Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, America now knows the truth. The Democratic Party hired the Perkins Law Firm. The Perkins Law Firm hired the Fusion GPS company. Fusion GPS needed two things: fake dirt on Donald Trump, and they needed a way to inject that fake dirt into the bloodstream of our intelligence community. So they hired Christopher Steele. And then they went and hired Nellie Ohr, the wife of senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr.

Now, Bruce Ohr's portfolio included counternarcotics and antidrug work. But all of a sudden, after his wife gets hired from the money that you can trace back to the Democratic Party, Bruce Ohr starts taking counterintelligence meetings, meeting with Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele, before and after the election.

What should enrage the American people is the notion that cash at a political party could ever be convertible to a warrant to spy on political enemies in the United States of America.

That is what we are fighting against. That is what is at issue. That is why we are going to do everything we can to hold the bad actors accountable and then institute reforms so that this type of thing never happens again.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the continuous efforts of Theresa Chimel, Executive Director of Escambia County Healthy Start Coalition, where she advocates for infants born exposed to drug use. Additionally, having lost a child of her own, she has dedicated her life to bring proper attention to the scarce availability of palliative care available in Northwest Florida.

On August 18, 2013, Theresa's son Asher died at the age of 12 having lived a life riddled with medical complexities. Asher, full of life, brought happiness to every person privileged to meet him. Due to limited palliative care options, the Chimel family had to make the best experience from a limited amount of resources. Mrs. Chimel has since made it her mission to assist other children that suffer from such conditions, by providing resources and opportunities for their families. Her efforts have been noticed world-wide, and has taken her, along with her family, to London, England to speak at the Transforming End of Life Care for Children and Young People event where on this day she will be addressing members of Parliament.

After her firsthand experience, Theresa proposes with high optimism that the care a child receives at the end of their life must be vastly improved. Families should not be burdened by such responsibility, but rather be allowed to build these precious moments in happiness and peace.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I am profoundly grateful and privileged to congratulate Theresa Chimel on her efforts to better the experience of life for children from the beginning to the conclusion of their time here on Earth.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize National Mentor Month and the impact Big Brothers Big Sisters of Northwest Florida has had on the youth in our community.

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Northwest Florida facilitates one-on-one mentorship opportunities to provide short and long-term impact in the life of a child. Providing these relationships gives children a friend, someone to call on in times of trouble, and someone to love on them and show them endless opportunity all while having a good time.

This organization is unique in that the Bigs also benefit from the program as they watch their Little grow, learn, and inspire to achieve. There is no greater privilege than to watch a child grow and develop into the best version of themselves. Big Brothers Big Sisters of Northwest Florida provides the necessary opportunities to allow this development to be achieved through mentor relationships.

I would like to extend my gratitude to all the Bigs who have taken upon themselves to mentor a Little and to exhibit endless opportunity and compassion. I am deeply motivated by these individuals. I would also like to thank the staff and volunteers who work many hours to pair these individuals with the best possible match.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I am privileged to honor the outstanding Big Brothers Big Sisters organization

for their success in inspiring and cultivating extraordinary mentor relationships within our community.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the House this evening with several of my colleagues principally to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes for their tireless pursuit of the truth.

There is a four-page memo. I have read it. Over 190 of my Republican colleagues have read it. Some Democrats have read it, and some have boycotted reading it. It details circumstances that are deeply troubling to me and that I believe will be deeply troubling to many Americans.

This memo encapsulates an entire year of work by these committees and by these committee chairmen, and they are to be commended for the excellent job that they have done, for the professionalism that they have undertaken, and for the stunning facts that they have uncovered that will soon be available for the American people.

I will have more to say on this throughout the hour, Mr. Speaker, but first I yield to one of my colleagues in the Congress who was one of the first and loudest voices calling for transparency at the highest levels and to the maximum extent possible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his persuasive leadership. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin) was one of the first to sign letters to members of the House Intelligence Committee, and particularly its chairman, expressing the sense of this body that we supported the transparency that the gentleman spoke of.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), who serves on the Judiciary Committee. He has worked very hard from the very beginning to ascertain the bases of claims made and is a true investigator at heart.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his service on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), another of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a fellow member of the Judiciary Committee, another of the first Members of Congress to demand the appointment of a second special counsel to look into matters such as this.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for being a clarion voice for calling this Congress and this administration to act in a way that is consistent with the values and the principles of the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not take that full allotment of time. I will say, though, that it is worth repeating the great work that Chairman Bob Goodlatte has done in the Judiciary Committee; the excellent work that Trey Gowdy has done, the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee; and the excellent work that Chairman Devin Nunes has done. Each of these committees has jurisdiction over a different component part of the information that is laid out before the American people that has given rise to so many concerns about bias, departure from standard practices, familial relationships, and the potential political corrosion of institutions that we have to rely on for an effective democracy.

I also want to thank the thousands of people who work in the FBI and the Department of Justice who are patriots, who go to work every day to protect us from threats at home and abroad, who really do do a great job in defense of this country. It is not their work that we question; in fact, it is their work we hope to empower.

When you have circumstances where folks at the head shed or the leading bureaucrats can rip investigations away from field offices, can alter the contents of information that is shared with the American people, it undermines the work that true law enforcement members are doing. We want to highlight and honor that work while, at the same time, exercising our oversight function to go after the bad conduct and, where we find it systemic, institute reforms so that it does not happen again.

