H. Griffith

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support for H.J. Res. 35 from the United States Chamber of Commerce, a letter from the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and last, but not least, a letter from the American Petroleum Institute. February 24, 2025. To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval aimed at overturning the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions rulemaking. Disapproving this rulemaking would help give consumers access to affordable energy to heat their homes and businesses to power manufacturing. Disapproving EPA's natural gas tax rulemaking is expected to reduce energy costs for consumers, making heating, cooking, and electricity more affordable for households. For manufacturers, it lowers operating expenses, enabling greater investment in production and job creation, which in turn stimulates economic growth and strengthens the overall economy. Disapproving this tax will also provide relief to small businesses and industries so they can allocate more resources toward growth, innovation, and workforce expansion. This natural gas tax threatens to increase costs to consumers and businesses and undermines economic competitiveness. We urge Congress to act swiftly in passing this resolution of disapproval. Sincerely, Neil L. Bradley, Executive Vice President, Chief Policy Officer, and Head of Strategic Advocacy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. It is interesting. I heard some speakers--and everybody is just trying to talk about these issues from their viewpoint. I get it. However, I heard some speakers on the other side of the aisle say today that we are just catering to Big Oil and others. Then I hear there were discussions with larger folks, and those are the people who are okay with it. I hear from Representatives from places like Alaska, North Dakota, and Texas whose constituents oftentimes are small mom-and-pop operations. It is hard to think of oil and natural gas that way, but that is the way it is in those regions. They say this will, in fact, hurt them and this is disastrous. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, the reason that we have this dichotomy, this difference, is that a lot of times bigger institutions, bigger organizations, can afford to take on a new regulation. It will cost them a little bit of money. It will make the cost of production go up a little bit, but because they are large, they can spread that out over a lot of different items or a lot of different--I guess, in this case, it would be oil and gas measured in cubic feet, or whatever the measurement is these days. As a result, they can say this is a cost spread out over a large piece of the pie so it is not that big of a deal to us. As I said in my opening, there are 9,000 small and midsize independent petroleum drillers in the United States. These, mostly small, operations are responsible for developing 91 percent of oil and gas wells, producing 83 percent of America's oil, and 90 percent of our country's natural gas. Those are the folks who are most upset about these regulations and why we need to repeal them. We are going to break the back of those 9,000 small and midsize independent petroleum drillers who are providing us with affordable gas, affordable heat for our homes through natural gas, and affordable products made out of natural gas and petroleum. Mr. Speaker, it is the right thing to do, and I encourage all Members, both Democrat, Republican, and any who may think of themselves as independent, to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 35. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me time. My colleagues on the other side cry: Action, action. However, in February of 2025, there will be no action unless we pass H.R. 27, the HALT Fentanyl Act. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, H.R. 27, the HALT Fentanyl Act, that I have championed along with my colleague and good friend, Representative Latta from Ohio. We have worked on this bill for 4 years. This bill is critical to stop the trafficking of fentanyl analogues into our country by giving the law enforcement officers the tools they need and also allowing streamlined research into these substances. This bill has the support of multiple law enforcement agencies and other groups to pass the bill as it is. This week, the Trump administration released a statement in support of the HALT Fentanyl Act. Last Congress, the Biden administration even supported various provisions in the bill, specifically making fentanyl analogues permanently schedule I and allowing more research into them. The bill passed with wide bipartisan support last Congress. It wasn't just one Member on the other side of the aisle who joined me, Mr. Speaker. There were 74 Members who voted in favor of this bill. This is one small step to solve the opioid crisis in this country. We cannot let the temporary scheduling expire at the end of March. To those who don't know, we have some law right now that helps protect us, but at the end of March, it is gone. We can't do that. The Senate introduced an identical version of this bill with broad bipartisan support. With the passage of this bill, I am hopeful that H.R. 27 will quickly move through the Senate and get to the President's desk to become law. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill so that we can actually have action and not rhetoric.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRIFFITH

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

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule for one measure, H.R. 27, the HALT Fentanyl Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides for 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 for one motion to recommit. As most Members know, unfortunately, we all know somebody who has been affected by the drug overdose epidemic plaguing our country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2023, there were more than 107,000 overdose deaths that occurred in the United States. These staggering numbers are due in large part to the increased presence of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues or fentanyl- related substances, which are approximately 100 times more potent than morphine and 50 times more potent than heroin. The lethal dose of fentanyl is just 2 milligrams, or about 4 grains of sand. A loophole the cartels use and have tried to use to traffic illicit fentanyl into our country is by changing just one component of fentanyl's chemical structure in order to create a fentanyl analogue or a fentanyl-related substance. The cartels did this in an attempt to evade our criminal laws. Right now, fentanyl analogues are considered schedule I substances but only because of a series of temporary scheduling orders, which is now set to expire on March 31, 2025. Along with my colleague, Mr. Latta from Ohio, we decided to introduce H.R. 27, the HALT Fentanyl Act. The bill aims to curb overdose deaths by permanently scheduling fentanyl analogues or fentanyl-related substances as schedule I substances. This will strengthen law enforcement's ability to prosecute fentanyl traffickers and act as a deterrent. The HALT Fentanyl Act also promotes research by improving the registration process to eligible individuals so that they can conduct studies on schedule I substances with appropriate safeguards. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we have heard testimony that there may be as many as 4,800 individual analogues or fentanyl-related substances. Our experts at the NIH, the FDA, and others have studied roughly 30 to 40 of those 4,800 analogues or fentanyl-related substances. By encouraging research of schedule I substances like fentanyl analogues, we can better understand how these substances work and how we can prevent potentially harmful impacts in the future or even find a better use or a better opportunity than the current fentanyl that we use. Because fentanyl has a proven medical use, it is considered a schedule II narcotic, as the Speaker knows, having practiced medicine for many years. Illicit derivatives of fentanyl, also called fentanyl analogues, currently have not demonstrated a medical value. Let me be clear. This bill will have no impact whatsoever on physicians' ability to administer fentanyl in medical settings. The HALT Fentanyl Act deals specifically with fentanyl analogues or fentanyl-related substances, not medicinal fentanyl. The Biden administration even released a statement when this bill passed through the House last Congress stating that they supported permanent scheduling and streamlined research for fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances. We must address this bipartisan issue immediately and not allow this temporary extension to expire. Once fentanyl analogues are permanently scheduled in schedule I, Congress will continue to build off this work to continue to address the illicit fentanyl crisis. According to a 2021 GAO report, there was a 90 percent decrease in these fentanyl analogues coming into our country the year they were first placed into schedule I. This bill is a critical step in combating the opioid crisis in our country because China and Mexico are heavily involved in this business. China is sending the precursors of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues to the cartels in Mexico, who are then bringing it across our border. By making these analogs permanently schedule I, it removes the incentive for the cartels to traffic these analogues or fentanyl- related substance drugs into our country. China even realized the risk of fentanyl analogues and permanently scheduled those analogues on their strictest schedule. Other countries have followed suit and done the same. Last Congress, this bill cleared through the Energy and Commerce Committee on a bipartisan basis and then passed on the House floor with 74 Democrats voting in favor. The bill has the support of many law enforcement agencies and other entities calling for the need to pass the bill as it is. We must act quickly to make the scheduling order permanent before it expires again at the end of March. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 93 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, I understand there are all kinds of concerns on the other side of the aisle, but we are talking about the HALT Fentanyl Act. I could stand here and talk about Burma. We heard today that the President has extended the emergency situation with Burma, that undemocratic country where they overthrew the democratically elected government and how Burma, also known as Myanmar, is the largest cultivator of opium products and the producer of heroin globally, second only to Afghanistan. That doesn't have anything to do with the HALT Fentanyl Act. The HALT Fentanyl Act is a good bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from New York (Mr. Langworthy), who will talk about the bill some more.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I keep thinking I am here to talk about the HALT Fentanyl Act, but they keep talking about all kinds of other things. My colleagues have acknowledged that the HALT Fentanyl Act passed in the last Congress with a large majority, yet here we are using this as a vehicle to talk about everything else they think is going wrong in the world. Mr. Speaker, I have a little bill here. It does some good. We ought to pass it. If my colleagues want to talk about lots of other stuff, they are entitled to. That is their right. However, I don't want the focus taken off the HALT Fentanyl Act. It is a good bill. It helps law enforcement. It helps slow down the flood across the southern border. That is what we are here about today. I know if the motion on the previous question fails, then they are going to introduce a different bill. However, my understanding is their bill completely eliminates and doesn't have anything in their language about halting fentanyl. This is something a large majority of Congress wants to get done. Let's get it done. Let's stop all the rhetoric. Let's stop trying to point fingers at us and everybody else for other things. Let's just do our job. I think that is what the American people want us to do. In fact, I hear a lot of times from my constituents back home that they are tired of seeing these gigantic bills. It sounds like what my colleagues on the other side want is some more gigantic bills that people vote on. It is kind of like what the former Speaker said: We have to vote for it so we can find out what is in it. I would rather vote on bills that I know what is in it. That is why I read all the bills if I plan to vote for it. I helped write this bill. I am the lead sponsor of this bill. It is an easy bill to read. It is pretty straightforward in what it does, what it is supposed to do, and what we are trying to do. President Biden thought it was okay. He issued a statement in favor of it last term. This term President Trump says that he is in favor of it. This is a bipartisan approach to solve a problem. Does it solve all the world's problems, Mr. Speaker? Of course it does not, but it solves a problem that our law enforcement has that helps the bad guys, the people making the precursors in China, the people in the cartels in Mexico flooding across our southern border with these harmful fentanyl-related substances and analogues. It makes it easier for our law enforcement people to focus on illegal fentanyl. Mr. Speaker, fentanyl is legal for medicinal purposes, and it will be even after this bill. There is something else that Democrats haven't mentioned. I mentioned it briefly, but I will talk about it a little bit further, Mr. Speaker. That is the component in this bill that allows for research on the 4,800 other related substances or analogues that we believe are out there. It is a rough number. Nobody knows until