Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for leading tonight's Special Order. It has been an eye-opening year in office for me, and it is an honor to serve with Representative Gaetz on the Judiciary Committee in the pursuit of justice.

Exactly 11 nights ago, Mr. Speaker, I walked into a secure vault, signed one of the most detailed nondisclosure documents I have ever seen, and viewed ``the memo.'' Everything I read was what I expected to read. That is what is outrageous to me. There was not much that I did not expect to find.

I thank Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Gowdy, Chairman Nunes, and members of the House Intelligence Committee who have now voted to present that memo to the public. I am looking forward to President Trump shortly declassifying that memo permanently.

I have heard people say to me: You are eroding trust in government and in the finest law enforcement agency in the country, the FBI, with your continual attacks. But they don't understand that we are not attacking the FBI. We are seeking clarity, transparency, and an understanding of what went on under the leadership of the Department of Justice and the FBI in the previous administration. To not reveal that to the public is what erodes trust in their government.

Nothing in this memo will impair our national security. But if we are to withhold this memo from the American people, I believe that, instead, would harm our national security because it would harm the integrity of those agencies, and it would further erode the trust that Americans have in their government.

The American people deserve to see the information that I have read, that Mr. Gaetz has read, and that over 100 Members of Congress have read. The leadership of Chairman Devin Nunes has made a tremendous difference, and this truth will be exposed. I congratulate him.

Mr. Speaker, this memo will provide clarity and understanding. This is the memo, when it gets out, where the people will say: We need to make changes. We have got to have people in these law enforcement agencies and that lead these agencies and these bodies be trustworthy, follow the law, and not abuse their power for political gain or purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I trust my constituents. Frankly, in the last week, I met with literally hundreds of my constituents. The most common theme talked about was: When will that classified memo be released so I can read it, so I can make a determination, so I can understand what has been going on in our government?

I am so pleased that the House Intelligence Committee voted today to answer the question. In short order you will be able to read this and make up your own mind. That is why I encourage President Trump to quickly declassify the memo.

Again, I thank my colleague, Representative Gaetz, and all who have been working on this issue to make this memo open and transparent for the people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize three individuals who serve in local government in Arizona: Steve Chucri, Brigette Peterson, and Nora Ellen.

This month, Steve Chucri's colleagues on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted to elevate him to chairman of the board. Steve has served on that board since 2013.

Last week, the Gilbert Town Council chose Brigette Peterson as their vice mayor. Brigette has served on the council since 2015.

Last Thursday, the Chandler City Council voted to appoint Nora Ellen as their vice mayor. Nora has served on the council since 2013.

Mr. Speaker, serving in local government isn't always glamorous, but these individuals and their colleagues demonstrate commitment to their constituents on a daily basis. Our communities are fortunate to have Steve, Brigette, and Nora at these posts. I wish them well in their new roles and look forward to working with them in 2018.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. I thank those who are sponsoring H.R. 4712.

I was a young man in high school when the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision came down. It ignited a movement to preserve the life of the unborn. My mother and future mother-in-law began working in the trenches to see this pernicious and barbaric practice eliminated. Seeing their example, my wife, my family, and I have worked to protect these little ones for many years. We have worked for pro-life causes in the community, internationally, and in the State legislature.

During my tenure in the State legislature, we passed dozens of pro- life bills. I am pleased to say that, since 2009, Arizona has passed and had signed into law 39 bills promoting the protection of unborn babies. In fact, Arizona was recently named the top pro-life State in the Union by Americans United for Life. Even so, Arizona is not without problems.

I dedicate my support for H.R. 4712 to Aryana Zeitner, whose mother faked a serious illness so that a doctor would perform an abortion at 22 weeks. Aryana survived the abortion, but she was not given any medical attention. Doctors, nurses, and presumably her mother, let her life slowly ebb away. Aryana's life passed after 1 hour and 18 minutes after the abortion was performed. This bill is for Aryana and others who should be alive today.

In another instance, a baby with no name survived an abortion. 911 in the Phoenix area of Arizona received a call from a worker at the abortion clinic indicating that a post-abortion baby was breathing, but the clinic did no more than provide oxygen. The baby passed, dying before arriving at the hospital.