The FBI and the Department of Justice should never be a political weapon used to go after adversaries. This is an issue where we ought to have more bipartisan agreement, Mr. Speaker. While I am grateful that the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee this evening were able to carry the day in the fight for transparency, I am disappointed that these issues led to party-line votes.

The reality is that all Americans--Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, or members of the Whig Party--have an interest in ensuring that we have systems in place that protect our constitutional rights and liberties. We all have a stake in the action to ensure that, no matter which party wins or loses an election, the political apparatus of intelligence won't be used to go after enemies or people we disagree with.

I believe this was an opportunity missed, but it won't be the last one. I believe that the President is going to declassify this information within the 5-day window allowed to him. When he does, all Americans will see why Republicans have been concerned with the information we have learned. Then the opportunity will arise to work together, to take these facts, to take what we know, and to liberate ourselves from the partisanship of this town and to try to make things better so that, in the future, you don't have a circumstance where one investigation is called a headquarter special and taken away from the Washington field office, as the Hillary Clinton email scandal was.

We certainly don't want cases where people's family members--familial relationships, spousal relationships--influence the outcomes of decisions; and we also don't want systems in place that allow leaks to the media within the apparatus of intelligence to cloud

our mind, to cloud our judgment, to cloud the facts, or to cloud the review of our courts.

So, again, while I am proud of the work of the people who have spent a year investigating these matters, while I am confident in the findings of this report, I still remain disappointed that we don't have more unity to ensure that these types of abuses never happen again.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the President of the United States will walk down the center aisle. He will address this floor. There might be a few more folks than there are here this evening. I hope that the first thing he does is hand to the Speaker of the House his consent and his agreement to allow transparency to rein, to declassify this memo, to put it before the American people, and then let's have a great debate about its consequences and about the opportunity that it presents to make things better so that these things never happen again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening with a heavy heart, deeply concerned about my fellow Floridians and my fellow Americans who have seen benefits as a consequence of medical marijuana.

Throughout this great country, there have been circumstances where States have chosen to experiment and afford their citizens the opportunity to receive medical marijuana treatments, and that opportunity flourished as a consequence of a series of actions, one of which was the Cole memo.

The Cole memo was direction from the Attorney General of the United States in the last administration not to prioritize the arrest and prosecution of people who were using medical marijuana legally under their State laws, not to punish the doctors or prescribers or dispensing organizations that were assisting in the logistics for that care but, instead, to focus our precious Federal resources where they could do the most good: to stop drug trafficking, human trafficking, illegal illicit activity that surrounds the drug trade, to

ensure that there wasn't access for minors or cartels or people who would drive a medical practice deeper into the black market.

It is deeply unfortunate that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recently rescinded the Cole memo, placing into question the very channels of medicine that have helped so many of my constituents and so many fellow Americans.

This evening, I am going spend some time speaking about this issue, but I wanted to take the opportunity first and yield to my good friend, my colleague from the State of Florida, who has been a leader not only on this issue, but on so many of the critically important bipartisanship reforms that we should be working on here in the Congress.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo) for joining me this evening. Each and every point that Mr. Curbelo made wasn't partisan. It didn't lend itself to a conservative or a liberal ideology. It just made sense: just adhere to our constitutional principles in a way that we can help people without getting the government in the way.

I am particularly grateful that the movement criticizing Attorney General Sessions for this very poor judgment exercised is not a Republican movement or a Democratic movement. It is bipartisan.

In that bipartisan spirit, I yield to my friend Mr. Correa from California. I want to thank the many Californians who have been a part of this effort going forward, and I yield to him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for joining

us this evening. His words are a clarion call to sympathize with, empathize with, and support parents who have children with refractory epilepsy and other diseases that lead to chronic and, at times, unstoppable seizures.

There is a desperation in the voice of parents who have children who have these seizures. That moves me. A child's eyes can roll in the back of their head. They can turn blue, gasping for air. The gentleman from California (Mr. Correa) referenced circumstances where a parent would reach out and ask for help.

I yield to the gentleman to maybe further explain how it makes you feel as a policymaker when you have got someone who wants to cut through the normal discord and disruption in the policymaking process, and they just want their child to be able to breathe in the absence of these debilitating symptoms. If the gentleman wouldn't mind, I yield to him for that explanation.

Mr. Speaker, I wish his constituents the best of luck in these trying times. One may reasonably wonder: What does the repeal of the Cole memo really mean for a patient, or a doctor, or a dispensing organization? It presents a series of logistical challenges that could be crippling not only to this industry, but to the very vulnerable Americans who rely upon it for medicine.

Today, all across America, banks do not know whether or not their receipt of deposits from cannabis organizations operating legally under the color of State law would subject that bank to some broader consequence, to the oppressive hand of the Federal Government coming in and creating all kinds of other bad consequences for the people who bank with that institution.

And so the result is that dispensing organizations that want to grow, that want to make investments, that want to do research, that want to be able to deliver to fragile and vulnerable patients, won't be able to meet payroll, won't be able to fund the infrastructure of their companies, and won't be able to do the research so that we find out what strains of cannabis can be uniquely helpful to specific ailments.

