Floor Statements

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of my friend and former colleague of the Virginia House of Delegates, Delegate Charles Poindexter, who passed away on February 4, 2026, at the age of 83.

Delegate Poindexter was born on February 27, 1942, in Roanoke, Virginia. His upbringing in rural Virginia included graduating from Franklin County High School. Delegate Poindexter's academic interests led him to nearby Lynchburg College, where he secured a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mathematics, before he earned a Master of Science Degree in Administration in Management from George Washington University.

After developing strengths in these spaces, Delegate Poindexter maintained a very successful career as an IT systems engineer. His work is credited for supporting the U.S. Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and American intelligence systems.

Later, Delegate Poindexter would return to his farming roots in Franklin County, where he would devote himself to the betterment of a community that his family called home for generations. His first venture in public office included eight years serving the Franklin County Board of Supervisors.

In 2007, he won election to the House of Delegates. Through more than a decade in state government, Delegate Poindexter represented the rural communities of Franklin County, Henry County, and Patrick County.

As Majority Leader of the House of Delegates, I enjoyed working with Delegate Poindexter. His service on the Agriculture Committee, where he shared his perspectives on critical issues pertaining to rural Virginia. He also served on the Counties, Cities and Towns Committee, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee, and Appropriations Committee to help shape policy discussions and developments in Richmond.

Additionally, Delegate Poindexter served his community in other ways. He regularly sang in the church choir at home and made contributions on the Board of Directors for the New College Institute in Martinsville, Virginia.

Delegate Poindexter is survived by his loving and supportive wife, Janet.

I join my House of Delegates friends and rural Virginia in mourning the loss of this dedicated public servant. As one Franklin County community member put it, Charles Poindexter's passing is a huge loss to Franklin County and the Commonwealth. May others who aspire to represent rural Virginia look to the exceptional service of Delegate Poindexter as a model of respect, dedication and conservatism.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a landmark moment in both American aviation history and rural health care innovation: the 10th anniversary of the first Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-approved drone delivery, which took place in Wise County, Virginia, on July 17, 2015.

This groundbreaking event marked the first official drone package delivery in this country. It was the first time in our Nation's history that medical supplies were delivered to patients via Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), setting a global precedent for how drone technology can serve humanity.

The drone delivery was made possible through an extraordinary collaboration among several visionary partners:

Flirtey, a pioneering startup in commercial drone delivery (including co-founder and chief executive officer Matthew Sweeny; co-founder and chief operations officer Tom Bass; advisory board member Shyam Chidamber);

Health Wagon, a nonprofit health care organization that has served the medically underserved in Central Appalachia for over four decades (including chief executive officer, Dr. Teresa Gardner Tyson, DNP; clinical director, Dr. Paula Meade Collins, DNP);

Remote Area Medical (RAM), which organizes annual pop-up clinics providing free medical, dental, and vision care (including president, Stan Brock);

NASA Langley Research Center, which offered critical technical support and expertise (including director David E. Bowles; Frank Jones; John Foggia);

Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership (MAAP) at Virginia Tech, an official FAA-designated UAS test site (including director, Jon Greene; president, Timothy D. Sands);

Virginia Center for Innovative Technology, which facilitated public- private collaboration and integration;

Appalachian College of Pharmacy, which played a key role in preparing and ensuring the safe dispensing of the prescription medications delivered by drone (including adjunct associate professor of pharmacy, Dr. Shamly Abdelfattah); and

Jack Kennedy, Clerk of the Wise County Circuit Court, who was instrumental in pioneering and championing the concept of using drones for rural medical delivery in the Appalachian region.

Other Notable Partners: Shelcy Mullins, Sr. Fairgrounds; Lonesome Pine Airport manager, Jarrod Powers; RX Partnership executive director Amy Yarcich; Ryan Media Lab chief executive officer Mark A. Ryan and partner Kyle Mark Ryan; and Wise County UAS event coordinator, Andrianah Kilgore.

At that time, delivering medical supplies to rural sites like the RAM Wise County clinic event often required extensive hours of travel that could take hours or days of travel across rugged, mountainous terrain. But on that historic day, a drone carried the same supplies in just minutes--safely and efficiently delivering pharmaceuticals and medical supplies to patients.

This was more than a demonstration of technical prowess--it was a transformative moment for underserved communities. It showed how cutting-edge innovation could eliminate barriers to health care, reduce delays in treatment, and save lives in areas long overlooked by traditional infrastructure.

The implications extended far beyond Southwest Virginia. This mission laid the groundwork for nationwide drone delivery applications and inspired regulatory advancements by the FAA. It served as a springboard for companies to explore widespread drone delivery as a viable, scalable solution.

Mr. Speaker, as we reflect on the 10th anniversary of this historic achievement, we honor all those who made it possible. Their collective vision, determination, and compassion gave rise to a new frontier of health care access, born in the mountains of Central Appalachian Virginia but felt across the globe.

The first FAA-approved drone delivery was not merely a feat of aviation--it was a profound act of compassion. It marked a turning point in how we approach health care access for those living in rural communities. For areas long burdened by limited infrastructure and geographic barriers, this moment offered something far greater than innovation--it delivered dignity and hope. It was, in every sense, the ``Kitty Hawk moment'' for the drone delivery industry and the future of rural health care delivery.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Prestar Packaging of Christiansburg, Virginia, on achieving the top honor in the 2025 Virginia Manufacturing Cup. This accomplishment has earned their product, the Pop-Up Gift Card Box, the honorary title of ``The Coolest Thing in Virginia.'' The Virginia Manufacturers Association celebrates the passion and innovation that drive Virginia's manufacturing sector forward. Part of the foundation of a strong manufacturing sector depends on creative ideas that businesses like Prestar Packaging bring to the market.

Such creative ideas can lead to critical partnerships. Interest in Prestar Packaging products includes the likes of popular brands such as Under Armour, Coca-Cola, and even the United States Congress.

I was impressed to hear that Prestar Packaging has operated for three decades. It takes strong leadership, principled discipline and fantastic genius to sustain such a successful business.

Moreover, family-owned businesses like Prestar Packaging contribute to the manufacturing backbone of local economies, create job opportunities and highlight the power of American manufacturing.

Thanks in part to the great success of Prestar Packaging, Montgomery County continues to deliver in the manufacturing space.

I join Southwest Virginia communities in wishing a most sincere congratulations to Prestar Packaging.

May they use this success to fuel them in their future activities and endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met last night and reported out a rule providing for consideration of three measures: H.R. 6703, Lower Healthcare Premiums for All Americans Act; H.R. 498, Do No Harm in Medicaid Act; and H.R. 3492, Protect Children's Innocence Act.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 953 provides for consideration of H.R. 6703, the Lower Healthcare Premiums for All Americans Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided among and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority members of the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, or their respective designees, and one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 498, the Do No Harm in Medicaid Act, 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 Energy and Commerce, or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 3492, the Protect Children's Innocence Act, under a structured 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, and provides each one a motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides that, during consideration of H.R. 4776, pursuant to House Resolution 951, the further amendment specified in section 5 of this resolution shall be considered as adopted.

Mr. Speaker, this rule deals with several important bills that will lower healthcare costs for Americans and protect children. One of the bills, H.R. 3492, the Protect Children's Innocence Act, is led by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).

This bill prohibits genital and bodily mutilation and chemical castration for a minor, which generally is anyone under the age of 18 years, while also preserving the exception for this care if there is a legitimate medical need for certain procedures.

Another bill we are considering in this rule is H.R. 498, the Do No Harm in Medicaid Act, led by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw).

This is a simple bill that prohibits Federal medical dollars to pay for gender transition procedures for individuals under the age of 18. The bill also includes protections for individuals if some of those treatments are medically necessary.

These are important bills to ensure that Federal taxpayer dollars are not going toward a minor's gender transition surgery if it is not medically necessary. These bills also put guardrails in place so that minors cannot make permanent life-altering decisions before they are 18 years of age.

Finally, we are considering H.R. 6703, the Lower Healthcare Premiums for All Americans Act, led by the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller- Meeks).

This bill lowers premiums for Americans, creates more insurance options, brings greater transparency, and cuts red tape.

Unlike our Democrat friends' plan, our Republican plan actually lowers premiums by double digits, roughly 11 percent, according to the data.

All the Democrats want to do is throw billions more dollars toward insurance companies. Instead of attempting to lower the premiums of the individuals who are on the insurance plan that the Democrats created, which should be called the unaffordable care act, the Democrats have cried wolf that Republicans are responsible for premiums being unaffordable, but let's get the facts straight.

