H. Griffith

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6028) to modify the appointment and removal process for certain legislative branch officers, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the service of Fallen Deputy Logan Utt. The 9th Congressional District of Virginia and the entire Commonwealth of Virginia mourn the loss of Carroll County Sheriff's Deputy Logan Utt. As part of a welfare check, Deputy Utt responded to a law enforcement request on Friday, May 29, 2026. However, what Deputy Utt and his colleague faced next was a tragedy. The situation unfolded into sudden gunfire. In the line of duty, Deputy Utt was tragically shot and killed. Service was a core pillar of Deputy Utt's identity, character and life. At an early age, he showed an interest in helping his community. As a high school student in Carroll County, Virginia, he proudly joined the Cana Volunteer Fire Department. Not only did Deputy Utt serve his local community, but he gave his life to his country as well. Following his graduation from Carroll County High School, the U.S. Air Force entrusted Deputy Utt with an opportunity to give back to his country. American strength and our military might are unmatched thanks to dedicated servicemembers like Deputy Utt. Once Deputy Utt completed his military service, he joined the Carroll County Sheriff's Office in 2023. Once again, he made important strides to serve his local community by supporting the needs of law enforcement. Law enforcement and community members mourn the tragic loss of their beloved colleague and friend. Carroll County Sheriff Kevin Kemp described Deputy Utt as a devoted husband, loving father, cherished family member. friend and respected member of our law enforcement community. A regional ceremonial escort from Roanoke, Virginia, to Mount Airy, North Carolina, was widely attended by many communities to pay their respects. Deputy Utt's death in the line of duty reminds us all that law enforcement never rests to protect and serve Virginia communities. Service in law enforcement is time-consuming, stressful and demanding. But that did not distract Deputy Utt from being a caring husband and father. He is survived by the love of his life, his wife, Katlin ``K.T.'' Utt; his beloved children, Silas and Bertie, who were the pride and joy of his life; his grandmother, Frances ``Nana'' Utt; his brothers, Jess Edwards and Lee Edwards; and his sisters, Hassidy Capps and Sarah Blair (Matt). Deputy Utt was 31 years old. The pain and shock from his tragic death will weigh heavily on Virginia's 9th District and make healing difficult. But the memory of a loving man, public servant and veteran who worked hard to make others safe and free will resonate for many years to come.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 82nd anniversary of D-Day. On June 6, 1944, American soldiers raced into the mouth of the Nazi war machine, storming the beaches of Normandy. For the town of Bedford, Virginia, D-Day is always particularly poignant. Twenty boys from Bedford lost their lives on D-Day. Bedford suffered the highest D-Day death toll per capita of any American community. We honor and remember our D-Day heroes with the National D-Day Memorial located in Bedford. This year, the memorial celebrates its 25th anniversary. However, this will be the first D-Day since the passing of memorial advocate Lucille Hoback Boggess. Ms. Hoback Boggess had two brothers killed on D-Day, and she helped lead efforts to create the memorial with founder Bob Slaughter. We continue to follow in her footsteps, preserving the legacy of her brothers and the many heroes who served in Normandy and through their heroism cracked the wall of Hitler's fortress Europe.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Carter Family descendant, Ms. Rita Forrester, who worked for years in Southwest Virginia to preserve the storied legacy of an American country music icon, the Carter Family. Therefore, I include in the Record a proclamation in their honor: Whereas, The Original Carter Family, A.P., Sara, and Maybelle, changed Country Music history, and helped establish the fabric of American Country Music, beginning in 1927, with their first recordings during what Johnny Cash referred to as the ``Big Bang of Country Music.'' Over succeeding decades, they introduced hundreds of songs that became the canon of ``songs everybody knows,'' including ``Wildwood Flower,'' ``Keep on the Sunny Side,'' ``Will the Circle Be Unbroken,'' and ``The Wabash Cannonball;'' Whereas, Janette Carter, daughter of A.P. and Sara, fulfilled a deathbed promise to her father to ``carry the music forward.'' drew on her legacy, her faith, and on the strength and inspiration of family and friends, and founded ``The Carter Family Fold,'' weekly live traditional Country Music program in the valley, at the homeplace of the Carter Family. Thus, the Carter Family Fold became a vital part of our contemporary cultural story; Whereas, Janette's daughter, Rita Forrester assisted her mother in producing and running the weekly show and travelling to events regionally, nationally, and internationally, to receive accolades and awards, at one point, meeting British Prime Minister, Margret Thatcher; Whereas, Rita persevered, helping to maintain consistent quality, authentic experience for all who came regularly from every state in the nation and many countries around the world to experience authentic traditional Country Music, even when tragedies struck, such as the week her house burned taking the life of her beloved husband; Whereas, Rita Forrester, on the event of her mother's passing, assumed duties as the director, steadfastly ensuring that this important part of our cultural heritage would continue, performing tasks including scheduling, hosting and introducing the performances, personally making homemade chili for the audience, and travelling to represent the Carter Family Fold and the family; Whereas, Rita's humble, gentle manner belies her powerful influence. In days when social media and artificial intelligence replace cultural heritage that has sustained our families for generations, those who nurture our traditional arts become the heroes of our society; and Therefore, in the old style of building a home, there was a foundational hearthstone, or ``heart stone'' as it was called by some ancient Scots. Sich is the power of Rita Forrester's devotion, commitment, and steadfast faith that they are inextricably woven into the legacy of the Carter Family. Rita Forrester is recognized as a vital part of the foundation of the Carter Family Fold, and a Heart Stone of our culture.