So this repeal of the Cole memo isn't merely a circumstance where you are okay, so long as you are not being arrested or prosecuted in that very moment. It literally erodes the framework that has allowed people to be able to bring medicine to the doorstep of some of our most vulnerable Americans.

That is the true danger here: confusing policy and lack of clarity regarding the rules. In an area where innovation could do so much good for people, why would we not want the clearest, most predictable rules possible? Why wouldn't we want the highest standards for testing, labeling, and research? Why wouldn't we want to introduce cannabis, not in a context that could lead to abuse, or money laundering, or other illicit activity? Why would we not want it introduced in the most clinical setting possible, approved by researchers, prescribed by doctors, and then used by patients that oftentimes have seen every other reasonable medical remedy fail.

I am a limited government guy. I just don't understand why any administration, Republican or Democrat, would want to place the government between vulnerable people and something that could potentially help them. Again, recognizing the bipartisan flavor of this evening, I wanted to take just a moment to recognize one of my conservative friends, someone who has led in this institution on conservative causes during his tenure here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. It is worth noting that so many of the experiences that make up the people who serve in this body come from local government, or State legislatures, or governorships. I am very proud to have served in the Florida Legislature. I know my colleague, Mr. Sanford, served as the Governor of the State of South Carolina. And we have seen how States can function as the laboratories of democracy. And from time to time, a State may look at another and say there is a circumstance where they have done something right, or they have done something that we wouldn't necessarily agree with. And then we can tailor proposals that have withstood scrutiny and review experiences in other States and try to improve upon them.

That is the great federalist system that our Founders promised us that remains guaranteed in our Constitution today. Federalism is not some quaint, little notion of how government should run. It is the enduring promise that we have a right to live under today. And so I thank my colleague for reminding the Congress that it is the States that are the necessary constituents of the Federal Government, not the other way around.

It highlights why the decision of the Attorney General to rescind the Cole memo was so deeply flawed because it highlights the arrogance of a Federal Government that believes that its policies should always stand in primacy to innovation at the State level.

Here, that innovation is helping people, and that is the point that I would really like to stress. I have met with hundreds of families in the State of Florida and throughout the country who have seen benefits from medical marijuana. This isn't a medical theory. It is not something that people are merely hopeful for. It has actually created a more meaningful quality of life in American families.

Why wouldn't we be for that? Why don't we want to champion the opportunity for a parent to be able to hear their child speak for the first time?

Why wouldn't we want to give a grandparent some respite who might be caring for a child that has compulsory and reflexive seizures?

Why wouldn't we want to help a caretaker who might be caring for a parent of their own suffering from Alzheimer's, or Parkinson's, or dementia where we have seen improved research and growing opportunity for progress?

The Attorney General's decision is a step backward, but it doesn't have to be, because the Trump administration can step forward and fulfill the promise that President Trump made on the campaign trail to respect the rights of States and to have a noninterference policy with medical marijuana.

I have called on Treasury Secretary Mnuchin to issue guidance and instruction to financial institutions that they will not be prosecuted or harmed or they will not face some adverse regulatory action if they continue to accept the deposits of medical marijuana companies. I am hopeful that Secretary Mnuchin has more foresight than we have seen from the Attorney General's Office and that he will provide this guidance.

Mr. Speaker, I would also ask that the President personally engage. I know the President. I know him to be a man with a huge heart who cares about people. Throughout the Trump family, there is a particular focus on caring for the vulnerable and children who have to deal with complex medical issues.

I would hope that the President and that the members of the administration would find it within their hearts to take action on this important priority. Let us not allow Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit progress on American families and on an industry that is growing and creating jobs and developing key innovations that can help people.

Beyond dealing with this inartful rescinding of the Cole memo, there is broader medical marijuana reform that needs to happen. There is no excuse to maintain marijuana on the list of Schedule I drugs.

Schedule I is reserved for those drugs that have no medical value, that can't help anyone, and that should be subjected to the strictest scrutiny. Not even cocaine is a Schedule I drug. I don't even think that some of the drugs that are doing the most harm and causing the most deaths throughout the panoply of this opioid crisis are all Schedule I drugs. But marijuana is? It is indefensible, and it is indicative of a dogma of a lie that the Federal Government has told to the American people for a generation.

Think of the opportunity if we could come together and make some progress on this issue. Throughout the 115th Congress, we have had robust opportunities to debate about our discord and disagreement and to discuss issues where perhaps we won't be able to come together as Republicans and Democrats, but this should not be one of those issues. This isn't partisan. It is not even conservative or liberal. You just have to believe that the role of government isn't to hurt people who are trying to get better or hurt people who are trying to help others who are trying to get better.

We spend way too much time arresting people for marijuana in the first place. In the year 2015, 643,000 people were arrested for marijuana. That is one person every 49 seconds for a year. 574,000 of these arrests were for possession, not distribution or sale.

Forty percent of all drug-related arrests are for marijuana possession. This is particularly discriminatory. African Americans are more than 2\1/2\ times more likely to be arrested for possession than Whites.

Marijuana is a $20 billion industry in this country. If we allow Attorney General Sessions to have his way, we will drive that $20 billion into the black markets, into the hands of the money launderers and the cartels, and the consequence will be fewer solutions for patients.

