H. Griffith

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I mean, we heard from so many people, and the ones who had lost loved ones really just wanted to try to make a difference. They just wanted to make a difference to make their communities safer, to make it safer for everybody. They are not going to bring back their family member, but they want to make the whole area safer. They believe that it is a crisis. Every one of them believed it was a crisis. One night, we were having dinner, and a lady who didn't know we were from the United States Congress walked over because she recognized one of the local officials and said we have to do something on the border-- spontaneously. We are just in town having dinner.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Biggs and Congressman Gosar for inviting us out there to see this, making the arrangements for us to meet with people who live on the border, people who work on the border, people who are trying to secure America's border and are putting their lives on the line, and they know that. They have had friends and family members who have died. I appreciate them inviting us down. And I appreciate Congressman Gohmert for having this time this evening and giving me an opportunity to talk about some of the things I saw. This discussion will continue because there is a crisis on the American border. I yield back.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I really want to ask a question. So I guess I should ask if the gentleman would yield for a question. Because if he would put up that slide where they had the barrier that would stop the vehicles, I wonder if he had time yet--because we just got back to--in fact, I think that might be me in the picture.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. We were able to--maybe not here, but that's fine. But just on the other side of that, do we have a picture of the rope?

Mr. GRIFFITH. It was. And he said, you know: That wasn't just old growth. That was virgin forest. Where are the folks who normally care about the environment? Why aren't they saying anything? And what I found really interesting, he talked about some of the other environmental problems with all the trash and so forth. Well, the next day, we were talking to border security, and the fellow who was in our car started talking about how once they put the wall up and made it more secure, it was amazing. It just took a few years for the wildlife to come back. Apparently, where they cross on a regular basis and are having lay- bys--that is where they hang out until they move on to the next camp, and they leave all their trash and stuff there--a lot of the wildlife had just disappeared. But once they started having a fence like this or the ability to have a road into certain areas and they cut that off, all of a sudden, the wildlife started coming back. He showed me a picture on his phone that he had taken of a bear. He said: That wasn't here 5, 6, 10 years ago. Now they are back. We have big cats. We have bear. It really is amazing. He didn't know that, the day before, I had been talking to a rancher about similar issues, that it is a real detriment to the environment. Then the other thing that probably won't get a lot of attention is that, even if we are not able to build the wall everywhere we want, it channels the folks. Just like we saw on the end of each wall, we saw several segments and you could see the paths. What happens is that you are then channeling the illegal immigrants into a particular area, which makes it easier for the electronic devices and the agents to get in there. If you have the electronic surveillance, you have the walls, or the wall fence, and you have the border agents with the supplies and the equipment, including dogs and horses, et cetera, that they need, then they know where there are pinch points where they can cut off a lot of this. But it will be an ongoing problem that we will have to deal with as a Nation. This year is just a part of it. As we close in and close off some areas, we will see other areas where they start going in, in greater numbers. But we will start concentrating on where we can catch more of the drugs coming in. As my colleague said, the lady had said you won't catch them all, but without a wall, you will not catch any of them. I think that those are two important points. Mr. Speaker, I don't know how the gentleman felt about that, but I would love to hear his opinion on that as well.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, that was a horrible story. And what was so interesting was that the people who we were talking to in that group, some of them had helped these folks out when they were found and helped them recover as best they could in that situation. It was just a horrible situation, and it was just one of many stories. My colleague referenced the rape trees. We heard one of the ranchers tell us that he was out on his property and he saw all this women's underwear, and he picked up three trash bags full of women's underwear. That represents somebody, each one of those, somebody who had been raped. This is a crisis, as you know. It is a crisis, and it is a crisis of so many dimensions that we are not going to be able to talk about all the different aspects. One of the ranchers said to me: Why isn't anybody talking about the environment? It was really interesting. He pointed up to the mountains, and he said: Those mountains used to be filled with Douglas firs. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, whether it was somebody building a campfire and was negligent or whether it was a diversion by the cartels to pull all the first responders to one end of the county while they ran drugs into the other end of the county, he didn't know, but they burned down that mountain, all the trees on the whole range of mountains.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Amazing.

