Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate my friend, Humberto Lopez, for receiving the Arizona Lodging & Tourism Association's Hotelier of the Year Award this past May.

Humberto Lopez rose from humble roots and is the true definition of the American Dream. He provided for his family as a young boy after his father passed away, worked diligently in college at the University of Arizona, and became a CPA.

In 1975, he founded HSL Properties, Inc. and Arizona's tourism industry owes him its thanks for bringing excellence in hospitality and service to the outstanding hotels he manages.

More importantly though, Humberto Lopez created the H.S. Lopez Family Foundation, which works to improve the quality of life for communities and families across southern Arizona through education, health, and welfare. Humberto Lopez's work to provide for Arizona and those in need is a testament to the success of the American Dream and the character we need in our citizens.

Madam Speaker, let me tell you, Maricopa County is the fastest growing county in the country; again, by a long shot. That is reflected because of the economy that is going on there.

In the town that I live in, the town of Gilbert, they just announced 2,500 new jobs coming in with Deloitte. That is fantastic. When I moved to Gilbert many years ago, there were 12,000 people and cotton fields everywhere. Today, it is 250,000 people and it is just gigantic.

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has measured the reported job growth in Arizona since the tax cuts and tax reform bill came forward. We have 125,000

workers who have seen increases in salaries or bonuses. That totals $215 million. Remember, that is just the reported benefits and bonuses and raises. The direct financial benefit as a result of tax reform for Arizona is over $1 billion. We anticipate a positive impact of over $1 billion in 2018. That is fantastic. In my district, the average family of four is going to receive tax relief in excess of $2,635. That is the projection.

I can talk about the many events that we go to, the people we talk to. I was at an event recently. I was getting ready to leave and a gentleman came up to me and said: Are you Congressman Biggs?

I said: Yes, I am.

He said: Thank you.

I said: Why is that?

He said: The tax reform. I am a bartender. I will keep $5,000 more this year. I will have a net impact of a positive $5,000.

I said: Well, do you care if I tell your story?

He said: Yes, tell my story.

We want to see this happen again and again. So I have a whole list I brought tonight. I can list Philip from Mesa who said that his wife's take-home pay has affected their household for the better. This is something they wanted specifically to mention. They don't consider the extra income to be ``crumbs.'' It is meaningful to people, whether you are living paycheck to paycheck or whatever. This is meaningful to them.

Matt from Gilbert said that his increased tax refund for his business was appreciated and that he and his family will save literally thousands of dollars this year because of the tax cut laws.

Rusty is a veteran from Mesa. He told us that the tax plan has done wonders for him and his small business. He is passing this on to his employees and they will be making more money per month and he has extra revenue in the business because other people generate this economic activity.

This ripples through--it isn't like it is a one-off--it ripples through the entire economy. So they have hired a new employee. For a small business, that is a monumental decision: Do we have enough business? Do we have enough revenue to bring in a new employee? They hired someone. The tax cuts helped.

So I want to take just a quick second and tell you that I go out when I am in the district to various businesses and small business owners, anywhere from 5, 15, maybe 20, 25 people in their business. Every one of them that I have met with in the last year, probably, is looking to expand. They have the problem of finding qualified employees.

I have talked to the Governor in Arizona. We have literally hundreds of thousands of jobs where people are trying to hire folks and we can't get them in. This is a great thing to have, it is a great problem to have. I think we should be celebrating what is happening around this country. Particularly as a life-long Arizonan, I can tell you I am thrilled to see this happening in Arizona. We have bounced back from the 2008 recession.

I am so grateful for the effort that the gentleman from Arizona has put in to get this bill through, for his leadership. I am grateful to have him for a friend and serve with him in Congress. I thank him for doing this Special Order tonight. This message has got to get out to the American people.

Madam Speaker, I used to be the Senate president in the State of Arizona for 4 years and had an opportunity to work there.

Madam Speaker, let's think about this for a second.