Marijuana has shown tremendous promise in the treatment of Alzheimer's to slow the protein deposits on the brain. For patients with AIDS and HIV, medical marijuana can stimulate appetite and slow muscle wasting syndrome. It can function as an antinausea medicine, as an analgesic, and it can reduce peripheral neuropathy. For arthritis patients, there can be a reduction in certain types of symptoms that could clear people's airways suffering from debilitating arthritis.

We have also seen very favorable results for the many millions of Americans dealing with chronic pain who right now are getting prescriptions for opioids. So many of the prescriptions written for opioids today in America causing deaths, taking away our children, our aunts and uncles and our parents, could be avoided if we weren't prescribing opioids in the first place and if we had a lower impact alternative like medical cannabis.

People with cancer have been given new hope not only that these symptoms can be relieved through medical cannabis, but that the actual growth of tumors can be slowed. There is really great research that has been published by the British Journal of Pharmacology regarding the antitumor properties that medical cannabis can have. But, unfortunately, that research has to be done in Israel, in Europe, and in other places in the world because in this country we continue to maintain the indefensible policy that no research can reasonably occur on medical cannabis.

As a matter of fact, this very Attorney General and this very Department of Justice have frustrated reasonable efforts to make more medical cannabis available for research, to unlock cures for the American people and to help American families.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with this.

I wasn't always a believer in medical cannabis, but I met a girl in my district who was being told by her doctor that she was going to have to saw her brain in half to stop the seizures from firing across. Today, that little girl is a medical cannabis patient. She has traded surgeries for softball games; she

has traded doctors for dancing lessons; and she brings hugs, hope, and joy to our entire community. It is for her--it is for the millions of Americans benefiting from medical cannabis--that I call upon this administration to stop the Attorney General from harming Americans through his repeal of the Cole memo.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my bipartisan group of colleagues who joined with me this evening.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte) for yielding me time, and I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians Land Reaffirmation Act and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

The Poarch Creek have been in Alabama and northwest Florida since the War of 1812, but they were only recognized federally in 1984. Soon afterward,

the Poarch Creek obtained land in both Florida and Alabama, land that was held in trust.

The Poarch Creek contribute greatly to the Florida and Alabama region. Their unique history forms a vital part of our culture, and their businesses strengthen our region's economy and create jobs. They give back to our community from museums to scholarships to services for the elderly and students and much more.

But if lands currently in trust lost their status, the Tribal economy could be shattered, businesses could close, incomes could plummet, and we would have robbed our Nation of a great part of its cultural heritage, all in the name of a confusing legal decision.

This good bill reaffirms the trust status of the Poarch Creek land. It is fair, just, and important, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the life of the premium cigar patriarch, Mr. Gilberto Oliva, founder of Oliva Cigar Co. Gilberto passed away peacefully in a hospital in South Miami on Saturday, December 16, 2017, surrounded by his family and close friends.

As a young tobacco farmer in Cuba, Gilberto built his endeavors on the blueprint of the American Dream. As an early adult, he moved from his family farm to pursue tobacco trading. The growing conflict under the Cuban dictatorship forced Mr. Oliva to flee to Nicaragua where he became a pioneer in tobacco cultivation.

While Nicaragua was his home, Gilberto's business grew all over the world, including Honduras, Mexico and the Philippines. His product quickly became known around the world for its quality. In 1995, he established his own brand of cigar, and in 2006, he launched the Oliva Serie V, which Cigar Aficionado Magazine named Cigar of the Year in 2014.

In early 2016, Mr. Oliva was honored by the Asociacion Nicaraguense de Tabacaleros, the Nicaraguan Tobacco Association, with a lifetime achievement award. Yet for all his many successes, he never forgot his roots. He yearned for a free Cuba, and he instilled in his children a respect for personal responsibility and hard work.

Gilberto is succeeded by his wife Carmen, his five children-- including my former colleague and friend, Florida House Representative Jose Oliva--and his fourteen grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I want to recognize the life of Gilberto F. Oliva. He was a great man, a world leader in the field of cigar manufacturing, and the patriarch of a wonderful family.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize a true American hero and patriot.

Captain Nelson, USAF, Retired, enlisted in the military in 2006. After 4 years of enlisted service, Nelson applied to Officer Training School with the encouragement of his commanding officer. He attended Officer Training School in Montgomery, Alabama in 2011, followed by Intelligence Officer Training at Goodfellow AFB in San Angelo, TX.

Once Nelson finished training there, he was assigned to Joint Base Lewis-McChord as the Director of Intelligence for the 22nd Special Tactics Squadron.

Nelson was serving on his third tour in Afghanistan as the Special Tactics Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance liaison. While assisting a combat controller assigned to a 7th Special Forces Group ODA, Nelson was hit by a 107mm rocket and suffered a spinal cord injury from the blast.

In addition to that injury, Nelson also suffered severe shrapnel wounds, multiple spinal fractures, severe tissue damage to his left ankle, collapsed lungs, major shrapnel damage to his torso and lower extremities, and severely bruised organs. He also underwent a massive blood transfusion and tracheotomy, and suffered numerous other injuries.

Nelson spent 18 months in physical therapy, underwent 9 surgeries, and 46 units of blood. His injuries left him paralyzed from the chest down.

Nelson served 9 years honorably in the USAF and retired in November of 2015.

