Andy Biggs

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I will just tell you, I spent at least a couple weeks on the border this year alone, multiple times. I have been in every facility that I can find, and I get down there as often as I can. I talk almost daily to folks who live along the border. I would get a chuckle, if it weren't so doggone serious, when I hear people say: Oh, no, there are no drugs coming across the border. We are getting them on the ocean. I will tell you one thing: In the Tucson sector, 40 percent of the drugs that come into this country from the south, they come in through the Tucson sector. You know why? There are 75 miles of open border. You have one port of entry. It has a fence, about a mile-and-a-half on each side of it. Then you have single-strand barbed wire for as far as you can see. You have four-strand barbed wire. You know what it is holding it up to? It is coming up to the bollard fencing. It has a slipknot, in case you need to get into the country. You can stand there and look at the five paths that come across. They all come right to the place where the slipknot is. I will tell you one thing: If you have a problem with an emergency declaration, then you just simply don't know what an emergency is. Mr. Speaker, 1.1 million people have surrendered or have been apprehended at the border this year. Another million or so--we don't even know--have come across. We even let 1.2 million people come in legally this year. And you want to tell me you don't have a border crisis? You have got opioid addiction and overdoses killing people. You have got people coming in unvetted. You had 1,000 people come in from where? The Congo--the Congo--right through the Rio Grande Valley. I am telling you something: For you to stand there and say you don't think this is an emergency means you just simply aren't paying attention. And this President has the authority--because Congress delegated that authority to the President of the United States of America--to deal with emergencies, and this becomes a true crisis, a true emergency. I will just give you one thing.

Mr. BIGGS. I was at one place, the most remote border entry we have got in the entire country. It is only open 9 to 4. We have three customs agents assigned there. We have got one Border Patrol agent who actually lives there in a double-wide mobile home. I won't say what his name is. Let's just say it is Bob. The night before I got there, 2 a.m., 255 people, cartel-driven-- because there is no place for 30 miles, 40 miles. That is the nearest town. So, 250 people were dropped off, and they all go up and knock on the door of the double-wide. They are reading from a paper. They say: ``Bob, we declare asylum.'' I talked to an agent. He tells me that he has been exposed, in the last 6 weeks, to hepatitis A, B, and C; measles; mumps; lice; scabies; and he said: ``Don't forget, a skin-eating bacteria that they haven't been able to identify yet.'' That is not a border crisis? You don't want to address that? I am telling you, it needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed today. I thank the President for having the courage to do it. You know what? If you want more money, get him more money for the Coast Guard. I will support that.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, this summer, Evident Life Church in Gilbert, Arizona celebrates its ten-year anniversary. I join with Pastor Eric Jones, his wife Velvet, and members of their congregation in celebrating this achievement. Starting a new venture--especially building a church community and foundation--is never easy. It takes courage, perseverance, and faith to step forward to begin this process. Over the past ten years, Pastor Jones, his family, and his leadership team have endured both trials and triumphs and have always risen to the occasion with the help of our Creator. They have cultivated a thriving church that is a beacon of hope in our community. Evident Life Church is extremely active throughout the East Valley. Pastor Jones serves as the co-chairman for my faith council, and his prayers and encouragement sustain me and many of our public servants each and every day. I'm thankful for Pastor Jones, his wife Velvet, and the entire team at Evident Life Church. To all the pastors, ministers, coordinators, and members: have a wonderful celebration, and may their church enjoy many decades of fruitful ministry.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I took care of family business and was in transit back to D.C. when the vote occurred. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 482.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, two amendments I offered to the NDAA were adopted. The first addresses shared responsibility for the world's security. The United States is the most powerful nation on the planet and so must remain, but our allies must pull their weight on global security efforts. It is not just Americans who benefit from peace, after all. For instance, is it fair for economic powerhouse Germany to spend only 1.35 percent of its overall GDP toward NATO defense in the coming years? I don't think so. We should at least examine the contributions of Germany and all of our other allies. My amendment simply requires the Department of Defense to report the annual defense spending of each of our NATO and non-NATO allies. My second amendment affirms the critical importance of the U.S.- Israel relationship. Since its founding over 50 years ago, Israel has been an important strategic partner. Given the significant challenges our Nation currently faces in the Middle East, the U.S.-Israel relationship remains vital. I thank Armed Services Committee Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Thornberry for working with me on these amendments.