H. Griffith

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. 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. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. 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. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. 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. GRIFFITH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. GRIFFITH

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

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

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

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

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