For his service to the country, Nelson received the Meritorious Service Medal, Purple Heart, Air Force Commendation Medal, Army Commendation Medal, and the Army Achievement Medal, among many others.

Nelson has not let his injuries damper his tenacious spirit or hinder him from continuing to serve his country. He currently holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Intelligence Studies, and an MBA in Finance. Nelson also helps countless veterans and active duty members by serving as my Deputy Director of Military Affairs for Florida's First Congressional District. His guidance and expertise is an invaluable asset to me and my team. His determination, bravery, and fortitude are an inspiration to all who are blessed to know and work with him.

To honor his great sacrifice for our country, Nelson will be gifted a mortgage-free home from nonprofit Building Homes for Heroes, an organization that builds and modifies homes to gift mortgage-free to wounded veterans and their families. Nelson, his wife Jennifer, and their daughter Eva will be welcomed into their new home for the very first time in Santa Rosa Beach, FL.

I would like to extend my gratitude to Nate and his family for all they've sacrificed for their country and their community.

Mr. Speaker, on 'behalf of the United States Congress, I am privileged to recognize and honor Nathan Nelson, Jen, and Eva, and congratulate them on their well-deserved, new home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Hensarling, for his guidance and leadership in assisting me with this amendment. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) for ensuring this Congress takes the strongest possible position as it relates to Iran and ensuring that we use every arrow in the proverbial quiver, financially speaking, so that U.S. assets and U.S. resources are not used to proliferate terror in a way that is consistent with Iran's paradigm and their budding hegemony.

Across the Middle East, we see Iran funding terrorist proxies, destabilizing the region, threatening their neighbors, and functioning as an eyesore for the world. So I am glad to be here offering an amendment to ensure that, as we use the tools at our disposal to limit Iran's power to be a destabilizing sponsor of terror, we pay particular focus to the activities going on currently in Syria.

In Syria now, a ceasefire has had an unintended consequence of giving Iran space to be able to move in and make attempts to harden long-term military assets, installations, so that troops could be housed and potentially launch other attacks and fund and equip Iran's terrorist proxies throughout the area.

It is no surprise that the facility that Iran most recently worked on would have housed upwards of 5,000 soldiers. It is believed that, potentially, Israel took action to ensure that the construction did not continue on that particular facility.

My amendment, Mr. Speaker, conditions the provisions of this bill on an attestation that Iran has not set up permanent, present military in southern Syria. I think that is critically important.

In the last conversation I had with Prime Minister Netanyahu, he indicated that Israel was most concerned, in all of the world, about the risks posed by Iran setting up a permanent military presence in southern Syria, and that that would cause potentially kinetic conflict, war, and even more dramatic, catastrophic outcomes.

Again, I thank Chairman Hensarling and Mr. Williams for their strong leadership. I offer this amendment to back our ally, Israel, and to ensure that Iran does not have the capability to establish a permanent military presence in southern Syria.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take the floor tonight, along with many of my colleagues, to fight back against an attack on the rule of law and our democratic institutions.

Right now, the investigations into Donald Trump and the prior investigation into Hillary Clinton have been infected with the virus of severe bias.

Hillary Clinton went under investigation for the mishandling of classified information and her dealings through the Clinton Foundation, which was essentially investigated by her own fan club. Meanwhile, Robert Mueller obtained his team by fishing in the never-Trump aquarium.

Only through the antidote of transparency can we end this erosion of the rule of law and restore the American people's confidence in the institutions that we must trust to live in a civilized society.

The people in this country have a right to know what has happened within the FBI, the Department of Justice, and within Robert Mueller's team as he probes the President and his transition. But there is so much in hearing after hearing that members of the Judiciary Committee, the Intelligence Committee, and the Oversight Committee have been told we don't have a right to know as the Representatives of the people.

Let's begin with the tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton.

We as the American people apparently don't have a right to know what was truly discussed. In information and reports that have been submitted to the Congress, there is extensive redacted information. So we don't get to see the substance of those communications between Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. It is deeply troubling.

We also don't get to know what the informant would tell us who had information about Russia's attempts to impair the United States' uranium assets through the now infamous Uranium One deal.

We know that there was an informant. We now know that informant wanted to come forward and give information about bribery and kickbacks that undermine America's interests.

Unfortunately, people at the Justice Department who still remain in substantial positions of power went and sought a gag order so that the Congress wouldn't learn what was happening and so the American people wouldn't learn what was happening.

Then we learn that an inspector general who wanted to raise the flag of concern regarding the deeply troubling conduct of Hillary Clinton was essentially shut down.

Mr. McCullough has now given interviews upon his departure from the intelligence community indicating that he went to James Clapper. He said that these mishaps, these potential violations of law, were serious and that they put America's national security in jeopardy. What he heard back from Mr. Clapper was that these revelations would create heartburn for the Clinton campaign.

It is ludicrous, when we have got potential bribes and kickbacks, and we have got the Clinton Foundation functioning essentially as a passthrough money laundering operation, that we wouldn't have all of the information that an inspector general would bring forward.

Mr. McCullough gave interviews where now he said that his family, his job, his agency, his mission was threatened by people in the deep state. That is not the America we need to live in. Transparency is the antidote to this type of corruption and this type of truly intolerable conduct.

