H. Griffith

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to recognize the Auburn High School girls soccer team for earning a class 1 state title on June 8, 2019. The girls soccer team earned their championship, the first conducted by the Virginia High School League for Class 1 soccer, in a close match with Stonewall Jackson-Quicksburg at Christiansburg High School. The state championship clinched an 18-1 season for the Eagles. It was a close-run thing on a windy and rainy day, with a tie broken after four sudden victory periods and nine successful penalty kicks alternating between each team. The Eagles competed with discipline, skill, and coolness under pressure. Congratulations are in order for Coach Ashley Moreno and the team, especially its seniors. Auburn's parents, teachers, students, and fans also should take pride in this wonderful accomplishment.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to Sydney Strother Smith III of Abingdon, Virginia, a faithful servant of his God and country. Strother was born on August 1, 1941, to Strother and Betsy Smith. His father was one of the Army's last commissioned cavalry officers, and during young Strother's baptism at Fort Knox on December 7, 1941, news from Pearl Harbor interrupted the service. As his father fought in World War II as a tank commander, Strother lived in Richmond with his mother and grandfather. They remained there after his father returned from the war. Hoping to follow in his father's footsteps by joining the military, Strother enrolled at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington. A fall from cliffs broke his back, however, and ended hopes of a military career. Among his roommates at VMI, he was the only one not to die in Vietnam, convincing him that God had a different purpose for his life. Strother is known as a dedicated and effective organizer of the Republican Party in Virginia. He was the founding president of the Young Republicans Club at the University of Richmond and served as vice president of the statewide Young Republicans Federation, where he helped expand the number of clubs statewide and met his future wife Barbara. He managed his father's successful campaign for the Virginia House of Delegates as a Republican at a time when Virginia was still largely controlled by the Democratic Party and went on to manage other campaigns for the House of Delegates, United States Senate, and House of Representatives. After moving to Washington County to practice law, he became an active member of the county party and instilled it with new blood. He served as chairman of the county party from 1974 to 1980 and, along with Professor Ray Hancock, organized the College Republicans at Emory and Henry College, my alma mater. Strother also achieved distinction in his legal career. He became one of the youngest attorneys to argue in front of the United States Supreme Court and would return several times, as well as appear before the Virginia Supreme Court. He was drawn toward cases in which he championed the underdog. One example unfolded over 25 years as he represented an elderly Kentucky mountain man, John Johnson, and eventually Mr. Johnson's heirs against the industrial giant Bethlehem Minerals. Mr. Johnson claimed rights over the coal on his property, and Strother argued his case up to the Kentucky Supreme Court, then to the U.S. Supreme Court, and back to Kentucky. When the case was finally resolved, Mr. Johnson's heirs and co-litigants were awarded $37 million in damages, and willful trespassing became part of mineral rights law. Strother relished such cases and often engaged in them on a pro bono basis, about which his wife sometimes noted that his family had bills to pay, too. Strother was an active member of the Anglican Church. He was a chancellor, canon lawyer, and a priest ordained in 1987, and he helped to found and rector six parishes. He also belonged to numerous civic organizations. He was an Eagle Scout as a boy and a scout leader as an adult, a member of the Sons of the Revolution, and a reenactor with the Mountain Men of Revolutionary War fame. An amateur pilot, a published poet, a joke collector and storyteller, he is a man of seemingly endless talents but one: punctuality. His nickname, the ``Late Great Strother Smith,'' reflects his habit of being late to just about everything, including his wedding. The one exception: voting, which he would always be in line for by 6 am. Strother's family includes his wife of 53 years, Barbara Ann Smith; daughters Ambler Dumler and her husband John, Sydney Smith and her husband Tim Gilhool, and Beth and her husband Andy Stockner; brother, Richard Smith and his wife Sarah of Alexandria, VA; sister Rev. Caroline Parkinson of Nashville, TN; and grandchildren Josef, Marshall, and Aidan Dumler, Jimmy and Molly Gilhool, and Virginia, Josie, and Cora Stockner.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to commend the Roanoke Valley Christian School boys basketball team, which captured the Virginia Association of Christian Athletics state title on February 23, 2019. The Eagles put on a commanding performance, handily defeating an exceptional team from Timberlake Christian School by a score of 66 to 42. This victory carries particular meaning, as it is Roanoke Valley Christian's first boys basketball state championship in its history. Their championship caps a 27-4 season. I applaud the hard work and dedication of all members of this year's Roanoke Valley Christian boys basketball team, and congratulate the administrators, teachers, coaches, parents, students, and fans. In particular, I would like to recognize the contributions of the team's seniors, and their head coach Todd Mann. Congratulations on a great end to the season.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I offer these remarks in tribute to Dr. Jim Wade of Abingdon, Virginia, who has used his talents as a surgeon to help needy people around the globe. Dr. Wade was born and raised in Princeton, West Virginia. He attended West Virginia University as an undergraduate and then continued at its School of Medicine specializing in otolaryngology. After completing his medical studies, he served as an officer in the U.S. Army for five years, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He then had a medical practice in Abingdon from 1978 to 2013. In Abingdon, Dr. Wade has been an active member of his community. He attends Abingdon Bible Church, serves on various boards, and provides a home for foreign interns when they are training in the country. Dr. Wade's deep faith, compassion for others, and medical skills guided him to the field of medical missions. He began volunteering with the faith-based charity World Medical Mission in May 1996, traveling to Kenya, performing cleft lip and cleft palate surgeries. Working with World Medical Mission and BethanyKids in the years since, Dr. Wade has traveled to Kenya 25 times, South Sudan three times, Egypt twice, South Sudan twice, and Myanmar to perform these surgeries. Frequently operating in areas undergoing political and social unrest and lacking the comforts of home, he conducts an average of four surgeries a day during twelve-hour shifts in the operating room. His selfless and humble service to others has been a gift in the lives of many, from the children who benefit from his medical skills to the colleagues inspired by his example. I commend Dr. Wade for his good works and for the generous and caring spirit in which he has done them.