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have before us the MILCON-VA bill. For folks watching at home, I will translate: military construction at our bases and Veterans Affairs, which is our VA hospitals, et cetera. That is what this rule has in it. It also has a number of bills related to law enforcement making things better: the monitoring systems, the bail systems, cashless bonds, et cetera. These are good bills, and the rule ought to be passed, as I said before. I would be remiss if I didn't speak about the fact that this is Police Week. It is one of the reasons why we have these bills and others in front of us. This year, unfortunately, and it has happened before since I have been in office, an officer was killed in the Ninth Congressional District. Officer Hall was killed in an inmate attack at the River North Correctional Center in Independence, Virginia, which is in Grayson County in November of last year. Two additional officers were attacked at that time. Both are physically doing okay, but, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how you ever get over an act of violence where you witnessed a colleague, a friend, a brother in law enforcement, being murdered. That is really what we are about this week, and this rule promotes four bills that will help. It doesn't solve everything. It doesn't resolve everything. Jeremy Hall will be remembered in another resolution coming up this week that we will be voting on to honor fallen law enforcement officers. We can also honor them all by taking these steps forward in trying to make our system better and recognizing that we probably ought not let violent felons, people who have already committed crimes, out on either no bond or low bond. We probably ought to make sure that the folks posting the bonds are capable and available to actually ensure the presence of the defendant at trial. Mr. Speaker, I left this out earlier, and I apologize. It is a big part of the bail system. It is also to ensure their good behavior while out on bond. It is both presence on the court date and good behavior between the time the bond is posted and the time of that court date. What the data shows us is that without one of these bills, there is an increase from 62 percent to 72 percent of recidivism. That helps our police officers and honors those who have been wounded, physically or psychologically, while serving in law enforcement, and those who answered the last call, like Officer Hall. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will vote to put this rule forward. I urge the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation. The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows: An Amendment To H. Res. 1275 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 10. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 7711) to prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 11. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX and clause 8 of rule XX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 7711. Sec. 12. The Clerk shall transmit to the Senate a message that the House has passed H.R. 7711 no later than three calendar days after passage.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I am to be pilloried on the floor of the United States House, let us get the facts correct. First, I am sure that WJHL, a television station, would not appreciate being called a newspaper. Second, let me read you the first quote. Griffith: ``I have mixed feelings. I personally think that some of those folks who assaulted police officers deserve some of the time they got.'' If I am to be pilloried, there is what I said. The following week, in the Rules Committee, in response to questions from my colleague, I responded that I did not have every case in front of me, speaking of pardons. It is a difficult decision, and I would have had a hard time pardoning people who assaulted police officers on any occasion. If I am to be pilloried, let's get the record straight, and I think the same would be true for many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. Let's talk about violent criminals because we have a bill in front of us today that will deal with that. We have the charitable--the phraseology is the ``charitable bail funds.'' We have a bill in front of us that will treat them as insurance. Now, people may think at home, if they are watching this, what in the world do bail bonds have to do with insurance? Well, having been a criminal defense attorney, I can assure you that the insurance is to ensure that people show up for their court dates, and that is what bonds are for. If you put up a bond, an insurance company usually writes that. If it is a corporate surety bond, that is usually what you have. Sometimes, you have property bonds, and there are other ways of doing it. If you have a corporate surety bond or a group comes forward and puts the money up for you, that group ensures that you will be present in court, or you forfeit the amount that you have put forward. That is all fine and good. We have charitable groups out there, and they are looking at cases where you have people who can't afford it, but it is not a violent crime or something where there is a danger to the public. I understand that. That is what the bill does. It says we are going to treat them like they are insurance companies because they are, in fact, stepping into the shoes of an insurance company. It is not grandma who is putting up her house, which many of my clients had their grandmas put up their houses to guarantee they would be present in court when they were supposed to be there to be tried for their offenses. They are acting like those corporate surety bonds. They are stepping into those shoes, and they ought to be treated accordingly under the law. Then, we heard a whole litany--and I really didn't want to get into it--a whole litany of things that people did who were doing bad things on January 6 and did some bad things afterward, as well. I point out also that that is not before us at this very minute. What is before us is a bill on these charity bonds and cashless bonds. When people are released on cashless bonds or artificially low bail, they have a greater propensity to reoffend, as I said in my opening. Because I feel compelled, for example, in Wisconsin, Darrell Brooks was released on a $1,000 bond after running over a woman with a vehicle, despite a lengthy criminal history and an additional outstanding warrant. Brooks was previously charged with aggravated battery and had an outstanding warrant in Nevada after skipping bail for a sex-related crime. Then, on November 21, 2021, Brooks drove through a Christmas parade, injuring over 50 individuals, killing 6, 1 of whom was an 8- year-old child. A March 2023 study, which I mentioned before, by researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, found that approximately 72 percent of violent felony offenders who were released without bail were rearrested. We could stand here and go through hours of this, but, Mr. Speaker, we have before us a good number of bills that deal with trying to make our communities a little bit safer, giving people more information, and trying to make sure we are getting it right, trying to help our police officers and our local communities be safer. These are all good bills. They may not do everything that everybody wants, but these bills before us and this rule that we are presenting are good bills. Then, we have the MILCON-VA bill, which passed out of the Appropriations Committee unanimously, 58-0. I believe that we should pass these bills. The first step in doing that is passing the rule so we can bring the bills to the floor with set time for debate. There will be plenty of time for debate. There will be time on the MILCON-VA bill to go over amendments and to then consider as a House, as the House for the United States, whether or not we want to pass them. I think we should. The first step is we have got to pass this rule. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to all vote ``yes'' to bring these bills to the floor. My colleagues on the other side can debate whatever deficiencies they may see in the bills and have their time to tell the American people about those bills. I really wish they would focus, when we are talking about a rule, on the rule to bring the bills to the floor and not all these other matters. I understand they want to talk about other things. I get it. That is the role of the minority. However, Mr. Speaker, as the majority, we need to pass this rule. Mr. Speaker, I advise that whenever my colleagues are ready, I am prepared to close. I urge my colleagues to pass this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) said something last night about not having heard voices on our side of the aisle talking about the pardons, and Mr. Scott said: I did. I had a problem with it. That was Mr. Austin Scott from Georgia. I would remind the gentleman that he and I had a colloquy in the Rules Committee on February 4, 2025, on that same subject where I indicated that I had significant concerns about pardoning folks who had assaulted police officers. It is not fair. That was something they pulled up because I am a member of the Rules Committee, and they brought it up in the Rules Committee meeting because I made a comment to the media in my home district. I am sure there are lots of other Republicans who have done the same, raised some concerns, raised some issues, and as a result, the White House came out with some explanations. People can choose to accept or not accept those explanations. It is what it is. But a number of us did raise concerns about that at the time. Now, that being said, we have some bills before us today that are good bills. That is what we are supposed to be talking about. We have got bills that deal with monitoring of courts. We have got bail bills that we are dealing with. There are a number of things. We have got a resolution that expresses Congress' support for our law enforcement, which I think we are all in agreement on, and the gentleman said as much that we all support our local law enforcement and our law enforcement folks out there. I would say, Mr. Speaker, let's look at these bills. That is what we are debating now is whether or not to bring these bills to the floor. I think all the bills that we presented should be brought to the floor. We can talk about other bills on another day, but these bills are appropriately before the House. Then let's talk about the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies funding bill from Appropriations, which passed unanimously out of committee. My colleague has indicated that we are offering a handful of amendments. Now, I have managed a couple of these rules before, and some of them have been closed. He consistently says: You haven't allowed any amendments, and now he depicts the amendments that we are allowing as a ``handful.'' A majority of those--in fact, it is a supermajority of those that were theoretically in order, and it is 51. Now, by my count, Mr. Speaker, that is 10 handfuls and a little bit more. It is not a handful of amendments. It is 10 handfuls. I would have to get a whole line of people here to hold on to all these amendments. We are going to hear debate on them, and we are going to have discussion about it. So it gives you some idea of the hyperbole that my friends on the other side of the aisle are using when you take 51 amendments and depict them as a mere handful. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with some interest. It sounds like he doesn't like the current occupant of the White House and has serious concerns about that, but it doesn't sound like he dislikes any of the bills that much because he didn't spend much time talking about them. That is what this rule is about--bringing those bills to the floor. In the MILCON-VA appropriations bill that passed out of the Appropriations Committee unanimously, I grant you, there were things in there that Democrats didn't like and things in there that Republicans didn't like. Yet, as we heard last night in the Rules Committee, the Appropriations Committee came together. They all had to compromise on certain things, but they got the bill done, and they felt like it was, overall, a good bill. There were certain disagreements, but overall, they felt like it was a good bill. Then, we are doing some things, and they may want to do more, but we are doing some things that are very positive for law enforcement and for our local communities that will help communities be able to better figure out what is going on, whether it be bail or the monitoring system, et cetera. That is what we are discussing here today. There is lots of time in the leadership hours and in the morning hour to give 1 minutes, 5 minutes, or an hourlong speech. Yet, today, we are supposed to be discussing during this time period the rule that brings to the floor four bills that are good bills and an appropriations bill. I am glad to hear that there is not a whole lot of consternation about the bills that we are presenting this rule on. While there may be disagreement on other items, I am glad that we are moving forward on that. It is always tempting when you are here presenting a rule to get dragged into the cesspool or the thoughts that the other side wants to talk about, but that is what I am here to talk about: the bills that are in the rule that we are presenting today. Apparently, they are pretty good. I know they don't like them 100 percent, but they must be pretty good, or they would have spent more time talking about them in the opening salvo of this debate on the rule. So, I think that should encourage all Members, both Democrats and Republicans, to vote for the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Rules Committee met yesterday and reported out a rule providing for consideration of five measures: H.R. 5626, the Cashless Bail Reporting Act; H.R. 6260, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act of 2025; H.R. 8365, the Monitor Accountability Act; H. Con. Res. 96, Expressing Support For Law Enforcement Officers; and H.R. 8469, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2027. House Resolution 1275 provides for consideration of H.R. 5625, H.R. 6260, and H.R. 8365, each under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate for each bill, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees, and provides for each bill one motion to recommitment. The rule further provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 96, Expressing Support For Law Enforcement Officers, under a closed rule with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees. Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8469, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2027, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. The rule provides 1 motion to recommit and makes 51 amendments in order. This rule will provide for consideration of several important bills, Mr. Speaker, that I believe will improve the safety of our local communities and the law enforcement officers that serve them. It will also bring the first appropriations bill for fiscal year 2027 to the floor so we can begin the process of passing the bills before the September 30 end of the fiscal year. First, I would like to start by saying thank you to our law enforcement officers, particularly since this week is Police Week. We honor our law enforcement officers and the men and women who gave their lives in the line of duty. I am glad we are bringing bills to the floor this week to do Congress' part in helping and honoring law enforcement officers. Among those is H.R. 6260, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act. This bill provides commonsense accountability measures for charitable bail funds. These are organizations that use money given as donations to bail out defendants, many of whom have been charged with violent felonies or whom are repeat offenders. Charitable bail funds have consistently helped release violent criminals back onto our streets where they have committed robbery, assault, kidnapping, and even murder in some cases. H.R. 6260 closes loopholes that have allowed for potential fraudulent practices and include charitable bail funds as entities ``engaged in the business of insurance,'' thereby ensuring that charitable bail funds will be subject to the criminal provisions under Federal law that apply thereto. Another bill in this rule is H.R. 5625, the Cashless Bail Reporting Act. This legislation requires the Department of Justice to publish an annual report listing the State and local governments that allow cashless bail for criminals who pose a clear threat to public safety. Recently, destructive policies in some States and cities are allowed for the gradual elimination of monetary bail systems and, as a result, has led to increased crime. According to a March 2023 study conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, the percentage of violent felony offenders who were rearrested increased from 62 to 72 percent. The correlation is clear: Cashless bail policy leads to increased crime in our communities, and the American people should know if their local governments are participating in these ill-advised programs. Additionally, this rule brings to the floor H.R. 8365, the Monitor Accountability Act. This bill provides for needed reforms for court monitors, which are independent officials whose job it is to conduct oversight during court proceedings. While many court monitors have performed their duties well, others have initiated unnecessarily long agreements and have charged government agencies with the expensive fees. H.R. 8365 curbs the excesses of court monitors by imposing a maximum term of service, regulates the fee amount a monitor may charge, and sets general expectations for the court monitor industry. This bill codifies many of the recommendations that then-Attorney General Garland put into place after the Biden administration reviewed the Federal monitoring program. This rule also brings up H. Con. Res. 96, a resolution that supports National Police Week by honoring the courageous law enforcement officers across our Nation who put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe. This resolution expresses Congress' immense gratitude for the service and sacrifice of law enforcement officers at every level. At a time when officers are facing growing dangers in carrying out their duties, it is important that the House stand in unison to honor these brave men and women. Lastly, the rule provides for consideration of the first appropriations bill for fiscal year 2027, H.R. 8469, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The bill provides robust funding for military housing, services for children and military members, and maintenance projects for military base facilities. This legislation also takes care of our veterans by fully funding veterans' healthcare program benefits, and investing over $2 billion in capital improvements for VA medical facilities and national cemeteries. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8469 also bolsters our national security through continued investments for military bases and infrastructure for advanced weapons systems in places like the Indo-Pacific, where it is imperative that we strengthen our capabilities vis-a-vis China. As we heard in the Rules Committee last night, this appropriations bill, the MILCON-VA bill, passed unanimously, 58-0, out of the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1275 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my friend Ms. Sandra Jean Caldwell ``Sandy'' Davis, who passed away on March 17, 2026, at the age of 79. Ms. Davis was born on August 9, 1946, in Radford, Virginia. Her upbringing in rural Virginia included graduating from nearby Floyd County High School. After graduation, Ms. Davis pursued lengthy careers in Southwest Virginia. Her first career path focused on the Commonwealth of Virginia's Health Department. This line of work provided her the opportunity to serve the public health needs of communities in the New River Valley, primarily in Radford and nearby Giles County. In addition to addressing local health care challenges, Ms. Davis developed a reputable career in banking and finance. She rose to senior vice president at the Bank of Christiansburg, the first woman in Southwest Virginia to achieve that position. Together with her first husband, Patrick C. Cupp, Ms. Davis founded BCR Real Estate and Property Management. Their company would be foundational in supplying housing to college students seeking to attend two of Southwest Virginia's premier academic institutions, Virginia Tech and Radford University. Moreover, Ms. Davis dedicated significant attention and resources to higher education and athletics at these institutions. She served on the Board of Visitors for Radford University and Virginia Tech. Ms. Davis also devoted time to the Board of Directors for the New River Community College in Pulaski County, Virginia. More scholarship opportunities are available to students and student- athletes thanks to Ms. Davis' contributions. In 2018, she and her second husband, Jack Davis, a renowned author and historian, made a landmark $8 million donation to Radford, which was one of the largest gifts in the school's history. Additionally, Radford University's Athletic Director credits Ms. Davis' impact on Radford Athletics, saying she helped create opportunities for student-athletes to pursue excellence and represent Radford with pride. New River Valley communities and schools recognized Ms. Davis for her excellent work and profound charity. Among her highly esteemed accolades, both the Blacksburg Rotary Club and Montgomery County Chamber awarded her Citizen of the Year. In 2022, Ms. Davis was inducted into the Southwest Virginia Business Hall of Fame. Besides her husband of 23 years, Jack, Ms. Davis is survived by her sister, Mildred Weddle; two stepchildren; and more than a dozen nieces and nephews. I join the New River Valley in mourning the loss of a philanthropic titan, education advocate, and community leader. Throughout her career of service and business, Southwest Virginia communities received support. Ms. Davis will continue to be remembered for her significant impact on our region.