Mr. GRIFFITH. I would say to the gentleman that one of the things that really struck me that I probably didn't know or hadn't heard stories of--a lot of this was just confirming what I believed might be going on and bringing it visually home. But one of the things that I was astounded with was the residents in the area who were talking about it--we had a number of residents we met with--that the drug runners are bringing the drugs in, sometimes they are just dropping them off at a GPS site, sometimes they are handing them off and getting cash and bringing the cash back, but they also were looters. So all those properties along the border have to worry about home invasions and burglaries and thieving; because there is nothing to stop them, whatever they can carry, they are carrying out and carrying south as well. You know, if it was folks, that would be one issue--and I understand that issue is a big part of it--but if it was just folks coming north to look for a better way of life, that would be one thing. But a huge number of these people are coming north with methamphetamine that comes into my district, and probably into Mr. Gohmert's as well, with fentanyl, with heroin, and with marijuana, and they are coming in with that. They are taking the cash and anything they can steal back with them. And so it is a two-way street, so to speak. We have got illegal commerce going both ways through a rope as our defense for our country, a mere rope, an inch of cotton thread.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Where it makes it much harder for the border patrol agents, we heard, to track them down. So where there is a wall, even if they get over it somehow, it slows them down. The border patrol folks can then spot them, using some of that electronic equipment we have talked about, maybe using their pony patrols, you know, where they are out on horseback, but they can then have a better chance of catching a substantial number of these folks. But where you don't have that wall/fence barrier, and you just have a rope or a little fence--in fact, I know a picture was taken of it, too--we saw a rancher, who may not want his picture out there--but we saw a rancher who has to be in his seventies, and probably is in his eighties, who had climbed under the fence to show that even he, in his advanced age, could get under the fence. It was just remarkable. I mean, did you have the same reaction I did that this was just outrageous, and that, clearly, we just have a line that demarks it, so that if you are law-abiding, you know that is where to stop. But the people we are dealing with are not law-abiders, are they, sir?

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Could the Speaker inform us as to what the privileged motion is.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, a point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GRIFFITH. A further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Could the Speaker inform us as to what the parliamentary privileged motion was that was previously referenced just a couple of minutes ago, that was to be taken up immediately, for which we heard no vote.

Mr. GRIFFITH. I appreciate the answer, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. That is illuminating. A further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Can the Speaker advise me as to why the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) was not recognized to call for the ``yeas'' and ``nays'' on the previous question related to the continuing resolution.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, ``Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.'' John Adams made that statement almost 250 years ago. I recall his words when House Speaker Pelosi, in arguing against more funding for security at the southern border, claimed that President Trump was ``manufacturing a crisis.'' The facts on the border establish that a crisis exists. According to the Department of Homeland Security data, 161,000 family units arrived in fiscal year 2018, an increase of 50 percent, and 60,000 unaccompanied children arrived in the same time period, an increase of 25 percent. Asylum claims have surged an astounding 2,000 percent in the past 5 years, although most of these claims will be found invalid later, after judicial review. These surging numbers are overwhelming our resources on the border and creating a humanitarian, security, and legal crisis. The Mexican side of the border is often controlled by Mexican criminal cartels or gangs. They charge a fee to assist border crossings. To get here, many illegal immigrants put themselves in the hands of these vicious smuggling gangs, which are looking for profit and are uninterested in basic human dignity. On the dangerous journey to the border, 7 out of 10 migrants suffer from violence, and 31 percent of women and 17 percent of men are sexually assaulted. Too often, the fees these gangs charge are indentured servitude in the sex trade. Porous borders only encourage more business for the criminal gangs who commit these abuses. Further, more than people are being brought across the border, as you have heard. Increased amounts of illicit substances are entering as well. Meth, trafficked across the border by these cartels into places across the country, including my district in southwest Virginia, increased by 38 percent from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2018. That same period saw a 22 percent increase in heroin and an astonishing 73 percent increase in fentanyl. Even when current security measures intercept people crossing the border illegally, there isn't enough room in facilities to detain these individuals until a judicial hearing can be held. Accordingly, most illegal immigrants are released with notice to appear at a hearing in the future. By the time of the hearing, they have either disappeared back into the clutches of the cartels or into the underground economy. In my opinion, these facts classify the situation on the southern border as a crisis. President Trump has asked for $5.7 billion to build a barrier on the southern border, and additional funding for personnel. What is more, he is willing to negotiate with the Democrats in the House and in the Senate. Congressional Republicans are also ready to compromise. In contrast, Democrat leaders refuse to budge. They say they will give no money for a wall. Speaker Pelosi even called a wall immoral. Her views on a barrier's immorality may come as a surprise to many on her side of the aisle. When Congress voted on the Secure