Critical Mineral Dominance Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and for his riveting presentation, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before I say a word about the rule or the bills in front of us, this is the first full day that we have convened since two Federal officers shot and killed another American citizen in Minneapolis, Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse who took care of our Nation's veterans.

Alex was on a public street. He was exercising his First Amendment rights while filming Federal agents. He was exercising his Second Amendment rights as a law-abiding, concealed-carry gun owner. He was doing what any decent person would do: helping a woman off the ground after she had been shoved down by a Federal officer. For that, he was punished with death, shot by his own government.

This wasn't an isolated tragedy, Mr. Speaker. It was the second public killing of an innocent American in Minneapolis tied to Homeland Security. Renee Good, a mother of three, was shot by ICE on January 7, mere weeks before the murder of Alex Pretti.

Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, named after our former colleague, the only Holocaust survivor to serve in the United States Congress, I have spent years documenting and standing up to human rights abuses carried out by authoritarian regimes against their own people.

Let me say this plainly: A functioning democracy does not execute people in the street. That is the kind of thing you see in North Korea, Mr. Speaker, or Iran; not in the United States of America.

It is beyond the pale. In my view, this administration and those at the Department of Homeland Security, in particular, should not get another cent until there are some serious actions taken. I personally believe we should abolish ICE and start all over. At a minimum, there needs to be some serious, systemic reforms made, which brings us to today's rule debate.

Over the weekend, the Senate acted on the government funding bills House Republicans sent them 2 weeks ago, except for a short-term CR that continues DHS funding at the current levels for the next 1\1/2\ weeks.

I want to be crystal clear about where I stand: I am voting ``no''. I will not stand by and give any more money to Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem to bankroll an out-of-control operation that is terrorizing communities and shredding the Constitution.

We are watching masked, armed agents force their way into homes without judicial warrants. We are seeing blatant violations of the Fourth Amendment. We are witnessing agencies act with impunity. We are hearing about kids getting kidnapped on their way to school and grandparents dragged from their homes. We are listening as government officials smear dead Americans as domestic terrorists instead of answering basic questions about what happened.

Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in business as usual, not for 2 more weeks, not for 2 more seconds.

A Federal judge recently described ICE's conduct in January as an extraordinary pattern of defiance of court orders. They said ICE ``has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some Federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.'' That should give every single Member of this House pause. It is certainly my red line, and I think it ought to be a red line for this whole body.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just DHS funding. This package also gives a massive increase in funding to the Pentagon. Why are we writing a blank check for the so-called Department of War while this administration threatens allies, breaks the law, and treats Congress like an afterthought? Why are we giving Pete Hegseth more money than the administration even asked for while we get fewer answers, fewer guardrails, and fewer constraints on reckless action?

On top of all of this, Republicans have jammed in a measure to repeal D.C.'s new tax law. Let me just tell my colleagues, this would blow a $600 million hole in D.C.'s budget, over half a billion dollars gone because Republicans in Congress want to meddle in local governance when they can't even manage a budget of their own.

I mean, they just added $4 trillion to the national debt in their one big, ugly bill. Let that sink in. I mean, it is ridiculous. The Mayor and the chairman of the D.C. Council warned that this would throw a huge wrench into D.C.'s current tax filing season and force people to refile their taxes. That is insane.

If this bill becomes law, they would be ripping away D.C.'s new child tax credit, money that would go directly to families to help them put food on the table and reduce childhood poverty. Republicans talk a big game about family values, and then they turn around and take money out of kids' pockets. It is shameful. By the way--you can't make this stuff up--this measure had no hearing and no markup. I say, so much for regular order.

When I asked the Oversight Committee chairman yesterday basic questions about D.C.'s budget, he had no answers. He had no idea how big D.C.'s budget is or how much D.C. spends on the Metro, schools, or infrastructure improvements. He had no idea how much money D.C. raises in local taxes and how much of a budget shortfall their outrageous bill would cause. These are the most basic questions

that you could possibly ask about whether to overturn D.C.'s tax law, and he couldn't answer them. He had no clue.

Let's be honest about what this is. It is powerful people in Washington telling local communities: Sit down and shut up. We know better. Then they leave working people to clean up the mess.

The final bill in this rule is another massive giveaway to mining CEOs and polluters that lets them gut their own regulations. It is the same pattern. It is the same pattern every single time: more power for the strong, more pain for the vulnerable, more protection for insiders, and more excuses for lawlessness. Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting ``no'' on this rule, ``no'' on this underlying package, and ``no'' on all these bills. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to respond to the gentleman from Georgia, who comes down here with the same old, tired MAGA talking points when it comes to ICE and Homeland Security.

He comes down here to confuse people, to somehow imply that Democrats don't want to lock up violent criminals. On the contrary, we do. That is what we were promised that the worst of the worst would be pursued and would be held accountable. However, that is not what is happening. That is not what is happening.

In Minnesota, ICE agents have been intimidating people in hospitals, forcing hospital management to issue protocols for employees on how to best engage. Our doctors and nurses ought to be focused on tending to patients and not dealing with ICE agents. It is despicable. I mean, agents showed up to a Minnesota hospital with a man who immigrated here legally. Just 4 hours after his arrest, he had at least eight skull fractures in addition to life-threatening brain hemorrhages.

When people have exercised their First Amendment rights to protest, ICE meets them with only more abuse, beating peaceful protesters and dousing them in pepper spray.

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard by now the horrifying story of Alex Pretti, an innocent American citizen, an intensive care nurse who was brutally murdered by Federal agents. This wasn't an isolated incident. The administration has shot 13 people during immigration enforcement operations since September.