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize March 23, 2026 through March 27, 2026, as National AHEC (Area Health Education Centers) Week. The AHEC program was originally authorized in 1971 and worked in conjunction with other Health Resource Services Administration (HRSA) programs to provide health professionals to staff the brick-and mortar Community Health Centers. Today, Area Health Education Centers (AHECs) offer hands-on and innovative health career curriculums for pre-college level students, and are committed to continuing education, clinical training of health professionals and responding to community health needs. The Nation's 300 AHECs are in nearly every state and in multiple U.S. territories. Administered by HRSA, AHECs are federally funded, and many are also supported by state governments, foundations, or other partners. AHEC clinical training placements put health profession students in a variety of real-world settings, such as migrant, urban, and rural community health clinics and health departments that provide healthcare to rural and underserved populations. Connecting students to community populations helps facilitate future engagement and network alliance building for health career students to remain in their clinical practice regions and continue providing more sustainable healthcare in rural and underserved areas following their training. AHECs are also responsive to community priorities. They are dedicated to collaboratively developing community health education curriculums, for both online and face-to-face training programs, through unique partnerships that meet the broader range of public health needs of diverse and severely rural and underserved populations. The need to strengthen the healthcare workforce, particularly for the underserved, continues. According to new Association of American Medical Colleges, the U.S. could see a shortage of up to 124,000 physicians by 2034, and the American Hospital Association says more than 200,000 new registered nurses are needed each year to meet increasing health care needs and to replace nurses entering retirement. AHECs continue to be committed to addressing shortage areas and expanding the health care workforce, while maximizing and facilitating distribution, especially in rural and underserved communities. In the past 5 years, the AHEC program has trained 2 million healthcare professionals, who are prepared to deliver culturally appropriate, high-quality, team-based care, with an emphasis on primary care for rural and underserved populations I have had the opportunity to work closely with the Virginia AHEC and have witnessed the amazing work they are doing. The Virginia AHEC regions are made up of dedicated teams of professionals who collaborate with healthcare providers, educators, and community leaders, to create innovative programs and initiatives that address the evolving healthcare needs of our Commonwealth's underserved population. The mission of Virginia AHEC is to provide interprofessional and educational resources to motivate, recruit, train, and maintain a healthcare workforce dedicated to serving rural regions with the Commonwealth of Virginia. In 2024, they offered continuing education to over 1,000 health care workers, pipeline programming for over 900 high school students, and clinical training to over 1,800 health professional students to accomplish this mission. Virginia AHEC strives to provide experiential learning opportunities for health professional students in every region. In 2024, Virginia AHEC helped 1,844 students complete 4,668 hours of training at rural and medically underserved clinical training sites. Virginia AHEC provides specialized programming for health professional students who wish to work in Primary Care, specifically in rural and/or medically underserved areas in Virginia, called the VA AHEC Scholars Program. In 2024, Virginia AHEC had 224 active VA AHEC Scholars. Each Scholar completed 40 hours of education and 40 hours of clinical training through participation in the program. As a major component of the program, Virginia AHEC created a statewide, a synchronous Community Health Worker Training Program. Since the creation of the program three years ago, VA AHEC has trained over 300 Community Health Workers. The Southwest Virginia AHEC is located at the Bradley Free Clinic. The Bradley Free Clinic works with students from 28 academic programs spanning medicine, dentistry, residency training, counseling, and public health, providing hands-on clinical and community-based learning experiences. My son personally experienced the benefits of this hands- on learning environment to prepare him for a career in healthcare. On behalf of my constituents at Virginia AHEC program and the national AHEC program more broadly, I call on my colleagues to join me in recognizing March 23, 2026 through March 27, 2026, as National AHEC (Area Health Education Centers) Week.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and public service of Harry Fleisher Collins, Jr., who passed away on March 1, 2026, at the age of 74. Mr. Collins is well remembered for his service to the community of Christiansburg, Virginia. He served on the Christiansburg Town Council for four years. His leadership is credited for the development of Christiansburg's Huckleberry Park. Following his passing, the Town of Christiansburg lowered its flags to half-staff to honor Collins' service. The local Republican Party in Montgomery County believed in Mr. Collins' leadership. Local Republican Party officials, who were impressed by Mr. Collins' strong record in public office and his commitment to electing Republican candidates for local offices, selected Mr. Collins to be Chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Party. As the survivor of a double-lung transplant, Mr. Collins devoted significant time to the Lung Transplant Foundation. He served as the CEO, worked tirelessly to support the Foundation's initiatives and advocated for those needing help. Mr. Collins is survived by his loving wife, Sherri; his sister, Valerie Myers and her husband Steve Myers; his daughter, Kristin Sells and her husband Aaron Sells; his sons, Zach Collins and wife Miranda Collins, Brock Collins and wife Becky Collins, and Ryan Collins and wife Brittney Cockram; and his stepsons, Austin Huff and wife Sydney Huff, and Colin Huff. He was a proud grandfather to 13 grandchildren and one great-grandchild, all of whom were the light of his life. I enjoyed working with Mr. Collins and considered him a friend. I join the Christiansburg, Virginia community in mourning the loss of a public servant, community advocate and respected man. Mr. Collins' community work should inspire other local officials in Montgomery County and the greater New River Valley.