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I offer these remarks in tribute to Stephen G. Moushegian of Salem, Virginia, a hero of the Vietnam War who died on March 22 at the age of 74. Born on January 22, 1945, Steve was not a stranger to military life in his younger years, as his father had graduated from West Point and served in World War II. Steve began his service in the U.S. Army as a member of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps at the University of Georgia. Upon commissioning, he entered flight school and excelled as a pilot. When Steve was deployed to Vietnam, he opted for a risky assignment: flying helicopters for reconnaissance missions. He quickly proved his courage and skill at the task. Although the North Vietnamese would target his helicopter as it scouted for U.S. forces, he would persist in reconnoitering their positions, even at times after his helicopter was hit by enemy fire. His daring missions gathered valuable intelligence for the U.S. military and earned him several decorations, including a Silver Star, Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Silver Star, and Distinguished Flying Cross. In September 1969, Steve's helicopter took enemy fire, and he was wounded in the arms, shoulder, and left eye. The eye injury blinded him in that eye, so he was sent home with a Purple Heart. Notwithstanding the serious injuries he sustained, he treasured his service to the country he loved. Steve worked as a medical salesman after his service in the Army, and occasionally I would have the pleasure of joining him and his lunch buddies. He is survived by his wife of 52 years, Ricki, his children Jeff, Christie Shaps, and Suzi, and six grandchildren. His son Jeff served in the Army after graduating from Virginia Military Institute, and his grandson also plans on a military career after completing his course of study at the same institution. We all can take inspiration from the life of Steve Moushegian, a loving father, husband, and patriot who served his country in the skies over Vietnam with valor.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. If you say to them, however, that we are going to try to do all of the above, so we are going to help you burn the coal you have; we are going to help you find the fuels that work for you, but we want to try to help you do it in a cleaner fashion; and we want to make that coal a little bit better, to make that oil a little bit better, to make it burn hotter, to make it burn more efficiently, that is how you lower your carbon footprint. I like what the gentleman from Utah had to talk about in grazing on our Federal lands. If we started using different techniques, we can absorb a lot of carbon. We should probably spend some research money to find out if those crops and those plants that can be utilized to suck up more carbon can maybe produce other products as well. These are things that we need to do, instead of saying we are not going to use any of this in the future because we might do that to the detriment of our jobs here in the United States. We are going to shift those jobs to other countries where they will use dirtier coal, dirtier oil, dirtier techniques for burning fossil fuels to produce the products that we then buy back, making them the richer nations in the world and we the lesser. When I am on my deathbed, I want to be able to look my kids in the eye--hopefully, I will have grandkids some day--and say: You know what? We kept the United States of America number one in the economic situation, and we looked out for the planet at the same time. It can be done, but it can't be done if all you say is, no, we are not going to look at fossil fuels.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, what is exciting for the American people, what is exciting for me, I would say to the gentleman, is that we have just mentioned a couple of areas where technology is working, making things better, and reducing our carbon footprint. In our universities and our think tanks across the country, there are hundreds and thousands of ideas percolating out there that can help us move forward. You may not agree with me on this, but I think we can spend more money from the Federal Government on research to find better ways to use fossil fuels. Wave energy, wind, solar, whatever it is, we need to be leading on the research end of this. If we think we are going to eliminate fossil fuels, Mr. Speaker, we are mistaken, because the world is going to continue to use fossil fuels. If you say to a developing economy that they have to rely on wind, they are going to know that you are full of hot wind.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, it absolutely is a better approach. It really does bother me that we are just handing cash over to these countries. As you said, they don't have transparency. Some of them are known to have corrupt governments, which means that at least a portion of that money is probably ending up in the pockets of the rulers' friends, neighbors, and cousins. If we are going to spend the money, let's go in and spend the money on something that will make a difference for the folks in those countries. I am not saying as the richest nation in the world that we don't have a responsibility, but let's make sure that we don't cripple ourselves in the process. Let's make sure that if we are going to spend the money, which I am okay with spending some of it, that we make sure it is going to projects that will improve the environment in those countries and help lower the carbon footprint in those respective nations. They are not going to sit back and have their people be impoverished just because a group of Western nations got together or a group of nations got together that already have some money and said: You stop using fossil fuels so that the world won't get warmer. They may be concerned about that, and I think they probably are, but they are not going to impoverish their people to target 1.5 degrees centigrade. If we can show them a way to get more wealth for their people, to bring electricity to all regions of their countries, and to lower their carbon footprint, they are all in. That is where we can lead. We don't have to spend money by just handing cash to potentates around the world. We can spend that money on research right here in our own colleges, in our own universities, in our own think tanks with people. Some of them will fail, but some of them will come up with new technology. Like when looking for a way to separate rare earth from coal and they figure out a way to lower the carbon footprint at steel mills in India, those kinds of things happen when you are looking for answers to problems instead of looking for problems.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman.