Every single Democrat voted in support of the so-called Affordable Care Act. They claimed that people's premiums would be lowered; patients would have more choice; and if you like your doctor, you can keep him or her. However, just the opposite has happened. Their so- called Affordable Care Act has caused premiums to skyrocket. Due to this, the Democrats are too afraid to own up to the fact that their health plan has failed to actually lower premiums.

Instead, they have said to themselves: Hey, instead of acknowledging our failure, let's just blame the Republicans for that failure.

Mr. Speaker, I distinctly remember a hearing before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, shortly after I was elected, where most of the witnesses said that the so-called Affordable Care Act was going to make insurance premiums go up for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, that was over a decade ago, but the Democrats on the committee insisted that the witnesses were wrong and that Republicans were merely trying to scare the American people.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for the American people, the witnesses were right. The so-called Affordable Care Act has, in fact, negatively impacted the price of health insurance in America. This plan, the so- called Affordable Care Act, is a major reason that your insurance premiums have gone up and have done so repeatedly.

When not blaming Republicans for the failures of this so-called Affordable Care Act, do you know what the Democrats' solution is? Folks watching this debate at home won't be surprised to know it. Democrats want to throw billions of additional dollars to healthcare insurance companies in an attempt to distract the American people from their own policy failures.

I don't know if you all have been following the news closely, but the insurance companies that the Democrats want to give an additional $85 billion to with their 3-year clean extension of the temporary COVID enhanced premium tax credits have not been knocking on the doors, Mr. Speaker, of the United States bankruptcy courts seeking protection or aid. In fact, they have been making record profits--record profits.

(930)

Further, we know these temporary COVID-enhanced premium tax credits have been riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse.

The independent Government Accountability Office recently came out with a preliminary report that showed one Social Security number was used to receive over 125 different insurance policies in 2023 alone. That is fraud.

There is also a huge amount of waste. Mr. Speaker, my estimate, based on data that I have seen, is that roughly 20 percent of enrollees in the temporary COVID-enhanced premium tax credits don't really exist. They are shadow enrollees.

Let me explain. In most healthcare insurance plans, they generally have about 15 percent of the enrollees who make no claims in a given year. In the arena of the temporary COVID-enhanced premium tax credits, that number for those particular policies that have no claims is closer to 35 percent. There is no reasonable explanation, Mr. Speaker, other than those extra 20 percent of people not making claims don't really exist. Now, I call this waste and not fraud, and that is because I actually believe the insurance companies don't know which enrollees are shadow enrollees.

How does this happen? It is a glitch in the way the bill was written originally. People move around. If an individual signed up for a program in north Florida to receive the enhanced premium tax credit and then moved to south Georgia, or even to another city in Florida, and signed up again, thinking, ``Well, I have moved, so I probably need a different plan,'' the consumer has a right to believe that somebody at their new plan or new company will notify the old carrier that they have switched policies.

The way the program was designed by our friends on the other side of the aisle, that never happens, and because an individual is automatically reenrolled each year, this can go on for years. Thus, over time, it builds up to that 20 percent of shadow enrollees.

We cannot, in good conscience, in defense of the American taxpayers' money, just cleanly extend these temporary COVID-enhanced premium tax credits without addressing the realities behind the waste, the fraud, and the abuse that is occurring in this program.

I also find it interesting that the Democrats voted twice to extend these temporary enhanced premium tax credits but specifically did not make these

premium tax credits permanent. They didn't do it. They had many opportunities to make these permanent if they wanted to do that as much as they say today, but they didn't. They had many opportunities to make these permanent if the enhanced premium tax credits were as imperative to make the system work as they will claim here on the floor today, and have been for several weeks, but they didn't do it.

Whose fault is that? Logic would tell us it is the Democrats' fault, but when it comes to healthcare, the Democrats are never willing to admit their policies failed. What do they do? Blame Republicans.

In the Inflation Reduction Act, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats prioritized giving out around $1 trillion to Green New Deal initiatives instead of making their temporary premium tax credit program permanent.

The fact is, even they couldn't find the votes when they had control of both Houses and the White House to make the enhanced premium tax credits permanent. Now, they are demanding Republicans do what they could not do and clean up their mess, which was an add-on to the so- called Affordable Care Act.

I can't make that make sense, and, Mr. Speaker, I bet you can't either.

What are they asking for now? You guessed it: another temporary extension that fails to address the underlying causes of the skyrocketing costs; doesn't deal with the waste, fraud, and abuse; and worsens healthcare access caused by their so-called Affordable Care Act. Instead, they just want to blame Republicans, use it as a political issue, and give more money to insurance companies making enormous profits.

What the Republicans have drafted is a plan to address health issues across the board for our people and for our Nation. This bill brings more transparency on the pharmacy benefit manager middlemen, better known as PBMs, for employers. For too long, PBMs have gotten away with operating in a black box and causing drug prices to rise. We are bringing transparency into the commercial market for PBMs under this bill.

The bill also expands access to association health plans, which allow small businesses and self-employed workers to band together and purchase health insurance. One of the biggest complaints we hear from businesses, especially small businesses, is the rising costs of premiums that they have.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, Virginia tried to create these plans, and CMS told them they couldn't do it, that they would penalize them. The Virginia Association of Realtors--let's see if I got the name right--in an article from 2023, the leader said that they would create a plan for 7,000 association members who were uninsured because they don't make enough money to afford the Federal marketplace coverage--that would be the so-called Affordable Care Act--or to qualify for subsidies in the small group and individual plans.

These small businesses don't have the bargaining power that larger businesses do to help lower their premiums. Allowing these small businesses to join together and have more bargaining power will help lower their health insurance costs.

Another part of the plan codifies a 2019 Trump administration rule that allows employers to give tax-advantaged dollars to their employees, who can then use those dollars to purchase health insurance and for other medical costs. When businesses are planning their financial future, unpredictable health insurance costs and rising premiums make it almost financially unviable in some cases. Allowing businesses to have this option brings them more certainty and will give power to their employees to choose a plan that is best for them.

Another flexibility we grant under this bill is by exempting stop- loss insurance from the definition of health insurance coverage. Stop- loss coverage is a type of coverage an employer can purchase to protect themselves from unexpected catastrophic health claims if that employer has chosen to self-insure their employees' healthcare. This allows an employer to limit the financial risk imposed on them if an employee, or a few of them, have unusually high medical claims that exceed the budgeted amount. Some States have attempted to restrict or prohibit these plans, which makes a self-insured option less attractive.

This bill clarifies that this type of coverage is exempted from the definition of health insurance coverage, which means that these States would be limited in how they can regulate stop-loss coverage while still having to follow the regulations of ERISA.

On top of all of this, I would reiterate that the bill lowers premiums of individuals who are enrolled in the so-called Affordable Care Act plans by roughly 11 percent. It does this by appropriating dollars for cost-sharing reductions. This will stop the practice of silver loading by putting dollars toward lowering beneficiaries' out- of-pocket costs, which in turn lowers premiums for Americans who are on the so-called Affordable Care Act, again, by roughly 11 percent.

Today, Mr. Speaker, you will hear my friends and colleagues on the other side, the Democrats, tell you this plan is not meaningful and that the only way to help individuals is to throw more money at big insurance. Throwing more money at the insurance companies, Mr. Speaker, is not the answer.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It gets curiouser and curiouser.

The gentleman from Massachusetts referenced that our protocol is to have sunsets, but when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had the opportunity to make permanent the premium enhanced tax credits, we didn't control the floor. They controlled the floor.

They don't have that protocol, as I understand it. They don't have that protocol that they put sunsets on things. They could have and did make other programs in the Green New Deal permanent. They could have made it permanent; they chose not to. They had the Senate, the House, and the Presidency.

It is not House Republican protocol that stopped them. It was a lack of votes or will. If the program is so imperative today, why wasn't it imperative for them 3 years ago?

I submit this is a paper tiger and that there is no substance in their arguments or, if some substance, just a small amount.

Mr. Speaker, they had the chance. They had the power, and they didn't use it to do what they want us to do today to fix their problems with their so-called Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) who is the chairwoman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side continually say that we haven't done anything. We just received a message from the Senate on a Republican bill that does something. Now, they may not like it, but I find it fascinating. These debates are always so interesting, Mr. Speaker.

They say we haven't put forward anything at some points, and at other points in their debate, they claim that this bill is terrible, that it does nothing.

Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that a part of this bill revives a Democratic plan that was supposed to be short term called cost-sharing reductions. It is fascinating because during the first Trump administration, in May 2017, my Democratic colleagues--and I know some of them weren't here yet--but 196 of them, including the gentleman from Massachusetts, signed a letter asking--because it was not codified-- President Trump to use his executive power to continue the cost-sharing reduction plan.