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say at the outset that the condescending tone towards our side by the previous speaker is really uncalled for, and, quite frankly, it is unparliamentary in and of itself. When he talks about political points being unconscionable, that may be an understatement. Let me just tell you something. When I was down at the border recently, the DEA informed me of a little girl who was forced to take care of two young children. She is the age of 11. She had been trafficked. She had been trafficked by cartels right into Charleston, South Carolina. Right there, at that position, many people--40 or more people--had used that location in Charleston as a sponsor to be released under the catch-and-release problem that we have, because we are overcrowded at the border. We have no place to keep them. This bill doesn't fix that. This bill doesn't fix that. If you wanted to take care of a humanitarian issue, you would give ICE some money for beds. And that little girl, age 11, is taking care of two young boys--until what? Until that cartel affiliate in Charleston, South Carolina, could send those three children back to be used on the border for a faux family unit to come back in. That is what is unconscionable, the fact that we are not funding ICE when ICE has a 10,000-bed shortage, when CBP has a 15,000-bed shortage. You want to talk about lack of humanitarian care: This bill doesn't take care of that because the bill from my colleagues across the aisle does not address giving ICE and CBP what they need to hold on to people, so you can keep families together. That is the reality of the situation.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. So, that program that my colleagues across the aisle are putting together in this bill enshrines catch-and-release. It also facilitates human trafficking--it does--just like we saw with the little girl who was sent to Charleston, South Carolina, and was going to be sent back and used by cartels as a fake family unit. That is what is unconscionable here, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

Mr. BIGGS

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

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, if I heard right, the previous two amendments were criticized for being overly broad and indiscriminate in the ways that they attacked spending in this particular underlying legislation. Well, I am laser focused. I am laser focused with my amendment. My amendment would restrict funds from going to the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS. That program is supposed to be developing impartial science-based toxicity assessments on chemicals for uniform use within EPA, and if that is what they were doing, I would not be standing before you today. But as I came to know all too well as I worked with former Chairman Lamar Smith and while serving as chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on Environment in the last Congress, the reality is different. Over the past decade, IRIS has been repeatedly criticized by the National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office for its lack of transparency and improper use of scientific methods, which have led to some significantly flawed risk assessments over the years. In fact, GAO first added IRIS to its list of government programs that are highly vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in 2009. In the decades since, IRIS has made very few steps towards significant improvement. I strongly believe that instead of allowing a flawed and poorly managed agency like IRIS to continue to operate, we should return chemical assessments to the relevant program offices within the EPA itself. In the last Congress, I introduced legislation to achieve the reforms I have outlined. That bill was reported out of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee last fall. I have reintroduced that bill again in this session, but it is laying in the Science Committee without further action. I believe that until there is a root-and-branch reform of the chemical assessments process at the EPA, we simply cannot allow IRIS to spread misinformation to the public as it is doing now I urge all Members to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify for those in the Chamber who may not be aware, IRIS is an information-collecting entity, not a regulator. If IRIS were eliminated, EPA would still maintain an office of research and development, which would perform chemical assessments in coordination with a specialized program office within the Agency. What will compromise public safety is a poorly run government office spreading misinformation. I also want to point out that both the nonpartisan NAS and GAO have repeatedly criticized IRIS over the past 10 years. Even the few NAS and GAO recognitions of improvements to IRIS over the years have been strongly tempered by caveats that far more work needs to be done. For instance, the 2018 NAS report, which has been cited, suggests that IRIS still has not produced a basic handbook to guide its operations, even though that recommendation was made more than 4 years ago. This agency has been in existence since 1986 without a handbook, a basic handbook. Just to add a little bit more color to this debate, here is an example of how absurd IRIS risk assessments can be. It sets the risk value of the chemical ethylene oxide, which is often used to sterilize medical equipment, at 100 parts quadrillion. That is a 1 with 15 zeros behind it. That value is 19,000 times less than the naturally occurring level of ethylene oxide in the human body. For perspective, OSHA sets the risk level for ethylene oxide at one point per million, which is a vastly higher threshold than IRIS itself. I can speak similarly about flawed IRIS risk assessments related to formaldehyde or acetone, a substance found naturally in breast milk. To sum up, absurdly assessed risk either creates