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I know it might be hard for folks back home to follow as they are watching this on C-SPAN, but this is about a rule to bring two small bills to the floor of the House. I am not arguing that they are the biggest things in the world. They are smaller bills. That is true. That criticism is fair, but everything else that has been thrown into the debate today is not relevant to what we are debating. It is just an opportunity for politicizing everything that the other side of the aisle thinks is wrong. We have freedom of speech. They can do that in lots of places. I would hope that someday we would return this floor to talking about the relevancy of the issues before us as opposed to having a free-for-all, but a free-for-all is what we have. Let me talk about--because I believe strongly in doing that--these bills. These bills will roll back some things that were putting pressure on natural gas appliances, saying that if you wanted to buy one, I guess you could, but you are going to end up spending more money by getting cities, counties, and States to say that you have to have a zero net sum if you were going to put in some kind of appliance that you want in buildings. Whether it be a home, factory, or school, they need to be zero-sum. Either buy credits somewhere or come out with a zero-sum model, but you can't use fossil fuels, in particular natural gas, in this case. I think these bills correct that problem. These bills help in a small way with the economy. It is amazing to me the things that can get said on this floor. My colleague probably would agree with me, except that we see things differently because they keep talking about this terrible economy. I wish it were better. I have never said it was at its peak or where it ought to be, but I will tell you that it is much better than it was under the Biden-Harris administration. The so-called Inflation Reduction Act actually caused a huge spike in inflation. The American people are still paying the price for that. They want to blame it on Trump because he has been in office now for 13 months, but the problem was created in the Biden-Harris administration, not in the Trump administration. The Trump administration and this Republican majority, small as it is, have been fighting day in and day out to bring down those costs on numerous fronts. Today, we are not here to talk about every affront out there or whether we want to go to war or not go to war with Iran--and that should be debated by the House--but about two appliance bills. That is what I am speaking about. The fact is, as Jefferson looks down, he wouldn't have to worry about closed rules if we operated closer to ``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice.'' I look forward to moving us in that direction and working with my colleagues. The first step is to pass this rule on two simple appliance bills that will make things a little bit more affordable, hopefully make the appliances a little more efficient. I had a constituent talk to me a number of years ago about some of these regulations coming out where she was having to take a garden hose and fill up her washer because in order to be efficient, they weren't allowing so much water to be put into each load of clothes. It is because of that kind of silly thinking that we are trying to stop and make things better for the American consumer, to make things more affordable, and to make things just a little bit better. If we can take a half a step today and a full step tomorrow, eventually we can get this economy, that was totally screwed up by the previous administration under Biden and Harris, back on track to serve the American people.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there they go again. It is just amazing. It is. It is fascinating to me. I love the governmental process. I have since I was a kid, and it is just interesting to watch how all this goes. First, let me just say it. I would appreciate it if my colleagues would not put words into my mouth. The gentleman said something along the lines of that I didn't want to do refunds. I said nothing of the sort. I talked about how their amendment was not germane. I talked about how Jefferson wouldn't like the way we run things. I talked about how with this defeating of the previous question, they would offer an amendment on something that had nothing to do with the appliances, and now we take a rule on two appliance bills--and, look, Mr. Speaker, they want to say we should be debating other things that are fair game. But we are talking about a rule on two appliance bills, and suddenly--this is really germane, Mr. Speaker--we are making it about war in Iran. Let me make this perfectly clear. I don't think Iran gives one iota of concern. I had to clean up my language, Mr. Speaker. I don't think Iran cares about what kind of appliances the American consumer buys. American consumers care, but I don't think Iran cares. By golly, we are not going to war over appliances in Iran. There are lots of other things we can talk about. I do believe that we should be talking about other things as well, but that is not what is before us right this minute. What is before us is a rule dealing with two bills that deal with lowering prices on appliances, and that is what we ought to be dealing with. Clearly, the bills are not so bad, or my colleagues on the other side wouldn't want to talk about everything but those two bills. They talked about it a little bit. I give them credit for that, but, Mr. Speaker, I think we have beaten this horse, this dead horse, about as much as it can go. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting they bring up this previous question, defeat the previous question, and we will present this other bill. Let me explain to the folks back home, I know the Speaker understands this and my colleagues, I think, understand this: that is, in the form of an amendment and adding to the existing bills in the rule, it is not germane to either of the two bills in the rule. We talk about trying to follow the rules and do all of that, and in this case, I am going to actually agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle who said: There is Jefferson looking down on us, and if he saw the way we were operating, he would be disgusted. I happen to agree with that, but never in my years in Congress have I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that they want to return to using ``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice'' as the exclusive way to operate here. Now, I, for one, would accept that. I owe a lot to Mr. Jefferson because I learned ``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice'' while I was a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, and that knowledge ultimately led me to being the majority floor leader for my party. However, never have I heard my colleagues on the other side--I have heard Mr. Webster of Florida say very positive things about ``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice.'' I think that Mr. Massie would be agreeable to go along with just having this place operate under ``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice.'' I have advocated that we get a lot closer to Jefferson than to the Wild Wild West that we have now, where amendments can be offered willy-nilly on the floor if it is an open rule or brought to the Rules Committee that have nothing to do with the underlying legislation. That is what the previous question does as well. It offers a completely different bill on a completely different matter. It is fascinating to me as I watch this, and my colleagues on the other side are very skilled at this, it is fascinating to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is always about the political issue of the day. They play great politics. I wish they played as good at legislating as they do at politicking. I like legislating, and I wish we did more of it around here. Yet this is the system that we have grown into, and I will join them in advocating for all kinds of reform as we come to the next rules adoption at the end of this term. I look forward to working with them if that is what they really want, but I think it is political lip service and not sincere thoughts of following the direction that Mr. Jefferson set forth after studying 400 years of parliamentary practice and procedure that he put forward when he was Vice President of the United States and as the presiding officer over the Senate. So I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that these are fine bills, and that this rule is fine. The one-half hour afforded to my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle is often used for political purposes, and that is what we are seeing today. It is for political purposes, but that does not mean we should not vote for this rule, and it does not mean we should not vote for these bills. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first, I am going to take up the economy. Do I wish the economy were better, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely. Do I think the economy is better today than it was under the Biden- Harris administration? Absolutely. Do I think the economy is better today with the Republicans in control of the White House, the Senate, and the House than it was when the Democrats controlled all three? Yes, I do. Things are better. The Democrats spent so much money and said they were helping people to such a great degree that inflation went through the ceiling. It skyrocketed. We are trying to get it down, and part of the way that is done is to limit some of the Federal spending and limit some of these programs that raised costs. I gave this statement earlier on how existing home prices go up when it costs more to build new houses. The same thing is true when my colleagues suddenly throw billions of dollars at having subsidies on only electric appliances. If they really want to help people have a choice, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle indicated that that is what they are for, then we give a subsidy for everybody, if that is what they want to do. I still think it is inflationary, but give it for everybody who wants to buy a new appliance, whether that be a natural gas-powered appliance, an electric appliance, or whatever other fuel source is deemed safe. Open it wide open. No. This was about restricting choices and giving subsidies only to one type of appliance, the electric appliance. Mr. Speaker, the economy is better. These bills will help bring down inflation. It is not the end-all to save-all. It is not going to solve all of the problems of the country. Step by step Republicans are making advances on fighting the inflation the Democrats under Biden and Harris created. Now, let's talk about the rule. Oh, I guess I need to first defend myself. What I said was that it wasn't fair to the gentleman who was there to testify. He was there to testify on two bills, and my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, want to talk about everything under the Sun. Now, I think this also gets to their concerns--and they are entitled to complain all they want to about closed rules. I get it. Part of the reason that we have closed rules is the same reason that we didn't entertain amendments last night. We have got to stop amendments that are merely put in to just be dilatory. We have got to stop amendments which are clearly not germane. We have got bills here, as my colleagues on the other side have told you, that deal with appliances. Two of the three amendments that were offered to the Committee on Rules dealt with cryptocurrency, not appliances. In this country, we don't pay, whether it be coin or otherwise, in our homes to have hot water, or a dishwasher, or a washing machine. If the amendments had something to do with cryptocurrency being used for paid appliances in your home, maybe it would have been germane. They are not germane. The third amendment, offered a mere 30 minutes before the Committee on Rules hearing began, gutted the bill. It wasn't a serious amendment. It said: These bills, if they pass, only become effective if a member of the administration deems yada, yada, yada. It was always something different. I forget exactly what this one was. Let's say it deems that there is going to be world peace. That is not what it said, but they always put these kinds of amendments in, Mr. Speaker, and they are dilatory at best. Part of the process in the Committee on Rules that we have adopted over the generations is to say: No, we are not going to allow that. We are not going to bring that to the floor, and I think that is appropriate. In fact, as the Speaker knows or can learn of, I have long advocated for much stricter germaneness rulings here on the floor, and the Committee on Rules needs to have a much stricter germaneness ruling. I think if it is not absolutely on point with the intent of the underlying bill, even if it is in the same code section, it shouldn't come to the floor. I have lost those battles over the years. However I have put in numerous amendments to the rules