they get in and start experimenting, but we heard that testimony in the Energy and Commerce Committee. There might be some benefit to some other analogue. There might be some benefit, but we don't want it out there on our streets or being used for medicinal reasons until we know for sure that it does something positive for society. Right now, all the analogues that we have seen are either inert or just as bad as the illegal use of fentanyl, so this bill needs to be passed. I understand the minority doesn't want to talk about this. My Democratic colleagues want to talk about everything else, but that is not why we are here today. When I came to Congress, I pledged to read the bills. I pledged to talk about what it is we are talking about today and not talk about everything else in the world that I think we might be able to fix someday or that we might ought to do someday. There is a process for that. As my friend Terry Kilgore used to tell me all the time, somebody would come up with an idea, and then they would want to put on some kind of an amendment or change the bill around when we had a nice, little, simple bill. Mr. Kilgore is a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, and he was my seatmate. He came up with a famous phrase when people wanted to rearrange the bill in a way that he didn't think was proper or put an amendment on it that would completely change the bill or, in this case, defeat the motion of the previous question in order to defeat the HALT Fentanyl Act and put forward some other bill. He would say: Well, you might have some points to make. I would say to the gentleman: Get your own bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is kind of interesting. I keep thinking we are talking about the HALT Fentanyl Act, and then I hear all this other stuff. Earlier, one of my colleagues said that we were cooking up some kind of a plan to cut--I forget what the number was now--$2.5 trillion or $2.7 trillion out of Medicaid. I haven't heard of any such plan being cooked up. I think that is just hyperbole, but that is my opinion. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman keeps asking about a pardon or about somebody who was pardoned. Well, I don't know if he has noticed or not, but I am not the President of the United States. I don't have the power to pardon. I don't get the information put on my desk about various individual pardons. I didn't make any comments about pardons by the previous President when many people were pardoned or were sitting on death row and had sentences commuted. That is not what we are here about today. We can get down into that trap if we want to, but I am just telling you that we are here today to talk about a rule for a simple bill that the majority of this House supports. I believe it is an overwhelming majority. I don't know if my colleagues admitted it was exactly 74, but they admitted it was a big vote last year. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle admitted it was a part of a package that the minority wanted to see pass on the floor at the end of last year. I thought we were here to talk about this. I recognize that it is a free-for-all on the floor, but I just hate to get into all those kinds of things and start talking about this or that and, whether crossing the line or not, somehow casting aspersions that Members over here don't have independent wills. We certainly do, and I think my colleagues might recognize that from some of the things I said last night when I was being questioned. Do I support the President? Well, of course, I do. Do I agree with everything he does? No. As the old saying goes, I don't agree with my wife all the time. She certainly doesn't agree with me most of the time. The bottom line is that I think the President is moving us in the right direction. One of those right directions would be to pass the HALT Fentanyl Act. Another is closing down the border, shutting that border down. If Democrats want to talk about drugs coming across our southern border and want to point to an individual who is thought to be primarily responsible for some of that, how about the hundreds and thousands of people who were used by the cartels to bring illicit substances, whether it be at ports of entry or other places, across our southern border? The President is cracking down on that, too, but that is not what this bill is about. This bill is about making sure that when our law enforcement officers arrest somebody and their preliminary examination indicates that what they have is significant, or even a small amount but generally significant amounts of a fentanyl-related substance, that when they go to court, they don't have somebody arguing in court that, wait a minute, this is not the fentanyl on schedule II, that this is a fentanyl-related substance but it is a left-handed molecule instead of a right-handed molecule or a right-handed molecule instead of a left- handed molecule. I can say that, as a former defense attorney, I loved those kinds of arguments. As a Congressman, it is our job to shut those arguments down. The HALT Fentanyl Act stops those arguments from being made in court, which are basically spurious attempts to help drug dealers. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues are not trying to help drug dealers. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are just here to try to make some other points today. Let's talk about this bill and the good that this bill can do. My Democratic colleagues brought up substituting this bill with the SUPPORT Act. I am a cosponsor of the SUPPORT Act, which is carried by the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Brett Guthrie. That bill has a very good chance of passing this body, so let's let that bill go through its process, and let's let this bill, the HALT Fentanyl Act, finish out this process, get across to the Senate, get signed into law by the President, and start doing good work. The Speaker might be asking why we have to do this at this moment. The answer is that we have had a rolling series of temporary bills on making the fentanyl-related substances schedule I because we all recognize the danger that these present to the American public. Let's make it permanent and give our scientists an opportunity to look at some of those other 4,800 analogues or fentanyl-related substances to see if there is anything there that might be beneficial to mankind, that might be a reversal of an overdose, that might be a better and less-addictive pain reliever. Let's let them do that research. They can't do that research without the HALT Fentanyl Act, and the efforts of the defense attorneys for the cartels can't be crippled by constantly passing temporary bills because any day that it is not in effect is a day that lawyers will take advantage of. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, darn, I wish I had known 40 minutes ago we could talk about anything we wanted to, that this time was not really to talk about the rule present before us today or the underlying bill, but was to talk about whatever we wanted to, whatever is on our agenda, their agenda. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this is why the American people don't have confidence in Congress, because they can't follow the bouncing ball. We are here to talk about the HALT Fentanyl Act, and we are talking about everything including the kitchen sink. If I had only known that 40 minutes ago, I could have brought over all my CRAs that I am interested in getting passed, all my bills that I think are fascinating and interesting that I can't seem to get out of committee, at least not in the past. I could have talked about all kinds of things. I understand that may not be the practice of the Rules Committee. I am new. The gentleman is absolutely right to remind me of that. I have no problem with that. I just didn't know that we could talk about whatever we wanted to when the subject of the day is: Are we going to pass a rule that ultimately we hope will be put in place for the debate and passage of the HALT Fentanyl Act. Then I heard, amongst a number of things today that I thought were just kind of odd, that my bill, the HALT Fentanyl Act, had been watered down. Well, that is news to me because the bill, with the exception of changing a couple of paragraph numbers, the lettering on the paragraphs to make sure we were alphabetically correct, is exactly the way I introduced it. I don't think that is a watering down. A watering down is when you take a bill that is 20 or 30 pages long and you make it into a 2-page bill and you have it do half of what it was supposed to. What this bill was supposed to do, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what this bill does. It takes and makes a permanent schedule I classification for all of the roughly 4,800 fentanyl-related substances or analogues. It provides for research on those fentanyl-related substances or analogues at our research institutions with certain safeguards to make sure we can continue to do research so that maybe we can find a better path forward, something that may help with our drug addiction issues, something that may be a better, less addictive pain reliever. We want that research done, but until we have the evidence that one of those 4,800 analogues or fentanyl-related substances actually does good, we need to make them schedule I. They need to be on there so that the cartels can't use this as some trick in the courtroom to get out of trouble, to get a proverbial get-out-of-jail-free card. My colleagues want to talk about everything else coming down the road, including an individual--and I haven't reviewed his file--who they claim was involved in the drug trade and who was pardoned. I haven't heard them talk about Lairon Graham of Buffalo, convicted of heading a drug conspiracy and selling fentanyl, crack cocaine, and heroin, who was pardoned by the previous President, Mr. Biden. I haven't heard them talk about Valentino Shine, convicted of narcotic sales, along with sex trafficking and distribution of crack cocaine, who was pardoned by the previous President. Now, I personally don't think any of that is relevant to today's discussion, and I recognize that that is apparently the practice of the Rules Committee. I find it surprising. I think it is a sloppy practice, but if that is the practice, then next time I will be sure to bring my wish list with me and we can talk about everything except the bill we are supposed to be talking about. It does make you wonder and think that everybody at home watching this, both of them, are confused because we are not talking about the bill that we are supposed to be talking about. I hope Congress some day gets around to talking about the bill that it is supposed to talk about, whether it is my bill or somebody else's bill. Today, I will try to make my remarks as much as I can about passage of the rule for the HALT Fentanyl Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I offer the gentleman from Massachusetts an opportunity for whatever comments he has remaining. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that I am appalled. I understand they get the right to say whatever they want to during this time of debate on the rule for the HALT Fentanyl Act. I understand that, but they say you have to choose what side you are on, then bring up Elon Musk, and then say vote ``no.'' This bill has nothing to do with Elon Musk. This bill is about fentanyl-related substances and fentanyl analogues. It perplexes me, other than it is an attempt to confuse everybody on what this bill is about. If they want to make all those statements, they can, but I would think they would be in favor of getting this bill done. If you are going to choose to say whose side you are on with this bill, you are making a choice. You are making a choice. We have an opportunity today, right here and now, to pass a rule and then tomorrow to pass a bill that will make a step forward in stopping the cartels, the Chinese precursors, and the folks who are doing the bad things in our country and in other countries from bringing their substances into this country and trying to use a gimmick, a chemical technique, saying that it is not really fentanyl, that it is a fentanyl analogue, and get around our laws. That is what this bill is about. Every Member ought to be in favor of that. Why you wouldn't be in favor of at least bringing that bill to the floor and having a vote on it is beyond me. If we are choosing sides, I am going to choose to take a step forward. I am going to take a step forward to try to stop this scourge of fentanyl poisoning, fentanyl analogue poisoning, and fentanyl-related substances coming into our country. That is the side I am going to choose. I understand they want to talk about all kinds of other things. I think it is a pretty darn good bill, and I think we should pass it. Now, let me get to my script. I would like to reiterate the importance of the bill to permanently schedule fentanyl analogues as schedule I while still allowing for research into these substances. This is one small step in fighting the opioid crisis our country faces. If we allow this temporary extension to expire in March--as it will if we take no action, if we choose the wrong side today and tomorrow--it will bring back the incentives for traffickers to bring these fentanyl analogues and fentanyl-related substances into our country. I truly don't believe my colleagues on the other side want that. I understand they get fired up on the floor sometimes and say things that maybe later, in retrospect, they think maybe they shouldn't have gone that far. If we are going to choose sides, I urge everybody to pass the rule and choose the side of stopping the fentanyl scourge in our country, the fentanyl analogue scourge in our country, and urge the passage of this rule and for final passage of the underlying bill.