Here is what we do know. We do know that the Democratic National Committee was off paying for a salacious and false dossier from the Fusion GPS company about the current President, Donald Trump. We don't know whether or not the FBI contributed funds toward that cause.

Think about that for a moment. When we asked the Attorney General and the FBI Director, were taxpayer funds used to go and obtain a dossier to discredit the President both before and after his election, we were told that we don't have a right to know and that the taxpayers don't have a right to know if their money was used in this way. It is troubling.

We also know that Nellie Ohr, the wife of a top Department of Justice official, Bruce Ohr, was actually getting paid by Fusion GPS, the company that ultimately produced this false dossier.

If that is not a conflict of interest, if that doesn't impair the credibility of this investigation, I don't know what does.

We also don't know who is in charge. We asked questions to the Attorney General regarding the nature of his recusal. Can the Attorney General appoint a second special counsel to evaluate the Clinton Foundation?

We got contradictory answers.

So as we prepare for the Deputy Attorney General Mr. Rosenstein's testimony before the Judiciary Committee tomorrow, we don't know if it is Mr. Rosenstein who can appoint a special counsel. We don't know if it is the Attorney General who has the power to do that.

We do know that the American people want it. Harvard University released a poll that said over 60 percent of the American people believe there should be a second special counsel to investigate Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, largely as a consequence of this intractable bias that we continue to see in the intelligence community.

So let's look at that bias as it is applied to Mr. Mueller and his team.

We have no idea how Bob Mueller picked the members of his team. I asked FBI Director Christopher Ray: Did people get on the Mueller team because they hate President Trump? Was there any vetting? Was there any review? Did we look at political contributions, political activity or activism from these folks?

The FBI Director would not answer my question.

So here we are, unclear as to whether or not the standard to investigate the President was a preexisting bias against him.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that it is a coincidence that the Mueller team is populated by people who bring that bias with them and who seemingly have acted upon it.

Mr. Weissmann, who is Mueller's number two, attended Hillary Clinton's election night party. Are you really telling me we couldn't find a number two in the Mueller investigation who wasn't at Hillary Clinton's election night party? For goodness sake.

We also know that Mr. Weissmann sent emails to Sally Yates, praising her for directly defying an order from the President. That should have disqualified Mr. Weissmann, but we don't know if that was, in fact, the qualifying factor that led him to be on this team.

Aaron Zebley is also a member of the Mueller team. He represented Justin Cooper, who set up the Hillary Clinton email server. Could we not have found people for the Mueller team who were not involved in setting up an email server for Hillary Clinton?

He also used a hammer to smash BlackBerrys, destroying evidence. Mr. Zebley may be a witness, yet he is on the Mueller team.

Jeannie Rhee. She defended the Clinton Foundation against FOIA requests and now is involved in persecuting the President. In fact, over half of the members of the Mueller team have financially contributed to the campaigns of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, or both, and none of them contributed to Donald Trump.

I don't think it is a coincidence. I think it is ridiculous that the Congress doesn't have any information about how these people were selected, how they were vetted, how they were approved.

But it is not just the Mueller team. It is also the Department of Justice. Bruce Ohr, the head of counter intelligence, meets with Christopher Steele, who is the author of the dossier during the campaign. Then after the campaign, he meets with Glenn Simpson.

All the while, Bruce Ohr, working at the Department of Justice, has a spouse getting paid by the very people developing these lies about the President to discredit him. It is smoking-gun evidence of bias and conflict of interest.

But it is not just the Mueller team and the Department of Justice. It is also the FBI. Andrew McCabe is the current Deputy Director of the FBI. When he was the assistant agent in charge of the Washington field office, he was sending out emails just weeks before the 2016 election saying that the Hillary Clinton investigation would be given special status, that it would be handled by a small team at headquarters.

What that means is that Hillary Clinton got different treatment than any other American who would have been charged with the mishandling of classified information in the Washington, D.C., area.

Absolutely outrageous. That special treatment didn't lead to a more rigorous review. We know now that James Comey was drafting the exoneration statement before even interviewing key witnesses, including Hillary Clinton herself.

Then you have Peter Strzok, also at the FBI. Mr. Strzok has now been discredited and demoted because he was sending 10,000 text messages back and

forth with his mistress about how much he loved Hillary Clinton and hated President Trump. I don't think it is a coincidence that Mr. Strzok is the person who went in and changed the term ``grossly negligent,'' which is a crime, to ``extremely careless,'' in the exoneration statement about Hillary Clinton.

The Attorney General needs to do his job. He needs to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton because she was never investigated in earnest in the first place. He needs to tell Robert Mueller to put up or shut up.

If there is evidence of collusion, let us see it. We are almost a year into this investigation, and the only thing I see is a bias that continues to erode our institutions and our rule of law, and this Congress should stand for it no more.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) for joining us on the floor this evening. I particularly thank him for his work in the Judiciary Committee and the Oversight Committee. The gentleman is correct. We just want our questions answered. We just want to know: Did these things occur that would seem to evidence collusion on the part of the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign with Russians to influence the outcome of the election?