When Arizona entered the recession era of 2008, the State tax revenue declined by about 40 percent in an 8-month period. Imagine trying to deal with that. What is happening now is the converse. We had to change our attitude. We had to create the type of business-friendly situation that lured and brought business back and provide those enticements. They are there.

So what we have now is this situation localized of a business- friendly Tax Code, a business-friendly regulatory and then an overall attitude of: We want you to be here. We welcome new businesses.

So, for instance, I toured Apple world data center in my district a little over a week ago. It kind of imploded, so there was no one there. What happened is, they now have 200 employees and they will expand. They will have 500 employees in high-paying, good jobs. Every one of those employees they spend money. They buy houses. They go out to eat. They go to movies. This ripples through the economy. And that is just one of the many businesses. Like I said, we have Deloitte coming in, with 2,500. We have got State Farm, I think, in or near the gentleman's district. When they are in, they are going to have 8,000 to 10,000 people. I was just at their facility.

If you analyze it, that is a twofer, right? We are all concerned about the rehabilitation and reentry of people who have been in prison back into society. This is one way to do it. Give them an opportunity to get that skill and get job-placed.

The second thing is--and it speaks specifically to what we are talking about here today--we should be overjoyed in this country to see the economic vibrancy that is going on, the reshaping, and, if I can say it, the renewal, the economic renewal, that we have needed.

Madam Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. We want to keep it going. We follow this idea of a business cycle, but there are ways to smooth out and flatten out that business cycle.

I also agree with what the gentleman said where we start talking about individuals, because too often our narrative is just: How do we flatten out the business cycle? That type of thing.

I have Allan in Mesa who said: My standard of living has gone up.

I have Dottie in Mesa who said that the tax cuts are a good thing, that they see more money in their pockets because of these tax cuts.

These are the people and the individuals that I see on a regular basis. I know the gentleman sees them.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman is right. That is how you communicate the story, because the story, Madam Speaker and Representative Schweikert, is that we can have a vital economy.

It wasn't too many years ago when we were told 1.8 percent GDP growth would be it.

We have blown it off the rails. When people are economically free and they have growth. They feel freer. They feel happier. Why is that? Because the wolf is not always at the door. They have moved beyond kind of that bare subsistence.

That is really what I am finding as I go meet with my constituents. I talk to them. I am in a machine shop: What is going on here?

Well, we have 18 workers. We think we could bring three more on.

I said: Well, what is your problem?

We have to find the workers, and we have to train them. We are going to invest in them and train them.

That is what people are doing. That is what businesses, small and large, are doing. They are investing in people now. That is what you see when you have a good economy, because they want to bring people in. They need to bring people in.

Yes. Madam Speaker and Congressman Schweikert, that is what I am talking about. When I go into the machine shops, they are doing very technical, very high-quality machining. They are bringing kids out of high school, and they are training them. They are saying: This is the job you are going to get.

These kids are walking out without any university debt. They are also walking into a job that is going to pay them a lot of money and can be a great career, where they can make money and have an adequate career to sustain and support themselves, their family, for a life.

This is really one of the beautiful things that happens when you have this choice that the gentleman talked about, this mobility. That happens when you have a strong and solid economy.

Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman and I would agree: The economic foundation that allows these types of individuals and families and small businesses and big businesses to grow and provide interesting and creative developments in our society, it starts with us not having a confiscatory tax policy. It also continues by having a regulatory environment that, instead of disincentivizing or having perverse incentives, provides incentives for people to expand and be creative in the economy.

Madam Speaker, he did a good job tonight. He talked about his Starbucks experience. He talked about the young man, and I have met him, who is reentering from the prison.

Madam Speaker, these are powerful stories.

Madam Speaker, I think he is. He may be, yes.

We have talked about 8 to 10 stories, brief stories, that I brought up tonight of individuals, and, if I can humbly suggest, those are the things that, Madam Speaker, Congressman Schweikert, myself, and every one of our colleagues need to be continually reiterating, because these stories, these aren't one-off stories. These are going to be a lifetime of stories for these individuals, and we will find many, many more, as I do every time I go out.

