of need and keep their farms going. In the years since, chapter 12 and its streamlined procedures have worked well. There has, however, been one problem. As time has passed, the cost of running a family farm have rapidly increased; the ceiling on chapter 12, on how much debt a family farm can reorganize, has lagged behind. Especially with the advent of modern, high-tech farming equipment, the chapter 12 ceiling is no longer high enough to let many farms with typical amounts of debt go into chapter 12. The Family Farmer Relief Act of 2019 fixes this problem. It raises the ceiling from the old, roughly $4.5 million limit to a more reasonable $10 million limit. This means that more family farmers will be able to successfully reorganize when they need to, to the benefit of the economy and local communities across the land. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, due to previously scheduled travel, I was physically absent from the House of Representatives on June 27, 2019. On that day, I missed 5 recorded votes. On Roll Call No. 426 on the Adoption of H. Res. 466, had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 427 on the Republican Motion to Recommit, had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 428 on the Passage of H.R. 2722, had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 429 on Concurring to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3401, had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 430 on the Approval of the Speaker's Journal, had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea.''

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, due to illness, I was physically absent from the House of Representatives on June 12, 2019. On that day, I missed 46 recorded votes. I include in the Record how I would have voted had I been present for those votes. On Roll Call No. 249 on the Motion to Adjourn, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 250 on the Motion to Adjourn, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 251 on the Passage of Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. McGovern (D-MA), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 252 on the Passage of Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Shalala (D-FL), I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 253 on the Passage of Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. DeSaulnier (D-CA), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 254 on the Passage of Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. DeSaulnier (D-CA), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 255 on the Passage of Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. DeSaulnier (D-CA), I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 256 on the Passage of Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. DeSaulnier (D-CA), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 257 on the Passage of Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Smith (R-NJ), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 258 on the Passage of Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Scott (D-VA), present, I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 259 on the Passage of Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. DeFazio (D-OR), I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 260 on the Passage of Amendment No. 14 offered by Ms. Jackson Lee (D-TX), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 261 on the Passage of Amendment No. 15 offered by Ms. Jackson Lee (D-TX), I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 262 on the Passage of Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Pascrell (D-NJ), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 263 on the Passage of Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Davis (D-IL), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 264 on the Ordering of the Previous Question, I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 265 on the Adoption of H. Res. 436, I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 266 on the Passage of Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Cole (R-OK), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 267 on the Passage of Amendment No. 9 offered by Mrs. Roby (R-AL), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 268 on the Passage of Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Buchanan (R-FL), I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 269 on the Passage of Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Langevin (D-RI), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 270 on the Passage of Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Foster (D-IL), I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 271 on the Passage of Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Foster (D-IL), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 272 on the Passage of Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Foster (D-IL), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 273 on the Passage of Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Foster (D-IL), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 274 on the Passage of Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Schiff (D-CA), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 275 on the Passage of Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. McKinley (R-WV), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 276 on the Passage of Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. Butterfield (D-NC), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 277 on the Passage of Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Johnson (R-OH), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 278 on the Passage of Amendment No. 28 offered by Ms. Moore (D-WI), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 279 on the Passage of Amendment No. 29 offered by Ms. Moore (D-WI), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 280 on the Passage of Amendment No. 32 offered by Ms. Matsui (D-CA), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 281 on the Passage of Amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Barr (R-KY), I would have voted `` Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 282 on the Passage of Amendment No. 34 offered by Mr. Cleaver (D-MO), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 283 on the Passage of Amendment No. 36 offered by Ms. Castor (D-FL), I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 284 on the Passage of Amendment No. 37 offered by Mr. Hill, French (R-AK), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 285 on the Passage of Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Hill, French (R-AK), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 286 on the Passage of Amendment No. 39 offered by Ms. Pressley (D-MA), I would have voted `` Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 287 on the Passage of Amendment No. 40 offered by Mr. Khanna (D-CA), I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 288 on the Passage of Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Richmond (D-LA), I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 289 on the Passage of Amendment No. 42 offered by Mr. Banks (R-IN), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 290 on the Passage of Amendment No. 43 offered by Mr. Keating (D-MA), I would have voted `` Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 291 on the Passage of Amendment No. 44 offered by Mrs. Miller (R-WV), I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 292 on the Passage of Amendment No. 45 offered by Mr. Cicilline (D-RI), I would have voted ``Nay.'' On Roll Call No. 293 on the Passage of Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr. Bera (D-CA), I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 294 on the Passage of Amendment No. 47 offered by Mr. Castro (D-TX), I would have voted ``Nay.''

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, due to illness, I was physically absent from the House of Representatives on June 10, 2019. On that day, I missed 3 recorded votes. I include in the Record how I would have voted had I been present for those votes. On Roll Call No. 242 on the Passage of H.R. 542, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 243 on the Passage of H.R. 2539, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 244 on the Passage of H.R. 2590, I would have voted ``Yea.''

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to celebrate 100 years since the U.S. House of Representatives passed the 19th Amendment, taking a monumental step toward giving women the right to vote. Women have always played an instrumental role in shaping this country, yet lacked one of the most fundamental rights. It wasn't until 1919 that our nation righted this wrong and millions of women earned the right to vote, thereby gaining full citizenship. A women's suffrage amendment was first introduced in Congress in 1878. It wasn't until 41 years later that both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate finally voted to approve the 19th Amendment. The effort then went on to the states, requiring the approval of three-quarters of state legislatures. I am proud to say that the great state of Wisconsin led the way. Wisconsin made history by becoming the first state to ratify the 19th amendment, granting national suffrage to women. This early and important vote paved the way for other states to follow suit. Today is a day to celebrate the achievements of the women who made great sacrifices for suffrage. I especially want to thank Speaker Pelosi, and Rebecca Kleefisch who served as Executive Director of the Centennial Commission, and all of the other members of Commission for their tireless efforts to make this day possible.