Fence Act, which provided for 700 miles of fencing in 2006, it received the support of 64 Democrats in the House and 26 in the Senate, including Chuck Schumer, now the Senate Democrat leader, and then-Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Instead, she appears afraid to get to yes on a deal with the President. Speaker Pelosi appears to be afraid to get to that deal. Another objection she has raised to the wall is that illegal drugs and other smuggled goods also come through our legal ports of entry rather than across the border. President Trump responded by including an additional $675 million to combat smuggling at the ports of entry. Further, Democrats say the government should be reopened before they can come to the table. But when debating immigration last summer, the House Democrats never offered a compromise on a wall. When debating spending bills this fall, House Democrats never offered to compromise on a wall. For 30 years, the American people have been promised a barrier on the southern border. Particularly for the last 4 months when the government was, in fact, open, the last 4 months of 2018, House Democrats didn't offer a solution. Why should anyone believe now that, if the government is reopened, they will suddenly find a way to compromise? Reaching a compromise is difficult when one side doesn't admit there is a problem. A porous border has caused a crisis. I urge Speaker Pelosi to come to the table. Let's talk about ways to secure the border, protect the American people, end the humanitarian crisis, and reopen the government.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for recognizing me tonight. I appreciate it. Recognizing that the time is drawing short, and we have lots of other people who want to speak on this issue, I will attempt to keep myself in check on the time. Mr. Speaker, everybody knows we have to secure our border. When we talk about building the wall, we are not talking just about bricks and mortar. We are talking about securing our borders with all devices available to us, whether that be drones or smart fences like they have in Israel where they protect 17 miles of border with a fence that, if something hits it, they send people out to see what is going on. We have to use all the tools in the toolbox. And the $5 billion is just the start on what we need to do to protect all of our borders, but it is an important start. We have heard about the drug crisis, and all of our districts are affected by it. A lot of times, people say in the mountains of southwest Virginia: Morgan, why are you so concerned about this illegal immigration? Let me tell you why. The Mexican drug cartels are bringing methamphetamine into my district. They use it as a distribution area. They are the main supplier of that drug. Now that we have gotten opioids a little bit under control, and we are starting to get that where it should be, the Mexican cartels are our biggest problem in the mountains of southwest Virginia. It is important that we secure our borders, build the wall, protect the American people, protect our borders, and protect our laws.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of Carwyn Jones, who stood down as the First Minister of Wales on December 11. Throughout his nine years as First Minister, Carwyn consistently acted to strengthen the enduring bond between the Welsh and the American peoples. From its earliest days, the Welsh people have maintained an active and important presence in the United States. People of Welsh descent signed our Declaration of Independence and served as President. Welsh immigrants worked on the farms, in the mines, and in the mills that drove our country's economic ascendance. Today, an estimated 11 million people in the United States possess Welsh ancestry. Their proportion of the population is highest in Appalachia and the mid-Atlantic states, but they can be found across the country. The ties between Wales and the United States are also economic, as over 250 American-owned companies are based in Wales, and many Welsh businesses conduct operations in the United States. As First Minister, Carwyn Jones has been a champion of the long- lasting friendship between Wales and the United States. He has been a strong supporter of the Congressional Friends of Wales Caucus, which raises the profile of Wales in Washington, D.C. As an advocate for greater economic ties between our nations, he has worked to increase prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic. His belief in the continued importance of the historic ties between Wales, the wider United Kingdom, and the United States made him a valued friend and partner of our country. As the founder and chairman of the Congressional Friends of Wales Caucus, I value Carwyn's contributions to our success, which includes his repeated attendance at the annual St. David's Day receptions in Washington, D.C., and other U.S. locations. His efforts on behalf of Welsh-American friendship have yielded economic, political, and cultural benefits that will be enjoyed by both of our nations for years to come.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Jane L. Hough, who passed away on August 11 at the age of 91. She was a friend to me and to many who live in Salem, the city she loved. While most notable as the first woman to serve on Salem's City Council, she contributed in many ways to the welfare of her community. Jane was born in Norton and grew up in the coalfields of Virginia. She attended Randolph Macon Women's College, where she earned a dual degree in Latin and math. Her son Andy told the Roanoke Times that she still spoke fluent Latin years after graduating, but she drew on her math degree to teach algebra at Andrew Lewis High School. Jane was a longtime member of the Salem Republican Committee. In 1972, she decided to run for Salem's City Council. She ran as an independent, won, and served three terms, helping Salem find its footing in its early years as an independent city. Her leadership boosted the city's fiscal health. During her tenure, she served on the executive board of the Virginia Municipal League and the National League of Cities' Small City Commission. Jane's active citizenship in Salem extended beyond her time in elected office. Beside her career as a teacher prior to her time on City Council, she mentored children at the Virginia Baptist Children's Home supervised by her husband Franklin. Beginning in 1953, she also helped beautify the city by planting and landscaping as a member of the Salem Garden Club. Jane is survived by Franklin, her husband of 69 years; their four children, Frank, Amelia, Jay, and Andy; their four grandchildren, Amy, Morgen, Lucy, and Samantha; and their great-grandchildren, Amelia and Olivia. She will be missed in Salem, the city for which she did so much.