Mr. Speaker, last September, America's national debt topped $20 trillion for the first time in history.

Almost 3 months ago, the debt exceeded $21 trillion, and we have an annual structural deficit in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Mr. Speaker, the United States faces no greater menace than our inability to eliminate our debt and balance our budget. Our grandchildren will pay the price for our dereliction of duty and our seniors will soon see Social Security and Medicare funds depleted.

This internal, bipartisan recklessness endangers all Americans.

It is past time for us to become serious about balancing our budget and making significant cuts to Federal spending. If we do not change our course, we will one day see the crash of the American economy and the demise of a super power.

Mr. Speaker, let's change our course before our debt reaches $22 trillion. The time for conversation is over. The time to act is now.

Mr. Speaker, before giving my remarks, I include in the Record a statement by Senator Johnson explaining the intent of S. 204.

Statement of Legislative Intent

(By Sen. Ron Johnson on S. 204 (as considered by the House of

Representatives))

In a recent article about pending right to try legislation,

FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb was quoted as saying: ``In

terms of making sure that it balances [access to experimental

drugs] against appropriate patient protections . . . with [S.

204], we'd have to do a little bit more . . . in guidance and

perhaps in regulation to achieve some of those goals, and I

think those are the goals that Congress wants us to

achieve.'' The article went on to quote Commissioner Gottlieb

as saying: ``We felt that there were certain aspects of [S.

204] that could be modified to build in additional patient

protections, but if you weren't able to do that

legislatively, that there [was] a pathway by which you do

that administratively and still remain consistent with the

letter and the spirit of this law.''

In response to this article, Commissioner Gottlieb tweeted

the ``FDA . . . stands ready to implement [right to try] in a

way consistent with the intent of Congress.''

As S. 204's primary author and lead sponsor, I want to make

this legislation's intent absolutely clear and remove any

ambiguity that the FDA could use to implement right to try in

a way contrary to its aim.

S. 204, as originally introduced, applied to patients

``with a terminal illness,'' as defined by State law. In

discussion with the FDA, the agency suggested it would prefer

a uniform federal definition, especially one that already

existed in federal statute or regulation, because an existing

federal definition would facilitate implementation of the

law. The FDA suggested defining terminal illness as an

``immediately life-threatening disease or condition.'' The

FDA disclosed that its suggested definition would exclude,

for example, patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy--an

illness explicitly intended to be covered by the legislation.

To be clear, I rejected this proposed definition because I

believed it would inappropriately exclude patients with

certain diseases from accessing treatments. By contrast, the

legislation instead defines terminal illness as ``life-

threatening disease or condition'' (which exists in current

federal regulation), which the FDA confirmed would include

patients diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Contrary to the preference of FDA official Dr. Janet

Woodcock, who expressed the FDA's desire to draft the

legislation ``to make sure we don't include patients we (the

FDA) doesn't intend to include,'' I replied and rejected that

notion by stating my intent was completely opposite hers:

``I wanted to make sure we didn't exclude any one we didn't

intend to exclude.'' My aim from the beginning was to be as

inclusive as possible such that as many patients as possible

who are facing no available alternatives could potentially

qualify.

S. 204 is fundamentally about empowering terminally-ill

patients and their doctors who, together with the cooperation

of the developers of potentially life-saving therapies,

should be in charge of making a determination about their own

course of treatment. The bill is not intended to further

empower any federal agency, including the FDA, to limit in

any way the ability of an individual facing a life-

threatening disease or condition from accessing treatment. S.

204 is about preserving a right to hope and about expanding

individual freedom. It is not meant to empower the FDA to

limit the right to hope by regulation or guidance.

S. 204 includes a provision ensuring the Secretary may not

use a clinical outcome associated with the use of an eligible

investigational drug to delay or adversely affect review or

approval of the drugs, unless use of such clinical outcome is

critical to determining safety. This language is in no way

intended to enable the FDA to expand the scope of existing

safety determinations regarding investigational drugs.