Mr. Speaker, I would love to hear from my colleagues why cost-sharing reduction by them was considered to be so important to be continued to help 7 million hardworking Americans and their families, more than half--I am reading from their letter--of all marketplace enrollees for 2017 afford their out-of-pocket healthcare costs. That is what cost- sharing reduction does.

Today, they claim, as a part of our bill, it is nothing. It is worthless. It is

not worth the paper it is written on, but in 2017, 196 of them, including the gentleman from Massachusetts, asked the President of the United States to continue the program.

Today, we are answering that call, saying we will answer that and put it in our bill, but because it is now proposed as part of a Republican bill, my colleagues, for some reason, don't remember their position in 2017 and call it trash.

Could it be mere political posturing for November elections? I submit it is.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely correct on this one point. If what they want is socialized medicine, yes, I am against it and so are most of the Republicans in this House. We are not for socialized medicine.

When I was a student, I remember being in Edinburgh in 1979. Mr. Finch across the hall with socialized medicine had to wait 10 months to get surgery for a blockage in his heart.

When I came home, I discovered that in the United States it would have been 3 days before he would have had that surgery. He died a couple of years later because socialized medicine warehouses people until they have time to get to them. That is not what our system does nor should it.

Further, I would say that the Democrats come here today, and it is their healthcare system. They created it. When they created the Affordable Care Act, there were no Republican votes. When they extended it or changed it a little bit and eventually renewed it again in the Inflation Reduction Act, there were no Republican votes for that.

Today, they want to blame Republicans for their policy failures. The American people will eventually see through that. I know they have done a great job of convincing the American people that is the case, but it isn't true.

They talk about the fact that, as costs are going up and they want this new plan to throw $85 billion at the insurance companies, 85 percent has to be spent on healthcare. That is true.

Mr. Speaker, 15 percent of $500 that the insurance companies get to put in their pockets is a whole lot less than 15 percent of $2,000. If we throw more money at the insurance companies, the big insurance executives get more money to put in their pockets. They are smiling like Cheshire cats as the costs go up and they pocket larger profits.

Perhaps my Democratic colleagues don't want to admit it or don't realize that they are the front men for big insurance, but that is what they are. They are the front men for big insurance. Instead of facing reality, their answer is to blame the Republicans and throw more taxpayer money at the big insurance companies.

Mr. Speaker, giving the insurance companies more money will not solve our healthcare problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 916 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Rules Committee met last night and reported out a rule providing for consideration of six measures: H.R. 4312, the SCORE Act; H.R. 1005, Combating the Lies of Authoritarians in School Systems Act; H.R. 1049, Transparency in Reporting of Adversarial Contributions to Education Act; H.R. 1069, the PROTECT Our Kids Act; H.R. 2965, Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025; and H.R. 4305, the DUMP Red Tape Act.

House Resolution 916 provides for consideration of H.R. 4312, the SCORE Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided amongst and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their respective designees, and the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1005, Combating the Lies of Authoritarians in School Systems Act; H.R. 1049, Transparency in Reporting of Adversarial Contributions to Education Act; and H.R. 1069, the PROTECT Our Kids Act, all under closed rules with 1 hour of general debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their respective designees, and provides each one a motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2965, the Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025, and H.R. 4305, the DUMP Red Tape Act, both under closed rules with 1 hour of general debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business or their respective designees, and provides each one a motion to recommit.

This rule deals with several critical issues. There are three bills that all came out of the Education and Workforce Committee that would combat efforts by the Chinese Communist Party who meddle in our schools and universities. These bills include H.R. 1005, the Combating the Lies of Authoritarians in School Systems Act, led by Representative Joyce of Ohio. The bill prohibits public elementary and secondary schools from participating in financial contracts with the People's Republic of China. Additionally, H.R. 1005 requires school systems that receive sizable funds of $10,000 or more from foreign sources to disclose their agreements to the Department of Education.

Another bill being considered under this rule is H.R. 1069, the PROTECT Our Kids Act, led by Representative Hern from Oklahoma. Under H.R. 1069, Federal funding would be barred for elementary and secondary schools that have a partnership with a cultural or language institute funded by the Chinese Government, including a Confucius Institute. It would also bar any school that directly operates a learning center supported by the Chinese Government that receives support from an individual or entity acting on behalf of the Chinese Government.

On the outside, these seem like harmless educational organizations that seek to teach students Chinese language and culture. However, they are often used as tools by the CCP to steal American knowledge and/or indoctrinate children with anti-American ideas.

Lastly, H.R. 1049, the Transparency in Reporting of Adversarial Contributions to Education Act, led by Representative Bean from Florida, empowers parents by giving them the right to know when a foreign government or foreign entity of concern, particularly the Chinese Communist party funds, influences, or provides curriculum for American students in public schools.

Upon written request, a parent is entitled to review any curriculum that was purchased by foreign entities for their children's classroom.

While I think we can agree that it can be beneficial to broaden our children's horizons with new ideas from across global cultures, we must ensure it is done properly without undue foreign influence.

There are also two Small Business Committee bills being considered under this rule. H.R. 2965, the Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act, led by Representative Van Duyne from Texas, would ensure that any agency action taken by the Small Business Administration does not increase compliance costs on small businesses. The agency meant to be the promoter of small businesses shouldn't add to the already crushing regulatory burden facing these businesses.

H.R. 4305, the DUMP Red Tape Act, is led by Representative Wied from Wisconsin. This bill creates a dedicated hotline so small businesses can report to the Small Business Administration on any overly burdensome and costly regulations they must deal with. I think we can agree that we should do everything we can to help protect our small businesses in this country.

Finally in this rule, we also will be considering H.R. 4312, the SCORE Act, led by Representative Bilirakis from Florida and the chairmen of each subcommittee that has jurisdiction over this issue: Energy and Commerce Committee, Education and Workforce Committee, and the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, this bill affirms the right of student-athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness, or NIL. What the SCORE Act is trying to do is level the playing field for universities of all sizes and establish protections for student-athletes that all schools must abide by.

What we have gotten into is a race to the bottom with over 30 State laws and athletes jumping from team to team. The SCORE Act will make sure that universities that hit a certain threshold in athletics revenue are required to provide academic support, career counseling, and medical benefits.

As a longtime mediocre swimmer and a former swim coach, I am glad to see that the SCORE Act attempts to protect our Olympic sports. Under the bill, large universities must offer 14 to 16 different sports, which will ensure that non-revenue-producing sports are still supported. I personally hope this will include swimming, but the universities get to make that decision.

This bill would also protect athletes from unscrupulous agents. As I said before, the SCORE Act affirms the right of student athletes to make money by endorsing products and services. To protect the athlete, the SCORE Act caps agent fees at 5 percent of each contract's value.

The SCORE Act also allows for revenue sharing amongst student athletes. Under this bill, up to 22 percent of the average athletic revenue of the top 70 universities could be paid out to athletes by those universities.

The SCORE Act also requires NIL contracts to be examined to ensure that a contract is, in fact, payment for services rendered, as opposed to a payment to attend a certain institution. Without disclosure of NIL deals, there is a real possibility that the integrity

of competition could be called into question.

This bipartisan bill has received overwhelming support from schools and conferences across the country, including the NCAA. I believe this bill is the first step--not the last, the first step--in protecting college athletes and ensuring there is a national standard and an even playing field for universities across the country. Accordingly, I urge passage of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it amazing that we come here to talk about these six bills and a significant portion of the debate from the other side of the aisle deals with bills that we are not addressing? They talk about some of those, and then they make allegations, Mr. Speaker, that are just not accurate.

I remember hearing the phrase just a second ago: Well, what are they doing to help small businesses? How soon we forget, Mr. Speaker, that just last summer we passed the working families tax cuts bill with lots of help for people on Main Street in Abingdon, Virginia, and Marion, Virginia.

In every small town that I represent in the Ninth Congressional District, those businesses are benefiting from what we did because we made major adjustments for taxes that would have burdened our small businesses and made it more expensive for them to compete against the big companies. Actually, what we did was we kept everything that we already had that was going to expire.

Now, it is true, the big companies get some of these tax cuts too. However, Mr. Speaker, the people who really need them are the small businesses. The people who need those breaks are the mom-and-pop shops. The people who need those breaks are people like my son, who is 18, and who is now getting tips. He is working tables at Mac and Bob's Restaurant, and he is getting tips.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker?

He won't have to pay income taxes on that. Now, maybe he is at a point where his money wouldn't be high enough that he would pay those taxes anyway, but for those families who rely on that tip money as a part of their income, that is a huge benefit to American families.

So I find it surprising that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to focus on saying that we are not helping small businesses when every single small business person in the United States knows that we have been fighting for them and knows that we have been helping them.