Mr. GRIFFITH. It is that simple. You shouldn't hide behind games or trickery to say, well, this is not really a treaty that has to go to the Senate because the targets are merely aspirational. If they are merely aspirational, why are we spending billions of dollars on it and why are we participating at all, which I think was the President's point. Why would we spend billions of dollars to send to countries, some of whom might actually be kleptocracies, and the money is never getting to where it is supposed to go? Why would we spend billions of dollars on something that we know is not going to be effective? Let's spend our billions of dollars on research and find new technologies. You may have heard me tell the story, because it has been my favorite story the last couple of weeks, but I have a professor at Virginia Tech who has been working on technology to separate coal from rare Earth minerals. But there is a side effect. It also can make poor coal better coal. And they are selling that technology. Now they are licensing a company in India for two steel mills--steel, for those who don't speak southwest Virginian, steel mills--and they are licensing them to use this technology, so they can take Indian coal and make it better and then reduce their carbon footprint and still produce the steel. The Indians aren't going to say they are not going to use the coal and we are not going to produce steel. They want what everybody wants. They want a better economy. They want jobs. They want those people in their country--and I understand there are hundreds of millions--who don't have electricity to have electricity in their homes. Like everybody else, they want clean air and clean water, too. But it is not going to happen by an edict of the Paris accord. It is going to happen by research that makes sense and that economically says you can have the steel to build new factories, to build new cities, to build new things in your country to make your country better, wherever you are: sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Europe, America, South America, North America, wherever you are. But you can do it better and you can do it cleaner and you can do it where it is cost effective. That is what we have to focus on, not arbitrary, capricious goals set with different countries having different standards. As an American, as U.S. citizens, we have a higher target, and there is no target for the Chinese.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, your amendment would certainly do that, and I will support that amendment. While I can't support the underlying bill, I can support that amendment because that does make the underlying bill better. If we are going to bind our hands and seal our fate to be the number two or number three or number five economy in the world, instead of being the number one economy in the world, if that is what we are going to do, then there ought to be votes taken down the hall. Men and women in the United States Senate should put their name on the line and say yes or no. The American people then will know who has voted yes and who has voted no. They won't be hiding behind any games or circumstances or procedural maneuvers. Then the American people can use the power that was given to them by our Constitution and an inalienable right granted by God to use the ballot box to make a decision as to whether or not they wanted to be bound, whether or not they wanted to have their economy reduced, and have their children and grandchildren to be lesser than what we have today in our economic wealth.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Part of what happened was that they danced through a lot of different hoops to try to make sure that they didn't have to have it be a treaty. If they could at least make the argument that it was not a treaty, because they knew they couldn't get Senate confirmation. And, in fact, the Democrat champion, Senator Pell, who was the chairman at the time of the appropriate committee, actually put in their committee report that should there later be a conference--and they were talking about the original conference that we had entered into, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which this is not an extension of--many people say it is, but they had to adopt all new rules and all new aspects, because they knew they couldn't just add this on to the original one. But Senator Pell says, ``The committee notes that a decision by the conference of the parties''--referencing the U.N. commission--``to adopt targets and timetables would have to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent before the United States could deposit its instruments of ratification for such an agreement.'' Now, the Paris accord, the Paris treaty, ostensibly says that there are targets and timetables. But even the Democrats recognized in 1992 that if you were to put in targets and timetables, you had to have that document submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. So, a decision by the conference to adopt targets and timetables would have to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent before the United States could deposit its instruments of ratification for such an agreement. Clearly, they anticipated that someday there might be timetables and targets and they wanted to make sure that everybody knew that in 1992, just because we joined that conference, did not mean that we had agreed to later being bound to timetables and targets. Now, we are doing very well on those timetables and targets without having announced we are leaving. And even if we are not a member of the Paris accord, agreement, treaty, whatever you end up calling it, we are doing very well at reducing our carbon footprint. The Chinese are producing about twice as much carbon dioxide as we are today. They have the number two economy and we have the number one economy per job, and from a production standpoint we are doing a lot better. They are not even bound until 2030 under this so-called treaty agreement. But it is very clear that in order to bind us to anything, it had to be approved by the Senate and it has not been approved by the Senate. So, what we are arguing about, in essence, is merely a political point for the people on the other side of the aisle, because these targets, as they currently exist without ratification from the Senate, are merely suggestions. We are doing what we can in a reasonable way. We need to do more on research so that we can continue to have the jobs and have the wealth and be the number one economic nation and continue to reduce our carbon footprint. Now, I've got to tell you, I get a little amazed sometimes at some of these folks, because the World Bank decided they weren't going to invest in any more coal-fired power plants--now I know I am going off subject, but let me run. The World Bank decided they weren't going to invest in any more coal-fired power plants. The top ten donors to the World Bank include nine western countries and Japan. So, basically, the west and Japan decided that they were not going to invest in those things. So guess who is investing? You can guess.