S. 204 requires, in certain circumstances, that an eligible

investigational drug be under investigation in a clinical

trial that is intended to form the primary basis of a claim

of effectiveness in support of approval or licensure.

According to the FDA, this language simply incorporates the

standard definition of a clinical trial. This language is not

in any way intended to enable the FDA to exclude any clinical

trial as a basis for precluding access to treatments under

right to try.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Right to Try Act and on behalf of the patients who are fighting each and every day to try to save their own lives.

It has been a long ride, but we are in sight of our destination.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a brief moment to thank my friend and colleague, Representative Fitzpatrick, for working with me on this cause from the moment we both entered office last year, and to extend my appreciation to Senator Johnson, whose efforts on behalf of right to try have been extraordinary.

Mr. Speaker, I also thank Chairman Walden for his efforts and the leadership of President Trump and Vice President Pence.

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge and thank my predecessor, Congressman Matt Salmon, for his tireless efforts to pass right to try.

But it is the patients themselves and their tireless advocates who deserve the most recognition. I have said this before and I will continue to say it: when the Right to Try Act passes this Chamber and is signed into law by the President, it will be them, not us, who deserve the most credit for this remarkable victory.

Everyone here has heard me speak about the Right to Try Act more than a few times already and everyone here is aware of the widespread support that this legislation has garnered. Forty States have already passed right-to-try legislation, often with unanimous or overwhelming support from Republicans and Democrats alike.

If we can't come together to support a commonsense cause such as this one, I am not sure what effort we can unite behind.

Those on the other side of this debate--and they are a shrinking minority--argue that this legislation is unnecessary. Well, if it is so unnecessary, why do I receive phone calls and letters from patients each week urging me to do everything in my power to get this legislation passed?

I have no doubt the FDA's expanded access program helps patients, but I also know that the agency's personnel, including Director Gottlieb himself, want to help as many patients as possible, but their efforts simply are not enough.

The Right to Try Act doesn't eliminate the expanded access program. Far from it. We are merely providing another, more direct avenue for patients to acquire potentially lifesaving medications from pharmaceutical companies that don't require them to ask permission from a bureaucratic middleman.

Another argument I hear from the naysayers, one that makes me angry, is that we are peddling false hope. False hope? What is that?

Mr. Speaker, to this tired argument, I respond that there is no such thing as false hope. You either have hope or you don't.

I, for one, want those brave men and women who are fighting every day against terrible illnesses and almost insurmountable odds to have a choice, even if it is the last choice many of them will ever have the opportunity to make. I trust them to weigh the pros and cons and choose for themselves whether they wish to take a risk to try to save their own lives.

Make no mistake: it is a choice. We are not offering a mandate, merely an option.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It merely eliminates the bioenergy subsidy programs that were established way back in title IX of the 2002 farm bill some 16 years ago. Those programs are the Biobased Markets Program; the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program; the Repowering Assistance Program; the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program; the Rural Energy for America Program; the Biomass Research and Development Initiative; the Feedstock Flexibility Program for Bioenergy Producers; the Biomass Crop Assistance Program; and the Community Wood Energy Program.

President Reagan said that there is nothing quite as everlasting as a Federal program, and I am hoping that we can end some of these programs today.

Needless to say, subsidies have no place in a free market. If biofuels are to succeed, it should be based on their benefit to the Nation's overall energy economy, not because they receive taxpayer funds.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to end this Washington giveaway, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I respect my colleague's reasoned opposition, although I disagree with him.

I appreciate his passion on the issue, and I have no doubt that he and I will work together on many future projects. But with this, Mr. Chairman, I continue to hold my position and would urge the passage of my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's position, and I regrettably must disagree with that position and continue to urge passage of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward and simply requires the Department of Transportation to provide a cost-benefit analysis to Congress before moving forward with changes to what is commonly referred to as the mishandled baggage reporting rule. If DOT wants to alter a sensible reporting requirement that has been in place for decades, it should, at the very least, be asked to justify it with a cost-benefit analysis.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his work on this bill, bringing it forward, as well as his graciousness for letting me speak today.