which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who now complain that we are not allowing enough amendments on the floor, have opposed. I submit if we got closer to ``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice'' in our germaneness rulings and the single purpose of a bill, this place would operate a lot better. Maybe we could have more open debate on the floor. Right now, if we put any bill on the floor, guess what they are going to talk about? They are going to talk about Donald Trump and how everybody hates Donald Trump on the other side of the aisle. They are going to talk about some issue that has nothing to do with the bill in place. That is not an appropriate way to run the body. The Committee on Rules has to act as the gatekeeper and the referee because the House as a whole, both Democrats and Republicans, have gotten sloppy with the way we do our rules over the last 50, 75--maybe longer--100 years. I want to see us return to stricter rules on the floor and make the debate about the bill that is currently in front of us as opposed to whatever a gentleman or gentlewoman taking the floor wishes to speak on. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule providing for consideration of two measures: H.R. 4626, the Home Appliance Protection and Affordability Act, and H.R. 4758, Homeowner Energy Freedom Act under closed rules. The rule provides each measure 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit for each measure. There has been much talk this week about affordability and what can be done to push prices down. Republicans are working on lowering prices with bills like the two contained in this rule. H.R. 4758 repeals three sections of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act that were essentially subsidies for replacing natural gas appliances with electric-powered appliances. In particular, the so- called High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Act was intended to distort the appliance market by discouraging the installation of lower cost natural gas appliances. Instead of leaning on subsidies, electric-powered appliance manufacturers should win the consumer over on their products' attributes and merits. These appliance subsidies were the fruit of an ideology that demands the end of natural gas, the end of significant consumer choice, and the end of fuel competition. These subsidies were really intended to make it too expensive to not buy electric stoves and electric hot water heaters. Mr. Speaker, don't misunderstand me. I do not begrudge anyone for buying an electric stove or an electric hot water heater. That should be their choice. Maybe that type of appliance works best for their household. This subsidy is really disappointing. We are taking taxpayer dollars and supporting one class of appliances over another and even giving the subsidy to rich folks. This is just a recipe to increase inflation and make prices go up. No one can tell me that subsidizing electric appliances by--Mr. Speaker, listen to this--$4.275 billion would not cause relative appliance prices to skyrocket. Every day we can see how the so-called Inflation Reduction Act has been given one of the most paradoxical bill titles ever in the United States Congress. This was because, after passage, as we have seen, inflation ran rampant. Only recently has that inflation rate started to ebb. That is because of the policies of this House and the Trump administration. Republicans are not, as my colleagues might try to tell us, trying to ban electric stoves at all. Some of my colleagues on the other side would try to abandon or eliminate certain fuel sources from being used. H.R. 4758 also repeals a section of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act to train contractors on how to install these electric appliances. While a contractor training program might have some use, it received a huge appropriation of $200 million. Finally, this bill would repeal a $1 billion program that essentially tried to cajole States, counties, and cities into implementing a zero- energy building code. This opaque emissions accounting scheme attempts to have every building, whether it be a home, commercial storefront, or industrial site, be forced into either purchasing an equal amount of renewable energy or producing as much renewable energy as is consumed on site. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are bringing bills to the floor that repeal wasteful programs that I believe, as in the case of this zero-energy code section, would end up increasing the final cost for new homes. When new home prices go up, everybody in the industry knows that leads to increases in the cost of existing homes. I am sure some might ask: Well, how can that be? Mr. Speaker, here is what happens. If you go to sell your house, you want to get the highest price available. If it costs 20 percent more to put a new house on the market, then all the existing inventory goes up in price at least 18 to 19 percent. If you buy an existing home, your price goes up, as well, because you, as the seller, want to maximize the amount of money you can get out of what is, for most Americans, the largest investment they will ever make. This resolution would also allow H.R. 4626, the Home Appliance Protection and Affordability Act, to come to the floor. This bill is important to lower costs for all Americans. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act was enacted in 1975. I don't know where my colleague on the other side of the aisle was in 1975, but I was still in high school. At that time, we had a real shortage of energy in our country. We weren't producing enough, and we were relying on foreign sources. I submit to you that the bill that we are bringing up this week will save Americans money and energy in a more efficient manner than the 1975 solution. Mr. Speaker, in 1975, most Americans weren't even born. I don't think you were born in 1975. You look too young. The gentleman has confirmed that with a smile. What good is an appliance efficiency standard if a small amount of energy is saved, but the cost of the appliance is out of the range of the average family? The Department of Energy has interpreted the act's ``technologically feasible and economically justified'' test to implement standards that barely save a consumer a couple of dollars in electricity per year. Energy efficiency is great, but not when it leads to appliances that cost more than they save. This bill would put in a more exact standard. An energy efficiency regulation would have to forecast a saving of at least 10 percent of the appliance's energy consumption before a new standard is implemented. H.R. 4626 will certainly lower the cost of buying new shower heads, dishwashers, washers, and dryers for all consumers. Mr. Speaker, I hope all Members of this House support the passage of the rule and then the underlying bills. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1075 and ask for its immediate consideration.