Floor Statements

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

If the gentleman would tell me.

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. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman.

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. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

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

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?

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. 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. 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.

Will the gentleman yield for a second?

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

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?

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

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.

Hear, hear, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that we are working on some technology right now that allows us to extract rare earth minerals out of some of our coal deposits to the United States and be able to take some of that business away from the Chinese and bring it back to the United States

Mr. Speaker, I just have to bring this up: I was meeting with some folks at Virginia Tech recently who are working on this very area. And as a part of the spinoff of the research and the technology they are doing to refine it and to try to get the other minerals out, they have also found a way of using that same technology to improve the steel industry. And they are now licensing some steel companies in India, which would lower their carbon footprint.

So we have the research into coal that is now going to help the steel industry in an area that doesn't have anywhere near the regulations we have to lower their carbon footprint.

This is the way we should be going in the United States: Use our entrepreneurial spirit; use our research; put some Federal money behind that research, but use our research to find ways to make the environment, worldwide, better instead of proclaiming broad edicts that we are not going to have cows in 10 years, or we are not going to do this in 10 years.

Instead, let's let our research and our entrepreneurial spirit and our ingenuity solve these problems for us and the world.

Absolutely.

Madam Speaker, I rise In honor of Kevin Corbett of Bristol, Virginia, who passed away on February 15, 2019, at the age of 63. Kevin was filled with devotion to the people of the City of Bristol.

In Kevin's younger years, he served his country by enlisting in the United States Army. As an Armor Crewman, he eventually rose to

Staff Sergeant. He continued his service in Bristol by joining its Police Department in 1982. When he retired in 2006, he was a Detective Lieutenant in the Criminal Investigation Division.

Outside of his career, he remained a beloved and active presence in the Bristol community. I knew him for his work on the Ninth District Republican Committee, where he was the Bristol Unit Chairman and represented the district on the State Central Committee. As a member of St. Anne Catholic Church, he was devoted to his God and his parish.

Kevin will be long remembered by many for his kindnesses. Befitting a man who followed a career path of service, he was always willing to help others. His survivors include his two children, Allison and Shawn, five grandchildren, and his sister, Jackie Collins. I offer my condolences to them on the loss of this fine man.

Madam Speaker, I rise in memory of Lou Wacker, who died on February 15, 2019, at the age of 84. Mr. Wacker was the celebrated football coach for 23 seasons at my alma mater, Emory & Henry College, where he compiled an impressive record and shaped the lives of many young men. The Richmond Times-Dispatch quoted him as saying on his retirement, ``To say that Emory & Henry College and the football program have been a big part of my life for 23 years would be an understatement; it has been my life.''

Coach Wacker was a native of Richmond and excelled at football during his time at the University of Richmond. Before his tenure at Emory & Henry, he was a defensive coordinator at Hampden-Sydney College. His arrival at Emory & Henry in 1982 started an incredible run for the Wasps. By the time he retired in 2004, his teams had compiled a 164-76 record, including seventeen consecutive winning seasons, a 37-game winning streak from 1991 to 1998, and eleven Old Dominion Athletic Conference Championships.

After retiring, Coach Wacker stayed close to Emory. For his great success, he received many honors, including induction into the Emory & Henry College Hall of Fame and the Virginia Sports Hall of Fame. The home grandstand at Emory & Henry's football stadium also bears his name. The many players and assistants he mentored over the years will remember him for his skill as a coach and for the impact he had on them.

Coach Wacker's survivors include his children Bruce, Kristen, and Louis, and his grandchildren Anna Whitehead, Adele Kraus, and Robin Kraus. I offer my condolences to them on their loss.

Madam Speaker, the Commonwealth of Virginia mourns the loss of Trooper Lucas B. Dowell of the Virginia State Police. Trooper Dowell was killed in the line of duty on February 4, 2019, at the age of 28. His life, although too short, showed a commitment to the rigorous calling of law enforcement.