Mr. GRIFFITH. It is China. And Russia is probably doing some, too. But China is heavily out there. And they are getting a two-for because the developing world, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, want to have power and energy for their people, because they want their people to not live in the dark and have electricity. They want their people to have jobs. They know that in order to have better jobs, they have got to have electricity in their country across the board, not just in the big cities. They have got to have a source of power, and they have coal. For them, that is their most affordable source. So what the Chinese are doing, they are basically laughing at us. We are going to agree to these timetables that haven't been ratified by the Senate and these targets, while they get to continue increasing. Even though they are the number two economy in the world, they are going to continue to increase their carbon footprint, and they are going to build coal-fired power plants in sub-Saharan Africa for which they get a lot of goodwill in the foreign affairs and foreign relations department. But wait, there is more. In many of these cases--I can't say all, but the ones I have read about--they are, for a fee, going to run those coal-fired power plants for the nations that they are building them in. So not only are they going to build goodwill and good relations around the world using coal in contravention of these goals set forth in the Paris accord, but they are going to make a profit at it, as well.

Mr. GRIFFITH. If the gentleman would tell me.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I offer these remarks in honor of Clyde Kenneth ``Windy'' England, Martinsville, Virginia's last hero of D-Day. Mr. England died on February 28 at the age of 103. He was born in Brevard, North Carolina, on May 4, 1915. After moving with his family to Martinsville in 1933, he worked at the Martinsville Cotton Mill and the Martinsville Novelty Company. In Virginia, he met Mildred Draper, whom he married on December 30, 1939 in the parlor of the old First Baptist Church. Amid the gathering storm that would become World War II, he joined the Virginia National Guard in 1936. His unit was activated in 1941 and later sent to Britain. On the morning of June 6, 1944, he stormed Omaha Beach in Normandy as a technical sergeant leading Company H of the 116th Infantry Regiment, 29th Infantry Division. Bad weather had delayed the invasion by a day, and the time spent on the English Channel had made many of the men seasick. As the landing craft carrying the soldiers approached the beach, Mr. England remembered that the men stayed composed as they came under German fire without panic. They had a job to do. When they landed on the beach, Mr. England's unit was several hundred yards away from where it was supposed to be, and it became mixed up with several other units. He had to move his men across the beach while under fire to a sea wall. With smoke providing cover, the men moved up to the wall and were able to breach the barbed wire. Continuing to press onward, they arrived at their objective of Les Moulin the next morning, having established a beachhead. It came at a steep price to his unit: ten of forty men were killed and seventeen wounded, including Mr. England. He fought across France as the Allies advanced, and a wound received by a sniper put him in the hospital for six months. He returned to Martinsville after the war and continued serving in the Virginia National Guard until 1973. Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel W.C. Fowlkes remembered him as ``a soldier's soldier; everything he did was for the betterment of his soldiers.'' Among his many decorations, Mr. England earned a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart with Cluster, an American Defense Medal, the European Theater of Operations Medal, a WWII Victory Medal, an Army Reserve Medal with two clusters, and a Virginia Service Medal with 5 clusters, as well as a Presidential Unit Citation Medal for his unit's role in D- Day. On the 15th anniversary of D-Day, Mr. England was one of four people representing Virginia at the dedication of a memorial at Omaha Beach. Mr. England enjoyed hunting, fishing, and traveling in his retirement, and worshipped at the First Baptist Church of Martinsville. He and his wife Mildred remained happily married for 79 years before her death on November 12, 2018. Mr. England is survived by his daughter Deborah Slaydon and his grandsons Matthew and Jared Slaydon. In his Order of the Day for June 6, 1944, General Dwight D. Eisenhower told the men of the Allied Expeditionary Force, ``The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.'' This heavy burden fell upon men such as Clyde ``Windy'' England. All of us who live in freedom today can be grateful that he and his fellow heroes of D-Day bore it with courage and honor until they achieved victory.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, you know I would like to engage in colloquies and talk about issues.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Because the birds don't see the heat, and they fly into it, and they are fried to a crackly crunch.