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor the 150th anniversary of E. Dillon & Company of Swords Creek, Virginia. Since 1868, E. Dillon & Company has operated in the mining, concrete, and masonry business. It began with Colonel Edward Dillon, a superintendent of construction for the James River and Kanawha Canal Company, and his discovery of limestone deposits in Botetourt County. Dillon built a lime kiln near the Town of Buchanan and began supplying agricultural, masonry, and calcium lime, using the James River to ship his products east. E. Dillon & Company eventually moved closer to Buchanan and then expanded to a second location in Swords Creek, where the company is now headquartered. Among the items it produces and sells today are construction aggregate, glass dolomite, mineral fillers and extenders, and coal mining products, as well as concrete masonry products. Over 100 employees work at their facility, which overlooks the Clinch River. For its commitment to environmental stewardship and safety, E. Dillon & Company was recognized with an Environmental Quality award in 2017 by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, Division of Gas and Oil and the Virginia Oil and Gas Association. The world looks very different than it did in 1868, a world of telegraphs and railroads. Today, we have a world of smart phones and reusable rockets. Despite all the changes, E. Dillon & Company still stands as a pillar of Southwest Virginia's economy. E. Dillon & Company will celebrate its milestone anniversary on August 4, 2018. I congratulate all associated with the company on the occasion and extend my best wishes for their continued success.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much, and I appreciate my colleague for introducing this amendment. He is absolutely right. The Clean Air Act never gave the EPA this authority. They just created it out of thin air. Their rationale is kind of interesting, because they took the authority that said that they could regulate new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, and then the definition of new motor vehicle meaning any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or properties on a street or highway, and applied it to trailers. They are not self-propelled. When I asked Janet McCabe, who was the Acting Director of the Air Division of the EPA, when she came in front of the Energy and Commerce Committee how in the world could they do this, and I presumed she wasn't a lawyer and she said: Well, yes, I am. I was surprised, because the language is pretty clear. They don't have the ability to do that. She said: Well, you can't haul any goods if the trailer is not attached to a truck. That is not in the code. The code says that they only have authority over self-propelled vehicles. They created this out of whole cloth. It doesn't make any sense to allow an agency to create law. That is our job, and I told her that that day. I said: Look, you think this needs to be changed, bring in a bill, and we will discuss it. They have never done that. They don't have authority. We shouldn't fund something that is clearly illegal based on the plain English reading of the terms.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I appreciate Chairman Calvert's support as well, and the appropriators' hard work on this. This was created by Hal Rogers. It is fascinating because what happens is that people say they want us to transition the economy in central Appalachia. This is one of the ways to do that, and it actually saves money. We have a project in my district that we are close to getting finalized on this, where it would cost $6.7 million to clean up a site, if we did it the normal way. With this program, which we wish to continue, it will only cost the government about 2.5, $2.6 million, and we end up with a site that can be used again for economic development and jobs in Appalachia.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, it is our duty, as this Congress, to find and to hold in contempt those people who do not respond, and then to take their persons into possession and have them explain to a judge how it is that they plan to purge themselves of that contempt. It is reasonable that we give them notice before such action is taken.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and appreciate the time. I would say that that is a good bill, and I am glad to have been an original cosponsor with the gentleman from North Carolina on the bill related to making sure that families are not separated. Now, the previous gentleman also said for us to do our jobs. It is curious, because, as I understand it, part of our job is to make sure that we are overseeing the Federal Government. Our Founding Fathers created something that had never been created before, a checks-and- balance system. There was supposed to be a natural tension between the various branches, and Congress is supposed to be an equal branch with the power of oversight over the administrative branch to make sure that they are following the laws and to make sure that they are meting out justice evenhandedly. That is what this resolution is about. But Congress too often sits back and does not do anything. It just says: Oh, well, we can't get that information. We are so sorry. This resolution points out that we have been patiently waiting for some of these documents for years, for months, for weeks, for the administrative branch of government to respond to its coequal branch, the United States Congress, and they have refused to do so. I would submit that this is a very measured resolution; that it does not immediately call for holding somebody in contempt, or holding somebody to find that somebody should be impeached. It says, instead: Here is the deadline. What we are trying to seek here are the facts. If you are afraid of the facts, then, yes, you stand up on the floor and you rail about all other kinds of issues. But the facts, the truth, needs to come out for the American people. So I would submit that this resolution is very reasonable and ought to be passed. Because if there is not a response, it is our duty to hold those who do not respond properly in contempt.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he might consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).