But our own Justice Department and our own FBI won't answer those questions. Tomorrow we have Mr. Rosenstein before the Judiciary Committee. I hope he does give us answers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Biggs), a fellow member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for his leadership on the Judiciary Committee. He is absolutely right. We have to get answers to these questions. And if we don't, then Congress can never have confidence in the outcome of any investigation. And if we can't have confidence, then our constituents, the American people, certainly can't either.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), another member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. His perspective as a former prosecutor and former judge certainly sheds a tremendous amount of light on the stark days that we found ourselves in with this biased effort against the President of the United States.

I would also like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice), and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for their contributions not only to this Special Order, but to this critical discussion we are having in the country.

I will conclude with this, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow, the Deputy Attorney General will raise his right hand and swear to be truthful before the Judiciary Committee, and we will ask these tough questions about coordination with Democrats and the DNC and, potentially, the FBI to gin up this false information about the President.

We will ask why a senior official at the Department of Justice had a spouse who was working for the company that was trying to discredit our President both before and after the election. And I hope he doesn't give the same answers that we heard from the Director of the FBI, Mr. Wray.

Mr. Wray said in response to almost all these questions: Well, we have got an inspector general. Inspector generals sniff around all these things, and if there is something wrong, we will make reforms after we hear back.

The time is now. The danger to our country is clear and present if we allow our duly-elected President to be undermined by these unfair and biased tactics. So I am hopeful that we will move past the jargon and just give straight answers to the American people to these very legitimate questions that so many of our constituents are asking.

We should also remember that the inspector general process is far from perfect. We heard from an inspector general, Mr. McCullough, who said that, when he brought forward claims, he was threatened, his family was threatened, his job was threatened, his agency was threatened, and that he did not have an opportunity to tell the American people the truth.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve the truth. The truth is that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. If there was any collusion, it was the Democrats, it was the DNC, and it was this nexus between Mr. Ohr and his spouse working for the very people who were engaged in these devious tactics.

We deserve better, and we are going to be demanding better tomorrow in the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is an intractable bias and prejudice that infects Robert Mueller's investigation of President Trump and his team.

Look no further than Peter Strzok. He was central to clearing Hillary Clinton by changing the information in her exoneration statement from grossly negligent to extremely careless. Then, somehow, he gets drafted into the Mueller probe and starts sending anti-Trump, pro-Hillary text messages to his mistress.

Then we learn that Bruce Ohr, who was also involved in the investigation, met with Fusion GPS officials proximate to their interactions that impacted the election. Now we have learned that the wife of Bruce Ohr--the wife of a senior official involved in this investigation--was moonlighting, working for Fusion GPS and bringing up scandalous, unverified, and salacious accusations against the President.

Even Mueller's number two, Andrew Weissmann, praised Sally Yates for defying a direct order from the President.

It is time to bring this witch hunt of an investigation to a close and move on to Make America Great Again.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know why Democrats are so afraid to allow people to exercise the full extent of their constitutional rights. In my State, we have got 1.7 million concealed carry permit holders. Concealed carry permit holders in Florida are eight times less likely to commit crimes than members of law enforcement.

I think the American people see that, if they had their way, we would take the bad acts of people who break the law and we would use that as an excuse to deprive law-abiding people of the full exercise of their rights.

So I rise in support of the Constitution and to correct a common mistake. The rights that are enumerated in the Constitution are not granted to the American people by government. These are God-given rights, and it is the government's duty to protect them for all citizens.

For too long, the government has failed to protect the Constitution and has stripped law-abiding citizens of their freedom. States recognize driver's licenses from other States, but nowhere in the Constitution are they mentioned; yet States routinely deny carry permits from other States, including neighboring States, even though the Constitution explicitly states that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Mr. Hudson's good bill restores constitutional liberty. I am proud to join in sponsoring this legislation and to stand with the Constitution and against those who wish to dismantle it.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to remember the oath that they swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, and I would encourage them to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 38.

Mr. Speaker, the Jerusalem Embassy Act, signed by President Clinton, requires the American Embassy in Israel to be moved to Jerusalem. But this law also allows the President to waive the act every 90 days, which has happened ever since.

This Friday, President Trump must decide to sign another waiver or to honor our friend and ally, Israel. I rise to call on President Trump to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is the eternal, undivided capital of Israel, yet our Embassy is in Tel Aviv. This is disrespectful, dismissive, and wrong. It sends the message that Israel cannot designate its own capital city.

Some claim that moving the Embassy threatens peace between Israel and Palestinians. But the Palestinian Authority does far more to jeopardize peace than the location of our Embassy. They name schools after terrorists and Nazis, teach children that the murder of Jews is noble, and they pay the salaries of terrorists.

Moving our Embassy will tell the Palestinian Authority that their days of denying Israel's existence are over, and that they must become a partner in peace.

Mr. Speaker, the time is now. It is time to honor our promise to Israel and to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the National Philanthropy Day Awards held on this day to honor the millions of great Americans across the country and around my district in Northwest Florida who selflessly dedicate their lives, time, money and talents for the benefit of others.

Each year a special event is held by the Association of Fundraising Professionals to honor those who impact our community on a daily basis without want of reward, recognition or return.