They know that these bills today in this rule--that is all we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is a rule on six bills--relate to small businesses and that what we are doing today will help a little bit.

They challenge us and ask: What are we doing to help small business? This is after we did a huge benefit on a number of different issues for small businesses, for mom-and-pops, and for people out there working.

Whether they are working overtime jobs where they are able to take a tax credit for that as well, whether they are doing tips, or whether they are just trying to buy some new equipment and want to be able to write that off in the first year instead of having to amortize it over a number of years--as used to be the law and it is what my colleagues on the other side advocated for last summer--they will start paying that again so that they can't take that write-off. That hurts small business.

So I ask you, Mr. Speaker, just to consider that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really don't understand small business or they wouldn't make such a comment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may have been involved in small businesses. I was too, not just family, but I ran a small business for many, many years. People may not consider a solo practitioner of law a small business, but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, when you have to pay the light bill and you have to pay the salaries, you are a small business.

Further, I have also been involved for many years in a swimming pool that some years makes money but most years may show a little bit of a profit but it is there mainly because we want it to be a community pool. However, it is a corporation that makes money occasionally--even if only on paper--and that corporation has to buy equipment. Shockingly, Mr. Speaker, you need new kickboards. You need new diving boards, and you need new swim blocks.

What we did last summer helps all of those small businesses, and every one of them knows it. So to say that we haven't done anything on that is really a misnomer and a mistake.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is true that the bill, the SCORE Act, does not solve all the ills that some may see out there, but it is a step in the right direction. That is why in my opening I said that this was a first step but not the last step in trying to solve problems that we have in our college athletics.

It is true that the big sports make lots of money, but the gymnasts of the world and the swimmers of the world don't bring in a lot of revenue. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when I would be swimming in the pool, even in my prime, it was never considered mass appeal entertainment. Nobody would have paid to watch our swimming meets. Now, we had a good time swimming for Emory & Henry College, now University, but it was not bringing in great revenues to the college.

That is why this bill says that if you are going to be doing this, Mr. Speaker, then some of these revenues have to be spent to keep other sports going as well. We are trying to make sure that there is some recognition of the Olympic sports, and we are trying to make sure that there is recognition of other sports. That also means women's sports. Mr. Speaker, you have to have some abilities to take some of the money that you make off the revenue sports, as they are called, and use them for the other sports.

Now, if we want to continue with the Wild Wild West, as my friend, Gus Bilirakis, likes to say, then we do nothing and we defeat this rule. We do nothing, and it will continue to be a crazy arena out there where students aren't looked at, and particularly, Mr. Speaker, if you are not the top-billed students on the football team or on the basketball team. If you are a student athlete in any other way, then you are getting harmed by what is starting to happen and what is happening in our larger universities where everything is going to pay the top-named athletes who

come to your school next year. This starts us down that path.

Is it a perfect bill? I will not claim that. The rule makes it so that we get this first step moving down the pathway to try to resolve some of these issues.

I fully expect that we will have bills in the future that will deal with some of the other issues. We will find that when we do this, we probably have solved some problems, and we will discover additional problems. Sometimes when you get an answer to a question, it raises more questions. That is what this bill is supposed to do. It is supposed to start us down the path.

If we find that there are other issues that Congress needs to step in and deal with, then we can do so. We are not limited to taking action only in December 2025. That is why we have a legislative body that will consider if this bill does good.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the SCORE Act does good. Does it do perfectly? No. Does it solve everything that everybody might think of? No. Does it solve problems we have yet to think of? No.

It is a good start in an area where there is no guidance currently, where the NCAA has lost control of our college athletics completely, and where it is, in fact, a Wild Wild West where the vast majority of students, I submit, who are student athletes are being hurt and left behind.

We are trying to rectify it, to create a balance, so to speak. That is why, as a first step on this first-step bill, we need to pass the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Wow. I am going to talk about the rule. That is what I am supposed to talk about.

I will cede to my colleague, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, that it is absolutely a fair point of debate to bring up the number of closed rules, but he does so without providing all the context.

When accounting for closed rules in the rules package, CRAs and bills that received no amendments--this is for this Congress--less than 35 percent of closed rules have been at the discretion of the Rules Committee.

I know the ranking member will also say there was no formal deadline or call for amendments. Don't be misled, Mr. Speaker. He knows all too well that when he was chairman of the committee, the committee did not always provide a formal amendment deadline every week when they ran the show, either.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that this rule has six closed measures. It should be

noted that amendments were only submitted on three of the six. This means that, of the six bills, only three were closed at the discretion of the committee.

My friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), may also recall that Members can submit amendments, and the Rules Committee may make them in order, whether there is a formal deadline to submit them or not. That is a practice that both Republicans and Democrats have employed.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we get down here and we get all riled up. Been there, done that. I have been riled up myself before, but I find it fascinating from a historical context that my colleague said that when you have closed rules, this is what it looks like in an authoritarian dictatorship.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the words ``authoritarian dictatorship'' must poll well because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are consistently throwing it out there. Here is what is so fascinating: In an authoritarian dictatorship, you don't get to claim that something that the majority is doing is like an authoritarian dictatorship because you would be banned from saying such things. You would not be allowed to say such things. You would not be allowed to have your time to debate the rule and then the bills. All of that would go by the wayside. That has not happened here.

Mr. Speaker, we can argue and, on some points, I might even agree with my colleague from Massachusetts. In the general running of the House floor, I might even be willing to go further than him on some issues because I would like to see us reform a lot of the things we do around here.

Mr. Speaker, we are nowhere near his so-called authoritarian dictatorship from a historical perspective. For those of us who study those movements throughout history, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that to even say that is damaging to this great Republic, which is known throughout the world as the beacon of freedom and known as the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Massachusetts and I agree on one thing in his comments: Killing defenseless people is wrong.

I don't know whether that happened or not, but, as he knows or ought to know, Mr. Speaker, both the Senate and the Armed Services Committee in the House are looking into these allegations. Again, let me unequivocally state that I agree: Killing of defenseless people is wrong.

Let's talk about affordability. I do agree that the affordability of healthcare is an issue. It is a complex issue. It is not in any of the bills that we are dealing with today, and that is his complaint, it is that there ought to be something in there.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind folks how we got here. We got here with a bill that came out of the Speaker's office, Speaker Pelosi's office, called the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. It was going to make everybody's world much better.

Mr. Speaker, it did take care of preexisting conditions. I wasn't here then. It is something that Republicans should have fixed. They should have fixed that. Other than that, it did not make healthcare affordable.

In fact, the biggest complaint that my colleagues have had throughout the course of the last few weeks about the enhanced premium tax credits was due to a temporary program that they said would end December of 2025, and now they claim nobody can afford it without this temporary program that was brought in because of COVID. Nobody can afford insurance in the exchanges. They have, in fact, admitted that healthcare costs and health insurance costs in this country are a problem because of ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, we have talked about everything. I have thought about maybe getting up here and giving a speech on the National D-day Memorial. People are talking about everything that has nothing to do with this rule. I believe that I have exhausted all of my comments that are directly related to the rule, so I am prepared to close at the appropriate time. If we keep bringing up new issues, I may feel compelled to respond.

Mr. Speaker, if we are just talking about the rule that deals with these six bills that we are considering this week, then I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to surprise you. I am actually going to talk about what we are supposed to talk about, and that would be the rule.

I am not going to talk about everything that is out there that I think ought to be changed in the world, and I am not going to say that if you don't do everything I want done that we shouldn't pass anything. If you vote this rule down, you are basically saying if you are not going to do what I want, you shouldn't do anything. I don't believe that is the way a legislative body ought to operate.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this rule in order to bring more transparency and oversight into our children's schools, to ensure that our children are not being improperly influenced by foreign actors or that foreign actors aren't using contributions to our schools to benefit themselves.

One of our colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee did a whole hearing on the Chinese Communist Party back in 2023, and part of what this bill is addressing are issues that were brought out at that time, one of which struck home.

Fairfax County's Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, which at one time was the number one high school in the United States of America, has apparently slipped to number five. I did some checking before I came here today. They received over $3 million from Chinese entities. In return, the top-ranked high school in the United States gave them all the techniques that we are using to teach our students to be better scientists, to be better in the technology field, to be better in mathematics, and to be able to compete better with the United States. It doesn't make any sense.

That is why some of these bills are great bills that make sure that we are reining that in, that we know about it, that the parents know about it, that the government knows about it. We should know if we are getting foreign money influence in our schools, our students, or maybe stealing our ideas.