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

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Edwin Randolph ``Randy'' Leach, who passed away on January 12th at the age of 68. Randy is remembered for his sound legal mind and dedicating a great legal career in the Roanoke Valley. The birth of Randy Leach occurred in Raleigh, North Carolina, on November 27, 1956. Following his childhood and adolescent years in North Carolina, Mr. Leach attended academic institutions in Virginia. He earned a B.A. from Hampden-Sydney College before graduating from the renowned law school at William & Mary. A career devoted to public service soon followed. Randy moved to the City of Roanoke to begin a career as a public defender. Later, he joined the Roanoke County Commonwealth Attorney's office. For 14 years, he served as Chief Assistant Commonwealth Attorney. In 2002, the citizens of Roanoke County placed their trust in Randy Leach to serve the County and elected him as Commonwealth Attorney. Appreciated by many, he ran for re-election four times and ran unopposed in each of those campaigns. He retired from his distinguished role as a constitutional officer in 2019. As a practicing attorney in the Roanoke Valley during the same time, I had the pleasure of working with Randy throughout his tenure in the Commonwealth Attorney's office. I had many cases in Roanoke County and often Randy would be the prosecutor in a case I was defending. Randy also regularly frequented Mac & Bob's restaurant, a popular site in Salem, Virginia, and was beloved there by the regulars. Randy Leach is preceded in death by his parents, Bill and Jimmie Ruth Leach. He leaves behind his older brother, Ken Leach; nieces, Leslie Wall (Chad), Lisa Yancy, and Eden Gauss (Jai); younger brother, Keith Leach (Janis); and nephews, Michael, (Meghan), and Casey. Randy Leach was a dedicated lawyer whose service and exceptional legal talents on behalf of Roanoke County was appreciated by many. He will be sorely missed by his family, colleagues, friends and the Roanoke Valley community.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Gerald ``Tom'' Clemens, who passed away on December 26th at the age of 88. Mr. Clemens is remembered for his sophisticated legal background and as an overwhelmingly caring family member. Mr. Clemens was born in Prices Fork, Virginia, on March 20, 1936. After a childhood spent in Montgomery County, Mr. Clemens stayed close to home and attended Virginia Tech in Blacksburg for his undergraduate degree. While a student at Virginia Tech, he was an active member of the Corps of Cadets. Later, Mr. Clemens became a member of the U.S. Army and achieved the rank of Colonel. He then attended Washington and Lee University School of Law and received his Juris Doctor in 1960. In 1961, Mr. Clemens and his wife, Pat, moved to Salem, Virginia. Mr. Clemens joined a local law firm and continued his legal work for many years in the Roanoke Valley. The Virginia General Assembly recognized Mr. Clemens' legal excellence, appointing him to the General District Court and later to the 23rd Judicial Circuit Court bench. I practiced law in #ont of him in both courts. He was always a thoughtful and learned Judge. Once he retired from the bench in 1997, he practiced law with his son, Chris, at the Salem-based firm, Clemens and Clemens. My mother taught Mr. Clemens' son, Chris, in school. One of her class activities involved asking her students to bring in political campaign buttons for extra credit or show. Judge Clemens told me on several occasions that school assignment for Chris began his passion for collecting political memorabilia. Mr. Clemens was also very proud of his children and grandsons. He collected records of their achievements. Some of his grandsons have played water polo with my family and many others from Salem during the summer. Needless to say these experiences gave me a close-up look at Judge Tom Clemens and, Mr. Speaker, let me assure you he was a very fine man and a true southern gentleman. He set a high standard as an example for his family and all of us to strive to achieve. Mr. Clemens was preceded in death by his parents, Jack and Clairmont Clemens; and his brother, Fred Clemens. He is survived by Pat, his cherished wife of 64 years; and children, Cindy (Marcy), Chris (Meg), and Charles (Whitney); four grandsons, Luca, Christopher, Will, and Grant; and his niece and nephews. Mr. Clemens was a respected lawyer and judge whose service to his clients and the Commonwealth was outstanding. His profound love for his family and community was evident to many. I thank Mr. Clemens for his friendship, and wish his family peace during this difficult time.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Chief William ``Bill'' Brown, who passed away on January 24th. Chief Brown is remembered for his integral roles in advancing the safety and well-being of his community in Montgomery County, Virginia. After his birth in West Virginia, much of Mr. Brown's early life centered in Southwest Virginia. As one of 12 children, he graduated with the last class of the all-Black Christiansburg Institute in 1966. Following his graduation, Mr. Brown answered his country's call and enlisted in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. He served the 9th Infantry Division and rose to the rank of Sergeant. Upon his return home, Mr. Brown pursued a career in law enforcement. In 1970, the Blacksburg Police Department hired Mr. Brown, making him the first black police officer in the New River Valley. For more than three decades, Mr. Brown executed his role with steadfast professionalism and respect. This work was recognized by American Legion Post 182, who awarded him the 1984 Outstanding Young Law Enforcement