Mr. Speaker, I dedicate this bill to all of the unnamed victims of abortion.

Mr. Speaker, if a baby survives an abortion, it is not an abortion. It is a birth. It is inhumane to allow a baby who survives an abortion to simply die from neglect and inattention.

I urge the passage of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, H.R. 4712. I urge leadership to bring H.R. 490, the Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017, sponsored by 170 Members of this body, to the floor for a vote as well.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Stop the Bleed training courses offered by the American College of Surgeons.

Every year, more than 180,000 Americans die from injuries sustained in a myriad of ways. What many people may not know is that a large number of these fatalities result not from instantaneous trauma but, rather, from blood loss. From the moment a major injury occurs, the clock is ticking. Uncontrolled bleeding can kill us in as little as 5 to 10 minutes.

Bleeding is a preventable cause of death, and that is why the Stop the Bleed effort is such a valuable program. The American College of Surgeons, working in partnership with many other organizations, has now made this training easily available to Americans across this country.

I had the opportunity to participate in Stop the Bleed training myself, and as part of my course, I learned how to properly apply bandages and tourniquets. And do you know, what? It actually was kind of fun.

We should do everything possible to ensure that more accidents don't become tragedies. This effort must include integrating blood loss prevention into our preparedness toolkit. Let's all be ready to come to the aid of our fellow citizens if the need ever arises.

Madam Speaker, let's stop the bleed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the lives of two Navajo Code Talkers, George B. Willie Sr. and Teddy Draper Sr., who recently both passed away in my home State of Arizona.

While both young men, Mr. Willie and Mr. Draper enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps and valiantly served in World War II in the Battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima.

The Navajo Code Talkers used the Navajo language to transmit and receive messages that could not be translated or intercepted by the Japanese. This unique skill was a great advantage for the United States' victory in the Pacific theater.

In 2001, both Mr. Willie and Mr. Draper were awarded the Congressional Silver Medal for their service and selfless devotion to duty. The sacrifices of Mr. Willie and Mr. Draper and their families during World War II will be remembered for generations. We will be forever grateful for their dedication to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding.

This is a very important topic. I am going to touch on this by beginning with this idea of the distinction between the current administration and its foreign policy as outlined in the recent statement from President Trump and that of the previous administration.

The distinction is very clear. The previous administration basically clung to an idea of neo-liberal institutionalism. That is to say, where there was a vacuum of power, we did not set the stage. America did not fill it. It remained a vacuum, with the idea being that an institution would fill that. Maybe the United Nations, maybe some other regional institution. But in doing so, we ceded over much of our sovereignty and failed to act to preserve and protect America's best interests.

The current administration has taken a more realistic point of view. They are realists. That is, America's interests will be first and paramount. We will see to it, we will foster alliances, and we will foster participation with our fellow nations to preserve America's best interests.

When America is strong, there is a greater chance for peace in the world. I believe that. That is the position of realists all the way back to Hans Morgenthau. Even neo-realists like Kenneth Waltz might agree.

One thing that we know is that this particular episode that unfolds is a scandalous episode that put America in greater danger, probably, and perhaps, in order to foster political gains by the previous administration.

One Treasury Department official who served in the Obama administration testified to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs that, under the Obama administration, these Hezbollah-related investigations were tamped down for fear of rocking the boat with Iran and jeopardizing the nuclear deal.

That becomes the heart and the rationale for how the previous administration handled a political decision instead of a foreign policy national security decision.

We know a number of things that took place, and this is why the House needs to conduct its own investigation: so we can know how this played out, why this played out, who is responsible, and we can resolve never to do this again.

We had Project Cassandra. This was a DEA campaign designed to expose a money laundering scheme in which Latin American drug-running was being funneled to Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is a pro-Iranian Lebanese malitia and has been a foreign terrorist organization since 1987, and so designated. It fosters alliances with rogue nations such as North Korea, Iran, and is violently anti-Israel and anti-United States.

It has become a player in international cocaine trafficking--using the proceeds of that drug trafficking to purchase explosives, EFPs, which is the deadliest type of IED used against American soldiers in Iraq.