These bills help our small businesses. On top of that, we take the first step, as I said in the beginning and in the debate, not the last step to bring integrity into the name, image, and likeness, NIL, process in college sports by setting up a Federal framework--not possibly 50; we already have 30--but a Federal framework to ensure that we have fairness across the board on college athletics.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this rule so that we can bring about these good policies and we can debate all the other things that ail the world another day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and work of Bedford County icon Lucille Hoback Boggess, who passed away on November 19, 2025, at the age of 96.

On June 8, 1929, Ms. Hoback Boggess was born into the Hoback family. The Bedford County family would eventually consist of 7 children.

While Ms. Hoback Boggess was attending Bedford High School, some of the Hobacks were serving the United States Armed Forces during World War II.

Unbeknownst to her, as Ms. Hoback Boggess was preparing to celebrate her 15th birthday in Bedford, Virginia, her brothers Bedford and Raymond were preparing for a heroic mission to break Fortress Europe and push back against Nazi tyranny.

Two days before her birthday, Bedford and Raymond stormed Omaha Beach as part of Company A, 116th Regiment, 29th Division. They were at the point of the sphere of the Allied D-Day landings in Normandy.

While Allied forces would prevail over their enemies, Bedford and Raymond would lose their lives that day on Omaha Beach. Her brothers were two of the 20 lives lost from Bedford, Virginia.

The Bedford community suffered the most deaths per capita than any other American community on June 6, 1944. Today, these patriots are better remembered as the Bedford Boys.

Ms. Hoback Boggess and their family would not learn of their brothers' deaths for weeks.

While enduring this family hardship, Ms. Hoback Boggess sustained her educational progress. She graduated from Bedford High School and later attended Lynchburg's Phillips Business College.

Following these experiences, Ms. Hoback Boggess pursued a lengthy career with the Bedford County Commissioner of Revenue's office. She developed great institutional knowledge from working for the Commissioner of Revenue, helping prepare state and federal tax returns and eventually running much of the daily office activities.

Thanks to this work, Ms. Hoback Boggess believed she could serve the County in an enhanced role. And the people of Bedford County believed in her.

In 1967, Bedford County residents elected Ms. Hoback Boggess as Commissioner of Revenue. She was the first-ever woman elected to countywide office in Bedford County.

As a popular official, Ms. Hoback Boggess continued to earn the trust of Bedford County residents. Her leadership as Commissioner of Revenue continued for decades.

In 1991, Bedford County entrusted Ms. Hoback Boggess with a new office. She was elected to the Board of Supervisors with a resounding 3-to-1 margin. Ms. Hoback Boggess once again made history, becoming the first female to serve the Bedford County Board of Supervisors, eventually becoming Chairman.

A 1997 Roanoke Times article credits Ms. Hoback Boggess as Bedford County's most popular and skilled elected official with reputations as a compassionate listener, moderator and peacemaker.

Ms. Hoback Boggess' service to Bedford County spanned over 60 years. While her public service alone would be worthy of commendation, one of her most cherished and celebrated roles was her help in remembering the sacrifices of her brothers.

Ms. Hoback Boggess dedicated significant attention, time, and effort to engage, memorialize, and pay respects to those who served on D-Day, including her two brothers. Her help along with Bob Slaughter culminated in the founding and creation of the National D-Day Memorial, located in Bedford, Virginia.

It was during this time that I had the honor of meeting Ms. Hoback Boggess when my friend Delegate Lacey Putney introduced me to her while she was lobbying Virginia's General Assembly to support state funding for the National D-Day Memorial.

The National D-Day Memorial is a significant symbol for Virginia. It represents service, grit, honor, sacrifice and much more.

Not only did Ms. Hoback Boggess cherish her brothers, but she dutifully tended to and cared for her family. Her loving marriage to Ralph Boggess lasted nearly 60 years, cut short by his death in 2007. Ms. Hoback Boggess is survived by her children: Carl (Lynn), Ann (Dwayne), John (Ryan), and David (Robin). She is also survived by grandchildren, great-grandchildren, nieces, nephews, former tax customers, and fans around the world.

Today, we celebrate the inspirational legacy of Ms. Lucille Hoback Boggess. Her remarkable tenure as an elected official and National D- Day Memorial advocate are to be commended. I join Bedford County and Virginia in mourning the loss of this beloved figure.

Mr. Speaker, the 9th Congressional District of Virginia and the entire Commonwealth of Virginia mourn the loss of Virginia Department of Corrections Officer Jeremy Hall.

On Monday, November 17th, Officer Hall was working a morning shift at the North River Correctional Center in Independence, Virginia. Just before 8 am, an inmate at the facility attacked multiple officers, including Officer Hall. As a result of the inmate attack, Officer Hall suffered serious injuries and died.

Our communities depend on the incredible sacrifices of corrections officers to keep our communities safe. These officers are trained to respond to, supervise and effectively tend to inmates under state custody. Accordingly, our corrections officers must be willing to put their own well-being on the line to handle stressful, challenging and even dangerous circumstances.

We rely on figures like Officer Hall, who made the selfless choice to serve the Virginia Department of Corrections since April 2024. Officer Hall carried out his corrections work with professionalism, integrity and strength. But he is also remembered for showing up to every shift with a smile and with pride in his work.

The attitude that Officer Hall carried to work can be attributed to his deep love for his family. Like so many of our corrections officers, Officer Hall received great support from his family and community.

He is survived by his wife Dawn Marie Hall, of the home; daughter, Amaya Hall (Bland, Virginia), mother, Mary Susan Richardson (Wytheville, Virginia); father, Michael L. Hall (Debra) Elk Creek, Virginia; Mother-in-law, JoAnn Bollin (Dorchester, South Carolina); brother, Drew Hall (Wytheville, Virginia); maternal grandmother, Edna Ruth Burcham (Galax, Virginia); paternal grandmother, Ruth Hall (Elk Creek, Virginia); stepchildren, Felix and Sophi Johnson (Durham, North Carolina) beloved dogs, Chia and Willow; and several loved aunts, uncles and cousins also survive. Jeremy is proceeded in death by paternal grandfather, James Hall.

Officer Hall was about to celebrate his 41st birthday at the time of his death. While our region grieves his loss, River North Correctional Center and the Virginia Department of Corrections remain resolute in providing protection, safety and care to our communities. They will continue to operate according to the very same mission that Officer Hall supported and they will remember his service and sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the remarkable legacy of the Grundy High School wrestling program, a program which has proudly served as a cornerstone of Buchanan County athletics for decades.

With most of the county's high schools set to consolidate into a single school next year, this year marks the final chapter for Grundy's historic wrestling program.

Grundy's wrestling program leaves behind an extraordinary record, which includes 27 State championships and countless individual State titleholders, including nine winners for State titles just last season.

Year after year, these impressive athletes have demonstrated remarkable discipline and determination that reflect the very essence of southwest Virginia. The wrestling program at Grundy High School has not only gotten the attention of regional athletics in southwest Virginia. Its renowned success has become a national phenomenon, receiving press and attention from all over the United States.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected to Congress, an Ohio Congressman, Jim Jordan, who is a two-time wrestling NCAA champion, came over to me and asked if I now represented the great wrestling school from Virginia, Grundy High.

Student athletes from all Buchanan County high schools have contributed to a legacy that will inspire future generations of student athletes, and I look forward to watching them build on to their proud tradition.

Southwest Virginia, as a whole, congratulates Grundy High School on its historic wrestling achievements and extends a heartfelt thank you to the athletes, coaches, families, and extraordinary fans who made this legacy possible. They made it possible with their time, their dedication, and their donations.

A special nod goes to the Grundy Wrestling Club, a 501(c)(3) charity, that happens to support wrestling in the area.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we recognize that as we come to the end of this chapter, it is not the end of the story for wrestling in the Grundy region and in Buchanan County but the beginning of a new one, rooted in the same values that carried Grundy High School to wrestling greatness.

National Rural Health Day

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as Americans celebrate National Rural Health Day.

According to the Virginia Department of Health, 88 percent of Virginia is rural, including much of Virginia's Ninth District. As a result, communities face numerous barriers in the rural areas to receive adequate access and opportunities for healthcare.

Our rural healthcare providers do our country and our healthcare system a tremendous service, tending to the healthcare needs of rural communities.

I am committed to working to improve rural healthcare access in my time here in Congress.

Today, let all of us honor the profound contributions of these healthcare providers. I thank the doctors, nurses, advocates, and others who strive to make rural healthcare a possibility in America and to make America a truly healthy America in all regions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and longtime service of a dedicated public official, Jack McCrady, Jr., who passed away on Thursday, October 2, 2025.

Councilman McCrady called Damascus, Virginia, home for much of his life. His love for his community and its progress inspired him to seek elected office.

Over the years, Mr. McCrady was a worthy representative of the Damascus community. His experience in local government continually won him praise and recognition from his fellow peers and the voters of Damascus.

