Bristol, Va. Swift Water Rescue Team recognized by congressman for work during Helene
BRISTOL, Va. (WJHL) — The Bristol Virginia Swift Water Rescue Team was recognized on Tuesday by Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) for its efforts in responding to emergencies during Hurricane Helene.
Griffith visited the Bristol, Virginia Fire Department (BVFD) to speak with crew members and learn more about their personal testimonies from responding during Hurricane Helene.
He also provided a copy of his extension of remarks he presented to Congress recently, highlighting the work the Bristol Swift Water Rescue Team has done.
8 Months Since Helene: 4 state-owned bridges still closed in Northeast Tenn.
'Somewhere on one of these times that they've gone into rescue, those people wouldn't have gotten out,' Griffith said. 'And so there have been lives saved. How do you count those lives? Well you can't. Because we saved them. But the odds are that of those 80 rescues that they've done in six months, some of the people that they went out to rescue probably, I'm just guessing, but one could guess, maybe as many as half would not have survived the swift water without this team.'
BVFD Lt. Tyler Wright told News Channel 11 that he can't begin to list all of the people in the department who helped tremendously during the aftermath of the recent storms, Helene and otherwise, and he's glad they're getting recognized nationally in Congress.
'Luckily, we have a team here in the region that can come out and help you,' Wright said. 'You know, our guys go through rigorous training each year, and they're obviously very aware of the dangers of being around water. And they take certain steps to try to mitigate that danger and operate as safely as they can.'
Griffith explained why he ensured that the crew was honored for their work.
'This is about presenting what we call an extension of remarks that's put into the Congressional Record. And just basically, it's to recognize the great work that the Bristol Swift Water Team has done, not just here in Bristol, but all throughout the region.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
31 minutes ago
- New York Times
How Hard Will Musk Fight Republicans' Budget Bill?
Can Musk kill the budget bill? Elon Musk hasn't stopped criticizing the budget bill that he has called a 'disgusting abomination.' In fact, he appears to be just getting started. The debate in Washington now is how far Musk will go to try to defeat a bill that — by the assessment of Musk, several Republicans and now nonpartisan watchdogs — will vastly add to the federal debt. 'KILL THE BILL,' Musk posted on X on Wednesday, a message he urged followers to press with members of Congress. He has turned a majority of his feed into a stream of reposts of content criticizing the legislation and denouncing its effect on the nation's $36 trillion debt load. A string of assessments suggest that the bill will add to the debt. The most consequential, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, estimated that the House version of the plan would add $2.4 trillion over the next decade, given both the roughly $3.8 trillion tax cut at its core and additional spending. (Other estimates are even higher, including the Penn Wharton Budget Model's: $2.8 trillion.) A Republican counter: Attack the messenger. The Trump administration advanced hard-to-believe claims about C.B.O. staff members' partisanship, and arguments that its analysis ignores projected economic growth. That said, a previous nonpartisan analysis of the House bill found that the tax cuts would generate nearly no additional economic growth, and even conservatives found the budget office's analysis credible. 'When all the models are in unison,' Erica York, the vice president for federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation, told The Times, 'it really doesn't make sense to triple down on the strategy to blame the scorekeeper.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
The parade of presidential pardons is a perversion of justice
There are all sorts of checks and balances baked into the Constitution. But one power sits above the law, untouched by Congress, immune to the courts and utterly unaccountable: the presidential pardon. It is the kind of absolute authority you'd expect in a monarchy, not a democracy. The Founding Fathers thought they were building a system of justice with a human touch — where a president, guided by conscience and compassion, could offer mercy to someone wrongfully convicted or genuinely reformed. The pardon was supposed to heal wounds, not reward political allies or well-heeled donors. Nice idea. Too bad it hasn't always worked out that way. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon after Watergate to help the country move on. It was controversial, sure, but Ford was acting on principle, not personal gain. Contrast that with Bill Clinton, who — on his way out the door — pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive tax cheat whose ex-wife just happened to be a generous Clinton donor. That wasn't mercy. That was transactional politics. Joe Biden used his final hours in office to pardon his son, Hunter, and other family members — along with a few preemptive pardons aimed at blunting potential charges from a future Trump administration. That's not justice. That's insurance. And then there's Donald Trump. Where to begin? Trump opened his second term — on the first day, no less — by pardoning about 1,500 people involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Among them were thugs who assaulted police officers. Then came the pardon parade: Reality television fraudsters Todd and Julie Chrisley. Former Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.), who lied on his taxes. A corrupt sheriff in Virginia. A Nevada politician who pocketed money meant for fallen police officers — and used it to pay for plastic surgery. A nursing home operator who stiffed the IRS out of $10 million. Trump even tossed a pardon to former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) — the same Blagojevich who tried to sell off Barack Obama's Senate seat like it was a used car on Craigslist. Blago, by the way, was also a contestant on Trump's 'Celebrity Apprentice' show. Imagine that. Trump's pardon lawyer — yes, he has one of those now — summed it up with a slogan that belongs on a bumper