Mr. Speaker, I will say that what I am hearing from the other side leaves my head spinning. I hear yammering, but I constantly wonder: Did they bother to read this particular balanced budget amendment?

The struggle I have with this balanced budget amendment is not what they say. They say this is going to go directly to spending reductions.

The issue for me is, when I look at it, I see that we make it easier to raise taxes, that is what we make it easier to do, by a 51 percent vote. When I see it, we make it easier to spend like we did in the omnibus, the bipartisan omnibus bill, because that only requires a three-fifths vote to set aside the balanced budget restraints by this administration. That gives me concern, because 61 percent of the vote in the House would have exceeded that just a couple weeks ago with the omnibus bill. In the Senate, it was by more than 60 percent. So that is a bit problematic for me.

I will make one last point here before I continue on to the previous point, and that is we are going to see 7 years, roughly, for the ratification process and then another 5 years after that before this actually is enacted. That is 12 years. That means that we are going to have probably around a $30 trillion national debt by then.

Now, my friends on the other side who are using scare tactics and saying, ``This is going to cause this cut here and this cut in programs there,'' they don't know that. They are making assertions to do what David Horowitz calls ``inspire through fear,'' and that is what we are seeing here.

I think this bill could be better, significantly better, but I also think that hyperbolic rhetoric does not do this body or the American people good when we are discussing something of this magnitude.

Mr. Speaker, on September 12, 2017, I released a statement to mark and recognize that the national debt had just exceeded $20 trillion.

I asked my colleagues to follow through with our commitment to reduce expenditures and create economic stability for our future. Since that date, Congress has not taken any action to reduce our deficit or to balance our budget. Instead, we have increased our budget caps to augment Federal spending by more than 10 percent above current levels.

We suspended our debt ceiling, and this week we are preparing to pass our seventh short-term spending bill of the fiscal year. Our grossly negligent spending habits continue with no end in sight. At this rate, I am certain that we will see a $22 trillion national debt sometime around the first of next year.

Mr. Speaker, this fiscal irresponsibility is not what we promised our constituents. We are directly contributing to the bankruptcy of this Nation that we will leave to our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I beg my colleagues to honor the pledge to cut our spending and reduce our debt before it is too late. We must act now before we cross another trillion-dollar threshold.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I also pay my respects and give honor to Ron Johnson, the Senator from Wisconsin who championed the bill in the Senate and gave us a superb bill; also, Chairman Walden and his committee, who have worked hard to give us this bill today; and my original cosponsor on the bill that I introduced, Mr. Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address just a couple of things that I think are really intriguing to me because it certainly seems a bit condescending to me when I hear people say: I am not going to support this because it gives false hope that people might be taken advantage of by bad actors. They cannot identify the bad actors, but they might be taking advantage of them. That is a fallacious and specious argument to make when you are denying people who have a terminal illness, who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, who have gone through the already approved FDA processes in order to get and petition a pharmaceutical company for an experimental drug that might prolong their life and might heal them.

False hope, that argument, is the argument that I am hearing. But the reality is these people are individuals. They have a higher sense of reality than virtually anybody else I know because their mortality is there. They want the opportunity. It is not false hope. It is hope. Support of this bill is compassionate. Support of this bill is fair.

I have also heard that there may be some liability issues on the part of pharmaceutical companies which might impede them from providing drugs. Yet, in order to satisfy them, the bill itself says that they are exculpated unless their conduct is willful or criminal. That means that they have protection.

What I am asking here today, and what everyone with whom I have met over the years who want a right to try is asking, is simply a chance to have some determination and control over their own lives.

One of the intriguing arguments I hear today and I heard last week is, well, you know what, the pharmaceutical companies aren't compelled to provide these drugs. So my immediate question is: Oh, so you would be more comfortable, then, if we would have included a compulsory means in the bill? Did you want the pharmaceutical companies to be compelled to provide these?