As a result of building trust and experience with the local community, Mr. McCrady served as Mayor of Damascus for 20 years. In addition, he served on the Washington County Board of Supervisors. Most recently, Damascus elected Mr. McCrady to the Damascus Town Council.

Moreover, Mr. McCrady served on various boards during his life. One such body was the very first Appalachian Trail Days committee, which is responsible for organizing the very popular festival that attracts thousands of people to Damascus every year. When I visit the annual festival, I see the true fun and spirit of the festival and how much it means to the local community.

Mr. McCrady's influence on his community was noticed by many. In a public announcement, Damascus described Councilman McCrady's loss as a presence that will be missed. It surely will be.

Councilman McCrady is survived by his loving wife of 52 years, Connie; son, Kris and wife Danielle; daughter, Valerie; sister, Patty and husband Harvey Clark; brother, Charlie McCrady; and sister-in-law, Shelby Blevins. He was preceded in death by his father, Jack Richard McCrady, Sr; his mother, Dorothy Virginia Berry; and stepfather, C.C. Cowan.

Through his various roles in public office, Mr. McCrady provided strong and experienced leadership that benefitted his Southwest Virginia community. I am proud to recognize and honor a local public servant whose impact

helped his peers, neighbors and the Damascus community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. James W. ``Jim'' McGlothlin who passed away on August 6th, 2025, at the age of 85.

Mr. McGlothlin was born on June 18, 1940 in Richlands, Virginia. His subsequent upbringing in Buchanan County, Virginia, influenced his growing love for rural Appalachia and Southwest Virginia. His affinity for our region

lasted the rest of his life, no matter where he and his family lived.

After receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree and Juris Doctorate from the College of William & Mary, Mr. McGlothlin began a distinguished law career. This career track shaped his quick return to Buchanan County where he became cofounder of a law firm.

One of Mr. McGlothlin's greatest achievements was the founding of the United Coal Company, which became the building blocks for the United Company. Over time, the company specialized in coal, oil and gas, real estate, hospitality and finance. The company grew into a well-known and influential privately owned business in the Commonwealth which helped fuel economic growth in regions like Southwest Virginia.

Known for his generous philanthropy, Mr. McGlothlin supported many communities in Southwest Virginia, particularly children. His charitable efforts included his support of the Mountain Mission School in Grundy, Virginia, an institution where at-risk children can access special educational opportunities.

Mr. McGlothlin's tenure as a business leader and community spokesman are credited for the legalization of commercial casinos in Virginia and the subsequent founding of the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Bristol, Virginia.

Other significant accomplishments and pursuits of Mr. McGlothlin included the creation of the William & Mary McGlothlin Teaching Award in 2016. He also continued to mentor students over the years, along with speaking about business, leadership and ethics. In 2015, he was granted with the Citizens-Lawyer award, the highest alumni distinction at William & Mary.

Besides his accomplishments at William & Mary, Mr. McGlothlin and his family have generously invested in the arts, education and health care. The McGlothlin American Art Galleries and McGlothlin Wings, well known for its beautiful artwork, were established in Richmond, Virginia.

Mr. McGlothlin is survived by his loving wife, Frances, and his children, Martha Bowman (Mark), Tara Verkuil (David) and Gibson Verkuil (Dena); his six grandchildren, and his siblings, Michael McGlothlin and Tom McGlothlin.

I join my friends and public figures across Southwest Virginia in mourning the loss of a titan. Mr. McGlothlin leaves behind legacies of riches, friendships and inspirations that span much of Southwest Virginia. Through his actions as an entrepreneur, public servant and family man, he will be remembered as a leader, mentor and friend to many.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the exceptional dedication and service of legendary coach Phil Robbins, a dedicated football coach in Southwest Virginia who helped build legacies across the district.

As a student-athlete, Coach Robbins played both college football and baseball at Emory & Henry College. His time at Emory & Henry made an impression on him to continue in the world of sports as a leader, mentor, and coach.

His coaching career started as an assistant coach at Washington County's Patrick Henry High School for four years. In 1971, Coach Robbins took over the football program at John Battle High School in Washington County.

Later in 1977, Coach Robbins led Christiansburg High School in Montgomery County. He helped lead the Blue Demons to the program's first playoff game in 1981.

Coach Robbins then went to Powell Valley High School in Wise County, where he would build a strong foundation for a storied football program that achieved monumental success. From 1983 until the school's final football season in the fall of 2010, Coach Robbins helped Powell Valley claim seven state titles. During that time frame, his teams accumulated more than 260 wins.

According to Tim Hayes of the Bristol Herald Courier, the 1998 Powell Valley team under Coach Robbins is considered by many as the best prep football squad to play in the coalfields of Southwest Virginia.

His coaching not only produced NFL running backs Thomas Jones and Julius Jones, but countless college standouts over the course of his career and many who followed in his coaching footsteps. Coach Robbins contributed to other programs, including Powell Valley's track and field program. Under his tenure, Powell Valley's track and field team produced two state titles.

After his tenure with Powell Valley, Coach Robbins remained in the coaching community. He spent the past few years helping with the football team at the University of Virginia's College at Wise.

Southwest Virginia communities appreciated all the hard work and dedication that Coach Robbins put into the development of student- athletes in the region. Last year, the Phil Robbins Field was christened at Wise County's Bullitt Park, where Union High School plays its football games. With this, we honor Coach Robbins in the most memorable way. Players and coaches should be inspired by his legacy, defined by a deep personal calling to coaching and athletics in communities across Southwest Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome to America one of our world's significant religious leaders--Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the Spiritual Head of Orthodox Christians, the second largest Christian Church in the world. Around the world there are over 250 million Orthodox Christians. In America there are well over a million Orthodox Christians with Churches in all 50 states. Even in low population states there are numerous churches--like for example, four Orthodox Churches in the state of Wyoming.

After his visit in Washington, D.C. with our President at the White House and with the bipartisan leadership of the Congress, he will be traveling to New York City to receive the Templeton Prize. That Prize is one of the world's leading recognitions of world leaders who make an exceptional contribution to the deepest questions regarding the universe and humankind's place and purpose within it. Previous winners of that Prize have included Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa. and Billy Graham.

His All-Holiness is also a recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest Congressional Award. That Gold Medal had also been awarded to George Washington and to Abraham Lincoln. The Congress emphasized that Gold Medal by having more Members of Congress asking to have their names added as co-sponsors of that legislation than any other bill introduced during the 105th Congress. The Congressional Gold Medal recipients who were presented with the Award immediately before and immediately after Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, were Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela.

Within Christian Orthodoxy, an over 2,000-year-old religion, His All- Holiness is the longest serving Ecumenical Patriarch. He is the 269th direct successor of Jesus Christ's first Apostle, Andrew. Andrew's brother Peter carried his mission to what is today the Vatican. Today's Pope Leo is the 266th direct successor of the Apostle Peter.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 672 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met last night and reported out a rule providing for consideration of four measures.

Those measures are H.R. 4553, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act; H.J. Res. 104, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management related to ``Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment''; H.J. Res. 105, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan''; and H.J. Res. 106, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan.''

House Resolution 672 provides for consideration of H.R. 4553, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act under a structured rule, making in order 36 amendments.

The rule provides for 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 and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 104, H.J. Res. 105, and H.J. Res. 106, all under closed rules, with 1 hour of general debate each equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources and provides each one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides that H. Res. 668 and H. Res. 605 are hereby adopted and House Res. 598 is laid on the table.

Today's rule, House Resolution 672, allows for debate on several measures including H.R. 4553, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2026.

This appropriations bill funds many programs at the center of helping to assert our country's energy dominance. The bill cuts $766.4 million, when compared to last year's funding bill, by focusing our efforts on energy innovation and water infrastructure.

This appropriations bill provides funding to numerous scientific energy endeavors from nuclear fusion research, small modular reactors, nuclear fuel production, electric transmission system enhancements, energy storage, and traditional fossil fuel research.

At a time when energy demand from data centers and new manufacturing is increasing, these research efforts will greatly contribute to meeting the new normal. Our example is the increase of funding for nuclear energy projects, which will make more advanced nuclear fuel available and accelerate small modular and advanced reactor testing. The Department is also essential to our national security.

This appropriations bill has over $20 billion in funds for the management of our nuclear weapons stockpile and over $2 billion for our nuclear Navy.

This bill also funds numerous Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation projects to provide dredging to maintain navigable ports and rivers and water storage projects to increase the water supply in drought-ridden sections of our country, as well as helping to forestall flooding in areas from coastal regions to mountainous valley regions such as the area I represent.