EFPs killed hundreds of American soldiers, and they were supplied by the Iranian Government and its Hezbollah allies. EFPs were literally ripping M1 Abrams tanks in half. It is a weapon that makes all the armor protection they have irrelevant. Mere threats of EFPs shut down all ground supply routes near American bases on the Iranian border.

The result: cut off the head or the financing of Hezbollah through these international cocaine distribution routes.

Project Cassandra was born in 2008. It found clear evidence that Hezbollah had grown from a Middle East-focused military and political organization into an international crime syndicate, likely collecting somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities.

For 8 years, DEA agents conducted high-stakes investigations-- dangerous investigations--using technology as well as undercover operations and informants. That type of capital is expensive and dangerous.

The result was to map these illicit drug networks. They did this with the help of 30 U.S. and foreign security agencies. They saw worldwide, far-flung international drug trafficking from South America to Africa, from Europe to the Middle East, and in the United States, where drug funds were funneled through an array of businesses, including used car lots.

What happened?

As we saw the previous administration's desire and design to leave a signature legacy foreign policy win, the negotiations for the Iran nuclear deal got going and were in place. Project Cassandra's agents say the Justice and Treasury Departments repeatedly hindered their attempts to pursue these investigations--the prosecutions, arrests, and financial sanctions against the key figures in this far-reaching drug scheme.

This was a policy decision. It was a systematic decision.

David Asher is quoted as saying: ``They serially ripped apart this entire effort that was very well supported and resourced, and it was done from the top down.''

They didn't bring criminal charges. They didn't continue to pursue these Hezbollah members or the banks that were laundering those billions in drug profits. Instead, they tore down the apparatus that was working on apprehending the head of the snake.

Well, we are going to go on with this. We need to go on with this. We need to investigate this further. This type of political decision that impacts and actually works cross-wise to our very purpose in the Middle East must be stopped, and we must find out why that happened. Those who allowed our men and women to be put in harm's way for a political decision need to be held accountable.

So, Mr. Speaker, those who cling to the neo-liberal institutionalist mantra, who rely on multilateral institutions rather than putting America first, are the ones who produced this result.

We are going to find out more in the coming weeks. My request is that the leadership in Congress, in this House of Representatives, instigate and prosecute an investigation to get to the bottom of this very heinous and very wrongheaded and dangerous decision.

I thank the gentleman for allowing me to participate and for his lead on this tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz) for leading this Special Order tonight, and I am grateful for his work on this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that I am very appreciative of my colleagues who also continue to work on this very important task, because this reminds me of playing a basketball game where you get there and there is a five-on-five game, except for it is not really five-on-five because the other team has got the referees on their side, they have got the scorekeeper on their side, they have got the statistics on their side, they have got the person that runs the clock on their side.

That is really what has happened here. We know that is what has happened here because of the conflict of interest and bias that has taken over and controls the Robert Mueller special investigations team. That is a team that is biased. He has got conflict of interest. Nobody is going to get a fair shake from that team.

Why is that?

Well, let's just think about this. A couple of weeks ago, we had the FBI--excuse me--Attorney General Jeff Sessions come in. He is a great guy. I asked him specifically: Do you have any procedure to vet conflict of interest or bias on Mueller's special team or in the Department of Justice?

He said: No, we don't. We don't have that.

He doesn't have a question there. He doesn't have a process. He says: It is up to each individual to determine if they have got that conflict of interest or bias.

Well, we had Director Wray in last week. I asked him the same question. He said basically the same thing: No, we don't have a process.

Mueller doesn't have a process. In fact, it is as if the process is you need to have a conflict or bias in order to get on Mueller's special counsel team. That is what this is stacked up to be.

Well, that is where we are today. And tomorrow, when Deputy Rosenstein comes in, I am looking forward to asking him the same questions because there is conflict and there is bias. My colleagues have all iterated that tonight. It just happens over and over and over again. To get on that team, you have to have a conflict or bias.

Well, so what else is important? What else has come out of these hearings?

Well, I tell you what else has come out. I said to Director Wray: Look, we know there is a problem here. Attorney General Sessions told us that the responsibility of the person involved is to make sure they don't have a conflict. We know that there is a huge cloud that sits right there.

