Andy Biggs

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It merely eliminates the bioenergy subsidy programs that were established way back in title IX of the 2002 farm bill some 16 years ago. Those programs are the Biobased Markets Program; the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program; the Repowering Assistance Program; the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program; the Rural Energy for America Program; the Biomass Research and Development Initiative; the Feedstock Flexibility Program for Bioenergy Producers; the Biomass Crop Assistance Program; and the Community Wood Energy Program. President Reagan said that there is nothing quite as everlasting as a Federal program, and I am hoping that we can end some of these programs today. Needless to say, subsidies have no place in a free market. If biofuels are to succeed, it should be based on their benefit to the Nation's overall energy economy, not because they receive taxpayer funds. Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to end this Washington giveaway, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BIGGS

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

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his work on this bill, bringing it forward, as well as his graciousness for letting me speak today. Mr. Speaker, I will say that what I am hearing from the other side leaves my head spinning. I hear yammering, but I constantly wonder: Did they bother to read this particular balanced budget amendment? The struggle I have with this balanced budget amendment is not what they say. They say this is going to go directly to spending reductions. The issue for me is, when I look at it, I see that we make it easier to raise taxes, that is what we make it easier to do, by a 51 percent vote. When I see it, we make it easier to spend like we did in the omnibus, the bipartisan omnibus bill, because that only requires a three-fifths vote to set aside the balanced budget restraints by this administration. That gives me concern, because 61 percent of the vote in the House would have exceeded that just a couple weeks ago with the omnibus bill. In the Senate, it was by more than 60 percent. So that is a bit problematic for me. I will make one last point here before I continue on to the previous point, and that is we are going to see 7 years, roughly, for the ratification process and then another 5 years after that before this actually is enacted. That is 12 years. That means that we are going to have probably around a $30 trillion national debt by then. Now, my friends on the other side who are using scare tactics and saying, ``This is going to cause this cut here and this cut in programs there,'' they don't know that. They are making assertions to do what David Horowitz calls ``inspire through fear,'' and that is what we are seeing here. I think this bill could be better, significantly better, but I also think that hyperbolic rhetoric does not do this body or the American people good when we are discussing something of this magnitude.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, on September 12, 2017, I released a statement to mark and recognize that the national debt had just exceeded $20 trillion. I asked my colleagues to follow through with our commitment to reduce expenditures and create economic stability for our future. Since that date, Congress has not taken any action to reduce our deficit or to balance our budget. Instead, we have increased our budget caps to augment Federal spending by more than 10 percent above current levels. We suspended our debt ceiling, and this week we are preparing to pass our seventh short-term spending bill of the fiscal year. Our grossly negligent spending habits continue with no end in sight. At this rate, I am certain that we will see a $22 trillion national debt sometime around the first of next year. Mr. Speaker, this fiscal irresponsibility is not what we promised our constituents. We are directly contributing to the bankruptcy of this Nation that we will leave to our grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I beg my colleagues to honor the pledge to cut our spending and reduce our debt before it is too late. We must act now before we cross another trillion-dollar threshold.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I also pay my respects and give honor to Ron Johnson, the Senator from Wisconsin who championed the bill in the Senate and gave us a superb bill; also, Chairman Walden and his committee, who have worked hard to give us this bill today; and my original cosponsor on the bill that I introduced, Mr. Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to address just a couple of things that I think are really intriguing to me because it certainly seems a bit condescending to me when I hear people say: I am not going to support this because it gives false hope that people might be taken advantage of by bad actors. They cannot identify the bad actors, but they might be taking advantage of them. That is a fallacious and specious argument to make when you are denying people who have a terminal illness, who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, who have gone through the already approved FDA processes in order to get and petition a pharmaceutical company for an experimental drug that might prolong their life and might heal them. False hope, that argument, is the argument that I am hearing. But the reality is these people are individuals. They have a higher sense of reality than virtually anybody else I know because their mortality is there. They want the opportunity. It is not false hope. It is hope. Support of this bill is compassionate. Support of this bill is fair. I have also heard that there may be some liability issues on the part of pharmaceutical companies which might impede them from providing drugs. Yet, in order to satisfy them, the bill itself says that they are exculpated unless their conduct is