unwarranted public panic or cynical disregard. Neither outcome creates a safer society. Even worse, if IRIS is overly focused on evaluating the safety of low-risk or, in some cases, effectively no-risk chemicals, then it is likely to be distracted from assessing truly dangerous substances. Again, I invite my colleagues to support this very important laser- focused amendment. We are not overly broad here. We are focusing on one program that has been completely--not repudiated, but certainly been highly criticized by the National Academy of Science and the GAO. I urge my fellow Members to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor an accomplished student from Chandler, Arizona. Devrath Iyer was selected as one of fifty-two students to attend the annual Research Science Institute (RSI) sponsored by the Center for Excellence in Education in collaboration with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Each summer, RSI gathers a small group of talented students to participate in an intensive on-and off-campus science and engineering summer program. I have no doubt that Devrath and the other young leaders selected to participate in this program will excel in service to their schools and communities. Devrath's dedication to educational excellence and hard work is an example for all of us to emulate. I am honored to have such talent and motivation in my district.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment that prevents funds from being used to finalize, implement, or enforce the draft guidance issued by the Food and Drug Administration in December of 2017, titled, ``Drug Products Labeled as Homeopathic Guidance for FDA Staff and Industry.'' The 2017 draft guidance actually upends three decades of settled enforcement practice in homeopathy without a compelling reason or with no directive from Congress. My amendment would prevent that overreach and maintain the safe and effective guidance that has been in place since 1987. For decades, homeopathy has thrived as the fastest growing alternative to pharmaceuticals, and FDA estimates more than 3 million Americans use it. The products can be a natural alternative to addictive opioids in the management of pain and other conditions. The current guidance provides a precise definition of a homeopathic product and clear manufacturing standards. Violations of these standards are already subject to FDA enforcement. The proposed change in guidance goes too far by restricting access to safe homeopathic medicines, while also being less effective at regulating the safety and quality of homeopathic products. The new guidance replaces clear definitions with a vague, risk-based approach. By its own admission, the FDA failed to consult with consumers and those in the homeopathic community before they drafted this guidance. The result is a poorly worded document that does not do what it purports to do. Instead, this guidance covers all products labeled as homeopathic rather than distinguishing between those falsely labeled as homeopathic and those that are actually homeopathic medicines which have already been proven to be safe and effective. As written, the guidance threatens to limit access to safe and effective homeopathic medicines by subjecting them to new enforcement actions inconsistent with past practice and existing law. The draft guidance purports to address improperly manufactured homeopathic products, and I support that, but the draft guidance drops the explicit manufacturing guidelines already contained in the existing guidance. Under the draft guidance, Americans would have fewer assurances that their homeopathic medicines are pure and properly manufactured. The problems that FDA cites as reasons for introducing the draft guidance, falsely labeled products and improperly manufactured products, are actually better addressed under the current guidance, and the FDA has been effectively addressing these issues for the last 30 years. This draft guidance is an unnecessary regulatory overreach, and I urge all Members to support this amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for his comments and Ranking Member Fortenberry's assurances that we can get together with the FDA and see what we can do to resolve this very difficult issue. I look forward to working with him on this issue going forward. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time and withdraw my amendment.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot I could say, but I want to point out a couple of things. Right now, the Border Patrol has detention facilities that are designed to hold 4,000 people but are holding 19,000 people. ICE has facilities to hold 45,000 people, but it is holding 52,000 people. We are releasing people regularly into communities and throughout this country. Mr. Speaker, ICE alone has released over 200,000 family units into the country this year. In Yuma, Arizona, a facility designed for 250 people is currently housing 1,100 people. It is going to be 110 degrees tomorrow. Most of those people are being held outside under awnings with a large swamp cooler to cool them. That will work okay. It will be livable. It will be uncomfortable, but livable. But in about 3 or 4 weeks, when it is 115, 120 degrees and the humidity is out of this world, those swamp coolers will not work. Mr. Speaker, I am asking and going to make a motion to adjourn because our colleagues refuse to bring a supplement that would pay for humanitarian and detention facilities.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, due to the humanitarian crisis and border crisis, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 3056, an emergency supplemental to provide critically needed funding for the humanitarian crisis at the border, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BIGGS

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