Well, this is outrageous. No firm in the private sector would ever allow that to go on. But here we have this--it is like a drip, drip, drip from a faucet. Every day or two, here is another conflict of interest that comes out. Maybe Mr. Strzok, maybe Mr. Ohr, maybe Mr. Ohr's wife, maybe Mr. Weissmann, maybe Mr. Zebley, maybe Mr. Cooper, maybe Jeannie Rhee. It just goes on and on.

You know what? This is ridiculous. So I asked Director Wray: Look, you have got the inspector general looking at the Hillary Clinton investigation right now and all these other investigations. What will you do if he says there was irregularities in the Hillary Clinton investigation?

He said: I would try to ``unring the bell.''

Think about that. He says he is willing to unring the bell. I asked him what he meant. So he talked about personnel decisions. Maybe someone needs to be let go, disciplined, retrained, whatever. Maybe they will come up with a process to vet conflicts of interest and bias investigations.

But I pressed him a little bit harder. I asked him: When you get to unring the bell, if you have irregularities in the Hillary Clinton investigation, will you commit to reopen the investigation?

Now, he didn't commit, but he indicated very strongly he would reopen that Hillary Clinton investigation.

That is what needs to happen now. We know that there were irregularities. We know that that is what the inspector general is going to find. And I tell you this: We have got to stop making this administration play a stacked team when the other team has nothing but biased and conflicted investigators who control the clock, who control the score, who control the statistics, who control the referees. That is what you have going on here, and it must stop, and it must stop now.

With that in mind, if Attorney General Sessions, if Director Wray, and if Mr. Rosenstein do not provide the information Congress has asked, they should be held in contempt.

Mr. Speaker, today I honor my constituent Grant R. Ward. Grant of Gilbert, Arizona. He has been chosen to receive the Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Water Resources Association (NWRA).

This lifetime achievement award was established in 1948. According to the NWRA, this award ``recognizes members and individuals who have actively served in the leadership of the Association for many years and who, by their activities and service to the goals and objective of the Association, merit Life Member status.'' Grant embodies the spirit of this distinguished award.

Grant has an impressive resume of service. He graduated from Brigham Young University in 1967 and received his law degree in 1969 from the University of Idaho. From there, he commenced his professional career, serving as an assistant branch manager at the Valley National Bank. He then took a job as General Manager of the Roosevelt Water Conservation District serving there for over a decade. Following this position, he continued his distinguished career as Executive Vice President of the Agri-Business Council of Arizona, Assistant General Manager of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, and General Manager of the Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation & Drainage District. He currently is an independent water and power consultant.

Grant is married to Judy and their family includes seven children and 36 grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, Grant has a remarkable track record of service to our community. He has provided a great example for his children of the value of hard work and giving back through his conservative efforts.

I applaud Grant for his award, and I look forward to his continued service.

Mr. Speaker, today I honor my constituent Grant R. Ward. Grant is a resident of Gilbert, Arizona. He is receiving the Lifetime Achievement Award by the National Water Resources Association (NWRA).

This lifetime achievement award was established in 1948. According to the NWRA, this award ``recognizes members and individuals who have actively served in the leadership of the Association for many years and who, by their activities and service to the goals and objective of the Association, merit Life Member status.'' Grant embodies the spirit of this distinguished award.

Grant has an impressive resume of service. He graduated from Brigham Young University in 1967 and received his law degree in 1969 from the University of Idaho. From there, he commenced his professional career, serving as an assistant branch manager at the Valley National Bank for a few years. He then took a job as General Manager of the Roosevelt Water Conservation District for over a decade. Following this occupation, he progressed through several jobs, starting with Executive Vice President of the Agri-Business Council of Arizona, Assistant General Manager of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, and General Manager of the Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation & Drainage District. He currently is an independent water and power consultant.

Grant is married to Judy. They have seven children and 36 grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, Grant has a remarkable track record of service and perseverance in employment. He showed his children the value of hard work and the necessity of pushing through each day to pay the bills. His children now have his example to lean on as they demonstrate similar work ethics to their own children.