Mr. GRIFFITH. So when the gentleman started talking about birds, I came back to the mike. We hope science will solve these problems, and that is why we need to have more research and development on all of this. Instead of saying, stop everything, we need to do research and development. But isn't there also a problem today with solar and some of the larger solar arrays that they actually fry birds as they fly; whether it be large birds or small birds?

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, and if you eliminate carbon dioxide--the gentleman is correct--we won't have any plants. If we don't have any plants, oxygen plummets in the atmosphere. And as I told a group of high school students recently, and you know what that means for us? And all, if not most, life forms that currently rely on either carbon dioxide or oxygen will die and all that will be left are the life forms, the microbial life forms that live near hot vents in the ocean or the edges of volcanoes, because they don't rely on that. The rest of life would be wiped out. Now, I know that is not what the Democrats meant when they introduced this, but isn't that the scientific conclusion of removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere; not reducing, removing? Isn't that correct?

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman may recall, I am a birdwatcher.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Will the gentleman yield for a second?

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, and so while I know they weren't thinking about it or they probably didn't mean to go that far, it shows you that even if we modified it, it won't work for the people. Jobs would be eliminated, jobs will be cut, and we really won't have any impact on the environment unless we go the full bore, in which case, we no longer have air to breathe and we won't have to worry about the global temperature in 20 years or 30 years or 40 years, because none of us will be here. And it is just fascinating to me how they can get the science so messed up and, yet, lecture to us about the science.

Mr. GRIFFITH. And you know what is interesting about this is, I do represent a coal district, but if we shut down all of this, as we have discussed in the Green New Deal, are the Indians going to stop using coal? Of course not. Are the Chinese going to stop using coal?

Mr. GRIFFITH. No. The rest of the world will continue to use these sources. And, in fact, industries that are dependent upon our natural resources--coal, oil, natural gas--well, they will just move to the countries that will let them use it, and it will not have any effect on the environment. But this really is not a proposal that should be taken seriously. It was clearly thrown together quickly in an attempt to get some press; and, unfortunately, 100 Members of the body decided to sign on to it. But when you read it, you know it is not there. We have heard all the things that could happen if we take a watered-down version of the Green New Deal. But if we pass the Green New Deal and we actually do what it says, and you read the words, it says, remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It doesn't say, reduce. It doesn't say, remove hazardous greenhouse gases. So, I would ask my friend who holds a degree in the science field, and with whom we have lots of discussion about science on the floor and at various meetings; what happens if we eliminate the greenhouse gases of water vapor and carbon dioxide; eliminate them, remove them, as the Green New Deal calls for? What happens if that occurs?

Mr. GRIFFITH. And so there are lots of things we need to worry about in that regard. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman bringing that up today, because what we want to do is have a balanced approach. We want renewables. We want all of the above. But we also have to make sure that we are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and in the end, killing off our large predator birds or killing birds with technologies that are not quite ready for prime time.