sticker: 'No MAGA left behind.' That's not a legal doctrine. That's a loyalty program. When presidents start handing out pardons like party favors to friends, donors or political cronies, it's not only the opposite of what the Founding Fathers had it mind, but it also sends a very loud and dangerous message — that the law doesn't apply equally. That who you know matters more than what you did. That justice is just another game for the powerful to rig. And when Biden pardons his own son and Trump pardons his loyal foot soldiers, what are we left with? A pardoning arms race, a perversion of justice that turns the most sacred executive power into a blunt instrument of politics and payback. So why should we care? Because once the ideals put forth in the Constitution become tainted by raw politics — once they're bent, twisted and ignored by the very people sworn to uphold those ideals — the entire democratic experiment begins to buckle. The presidential pardon was meant to show mercy, not mock the law. But in the hands of men more interested in self-preservation and political payback than in public service, it becomes just another tool for corruption. And telling ourselves that 'both sides do it' doesn't make it any less sleazy. Bernard Goldberg is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Substack page. Follow him @BernardGoldberg.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Party Primaries Need Ranked Choice Voting
Democratic voters in New Jersey must choose a nominee for governor next week from a crowded and contentious field - and polls show no one truly catching fire. The front-runner polls at about 30% of the vote. At least three other candidates can fairly claim that theyre in second place. Two more appear to have double-digit support. Meanwhile, a quarter of New Jersey Democrats remain undecided - and the race just keeps getting more negative. Its a textbook example of an election that would benefit from ranked choice voting. RCV is the tool that solves precisely this problem: how to determine a majority winner with the strongest support from a field of several candidates. And while 2025 is a quieter election year, well surely see this same problem - with RCV as a clear solution - in dozens of marquee races in 2026, with large candidate fields already forming on both the Republican and Democratic sides to fill open gubernatorial and Senate seats. Voters demand elected officials who are accountable to a majority of us, not just a narrow base. But they also deserve choice, and New Jersey Democrats have a lot of it here. The Garden States gubernatorial field is a deep one with two members of Congress, the mayors of the states two largest cities, a longtime senate president, and a union leader all representing a variety of ideologies and backgrounds. With the June 10 primary fast approaching, several recent polls show that U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill holds the lead - but her advantage differs widely in each, and so does the candidate in second. Emerson shows Sherrill at 28%, and three candidates tied at second with 11% - Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, and U.S. Rep. Josh Gottheimer. Teachers union leader Sean Spiller and former senate president Steve Sweeney follow close behind. An InsiderNJ poll finds Sherrill with 31%, Baraka at 21%, and Fulop at 19%, with the others closely clustered around 10%. Rutgers found things even tighter: Sherill with 17%, followed by Fulop with 12%, then Spiller at 10%, with Baraka and Gottheimer tied at 9%. Its entirely possible that the "winner" could end up somewhere in the low 30s - meaning nearly 70% of voters preferred someone other than the nominee. What a mess for voters. There are several distinct groupings of candidates, some more moderate, some more progressive, some more inclined to work with the Trump administration and some vowing to fight it. Theyre all dividing the vote. The polls are so scattered as to be no help at all. Voters are stuck trying to guess the strongest among their favorites. But what if there were an election with multiple candidates, satisfied voters, and a united and strong party? Ranked choice voting makes it possible. Instead of voting for just a single candidate, voters have the power to rank the field in order: first, second, third, and so on. If someone wins a majority right away, they win. If no one does, the candidates at the bottom are eliminated. If your candidate is still in the race, your vote stays with them. If theyre knocked out, your vote simply counts for your second choice. The "instant runoff" continues until someone wins 50%. Its a nonpartisan solution that protects choice and majority winners, and puts voters first. Unsurprisingly, its good for parties too: Research shows that candidates who win a majority in their primaries - which RCV delivers - do better in competitive elections. And instead of a brutal campaign leaving bruises and hard feelings, the party is united heading into the fall. Everywhere RCV is used, from Maine to Alaska, from New York City to Utah, voters say that they like it and find it easy to use. Four years ago, Virginia Republicans faced a similar textbook case: a crowded primary for governor, candidates from multiple wings of the party, even the threat of a divisive third-party challenge from one candidate if they didnt win the nomination. The party turned to ranked choice voting to solve this problem. Glenn Youngkin was the majority winner. He had a unified party behind him - and in November, he defeated the former Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe (who had trouble unifying Democrats after winning a four-way primary without RCV). If theres one thing voters want more of these days, its choice. Poll after poll finds huge majorities of us frustrated with the candidates were given and longing for more options. But we also need the tools to make the most of greater choice - instead of it causing its own problems, like driving further polarization, frustrating voters, and making our campaign cycles ever more toxic. Ranked choice voting allows lots of choices and majority winners to go hand in hand. In the end, that leads to stronger nominees, more unified parties, and most importantly, more satisfied voters. Meredith Sumpter is president and CEO of FairVote, a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections.