However, Grant's service didn't simply stop with his paycheck. He was extremely involved with his community--and still is today. Grant has sat on several boards and presided over several clubs and committees in Arizona. Grant looks for any possible way to give back to his community.

I applaud Grant for his award, and I look forward to his continued service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I stand tonight with a number of my colleagues to shed light and ask questions and discuss the conflicts of interest of Mr. Mueller and several others in the previous administration.

As I recall the events of the past 2 years, it becomes clearer than ever that Mr. Mueller should resign. If he does not resign, then he should be fired.

I believe he has conflicts of interest that do not allow him to proceed with his investigation in an unbiased, independent manner. Further, he has broadened the scope of his investigation far beyond his charge to examine Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. In the process, he is helping to attack the integrity, perception, and credibility of the American justice and electoral system.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents want answers. Congress has sought answers from the previous administration for many years. Without exception, the Obama administration stonewalled these attempts.

Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation are the subject of many of these questions and subsequent investigations.

Ms. Clinton did not become President. Some say that, because of this, we should not complete our investigations into multiple allegations of misconduct, but this is misguided.

No American is above the law. Losing an election does not grant immunity for misconduct. Whether Ms. Clinton is Secretary of State, President of the United States, or a citizen of Chappaqua, New York, she should be held to the same standard as everyone else.

I am pleased that the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees share this sentiment. Our committees will soon be launching a joint investigation into the unanswered questions surrounding the allegations that we have mentioned. We intend to get truthful answers to these questions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

I thank the gentleman from Florida and I appreciate his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his eloquent comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his remarks, and I am grateful to have him here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his remarks. It is my pleasure now to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his remarks, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, my friend, for his leadership on this issue. I appreciate his giving his remarks tonight.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman being here and speaking tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice), my good friend who has been waiting like patience on a monument.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to sum up.

What you have heard tonight, those who have been listening, are the outlines of the scandal of our lifetime--the scandal of our lifetime that began in 2009 and proceeded forth even to revelations in the last 36 hours of Mr. Comey changing the wording in his draft from the statutory culpable mental state requirement of gross negligence to merely carelessness.

That is a huge change as he prepared his draft report on Mrs. Clinton and the misuse of her email server giving access--which we don't even know. We don't have access to that. But you take this back from the Uranium One situation, the transaction that should never have happened, the money that changed hands, and you look at the common thread throughout.

Well, oddly enough, it is Robert Mueller. Robert Mueller sits today as the investigator of the supposed collusion between the Trump administration and the Russians to influence the election.

Oddly enough, it has turned on its head. We have found out now that it is the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign that was funding Fusion GPS, trying to influence the American electorate. It is upside down.

Yet the person who is tied throughout all of this is Robert Mueller. He is the guy conducting the investigation. Is there any clearer conflict of interest than what we see in this special investigator?

Again, with my colleagues--I thank all of them who have spoken tonight--I renew my call for his resignation, short of that, his termination of employment.

This is the scandal of our time. It affects our national security, the views of the American people for justice, and our elections.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado, Mr. Buck, for yielding to me. I am grateful for his leadership as a conservative. It has been my honor to serve with him this past year. I appreciate him sharing some time with me tonight as I share several important stories.

Mr. Speaker, these are stories of real people, not just some people who are distant to us. These are people that we know, people just like this.

Mr. Speaker, one early January morning in 2015, a young man named Grant Ronnebeck began the graveyard shift at a QuikTrip convenience store in my district. After his parents divorce, Grant took the initiative to find a job working at this convenience store

in Mesa, Arizona, to help his family pay the bills. He was only 21 years old. He had his entire life ahead of him.

Just before 4 a.m., an angry customer walked in, demanded a pack of cigarettes, and dumped a handful of change on the store counter. Grant started to count the money, but he saw the customer pull a gun out and point it directly at his head.

Grant tried to immediately hand over the cigarettes in a desperate attempt to save his life, but it was too late. The customer shot Grant in the face in cold blood, took the cigarettes, and casually walked out of the store.

Grant's father describes him as being his buddy from the minute he was born and a person that brightened everybody. He did not leave the store alive that night.