The rule also provides for debate on H.J. Res. 104, H.J. Res. 105, and H.J. Res. 106, all of which are Congressional Review Act Resolutions of Disapproval.

These resolutions overturn the Biden administration's Bureau of Land Management plans that were aimed at restricting gold mining and oil and gas drilling on Federal lands.

H.J. Res. 104, sponsored by Congressman Downing of Montana, overturns the Montana Resource Management Plan, which would prohibit new coal mining on about 2.75 million acres of Federal land in Montana. This Bureau of Land Management rule would stop an estimated 30 percent of our country's coal reserves from being mined, even as electricity demand is increasing in the United States for the first time in over 10 years.

H.J. Res. 105, sponsored by my Energy and Commerce colleague, Congresswoman Fedorchak, would overturn a similar Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plan for North Dakota. Under this Biden- Harris administration rule, 4 million acres of Federal land in North Dakota would not be available for coal mining or oil and gas extraction.

Additionally, the rule allows for debate on H.J. Res. 106, sponsored by Congressman Nick Begich of Alaska, which would nullify the Central Yukon Resource Management Plan. Under this rule, which affects 13.3 million acres of Federal land in Alaska, millions of acres would be barred from energy development.

Disallowing energy development on these lands will also hamstring efforts to get more American liquid natural gas onto the international market and improve our country's standing as the leading energy producer in the world.

We will also be considering a resolution that would direct the House Oversight Committee to continue their investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell files.

The Committee has already undertaken important steps in their investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Just this week, the committee met with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. They have already issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice related to the Epstein records.

Further, they have already received over 33,000 documents from the Department of Justice with more on the way. Those 33,000 documents, Mr. Speaker, were released last night to the public.

The committee already has transcribed interviews scheduled and have other subpoenas out, as well. They are also doing this work in a bipartisan manner, and we must give them all the tools necessary to continue this important investigation.

This resolution will bring transparency into all the documents and records related to Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, flight logs, any individuals referenced in connection to Epstein, any entities with ties to Epstein, any agency internal documents, documents related to Epstein's detention and death, and other areas.

Mr. Speaker, there are strings attached to this resolution, as well, to ensure that we have full transparency, such as requiring written justification requirements for certain documents that are redacted, unless they fall under certain sensitive categories.

This is a critical step forward in providing transparency into the Epstein files and will give the public all the necessary information.

This vote will show the American people we are committed to full transparency and cooperation when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein and the investigation thereof.

Lastly, this rule is standing up a new select committee to continue investigation of the events surrounding January 6. They will bring more transparency and continue to investigate

what happened that day so the American public is aware of the facts involved.

I believe this new subcommittee is another critical step forward to bringing more transparency to everyone about the events and details surrounding that day. I hope Members of this House support the passage of the rule and the underlying bills and resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that would apply to Members of Congress being called names, would it not. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is so fascinating how facts don't seem to matter sometimes on the floor. The only administration that has ever released anything on the Epstein files is the Trump administration. Last night, the House Oversight and Reform Committee released over 33,000 files. Now they say that 97 percent of it had already been released, 33,000 files. That is a lot of files.

Let's take that 97 percent and say that it is accurate for argument and for argument only.

That means that of 33,000 files, 3 percent of that is new. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, as I was going through clips this morning, I noticed one conservative news source that said: Eureka, the missing minute surrounding Epstein's death is in the material that has been released.

There has been a lot of controversy about that. A lot of people want to know about it, and there it is.

More and more information is coming out, and it is coming out because of the Trump administration and because of the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

However, somehow if we don't adhere to the exact demands of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, then we are not doing it right. I submit to you,

Mr. Speaker, that the House Oversight and Reform Committee is doing it right. They are going through it.

As I pointed out in my opening, Mr. Speaker, if they decide to use one of the limited areas that they could do a redaction, then they have to explain why. If the administration doesn't turn over some information, if they redact information before sending it to the House, then they have to explain why.

Of course, some of the information that you want to protect, Mr. Speaker, is information related to victims that has not yet been in the press.

Why would we want to take young women who were victims of Epstein and his colleagues and who don't want to have their name in the press, why would we suddenly expose them to that?

Of course, we don't want to do that, so there has to be some limited areas where redactions have to occur, but all of that has to be explained.

Then they bring up the President's comments this morning about a hoax. They are trying to mislead, in my opinion, some are trying to mislead the American people into thinking that the President said that Epstein and the investigation was a hoax. It is not what he said.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at what he said, it was the controversy over the Epstein files that was a hoax because they have been releasing more data than any other administration.

I say that because the Biden administration had all this information, and they didn't release it. They had 4 years. They could have released it all. They didn't choose to do it, and now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle somehow want to claim that it is a conspiracy by Trump to hide information that was in the hands of their party's President and their party's Department of Justice. It was in their hands, and they didn't release it, but somehow it is our fault. Mr. Speaker, it is the Republicans' fault that the Biden administration didn't do what they now claim that the Trump administration should be doing.

It is hard to understand that logic, but somehow we are at fault, Mr. Speaker, for them not doing the job that they think we should have made their President do.

It is fascinating. It is absolutely fascinating.

Then, of course, we get to all the consternation about this January 6th Committee. This is an outgrowth of an investigation that started as a part of the House Administration Committee.

I served on the subcommittee that was doing that investigation. It is really interesting. That group, and I was a part of it, found that there was more than one terabyte of missing data. Based on the inventory of the digest and statements from Chairman Thompson, there should have been four terabytes turned over, and there were only three. That is equivalent to 6.5 million document pages as PDFs or office files, 500 hours of high-definition video, or 250,000 photos. The depositions were not filed properly or they weren't filed at all and archived as they are supposed to be, and as the rule that set up the prior committee said, they were supposed to be there.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that as a former member of this preceding group, we are just trying to get the data that is missing. We are trying to make sure we put all the information on the table. We want the files released that were out there. We want to find that missing terabyte of information. Some of it has been recovered, but not all of it, and that work needs to be continued.

Further, the House Administration subcommittee didn't have the power to subpoena records. I would submit that it is necessary just to get all the information out.

As I said last night to my colleagues, as a person who loves history and has a history degree, I need to get all the documents on the table, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and let history determine what occurred on that day.

There is no point in trying to hide it. I don't understand why my colleagues on the other side want to hide a terabyte. A fourth of what the prior committee did was never properly turned over to the House. That information belongs to the House and to the people of the United States. It does not belong hidden somewhere in a drawer or destroyed.

Unfortunately, because of that lack of turning over the records in a proper manner to the House, we have to continue the work that was not done by the previous Democrat-controlled--I know they had two Republicans on it, but they weren't the Members picked by the House Republicans, and it wasn't in the numbers usually allocated or originally called for, for a select committee.

We are going to do it right, and we are going to put the information on the table. We are going to let the American people make a judgment now, and let the historians argue over what happened on that day as time moves forward.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me state up front that I make no apology for being pro-U.S. energy. I make no apology for saying that the United States needs more electric power. I make no apology for saying we can get that electric power with things like these bills that are in this rule today. It works on small modular reactors. It works on nuclear. It works on fusion. It works on coal. It works on making sure that we have the ability to mine the coal in the United States. It makes sure we have the ability to extract our oil and our natural gas resources.

If we want to compete with the Chinese, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to up our game on producing electric power. It is fascinating to me that when we hear these debates, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will often point out--in fact, they did it last night--that the Chinese are doing so much more with wind and solar. They never mention that the Chinese are building dozens of new power plants, as we speak, powered by coal.

If we are going to use the Chinese as the model that we are supposed to follow in generating electricity, we should, therefore, not be closing down all of our coal power plants.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the coal in the United States and the way that we burn it is much cleaner than the way the Chinese burn it in their plants. We need to be working on making sure that we have new energy development, which the energy and water bill does, and ways that we can burn that coal and our natural gas even cleaner than we are doing today, even though we produce electricity cleaner with our fossil fuels than any other country in the world.

Guess what we can do, Mr. Speaker. If we can continue to move forward and build new plants and show how this new technology can be used, we can then be the ones who are exporting it to sub-Saharan Africa and India instead of having the Chinese exporting facilities and the technologies that are from the 1960s and 1970s, instead of the technologies that are available today.

When you talk about the air on the planet Earth, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that the air is shared by all of us. In fact, there is a NASA study that I often cite that says it takes air 10 days to get from the middle of the Gobi Desert to the eastern shore of Virginia. That is why a majority of the mercury in California comes from Asia and not from the plants in California. It comes from overseas.