Trooper Dowell was a native of Chilhowie in Smyth County. He participated in athletics during his days at Chilhowie High School, playing football and baseball. After graduating in 2009, he pursued an interest in law enforcement. At Radford University, he earned a bachelor's degree in criminal justice. He graduated from the Virginia State Police's 122nd Basic Session in November 2014 and subsequently served in its Appomattox Division. While executing a search warrant in Cumberland County as part of a Virginia State Police Tactical Team, a suspect opened fire and Trooper Dowell was hit. He later died at Southside Community Hospital in Farmville.

Law enforcement can be a demanding vocation, requiring sacrifices that may include, as the example of Trooper Dowell shows, the ultimate sacrifice, one's life. This is a loss for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Smyth County, and the Town of Chilhowie. I mourn his loss, yet I am grateful that he and the other men

and women of law enforcement step forward to protect us knowing full well the risks they face. Trooper Dowell's survivors include his parents, Mike and Rebecca, and his sister, Erica. His family is in my prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all who have been here today giving speeches.

The government shutdown is now over, but the crisis continues on the border. About 10 days ago, I was down on the border, and I saw firsthand what was happening down there and talked to people who were down there.

So, hopefully, during this time period, because the Democrats said repeatedly that if we reopen the government they would negotiate, hopefully we can negotiate and come to a bipartisan resolution that will help us to secure our southern border and continue to work on other ways that we can improve our immigration process.

Madam Speaker, I offer these remarks in honor of Glen Wood, a founder of the legendary Wood Brothers

NASCAR racing team, who died on January 18, 2019 at the age of 93. Glen Wood was a giant of auto racing, an owner and driver on the longest- running team in NASCAR history.

Stock car racing has a long and storied heritage in Southwest and Southside Virginia, and Glen Wood, a native of Stuart in Patrick County, made notable contributions of his own to the sport. A trip to Daytona Beach in 1947 fired Mr. Wood's passion for racing, but he earned his place in racing history three years later when he founded Wood Brothers Racing with his brother Leonard. As he recalled to the Associated Press, ``We started racing in 1950 with a car we bought for $50. We put No. 50 on the side of the car because it just seemed like the right thing to do.''

Wood Brothers Racing eventually changed the number to 21, and they became a powerhouse, winning 99 victories in over 1,500 starts in NASCAR's top division. Glen Wood earned four of them himself as a driver. Many of the others were won by some of the sport's greatest competitors, including Cale Yarborough, Curtis Turner, A.J. Foyt, and David Pearson, driving for the Wood Brothers team. The Wood Brothers also brought innovation to the pit stop, drastically reducing its average length. These accomplishments garnered Glen Wood many accolades, including a place in the NASCAR Hall of Fame and recognition as one of NASCAR's 50 Greatest Drivers.

Glen Wood was known for his success on the race track and for his gentlemanly demeanor off it. In his later years, he could be found at the Wood Brothers Racing Museum in Stuart greeting fans with his wife Bernece. Wood Brothers Racing remains a family business to this day, with Glen's oldest son Eddie now its president. Glen Wood was a towering figure in auto racing, and his legacy still endures. I offer my condolences to Mr. Wood's family on their loss.

Article III, Section 1:

``The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.''

Section 2:

``The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State,-- between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.''

Article IV, Section 1:

``Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.''

Section 2:

``The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

``A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

``No Person held to Service or Labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labor, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due.''

Section 3:

``New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.''

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to discuss a trip that was recently made to our southern border in Arizona with the sovereign state of Mexico. Mr. Biggs headed that party up, and at this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for a question.

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the gentleman's remarks, of course I was there and saw this rope as well, but I think the folks back home need to be aware of this rope. We are not talking about some massive rope. We are talking about--what?--an inch, half-inch, quarter-inch rope?

Mr. Speaker, in fact, was it not accurate that you could actually roll back part of the barbed wire fence once you took the rope off and you could have multiple people coming through at any given moment?