The customer's name was Apolinar Altamirano. He was an illegal alien with a long criminal record, including violent crimes. He was held in Federal custody, but then released while he awaited deportation proceedings. Our government let Grant down when they allowed Grant's killer to walk out of custody and onto our streets.

Altamirano should have remained in custody until he was deported, but he was set free, and Grant was killed due to the government's failure to hold this violent criminal in custody until deported.

Sadly, Grant's story is not unique. Many Americans are aware of another tragic incident, the case of Kate Steinle. Kate was 32 years old. She was walking along a San Francisco pier when an illegal alien shot and killed her. This illegal alien had just been released from prison again. He should have been held until deportation, but he, in fact, had been deported many times previously.

Even then, he was set free, only to kill Kate Steinle.

In 2014, Mesa, Arizona, Police Officer Brandon Mendoza was killed in a wrong-way crash by an illegal alien who was driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

And in January 2016, Sarah Root was murdered by an illegal alien who was drunk and drag racing in Omaha, Nebraska.

In each of these cases, Grant and Brandon, I am privileged to know their parents, Steve Ronnebeck and Mary Ann Mendoza. These are fierce advocates who tirelessly work to make sure these types of tragedies never happen to another family. I am grateful for their efforts, and I believe that we are making significant headway to stop these types of catch and release programs that allow criminals to remain on our streets.

In June of this year, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, and H.R. 3004, Kate's Law, tandemly. These bills would end the policies that contributed to the tragic deaths of Grant, Kate, Brandon, and Sarah.

I was pleased to coauthor the first bill, which included my legislation, Grant's Law. Grant's Law is named in memory of Grant Ronnebeck.

All Americans can agree that someone who is criminally violent should not be released back on to the streets. Yet, for years, the Obama administration's policies failed to protect Americans by allowing criminally violent illegal aliens to roam our streets and neighborhoods.

These types of tragedies are preventable when the Federal Government enacts and enforces the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act and Kate's Law. Congress has begun to take meaningful action to bring these tragedies to an end, starting with the two bills we passed in June.

Chairman Bob Goodlatte showed leadership and commitment to ensure these important bills received swift consideration. These two bills, if enacted and enforced, would protect innocent Americans to prevent future tragedies like those of Grant, Kate, Brandon, and Sarah.

When the bills passed out of the House, I hoped these bills would receive a swift vote in the Senate. That has not happened. I am still hoping for this vote to take place. I call upon the leadership of the Senate to put these bills up for a floor vote.

We owe it to our constituents to put arcane tradition aside and to pass policies that will protect them. Yet, even in a Republican- controlled Senate, we cannot receive an up-or-down vote on these important immigration enforcement bills.

Why is this?

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe the answer lies in the fatally flawed 60-vote rule. It is more commonly known as the filibuster, but the Senate's tradition is preventing consideration of nearly all legislation passed from the House.

For example, look at our current situation. Since January, the House has passed over 300 bills, including the two immigration and enforcement bills I have just discussed. These bills will most likely languish until the end of the term, in large part, due to the filibuster rule.

So what can be done about this irresponsible inaction? Well, the Senate can change the rule. Indeed, the Senate must change the rule.

Many people do not realize that the 60-vote requirement is not even in the United States Constitution. It dates back to 1917, when the Senate agreed that debate could be cut off with a two-thirds majority vote. Decades later, when deciding a two-thirds vote was found to be too difficult to achieve, the Senate reduced the number of required votes to three-fifths, or 60 of the current 100 Senators.

The filibuster is a tradition, barely a century old, less than half the age of the U.S. Constitution.

There is a place for rules and traditions, but not when they obstruct the will of American people. Is it honorable for the United States Senate to have a gentleman's agreement to keep bills from being voted on, or to dilute our representation in the United States Senate?

Americans would rather that Congress pass just and reasonable laws than to preserve extraconstitutional, institutional traditions. Americans want our borders secure and our immigration laws to be enforced.

Congress is running out of time to keep its promises to the American people. We promised to ensure that what happened to Kate, Grant, Brandon, and Sarah would not happen again. The House has done its duty. It is time for the Senate to do its duty.