The answer would be no. It is simply they don't like this bill. They don't want the bill.

When you have 38, soon to be 39, States that want to give their citizens, Americans all, the right to try to preserve their lives and to be healed and have a chance, they need to get that; they need that opportunity. We need to give it to them today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Walden for yielding. I am grateful for the work he has done on this. I am also grateful to my friends, Representatives Fitzpatrick and Griffith, as well as Senator Johnson, for their advocacy here.

I don't want to get this crucial point lost: it is not us; it is the courageous patients and their friends and their families who deserve the most recognition about how far we have come to get this bill passed. Today is for them, not for us.

Thirty-eight States, soon to be 39 States, have passed this bill. That is enough to amend the U.S. Constitution, but here we stand because some have come and said we shouldn't give people false hope.

There is no such thing as false hope. You either have hope or you have no hope. In this instance, this bill gives tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, or millions even, the hope that they can avail themselves of medication that might prolong their life or maybe even be a cure. These people who have advocated are fighters.

I hear about patient groups who oppose this, yet the States, our employers, they approve this. Every day, Laura McLinn, the mother of Jordan McLinn, receives countless emails from people similarly situated, saying: We need to pass the Right to Try Act. I need that right to try.

I am told: Oh, well, we take care of 1,500 a year.

Mr. Speaker, 1,500 a year, when there are literally tens of thousands of people who need their opportunity.

We are not mandating even. We are providing an opportunity. We are providing an option both for the patient and even the pharmaceutical company.

Now, I heard in the opening statement from my friend across the aisle that we are not compelling them to do it.

Would he feel more comfortable if we compelled pharmaceutical companies to provide those potential lifesaving medications?

We need to recognize that this bill is not for us in this Chamber. It is for Matt Bellina, Jordan McLinn, and Laura McLinn. It is for those who are similarly situated.

We have waited long enough. Let's get this done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary work of Sally Harrison.

Sally is the president and CEO of the Mesa Chamber of Commerce. She has worked in this role since 2013. Mesa's business environment is thriving with her at the helm.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, Sally led the meeting at Arizona State University Polytechnic campus with Congressman Jim Bridenstine and the Mesa Industry and Defense Council. Under her leadership, this unique council continues to highlight the tremendous technological and manufacturing capabilities we have in my district. There have been positive reports of the discussion she facilitated, and I am confident that she will continue to create these opportunities for my constituents.

These conversations between local officials, Federal office holders, and business leaders are paramount to ensuring that our constituents receive the best possible representation. Sally understands this and is working every day to facilitate enduring success in Mesa and our region.

I thank her for her service to our great city.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 772) to amend the PROTECT Act to make Indian tribes eligible for AMBER Alert grants, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 772, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be a sponsor of the AMBER Alert in Indian Country Act, in memory of the life of Ashlynne Mike.

I want to thank the House leadership and Chairman Goodlatte for bringing this bill before the House for consideration.

Eleven-year-old Ashlynne lived in the Navajo Nation, the largest Indian reservation in the United States, located in four States: Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. Her favorite color was yellow, and she enjoyed playing music for her friends and family. She was a kindhearted young girl who had enormous potential.

After school on Monday, May 2, 2016, while Ashlynne and her 9-year- old brother Ian waited and played near the local bus stop, a stranger approached and lured them into his vehicle by offering them a ride home.

He abducted the children and took them to a remote part of the reservation, where he abused Ashlynne, slaughtered her, and left her brother to fend for himself in the desert. Ashlynne died alone.

Ashlynne had been abducted around 4 p.m. Her father filed a missing person report at 6:53 p.m., within 3 hours. Unfortunately, authorities did not send an AMBER Alert until 2:30 a.m. on Tuesday, almost 10 hours after Ashlynne went missing.

According to law enforcement records, Tom Begay, Jr., Ashlynne's perpetrator, admitted that Ashlynne was alive when he left her stranded in the desert.

Mr. Speaker, had Indian Country been included as partners in the AMBER Alert plans, law enforcement might have rescued Ashlynne in time. She might still be alive and with us today.