award. The dedication and work ethic Mr. Brown brought to the Blacksburg Police Department resulted in his appointment to Chief of Police in 1994. He continued as Chief until his retirement in 2006. His outstanding tenure with the police department was marked by strong relationships, positive attitudes and a legacy of contributions to the police department. Following his tenure with Blacksburg PD, the citizens of Montgomery County elected Chief Brown to a seat on the County's Board of Supervisors. His service on the Board lasted from 2008 to 2015. Chief Brown was trusted by his peers to serve as the Board's chairman for his last two years before retiring. As a result of his public service and contributions to the Blacksburg community, the new William H. Brown Blacksburg Police Department building is named in his honor. Mr. Brown is preceded in death by his parents Melvin & Ulysses, brothers Herbert and Kenneth, and sister Dr. Marlene Faye Brown. Mr. Brown will be dearly missed by his loved ones, including his wife Rebecca Brown, to whom he was married for 55 years, sisters Dorthy M. Vanderhall, Denise Holland (Mike), brothers Melvin C. Brown Jr., John C. Brown (Brenda), Earl T. Brown, Mack W. Browh (Karen), Gregory V. Brown (Laurie) and Theron U. Brown, his children and grandchildren. I join Montgomery County in mourning Chief Brown's passing. Peers, community members and countless others praise Mr. Brown for his profound leadership and lifetime service to the citizens of Montgomery County. We are extremely grateful for Chief Brown's admirable service.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Worley ``Skip'' Bishop, Jr., who passed away on September 7th, at the age of 83. Mr. Bishop dedicated his life to his family, students, and the community of Floyd, Virginia. Worley ``Skip'' Bishop Jr. was born on October 14, 1940, to Worley S. ``Sam'' Bishop, Sr. and Estella ``Jackie'' Bishop. He was a natural athlete and excelled at playing baseball, basketball, and golf. Skip had a big heart for his home in Floyd, Virginia. He served as Mayor for nearly two decades and was determined to make Floyd a vibrant, thriving community. He taught at Floyd County High School, in Floyd, Virginia and deeply cared for his students and athletes. He coached for 35 years earning various accolades including: District Golf Coach of the Year six times; District Baseball Coach of the Year four times; Timberland Golf Coach of the Year four times; State Basketball Coach of the Year in 1985. Under his direction, Floyd County Basketball was the State Runner Up in 1987, and the Floyd County High School Golf team became State Champions in 2000, 2001, 2006, and 2007. Skip's greatest love was his family and was proud to be known as Dad and Papa. His marriage to Martha Ann Bass Bishop for 59 years, produced loving and joyful, as they shared two children, four grandchildren, and six great-grandchildren. He leaves behind his loving wife, Martha; daughter, Sandra ``Sandi'' Bishop Smith; son, Michael ``Mike'' (Jessica) Bishop; grandchildren, Stefan ``Sam'' (Michaela) Bishop, Sydney Smith, Joel ``Max'' (Hailey) Bishop and Sloan Smith; great-grandchildren, Sofia, Daisy, Killian, Echo, Revan and Fox Bishop; his dearly loved sister, Loretta (Jack) Bishop Hicks; and many beloved cousins and friends. Skip is preceded in death by his father, Worley S. ``Sam'' Bishop, Sr.; his mother, Estella ``Jackie'' Bishop; his granddaughter, Sawyer Lynn Smith; and many beloved cousins and friends. Worley ``Skip'' Bishop, Jr. was larger than life. Whether you called him Skip, Dad, Papa, or Coach, he is dearly missed and remembered by all who knew him, and especially in Floyd County, Virginia.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Marvin Dennis Reaser, Jr., who passed away on August 20 at the age of 84. Mr. Reaser was a talented musician and beloved band director whose career spanned over 30 years in Salem, Virginia, most notably leaving a lasting impact on Salem High School. Mr. Reaser was born on July 28, 1940, in Nitro, West Virginia. His parents, Artie Lda Shomo and Marvin Dennis Reaser, Sr., raised him in St. Albans, West Virginia, with a very modest family lifestyle. Music remained a necessity for the Reaser household, with piano lessons being a requirement for Mr. Reaser, his sister, Sally, and his brother, David. During his tenure at St. Albans Jr. High, Mr. Reaser played in the High School Band, which was directed by Alan Farley. Mr. Farley saw something remarkable about Mr. Reaser's musical ability and would not soon forget his four-year impact on the school. Mr. Reaser then enlisted in the United States Navy after attending one year of college. He served for four years in the Navy, from Africa to Saudi Arabia, playing his trumpet for the Navy Band. Upon Mr. Reaser's return from his service overseas, he landed two teaching jobs as band director for two different high schools, notably without a college degree--a testament to his skill and talent. By 1968, Mr. Reaser earned his undergraduate degree from Morris Harvey College (now University of Charleston) in Charleston, West Virginia. This same year, his former high school band director, Mr. Farley, who had been working at Andrew Lewis High School in Salem, VA, reached out to Mr. Reaser asking for him to apply to the Band Director job there. After landing the job one year later, Mr. Reaser joined a team that would shape his career for the next 30 years. With Mr. Reaser's directing style closely mirroring what he had learned from the United States Navy, the award-winning Andrew Lewis High Band was widely known for their student-led governance with emphasis on excellence and hard work. When Andrew Lewis HS closed and its students were merged into Salem High School (Salem, VA), he became the band leader there. Mr. Reaser, throughout his tenure as a band director, participated in a number of complementary pursuits, such as playing trumpet for gigs in the surrounding areas of Southwest Virginia, authoring a book, and even earning his master's degree in music composition from Radford University. In 2001, Mr. Reaser earned a key to the city from the Salem City Council, marking his retirement from Salem City Schools on a day that was dubbed ``Dennis Reaser Day'' by the City of Salem. However, he knew he had more to teach and went on to work as a band director for the Hargrave Military Academy for three years and then assistant principal for First Flight High School for over 10 years. Mr. Reaser retired for good in 2015 and spent the remainder of his life composing and arranging music, playing in community bands and surrounding himself with his family and friends. Mr. Reaser unfortunately was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease in his final seven years, but always stayed ahead of his disease, averaging five to ten thousand steps per day instead of allowing the symptoms to overcome him. While I was never a member of the Andrew Lewis High School marching band as a student there, I was proud to know Mr. Reaser and admired his work both with the marching band and all the other programs, particularly the annual Opus. Mr. Marvin Dennis Reaser, Jr. was a true example of someone who delivers excellence to communities with his passion for music. He will be remembered for his outstanding work as a teacher, a veteran, and family man.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Sister Bernadette Kenny, who passed away on December 7, 2024. ``Sister Bernie'' came into the world on December 8, 1938. She was born in Boston, Massachusetts, and raised in Massachusetts. Her Catholic faith and interest in caring for others resulted in her joining the Medical Missionaries of Mary at age 19. She went to study nursing at Ireland's Lady of Lourdes Hospital. After completing her training as a nurse and midwife, she served several missions in Africa, which included stints in Tanzania, Ethiopia and the Central African Republic. In 1978, Sister Kenny moved to Southwest Virginia. Soon thereafter, she founded the Health Wagon in Norton, Virginia. Southwest Virginia is a sprawling rural area, and access to health care services has always been a challenge for the local communities. For many people, it takes hours of driving to simply reach a hospital. Sister Kenny founded the Health Wagon to address this challenge head on. The Health Wagon consisted of a Volkswagen Beetle filled with medical tools and supplies. Sister Kenny traveled in her Beetle throughout the coalfields region to meet the health care needs of the local communities. She administered services to struggling residents free of charge in her quest to heal their bodies as well as heal their souls. She underscored the emotional aspects to health care, saying ``in most health care the emotional part is ignored.'' She added: ``health care is social; it's a way of identifying what's inside a person.'' Thanks to Sister Kenny's support, the Remote Area Medical (RAM) project, a popular and overwhelmingly successful venture that delivers free health care to various underserved communities in America, has hosted clinics in Southwest Virginia. Because of Sister Kenny's strong leadership and fierce advocacy, the Health Wagon has sustained operations to this very day. The group takes pride in providing compassionate, quality health care to the medically underserved people in the mountains of Appalachia. The indispensable endeavor to deliver vital health care to Appalachian communities, including the region's coal miners, would not have been so emphasized today if it were not for Sister Kenny. I join the people of Southwest Virginia and all of Appalachia in mourning her loss, but the lasting impact she had on the region will forever be cherished.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Weber for yielding to me to say a few words about my friend, Dr. Michael Burgess. First, I rise to congratulate you. You are finally graduating from Congress. You have done a great job during your two decades here, and your record highlights a staunch advocacy for healthcare legislation that addresses a variety of issues. Such issues include reducing healthcare costs, improving choices, and ensuring there are enough doctors in the country to tend to the healthcare needs of America's patients and veterans. Through the Energy and Commerce Committee, your keen intellect and institutional knowledge have served as invaluable resources to me and to all. I am proud to have worked with you on healthcare-related legislation. I have to tell you, when I first got to the Energy and Commerce Committee, we were all talking about ObamaCare. I looked back, and there was this guy I didn't know from Texas. He had the code sitting there, and it was about yea thick. Every now and then, a debate would start up, and somebody would say something, often from the other side of the aisle. They would say that we didn't do this or we did do this in the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. Dr. Burgess would be on point to respond because, notwithstanding the fact that he had the book there, he could immediately tell you whether or not what was being alleged was or was not in the act. On at least two or three occasions, I can recall him citing the page and then reading from it. We are talking about on the fly. We are not talking about 10 minutes to prepare or 20 minutes to prepare. We are talking about somebody finishes commenting, people yield time to Dr. Burgess, and he tells them what for--not in a bad way, not