There are no excuses to allow these bills to die in the Senate. I encourage my friends in the Senate to eliminate the 60-vote rule and to consider the two immigration enforcement bills that the House passed in June. We must not allow inaction to be the enemy of our sworn responsibilities as representatives of the American people.

Again, I thank my friend from Colorado. I appreciate the opportunity to say what has been on my mind for some time.

Mr. Speaker, every November we commemorate Native American Heritage Month. I am honored to share a long-standing partnership with Indian Tribes located in Arizona and across the United States. This includes our most recent efforts to extend the AMBER Alert program to Indian Country, which will ensure that every family in Indian Country is afforded the same resources to find a missing child.

Today I am especially grateful to recognize the valiant service of Native American U.S. Marines during the Iwo Jima campaign:

Ira Hayes, a member of the Gila River Pima Indian community, is most notably remembered as one of the servicemen who raised the American flag over Mount Suribachi.

The Navajo Code Talkers were also irreplaceable during World War II. The

Code Talkers effectively transmitted combat messages across enemy lines to avoid interception and decryption.

Major Howard Connor said it best: ``Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima.''

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to highlight their contributions to Arizona and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening, along with my friend and colleague, Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, as we advocate for the passage of the Right to Try Act. This bill, which we introduced together, has dozens of bipartisan cosponsors, including Members here tonight.

We are both supportive of Senator Ron Johnson's efforts to champion Right to Try in the Senate. He has been a tireless advocate of Right to Try for years, and his bill has already passed the Senate with unanimous consent. If you are watching the Senate very closely, you will know that nothing comes out of there, and certainly nothing with unanimous consent; so that tells how strong the sentiment is in favor of this bill.

Our legislation allows terminally ill patients who have no further options left--I repeat that, no further options left--the opportunity to try experimental drugs that could save their own lives.

Yes, there are also provisions in our bill to protect both the patients, as well as the pharmaceutical companies who want to participate, but those provisions are secondary to the primary purpose of this legislation. The primary purpose of the Right to Try Act is to give brave patients across this country some choice over their own destinies, when all other avenues are gone.

We want to give hope to these Americans, and we should all share that same goal of doing everything we can for patients fighting to save their lives. This policy has significant bipartisan support. The Trump administration strongly supports Right to Try, and President Trump has indicated he would likely sign this bill into law.

Time is of the essence, for time is one thing a terminally ill patient does not have. And the status quo is not the answer. The FDA and other agency officials claim that their own expanded access program is working and continues to improve. There may be some truth to that, but the program is simply not enough; and I know that because I have talked to dozens and dozens of patients, family members, and advocates who tell me it is not enough. They come to my office, they call me on the phone, they write me impassioned letters.

These same advocates have ensured that Right to Try has become law in 38 States. Think about that for a moment. With one more State, you could actually ratify a Constitutional amendment. And in half of those 38 States, Right to Try laws passed with unanimous support. In my home State of Arizona, voters approved that initiative by 80 percent of the popular vote.

At a time when pundits are claiming that our politics are broken, and Republicans and Democrats can't come together on anything, here is a cause that Americans of all political stripes can unite in.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Fitzpatrick; I appreciate all that he has done and continues to do in this cause, this important cause. He is a great leader in this, and I am grateful for all of his effort here.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his impassioned speech, his position, his comments regarding the bill, and his desire to see it altered, but I do appreciate his support of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly grateful to have this opportunity to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Smucker; I appreciate his comments and his willingness to participate this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues who have joined us tonight to champion the cause and inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to mention how I came to really be converted to the cause of right to try.

I served in the Arizona State Legislature with Laura Knaperek, who was also serving in the legislature when I first met her. By 2014, she was no longer serving in the State legislature. She was an advocate. That year, Laura was in the fight of her life against ovarian cancer, and her mission was to see right-to-try legislation passed into law.

In the end, her efforts for this cause succeeded beyond everyone's wildest expectations when 80 percent of the electorate in Arizona voted to enact right to try. But, unfortunately, Laura is not with us because she lost her brave battle with cancer last year. Her legacy as a tireless patient advocate lives on.

I will continue to carry on the fight not just for Laura Knaperek, but for all those patients across this country who are battling against the odds every day.