Mr. Speaker, the more that we can do with our fossil fuel plants and our technologies to make our processes cleaner and then export it to the rest of the world, the more we can do to clean up the air in the world as a whole because the air is not something that uniquely belongs to the United States. It doesn't sit over one town very long. Sometimes we get a little inversion in the Roanoke area and it sits there for a few days, but it doesn't sit there for weeks and months and years. We need to be looking at the worldwide issue in regard to that.

Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for supporting bills that will take care of making sure that we can, in this Nation, as a nation, all of us, profit and have the AI needed and have the electricity needed for data centers instead of giving it and ceding it to the Chinese because we don't want to work on oil, natural gas, and coal because somehow my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided that those resources are not appropriate to be used in the United States.

If we want to be a second-rate country, have at it, but that is not what I stand for, Mr. Speaker. I stand for us being the leading energy producer in the world and making sure that we do it as clean as possible so that we can export our clean coal technology, our clean natural gas facilities, new fusion if we can get there, new modular reactors, and export that technology to the world and be the leader in the world when it comes to energy production; but, number one, making sure that we take care of our needs in the United States as we are looking at not having enough electricity going forward to keep our economy as the number one economy in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I often tell people back home that this is important not just for today but for the generations to come because when you look at the powers in the economic sphere in the past, some very small nations have reached into the future and benefited their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

In fact, I often talk about Royal Dutch Shell Group, Shell Oil, which was a derivative. Mr. Speaker, you can attack how they got the money because it was all part of colonialism, and I get that. Yet, because they were the number one economic nation in the world from roughly 1650 to 1700, there are still people and families in the Netherlands who are benefiting. Notwithstanding the fact that they moved their headquarters to London, they are benefiting from the fact that, at one time, their nation was the number one economic nation in the world.

I want that for the United States. I want us to be the number one economic nation as long as possible so that children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren out 10 generations will benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for supporting these bills that we have in this rule today and supporting the fact that American energy is predominant and should remain a major force in the world instead of ceding everything to the Chinese.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this Epstein situation is very serious, and I take it as such. We have victims whose lives can never be made whole, and this debate has taken on a life of its own. In many ways, it is illogical.

On the one hand, we have the resolution included in the rule that has subpoena power and has broader authority than the Massie-Khanna piece of legislation that my colleagues on the other side want. It gives us the ability to subpoena banking records, estate files, and depositions, none of which are required in the Massie bill.

Further, I find it interesting, because ours is a resolution that gives the endorsement of the House, gives more power in the oomph behind the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's hard work.

The opposing piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, should it pass the House, goes over to the Senate. Should it pass the Senate, it requires the signature of the very President who they say wants to block it.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the American people, it would only be logical to go with the one that can get voted on in the House and have action going forward and have action taking place that deals with these serious issues and brings to light every piece of information that we can put on the table with the rare exceptions of a few redactions, which have to be explained and some of which are necessary to protect some of the victims themselves because they don't want to have their names out there in the public.

Mr. Speaker, I don't understand it. If what we want is the information, we should pass this rule and move forward, and not have to rely on passage in the Senate and signature by the President.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to energy, I can tell you that I represent a region of the country where when we were using our coal resources, which God has blessed us with abundantly, we had the third or fourth lowest electric rates in the country.

Then suddenly fossil fuels became a bad idea. Even natural gas, oh, my gosh, we can't use it, and the electric rates keep going up and up and up. My district is not a wealthy district, and the people in my district are complaining because their electricity rates are going up.

One of the major drivers are prior Democratic policies, Mr. Speaker, that said we are not going to be doing any more coal-fired power plants. We are not going to encourage natural gas to be used to create electricity, and we stranded the assets.

Now, as you know, Mr. Speaker, what that means is that they are paying for the electricity generated by wind and solar, and they are paying for the electricity that was there for plants that were opened which have not met their full expectation or life cycle.

For example, there is a facility in my district that I went to the ribbon cutting on in 2012 that Democrats in the Commonwealth of Virginia, including some of my esteemed colleagues on the other side from that great Commonwealth, thought it was appropriate to say: Let's close that down early.

It opened in 2012 with a 50-to-60 year life expectancy, and they wanted to close it down somewhere around 2035 or 2040, well before its life expectancy is up. What that does is that pushes the power companies to have to find different and more expensive ways, as it turns out, to create that electricity.

What this bill does is, it pushes us on nuclear, which if you don't want to use fossil, that is the only way you can get the baseload power to supply us and make us competitive with the Chinese in the field of AI. Yet, somehow, once again my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot realize that it is the policies of their prior Congresses and their prior administrations which, in large measure--not exclusively, but in large measure have caused the spike--not a general increase, not inflation level, but a spike over and above your general inflation--on the cost of energy in this country.

If we get back to the basics, if we pass this rule--we have three CRAs and the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, all of which help make the United States of America more viable when it comes to energy and makes those electric prices that my colleagues said was one of the bigger concerns that she heard when touring around the Commonwealth--the cost of those energy prices will go down if we pass this rule and pass the underlying bills. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am.

Mr. Speaker, this rule covers a number of topics, and we have been over them--energy, water. We didn't get much into the full funding of the Army Corps so they can help take care of flooding problems in my district and other districts, take care of water problems, et cetera.

We have argued for over an hour, most of it being the same repetitive things. This rule gives that extra oomph. It shows the support for the work that the Oversight Committee is doing regarding the Epstein files. It moves us forward on energy and water. It moves us forward on energy production in the United States. It moves us forward on nuclear power and making sure that we are using it in a responsible but effective way so that we can continue to be the world's leader when it comes to energy production, instead of handcuffing our capabilities.

We have gone over a lot of serious issues. The American people who are paying attention to this have already heard all of those arguments.

Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that I hope that all the Members of this House will support the passage of this rule. It is important for a number of reasons, and I hope they will pass the underlying bills and resolutions when those come up.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 8.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a necessary amendment. It addresses the importance of all types of energy research and development, R&D, funding at the Department of Energy, DOE, specifically, the energy research being conducted at the Office of Fossil Energy.

Any effective plan to handle increased energy demand must take into account our Nation's vast supply of coal and natural gas and our talent for technological innovation.

Artificial intelligence and the data centers to support it are going to require a boatload of additional power. While we don't know the exact amount of electricity we need, we know it is going to be a lot more than we have today because our country is facing increased electricity demand for the first time in 10 years. The appetite of AI and data centers is enormous. AI needs to be developed, controlled, and led by the United States of America, not an adversarial or competitive nation like China.

China is projected to increase its emissions for the foreseeable future and reportedly began construction in 2024 on coal units equivalent to 94.5 gigawatts of power. That is a lot, Mr. Chairman.

Additionally, China is financing a number of coal-fired plants in Africa and other countries with emerging economies. China is responsible for 93 percent of new coal power plant construction, and I don't believe that we should let our expertise and our vast amounts of coal in this country, good, clean coal, wither.

As I have said before, in the developing world, more energy means more hope and less poverty, and that helps us, as well. We take for granted, in this case, that our lights are going to come on when we hit that switch and turn it on. That is not always going to be the case if we don't continue to use all-of-the-above energy strategies.

Developing countries don't want to force their people to live in poverty because of a lack of energy, so they are going to use coal. What we can do is produce that coal. We can help them if we unleash our technological advantages and help find better ways to use coal and natural gas more cleanly. We should use our expertise in finding ways to control emissions with carbon capture and other pollution control technologies.

That is why DOE funding for fossil and renewable research is vital. We need to produce and then export the best, cleanest, and efficient energy technology to the world. It helps us, and it helps places like India and sub-Saharan Africa, where many of their people don't have a steady supply of electricity. Nobody can blame them for using dirty coal and those Chinese technology plants, which are not as good as the U.S. plants, because they want to make sure their people have a chance at prosperity, as well.

DOE plays an important role in this R&D, but we can do a lot more for fossil energy innovation and exploration. That is what the amendment does.

In the past few fiscal years, the delta between renewable energy research and fossil energy has really widened for the research that we are doing.

I am advocating with this amendment that we shouldn't ignore our fossil fuel efficiency and carbon mitigation research.

My amendment increases the fossil energy account by $6,875,000, or 1 percent, with an offset from the departmental expenses account.

To be clear, I am not against renewable energy research. I just believe we shouldn't be putting all of our eggs in one basket.

I urge my colleagues to support an all-of-the-above energy policy and,

more importantly, an all-of-the-above research policy at DOE so that we can expand our ability to deal with the energy demand increases and that we can have research for a commodity that we have the world's greatest supply of, coal and natural gas.

We ought to use it. God blessed us with this resource. We ought to use it. We ought to use it cleanly. We ought to use it responsibly. We ought to be able to export our technologies to the rest of the world. If we don't do the research, we can't do it.

I ask everybody to support this all-of-the-above policy plan and support my amendment.

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