in a mean way, just: Well, that is not accurate. If you look at page 1206, you will see, yada yada yada. There is no one else in the United States Congress who has that kind of knowledge of our healthcare system. I wish I could say I did. I do not. I don't know anybody who knows the American healthcare system the way that Dr. Burgess does. It is absolutely amazing the way his mind works. Of course, it takes hard work. Even when you have a good mind, it takes a lot of hard work, as well. Further, I have to confess that not having as much to do when I first got here, I used to go hang out from time to time at the Rules Committee. Dr. Burgess was always there and was always asking key questions and important questions. Then, when I occasionally appeared in front of the Rules Committee, not just being a geek, he always asked the best questions. Dr. Burgess, I greatly appreciate all of that. As you are leaving Congress, I don't think you can be replaced. There might be 2 or 3 or 10 individuals who can combine to replace your knowledge, but there is no one individual who can do that. Now, I have to also confess to you tonight that it is not only that we share spots on Energy and Commerce, but we also share an affinity for country music. Earlier this year, at Dr. Burgess' personal invitation--I don't want anybody else to get mad at him--he invited me to join him and country music legend Randy Travis to discuss some issues related to the rights of performers in receiving benefits. We have heard about issues from our colleagues on the other side where he was helpful. We heard about the stuff that he has done that has been great. He also has been working right up to the end to try to make sure that, on a myriad of different issues, the American policy is the correct policy. I can't say enough about what a great asset Dr. Burgess has been to the United States Congress, to the Energy and Commerce Committee, to the Rules Committee. I am so thankful for his service and leadership. Dr. Burgess, I wish you peace, and I hope that your time in Texas or wherever you may end up is a good one. I also hope that you will not be a stranger in the Halls of the United States Congress because, I have to confess again, oftentimes I would receive a phone call: Hey, Morgan, have you thought about doing this? I hope to continue to get those calls, Dr. Burgess. It is always helpful. Thank you very much. God bless you, and God bless your family.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. I am pleased to be here to today to say a few things about my friend, and I will say the nice ones. I am teasing. They are all nice. I do appreciate having that opportunity. I was listening to the gentleman's comments and was very moved because I think that people sometimes don't realize what Congressmen go through. We volunteered to do this job, so I know you are not complaining, and I am not complaining. The fact that you choked up a little bit when you started talking about your family, it meant a lot to me. I know it means a lot to you because we have had numerous conversations in your decade here. We have done a lot of things together, and you are always talking about your kids, what is going on and how they are doing. I have even given you rides home or part of the way home. For those watching, I would drop him off at the McDonald's in Front Royal and someone would pick him up from West Virginia, but I would at least get him that far. Our districts came close to touching, but we never actually did touch. It also gave me an opportunity on one occasion to travel with Alex throughout the district. He said that he likes to stop in the barber shops and the little stores. We did that one day. Specifically I remember stopping in that little pizza shop. I still can't pronounce the name of the town. I think it is Ghent. I might have it wrong, but it is not spelled that way. We did have a little bit a schedule, and he was wanting to talk to more and more people, and every now and again I would have to say: All right, Alex, we don't have time to talk to everybody. That is just the way Alex is. He is a great individual. You talked about, and I have to concur, having had numerous philosophical conversations with you, that you have been one of the strongest conservative voices during your time in the House. I was talking with another Member, and Alex happened to be present, and we were talking about things. He made some point on what we needed to do to push the conservative cause forward to make America great and better as we move forward. The other guy said: Yeah, it is what we are going to miss. We will miss that, Alex. That is because we would be sitting trying to figure out how complicated it was and how you would maneuver this and that, and Alex would say: No. Here is what you do. You just go straightforward and tell people the facts. That is what you have always done, and it has been greatly appreciated. Last, but not least, through those 10 years we have developed a friendship, and that is a friendship that will be a lifetime friendship. We will continue to do things together, as I know that you have a servant's heart and will continue to want to serve the people of West Virginia. The people you represent in West Virginia are not that different from the people that I represent in southwest Virginia. It is not West Virginia, but southwest Virginia. Of course, as you know, I believe the two States should never have been cleaved apart because, particularly, in western portions of Virginia, we are very much culturally, spiritually, and politically aligned. I appreciate you, and I look forward to working with you in whatever capacity you serve in next.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Are there others?