I am joined by those who are here tonight, those who have cosponsored this bill, and many other advocacy groups, such as the Goldwater Institute in Arizona that continues to fight for this.

I fight for Bertrand Might. Bertrand is a very special little boy. He was the first person ever to be diagnosed with a rare, fatal genetic disorder called NGLY1 that has left this 7-year-old paralyzed. Because the disease was only identified by scientists in 2012 and only a few people worldwide have been diagnosed with it, there is no cure and no treatment available. Because the disorder is so rare, a drug may never be developed to treat it.

But scientists have found that Bertrand responds to certain investigational therapies. So Bertrand's family will have to rely on trying those new investigational medications as long as they have access to them. That is why we need this right-to-try legislation.

I fight for Jordan McLinn. Seven-year-old Jordan says he wants to grow up to be a firefighter so he can save lives. He has Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which could leave him paralyzed within 5 years and shortens his life expectancy to only 20 years. There is a drug now being used in clinical trials that is helping young people like Jordan, but it could take another 7 years for that drug to be available on the market. His parents cannot afford to wait for the FDA to give that drug its final approval. He could be in a wheelchair by then. This investigational drug could add years to Jordan's life, which would give him the chance to save others.

We have already heard, when Representative Fitzpatrick discussed Matt Bellina, his needs and his advocacy. We fight for him, and we fight for Mikaela Knapp.

At 24, Mikaela was diagnosed with a deadly form of kidney cancer that had already migrated into her bones before she even knew she was sick. She went through every known treatment in a matter of months and nothing worked. Her high school sweetheart, Keith, heard about a drug under development that was successfully treating people with this same cancer, but Mikaela was not allowed to enroll in the clinical trial. Mikaela and Keith launched a social media campaign to try to get access to the drug, but it wasn't enough. The FDA didn't help.

Mikaela died on April 24, 2014. Five months later, on September 4, the FDA gave final approval to the drug that might have saved her.

I fight for Diego Morris. When he was 10 years old, Diego woke up with a sore leg that his mom thought was just another sports injury, but the pain didn't go away. They knew something was wrong, but they never expected osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer.

After exhausting all treatments available, Diego's doctors recommended he try mifamurtide, which wasn't available in the United States but was being safely used and had been given the Prix Galien Award, the gold medal for pharmaceutical development in England. The Morris family wasted no time and made the move abroad to try to save Diego's life. The treatments worked. Now Diego is back home in Phoenix and back to playing his favorite sports.

We fight unitedly for the countless other patients who deserve a right to try. We must act without further delay. Again, I thank those who have been here to testify tonight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 14 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, November 2, 2017, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mr. Roberto Sanchez, a resident of Arizona's Fifth Congressional District, who retired from 35 years of federal service on September 29, 2017. Mr. Sanchez began his career by serving for three years as a proud member of the United States Marine Corps. He then joined the legacy U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service in 1985 as a Deportation Officer, which later became Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 2003.

In 2003, Mr. Sanchez became a deputized member of the United States Marshal's Service Fugitive Apprehension Task Force for the Northern District of Florida and five years later, he was promoted to Supervisory Deportation Officer. He helped establish direct oversight to the Harris County Sheriff's Office 287(g) program in Houston, Texas. The 287(g) program enables federal immigration officials to work directly with state and local law enforcement to identify and remove criminal illegal aliens.

In 2010, Mr. Sanchez was promoted to his fmal position of 287(g) Field Program Manager for ICE, where he managed and provided oversight to various 287(g) programs throughout the southwestern United States. These 287(g) programs include Harris County Sheriff's Office in Houston, Texas, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the Pinal County Sheriff's Office in Florence, Arizona, and the Mesa Police Department. He was last assigned to the ICE Field Office in Phoenix, Arizona.

Mr. Sanchez has been a resident of Gilbert, Arizona since 2007. Outside of the office, Mr. Sanchez is a loyal fan of all Arizona sports teams. Most importantly, he is a dedicated family man and spends most of his time with his wife of 36 years, Shirley, his two children, Robert and Sandra, and his two Boston Terriers.

I thank Mr. Sanchez for his extraordinary service and life commitment to our country, and congratulations to him on his retirement