Mr. Speaker, the reason that illegal immigrants or drug cartels would like it that way is that they can roll that back and, wearing their carpeted shoes which prevent tracking, they can then come in there, put it back, and that way the border agents who are working that area won't have any idea that somebody has actually come through there because they can't really tell. There is a well-worn track, but you won't know when somebody has come through.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman if that is his impression as well.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, there, they had a road as well, which our border agents told us was very helpful. When you have a wall, you have a road next to it to help catch those folks who are trying to come through. But they had a device up, also, made of heavy metal and concrete to prevent the drug traffickers from using vehicles at that point and bringing their stuff in and just loading it onto a vehicle.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman if that isn't correct.

Mr. Speaker, continuing in this colloquy with my friend from Arizona, I ask if he would agree that when we heard from the border agents that the wall--this bollard fencing, wall, however you want to describe it--is important, but things like having roads where you can get in are also important, because we heard numerous stories.

I would like for the gentleman to maybe tell one, about how the agents may be able to see through electronic devices that somebody has crossed the border, but then it may take them hours to get there. I remember several specific stories, but I just wondered if Mr. Biggs remembered any stories like that.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that we heard this repeatedly, and what we heard is that we need the wall to help channel this flow of illegal immigrants. We need the wall to make sure that we have some idea of what is going on. We need the electronic surveillance.

So this is not a one-size-fits-all kind of situation, but we need the electronic surveillance to help when we are monitoring the wall. We need additional folks on horseback. We need additional canine units.

We heard from one agent that we need, at the Customs department, density equipment so they can test to see if a tire is supposed to be a certain density. If it is twice as dense as it is supposed to be, they know that something is being hidden in that tire, some contraband, most likely drugs, and so this is important.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for additional questions. I would like to continue our colloquy. I don't know if his colleague, also from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, would like to join in that colloquy as well.

I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Biggs of Arizona, did he also find it interesting that almost everybody who we talked to, and certainly all of the border guards and all of the ranchers right on the border, specifically said a wall would be helpful; but there were other things that needed to be done as well?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar). Would the gentleman tell me some of the stories related to fencing or additional equipment and how those fences will channel people; where it makes it easier to keep track of who is crossing that border? Did he have any stories that he might like to speak of?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will tell that story, because what happened is very interesting.

The Border Patrol was there and an individual did cross the fence. Sometimes people say: Well, the people can climb over the fence. They can, but it slows them down and allows the border agents, using cameras and being there live on the scene, to intercept those people.

And, sure enough, there we are, standing--I think we kind of acted as blockers. This fellow comes over the fence and drops down. The border agents are moving fast, and there we are standing where the natural escape route would be. While we didn't do anything heroic, and we had to watch the border security agents do their job very professionally, they got the gentleman into custody fairly quickly, it was because there was a wall, agents, and a whole team of equipment working together: the cameras, the wall, and the agents working together.

If you don't have a wall there, they are never seeing that guy; they are never catching that guy, because he had to rise up and be seen in order to cross the border wall/fence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for the conclusion on this great trip.

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

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. 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. Speaker, shocking. I mean, you know, it was shocking. And then the trail, if I remember correctly, and Mr. Gohmert can correct me if I am wrong, but the trail then goes on up into the hills.

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?

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.

Amazing.

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.

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. 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. Speaker, she had no idea who we were until she walked over and said that and then was invited to address us: Well, you have some Members of the United States Congress here. Why don't you tell them what you think we need to do?

There wasn't any question. These folks who live right down there on the border, they believe that the wall, fence, whatever you want to call that structure there in your picture, they believe that that helps, that it is not the whole equation, but that it is a big help and that we have to do it.

They were very encouraging to us, to a person, to continue to work hard to try to secure that border, to stop this humanitarian crisis, to stop our security crisis, to stop the environmental crisis.

That one person was adamant that this is devastating. He was an environmentalist person who really was very, very concerned about what had happened to the ecology in his area and to the environment. He attributes that directly to the flood of not a handful of people, but tens of thousands coming across.

One of the ranchers that we talked to, their ranch is looking at 10,000 or more people coming across there every year.

We are not talking about a trickle. We are talking about a flood. We are talking about a crisis.

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. Speaker, a point of parliamentary inquiry.

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

A further parliamentary inquiry.

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.

I appreciate the answer, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. That is illuminating.

A further parliamentary inquiry.

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.

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. 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. 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.