When a child is abducted, action in those first hours is crucial to their safe return. The AMBER Alert program has proven effective at instantly providing information to the public to assist in the effort.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, of the AMBER Alerts issued in 2016, 94 percent of the recovered children were found within the first 72 hours, including 47 percent who were found within the first 3 hours.

Between 1997 and February 2017, the AMBER Alert program has been credited with the safe recovery of 868 children. AMBER Alerts save lives.

Today, we have the opportunity to ensure all children may benefit from the AMBER Alert program if necessary, no matter where they reside.

This bill will reauthorize the Department of Justice grant program that assists State and local governments in developing and implementing AMBER Alert communications plans. It will explicitly require the Department of Justice to perform a needs assessment of AMBER Alert capabilities on Indian reservations.

It will also, for the first time, require funds be used to integrate Tribal AMBER Alert systems with those of neighboring jurisdictions to ensure that AMBER Alerts reach as many people as swiftly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank House leadership and Chairman Goodlatte for bringing this bill forward and acknowledging the importance of filling a gap in our AMBER Alert system that might have prevented the death of Ashlynne.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. If enacted, this bill will help to build a truly national and cohesive network of AMBER Alert.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from across the aisle. This bill is truly a bipartisan effort, worked on by Members of both parties. It is because of its importance.

The particular case that both of us have cited today does focus the attention on the massive hole where there are more than 500 Indian Tribes that do not have access to the AMBER Alert system. It is the only part of this Nation and its territories that is not covered by the AMBER Alert system. This will solve that problem.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, I recognize the incredible expansion of Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport.

After originally serving as an Air Force base for over 50 years, and closed due to the BRAC process, Gateway reopened in 1994 and now provides commercial airline service to more than 35 destinations. This airport is a significant economic asset to Arizona's economy, contributing $1.3 billion every year.

Each month, Gateway sets new records. Last year, the airport saw a 9 percent increase in passenger traffic, making 2017 the second busiest year in the airport's history. I fully expect Gateway to shatter expectations in 2018.

The construction of SkyBridge Arizona will help facilitate trade between the United States and Mexico. We anticipate this project will create thousands of jobs and unleash millions of dollars for our economy.

I thank the board of directors, staff, employees, and East Valley residents who are committed to Gateway Airport's success. Gateway Airport would not be the pride of the East Valley without their dedication.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to recognize two gentlemen in my district: John Lewis and Denny Barney.

Since 2015, John Lewis has served as the president and CEO of the East Valley Partnership and previously served as the mayor of Gilbert. The East Valley Partnership works with our cities and towns to maximize their economic potential and to help create jobs. John has done exceptional work, and I wish him the best as he and his wife will be leaving this summer to serve a church mission in Cambodia.

Denny Barney is a wonderful choice to replace Mr. Lewis as president and CEO. Mr. Barney's record of service in the private sector and on the Maricopa Board of Supervisors gives him a unique perspective as he accepts this new responsibility. He is a dynamic, bright, and great leader. The East Valley Partnership will benefit from his leadership for years to come.

I am grateful for all of our leaders in the East Valley Partnership who work diligently to foster an attractive environment for families to live and businesses to grow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about the most aggressively progrowth tax reform package passed since the Reagan administration.

Each day, we learn about a new business giving a substantial bonus to its employees, increasing wages, or reinvesting into their communities because of tax reform. Today, ExxonMobil announced that they would invest an additional $50 billion in the United States due to this law. Many Arizonans are seeing the benefits from businesses such as Boeing, Waste Management, and Arizona Public Service, just to name a few.

According to Americans for Tax Reform: ``At least 3 million Americans are receiving special tax reform bonuses.'' These successes are taking place long before tax reform has even

been implemented fully. Most Americans have yet to learn how much more money they will see in their paychecks.

Mr. Speaker, tax reform has placed us on the right course to keep our booming economy humming at a good clip and sets the trajectory for even more significant growth in the future. I predict a very prosperous new year.