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I oppose this resolution. The subpoena for Attorney General Barr is unenforceable on its face. It demands the full and unredacted Mueller report, including grand jury material that the Attorney General cannot lawfully disclose, and the Democrats know this. In a hearing last month, Chairman Nadler admitted that Attorney General Barr could not lawfully release grand jury material. He therefore admitted that the Attorney General could not lawfully comply with the subpoena. Instead, the chairman suggested that the subpoena is a starting point in negotiations. Rarely have I heard that term used with regard to a subpoena. In fact, I never heard it before that time. In the Judiciary Committee's hearing on executive privilege last month, one of the majority's own witnesses testified that ``one of the categories of information presently sought by the committee appears so broad as to put the executive branch officials to a nearly impossible task. . . . The committee cannot in good faith expect compliance; accordingly, the burden is on the committee to substantially narrow this aspect of its request.'' My friends talk about the rule of law, but the Democrats have admitted in a hearing in the Judiciary Committee that the subpoena was overly broad and that objects of the subpoena that are prohibited from disclosure, such as 6(e) material, were not subject to the subpoena. But they didn't fix their subpoena. They didn't issue a new subpoena. They didn't amend the subpoena. They just attempted to amend their contempt citation. The defendant's confusion over what is subject to a subpoena is adequate evidence that the subpoena itself is legally deficient as being confusing and overly broad. A court will not be able to read the collective minds of our Democratic colleagues and will not expect such clairvoyance from the Attorney General nor from the former White House Counsel. The administration is currently negotiating in good faith. We see that an agreement was reached just yesterday. The same Democrat, when discussing the assertion of executive privilege by the administration, stated, ``These developments do not, however, relieve the committee of its obligation to continue to negotiate.''

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, just as the subpoena is overly broad and, quite frankly, unprecedented, as well as legally deficient, this resolution is also overly broad and unique in the annals of American history. When the chairwoman from California referred to the President of the United States as a dictator, her language was rancorous and unparliamentary, but it seems to have been filled with projection, as this resolution provides unique authorities.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia. I can't help but to be struck here as I reflect on the markup that we had, as we have listened to the Rules debate earlier, plus this debate. I can't help but be struck by the very notion of this is kind of what happens whenever you start moving the goalposts on what a law should be. So under the Obama Administration, deferred action was provided for children who were brought into the country by a certain date and time, through no fault of their own, and that number was about 800,000 people applied for that. Now, the estimate is somewhere in the neighborhood of an additional 1 million who might have qualified who didn't file the requisite application. And now, this particular bill, as several of my colleagues across the aisle have said, will apply to anywhere from 2.2 to 2.7 million people. You can see the number starts creeping as we go forward here, as we change laws, and we acknowledge certain ideas about what the law should be. So this actually is not about DACA. We left DACA a long time ago. And, quite frankly, there is no age limit here. So even an alien who entered the U.S. illegally 30 or 40 years ago, could be granted a green card under this bill. So we see that it has other problems as well. So then we start talking about gang members, and we say, Oh, yeah, no, no, this is really tough on gang members. But in fact, the denial provision is written so narrowly that it will almost never exclude gang members. In fact, it actually prohibits the use of gang databases to establish gang participation in order to deny green cards to gang members. You got that? You can't use gang databases. And moreover, only the Secretary of Homeland Security--and he or she cannot delegate that authority to other officials--can provisionally deny an applicant. And what makes this particularly intriguing is if there is a denial, we are charging a fee, so that free attorneys can be hired on to represent these gang members who are provisionally denied. So they can challenge the Secretary's determination, and that is done by a de novo review. So this is a real problem. It is too narrowly crafted in this area. And there are some other areas--and some of my colleagues have talked about it--but ultimately, we get to the heart of this, and it is just this: There is a border crisis. This bill does nothing to stop that border crisis. It will do nothing to slow the number of people who are entering this country illegally. In fact, it will do just the opposite, because it provides an incentive. People respond to incentives. I respond to incentives. You respond to incentives. We also respond to deterrence. We remove deterrence here. Instead, we buttressed incentives. And so we will have a year where we are going to apprehend about 1.2 million people, at the low end. We know that a year ago we were getting about half; we were apprehending about half the people. And we know about 4 months ago, we were getting only about a third of the people. Now, we have no idea what the getaways are. You can talk to border patrol agents, ICE agents--whoever you want to talk to down at the border--and they