The West Florida Chapter announced the nominees for this year due to their philanthropic community efforts. They include: The Ambersley Foundation; Audi Pensacola; Baptist Health Care; Terry Berling; Randy Bricker; Carol Carlan; Madrina Ciano; Cross Faith Church; Escambia County Council of PTA/PTSAs; Junior League of Pensacola; Levin Rinke Realty; David Lorenzo; Harold Marcus, Jr.; David Peaden, II; Pen Air Federal Credit Union; Michelle Salzman; Sunday's Child; and Todd Torgersen.

This may just be a list of names to those lending an ear, but to me and my constituency this list is comprised of organizations and individuals who lead by example, inspire those around them and leave a lasting impact on our community.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I am privileged to congratulate these individuals and organizations on their selfless acts of giving, and to thank the National Philanthropy Day Awards for hosting a day to honor individuals who give all but ask for nothing in return.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we are at risk of a coup d'etat in this country if we allow an unaccountable person with no oversight to undermine the duly- elected President of the United States, and I would offer that is precisely what is happening right now with the indisputable conflicts of interest that are present with Mr. Mueller and others at the Department of Justice.

I join my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, in calling for Mr. Mueller's resignation or his firing.

Moreover, we absolutely have to see the Department of Justice appoint a special counsel to look into the Clinton Foundation, the Uranium One deal, and the Fusion GPS dossier that I will now have the opportunity to discuss.

I really don't know who is investigating the Uranium One deal right now. I know that, in July, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, along with 20 members of the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Attorney General Sessions asking who would be looking into these critical questions, demanding that a special counsel be appointed to conduct a thorough review. It is extremely disappointing that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and my fellow members have received no response from the Department of Justice as to that letter.

I don't know whether the Attorney General's recusal on matters related to Russia impacts, influences, or, in any way, covers the Fusion GPS challenge and the incredible threat to national security raised by the Uranium One deal.

I do know that there is no world in which Mr. Mueller could potentially investigate these matters. It is Federal law that even the appearance of a conflict of interest means that someone cannot engage in prosecutorial duties regarding allegations and investigations. That conflict of interest is absolutely present.

As early as 2009, the FBI knew that we had informants alleging corruption into United States uranium assets. There were allegations of bribery, kickbacks, extortion. Even in 2010, Members of Congress were raising these questions and asking the Obama administration to provide answers that were never given.

I don't think it is a coincidence that at the same time we were hearing from sources that there was bribery to influence our uranium assets, you had former President Bill Clinton getting paid $500,000 by a bunch of Russians to go give a speech. It must have been one hell of a speech. It is deeply troubling to me that these circumstances seem to be ripe for corruption and seem to demonstrate an ecosystem of corruption that must be thoroughly investigated.

Now, why can't Mr. Mueller and Mr. Rosenstein conduct this investigation? First of all, Mr. Mueller was the head of the FBI in 2009. He potentially had a role to play in these questions. At the very least, the fact that the FBI never prosecuted any case, never raised objections, never allowed Congress to be able to look into these matters, that would be an act of omission.

So at best, there is an omission that creates a conflict for Mr. Mueller; at worst, there might have been actual malfeasance or active negligence. And in those circumstances, we need fresh eyes and clear eyes to give the American people confidence that our justice system is, in fact, working for them.

It is not only the Uranium One deal that gives us a great deal to question. We also have this Fusion GPS dossier, which we have now learned that the Democratic Party was paying for. The Democratic Party was out paying people to stir up this salacious and inaccurate dirt on President Trump both before and after he was elected.

In his own testimony before the Congress, Mr. Comey said that these allegations were salacious and could not be relied upon. So it begs the question, what was the Fusion GPS dossier relied upon for? Was it relied upon so that there would be FISA warrants issued to go and spy on the President and members of his team? We don't know, but until we have a special counsel, we will never get those answers, because Mueller and Rosenstein are conflicted.

Why did Congress never hear from these informants? Well, it is no surprise to me. You actually have Mr. Rosenstein's name on the signature block of the pleadings that sealed the information that could have shed light on this entire scandal, but we didn't have that opportunity.

Now, it may very well be that these were simply acts of negligence, acts of omission or oversight. If that is the case, let's get someone in who can give us the answers, because certainly the people who are there now cannot give us answers, and they have these tragic conflicts of interest.

The American people are well aware that the Clinton Foundation functioned largely as a money laundering organization to influence the State Department and to ensure that there were special people with special access and special relationships to the Clintons who got special treatment. That is not an America that abides to the rule of law.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, we have to see the rule of law held up and cherished. We are a model for the world, but if we have circumstances where our President, who was elected, is undermined as a consequence of these things, if we do not replace Bob Mueller with someone who can come in absent of association with the individuals who may be implicated, then I fear this great, special place that we hold in the world may be diminished.

So I have introduced legislation. I am very pleased that my colleagues have joined me in sponsoring that legislation, calling for Mr. Mueller to resign. I have also called for a special counsel to be appointed.

To my colleagues on the other side who say, well, hey, you know, there were a variety of agencies that were involved in approving the Uranium One deal, there were eight or nine groups that could have said no.

Are Members of Congress really taking the position that the Clintons don't have their tentacles in just about every agency of government?

How ludicrous. You are talking about the former President of the United States and, at the time, the lady who was serving as our Secretary of State.

The fact that this was a multiagency process only underscores the conflicts of interest that lie with Rosenstein and Mueller.

I am calling on the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to preserve the rule of law and to help us save this great country from those who are trying to undermine us and undermine our President.