willful or criminal. That means that they have protection. What I am asking here today, and what everyone with whom I have met over the years who want a right to try is asking, is simply a chance to have some determination and control over their own lives. One of the intriguing arguments I hear today and I heard last week is, well, you know what, the pharmaceutical companies aren't compelled to provide these drugs. So my immediate question is: Oh, so you would be more comfortable, then, if we would have included a compulsory means in the bill? Did you want the pharmaceutical companies to be compelled to provide these? The answer would be no. It is simply they don't like this bill. They don't want the bill. When you have 38, soon to be 39, States that want to give their citizens, Americans all, the right to try to preserve their lives and to be healed and have a chance, they need to get that; they need that opportunity. We need to give it to them today.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Walden for yielding. I am grateful for the work he has done on this. I am also grateful to my friends, Representatives Fitzpatrick and Griffith, as well as Senator Johnson, for their advocacy here. I don't want to get this crucial point lost: it is not us; it is the courageous patients and their friends and their families who deserve the most recognition about how far we have come to get this bill passed. Today is for them, not for us. Thirty-eight States, soon to be 39 States, have passed this bill. That is enough to amend the U.S. Constitution, but here we stand because some have come and said we shouldn't give people false hope. There is no such thing as false hope. You either have hope or you have no hope. In this instance, this bill gives tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, or millions even, the hope that they can avail themselves of medication that might prolong their life or maybe even be a cure. These people who have advocated are fighters. I hear about patient groups who oppose this, yet the States, our employers, they approve this. Every day, Laura McLinn, the mother of Jordan McLinn, receives countless emails from people similarly situated, saying: We need to pass the Right to Try Act. I need that right to try. I am told: Oh, well, we take care of 1,500 a year. Mr. Speaker, 1,500 a year, when there are literally tens of thousands of people who need their opportunity. We are not mandating even. We are providing an opportunity. We are providing an option both for the patient and even the pharmaceutical company. Now, I heard in the opening statement from my friend across the aisle that we are not compelling them to do it. Would he feel more comfortable if we compelled pharmaceutical companies to provide those potential lifesaving medications? We need to recognize that this bill is not for us in this Chamber. It is for Matt Bellina, Jordan McLinn, and Laura McLinn. It is for those who are similarly situated. We have waited long enough. Let's get this done.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be a sponsor of the AMBER Alert in Indian Country Act, in memory of the life of Ashlynne Mike. I want to thank the House leadership and Chairman Goodlatte for bringing this bill before the House for consideration. Eleven-year-old Ashlynne lived in the Navajo Nation, the largest Indian reservation in the United States, located in four States: Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. Her favorite color was yellow, and she enjoyed playing music for her friends and family. She was a kindhearted young girl who had enormous potential. After school on Monday, May 2, 2016, while Ashlynne and her 9-year- old brother Ian waited and played near the local bus stop, a stranger approached and lured them into his vehicle by offering them a ride home. He abducted the children and took them to a remote part of the reservation, where he abused Ashlynne, slaughtered her, and left her brother to fend for himself in the desert. Ashlynne died alone. Ashlynne had been abducted around 4 p.m. Her father filed a missing person report at 6:53 p.m., within 3 hours. Unfortunately, authorities did not send an AMBER Alert until 2:30 a.m. on Tuesday, almost 10 hours after Ashlynne went missing. According to law enforcement records, Tom Begay, Jr., Ashlynne's perpetrator, admitted that Ashlynne was alive when he left her stranded in the desert. Mr. Speaker, had Indian Country been included as partners in the AMBER Alert plans, law enforcement might have rescued Ashlynne in time. She might still be alive and with us today. When a child is abducted, action in those first hours is crucial to their safe return. The AMBER Alert program has proven effective at instantly providing information to the public to assist in the effort. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, of the AMBER Alerts issued in 2016, 94 percent of the recovered children were found within the first 72 hours, including 47 percent who were found within the first 3 hours. Between 1997 and February 2017, the AMBER Alert program has been credited with the safe recovery of 868 children. AMBER Alerts save lives. Today, we have the opportunity to ensure all children may benefit from the AMBER Alert program if necessary, no matter where they reside. This bill will reauthorize the Department of Justice grant program that assists State and local governments in developing and implementing AMBER Alert communications plans. It will explicitly require the Department of Justice to perform a needs assessment of AMBER Alert capabilities on Indian reservations. It will also, for the first time, require funds be used to integrate Tribal AMBER Alert systems with those of neighboring jurisdictions to ensure that AMBER Alerts reach as many people as swiftly as possible. Mr. Speaker, I again thank House leadership and Chairman Goodlatte for bringing this bill forward and acknowledging the importance of filling a gap in our AMBER Alert system that might have prevented the death of Ashlynne. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. If enacted, this bill will help to build a truly national and cohesive network of AMBER Alert. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from across the aisle. This bill is truly a bipartisan effort, worked on by Members of both parties. It is because of its importance. The particular case that both of us have cited today does focus the attention on the massive hole where there are more than 500 Indian Tribes that do not have access to the AMBER Alert system. It is the only part of this Nation and its territories that is not covered by the AMBER Alert system. This will solve that problem. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary work of Sally Harrison. Sally is the president and CEO of the Mesa Chamber of Commerce. She has worked in this role since 2013. Mesa's business environment is thriving with her at the helm. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, Sally led the meeting at Arizona State University Polytechnic campus with Congressman Jim Bridenstine and the Mesa Industry and Defense Council. Under her leadership, this unique council continues to highlight the tremendous technological and manufacturing capabilities we have in my district. There have been positive reports of the discussion she facilitated, and I am confident that she will continue to create these opportunities for my constituents. These conversations between local officials, Federal office holders, and business leaders are paramount to ensuring that our constituents receive the best possible representation. Sally understands this and is working every day to facilitate enduring success in Mesa and our region. I thank her for her service to our great city.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, tonight, I recognize the incredible expansion of Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. After originally serving as an Air Force base for over 50 years, and closed due to the BRAC process, Gateway reopened in 1994 and now provides commercial airline service to more than 35 destinations. This airport is a significant economic asset to Arizona's economy, contributing $1.3 billion every year. Each month, Gateway sets new records. Last year, the airport saw a 9 percent increase in passenger traffic, making 2017 the second busiest year in the airport's history. I fully expect Gateway to shatter expectations in 2018. The construction of SkyBridge Arizona will help facilitate trade between the United States and Mexico. We anticipate this project will create thousands of jobs and unleash millions of dollars for our economy. I thank the board of directors, staff, employees, and East Valley residents who are committed to Gateway Airport's success. Gateway Airport would not be the pride of the East Valley without their dedication.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to recognize two gentlemen in my district: John Lewis and Denny Barney. Since 2015, John Lewis has served as the president and CEO of the East Valley Partnership and previously served as the mayor of Gilbert. The East Valley Partnership works with our cities and towns to maximize their economic potential and to help create jobs. John has done exceptional work, and I wish him the best as he and his wife will be leaving this summer to serve a church mission in Cambodia. Denny Barney is a wonderful choice to replace Mr. Lewis as president and CEO. Mr. Barney's record of service in the private sector and on the Maricopa Board of Supervisors gives him a unique perspective as he accepts this new responsibility. He is a dynamic, bright, and great leader. The East Valley Partnership will benefit from his leadership for years to come. I am grateful for all of our leaders in the East Valley Partnership who work diligently to foster an attractive environment for families to live and businesses to grow.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. 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. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about the most aggressively progrowth tax reform package passed since the Reagan administration. Each day, we learn about a new business giving a substantial bonus to its employees, increasing wages, or reinvesting into their communities because of tax reform. Today, ExxonMobil announced that they would invest an additional $50 billion in the United States due to this law. Many Arizonans are seeing the benefits from businesses such as Boeing, Waste Management, and Arizona Public Service, just to name a few. According to Americans for Tax Reform: ``At least 3 million Americans are receiving special tax reform bonuses.'' These successes are taking place long before tax reform has even been implemented fully. Most Americans have yet to learn how much more money they will see in their paychecks. Mr. Speaker, tax reform has placed us on the right course to keep our booming economy humming at a good clip and sets the trajectory for even more significant growth in the future. I predict a very prosperous new year.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. 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. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. 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.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. 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. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. 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. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. 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. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. 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. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. 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. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. 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.