will tell you, ``we have no idea the numbers coming in because we are overwhelmed.'' When I was down in Yuma, the Yuma facility is designed for 250 people. A month and a half ago, it held 750 people in inhumane conditions. No question. Inhumane conditions. Today, that number is over 1,000, going through that same facility. That is inhumane. And so we are just releasing them. We are releasing them, and we are saying, Come back in a couple of years. And you know what? We have got a million people who have absconded from their court dates. We have got another million people with active removal orders. You think this is going to serve this problem long-term? I am sad to tell you, it won't. You are going to see more people come because you have got the incentives in place. And they are not just coming from Mexico or the Northern Triangle. They are coming from Venezuela; they are coming from Cuba; they are coming from Africa; they are coming from China. They are coming from all over the world today. And they are coming because they know that we have no place for them. They will be released into the interior, and we will continue to be overwhelmed. This bill will contribute to that problem.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. A group of 1,000 was apprehended, and 2,200 came in through El Paso, in 1 day alone, who were apprehended. We are averaging about 4,500 apprehensions a day in this country. What happened when this bill came to markup? Why is it, in my opinion, a real problem that we have a closed rule here? The Republicans offered a number of amendments. We pointed out issues that we thought were of concern. We offered amendments to address those issues, such as allowing repeat criminals and gang members to obtain green cards. We offered amendments that would allow application information regarding illegal status to be used for deportation. We attempted to prevent fraudulent applications from being filed. But none of these and a whole host of other amendments offered by Republicans were accepted, even some that were just absolutely rational, such as those with DUIs that resulted in an accident where someone was seriously injured or even killed. They were not prevented from obtaining this path of legalization. Here we are today, and now they are saying no amendments can be offered from either side of the aisle. I have essentially opposed every closed rule since I came to Congress. I think it actually undermines this process where we represent districts and come to try to offer amendments. I have offered many amendments and had them all shut down, quite frankly, whether by vote or in the Rules Committee. But the reality is, I represent a district, and when the majority closes a rule like this, it is preventing me from representing a border State that has a great deal of difficulties because of the rampant border crossings of illegal aliens.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I want to give context to this before I talk specifically about the idea of a closed rule here, which I oppose so much. First of all, there are about 690,000 in the DACA population, but there is an estimate that there is another 1 to 1.2 million, though no one really knows what that number is, who might have applied but chose not to apply under the Obama-era DACA regulations. We also have a significant population, post-2012, who have been brought here. We had a surge in 2013 and a surge in 2014 of unaccompanied minors. We have again seen a surge in the last few months even. We don't know what the population looks like for this. Another way to put this into context is this way: We have a million people who have absconded from their court dates. That means they haven't shown up. They got an order to appear, and they are not showing up. We have another million with active removal orders. That is 2 million people who are roaming the country. We don't know who they are, where they are. We brought in 1.2 million legal immigrants last year. That is a good thing. We are going to catch more than 1.2. We will apprehend more than 1.2 million illegal aliens coming across our border this year. These are numbers that are almost unfathomable. That population I just mentioned would be the second largest city in the United States after New York City, more than Los Angeles itself. When we say that we are going to apprehend 1.2 million this year, when one talks to Border Patrol agents, people who conduct censuses on these things, they will say that we have no idea any longer what the getaway number is. A year ago, they thought they were catching 1 in 2. Four months ago, they thought they were catching 1 in 3. Today, they will say that they have absolutely no idea. Last week, in El Paso alone, one group of over 1,000 people were apprehended.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, today highlights another success story from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Arizona Public Service, the largest electric utility in Arizona, recently announced that it will again be lowering electricity rates to customers. Arizonans can now expect to save more than $100 a year on their electricity bill thanks to the Republican-led tax reform package signed by President Trump. These savings are not crumbs. They are real, and they will benefit millions of people across our State. APS services about 2.7 million people and operates the Palo Verde Generating Station, which is the largest source of clean-air energy in the United States. The Palo Verde nuclear power plant has 2,500 full-time employees and generates an economic impact of more than $2 billion to our State. Madam Speaker, the 100-degree temperature days are upon us, and I know firsthand how expensive summertime bills can be. This announcement by APS is yet another example of Arizonans winning because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.