I am going to say that again, 13 people have been shot by the Department of Homeland Security. Four of those shootings were fatal. Those are four people who would be with us today if not for the insane administration's cruel oppression of our communities. I mean, ICE agents are not protecting our borders. They are ambushing our communities, decimating our families, and taking innocent lives.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans nearly tripled ICE's budget last summer with their big, ugly bill; and all that money ought to be clawed back. As far as the appropriations package before us, again, I refuse to send another cent to Stephen Miller or Kristi Noem. She ought to be impeached, and he ought to be fired immediately. They are undermining our Constitution, and the Department that they run is murdering American citizens on the street.

We are hearing about young children being kidnapped. We are hearing about off-duty police officers being detained by ICE. We are hearing about ICE going after people because of the color of their skin. That is what we object to. Let's go after the criminals.

By the way, we are not the party that pardoned all the insurrectionists on January 6 and said that the slate is clean. By the way, those people go on to murder innocent people, to rape women, and molest children.

There is a difference here. We want to go after the violent criminals, those who have committed terrible crimes. That is what we were promised, and we were lied to. We have had it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Florida man who just spoke characterized the murder of two Americans by ICE agents as unfortunate. It is not unfortunate. It is goddamned unacceptable, and everybody should be outraged by that.

He also bragged about the fact that he has been in Congress for 10 months, and the government has been shut down twice. I hate to be the one to remind the gentleman, but the last time I checked, his party is in control of everything: the White House, the Senate, and the House. You run the show. Maybe November will be a month of reckoning. Let's hope so for the sake of this country.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order amendment No. 47 to the Senate amendments to H.R. 7148, which would allow for an up-or-down vote on whether to cut the $75 billion Republicans gave ICE in their big, ugly bill and use those funds to undo some of the big, ugly bill's disastrous healthcare cuts.

Mr. Speaker, last year, Republicans voted to kick more than 15 million people off their healthcare--15 million Americans--through an over $1 trillion cut to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans claimed that this was for deficit reduction, but we know that wasn't true. That was a lie. According to the nonpartisan budget experts at the Congressional Budget Office, their big, ugly bill added $4 trillion to the national debt, in part, by giving ICE boatloads of cash to run roughshod through American cities with zero safeguards. This must end.

If Democrats defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to repurpose these ICE funds toward lowering healthcare costs, which Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins voted for just last week. I challenge my Republican colleagues in this body to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo), the sponsor of this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am confused. I mean, the gentleman wants to say that the Republicans are not in control, even though they control the White House, the House, and the Senate. Yet, the Republicans were in control to throw 15 million people off of healthcare. Republicans were in control to add $4 trillion to the debt. The Republicans were in control to cut Medicaid by $1 trillion. The Republicans were in control to give ICE unlimited amounts of money with no guardrails. Now, they are telling us they are not in control? I am confused.

Let me just say this. My colleagues across the aisle can't have it both ways. Again, I hope that the Republican control of this House and of this Senate is short-lived because, quite frankly, this country cannot stand another 2 years of this, where if a person is rich and well-connected and a friend of the President, they get all kinds of sweetheart deals. If they are not, if they are a hardworking, middle- class family, they get screwed. People have had it. They see through this.

To say that my colleagues are not in control when they have been cutting programs that have helped poor children, that have helped middle-class families, when they have given tax breaks to multimillionaires and billionaires, give me a break.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought the gentleman was asking me a question and that we would have a conversation. I will tell him that we don't want a shutdown. We want them to reel in an out-of-control ICE agency that is killing American citizens right before our very eyes. That is what we want.

I don't understand for the life of me why that is such a heavy lift from my Republican friends, but that is what we are asking for. We don't want to shut the government down. That is not who we are.

By the way, again, Republicans are responsible for the last shutdown. They went on vacation rather than stay in Washington to try to negotiate a deal.

Here we are. All we are asking for is let's reel in this out-of- control agency, and my friends find that too difficult to comprehend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, under the Republican rule, we don't have regular order anymore. We should be debating appropriations bills one at a time. They bunch everything together.

Mr. Speaker, not only do they bunch things together, but they don't even call for amendments anymore. This is the most closed Congress in history. The Rules Committee and this House of Representatives has become a place where democracy goes to die. My friends should be ashamed of what they are doing to this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a lot of words to justify the most closed Congress in history.

Mr. Speaker, 83 percent of the rules have been closed. That is 8 out of 10. Republicans don't even call for amendments anymore, and people know that it is a waste of time to come to the Rules Committee because they have already been tipped off that there are going to be no amendments in order.

Mr. Speaker, 90 percent of Democratic amendments have been rejected. A big chunk of Republican amendments have been rejected. I am sorry that Republicans' rank and file are such cheap dates when it comes to legislating, but they cave all the time and they vote for these crappy rules that are totally closed, so that is a bunch of bullshit. Let's be honest. That is what we are talking about here. That is not an accurate assessment of what is going on here.

This is the most closed Congress in history. Republicans should be ashamed.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind my Republican friends, who kind of just go along to get along, that Mr. Arrington, who is a chairman, had 71 percent of his amendments blocked.

I will go right down the list.

Congresswoman Mace had 76 percent of her amendments blocked.

Congressman Steube had 79 percent of his amendments blocked.

I could go right down the list. These are all Republicans who just routinely get blocked.

Enough. Enough. This is a ridiculous argument. The bottom line is a lot of words to justify the most closed Congress in history.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, listening to the debate by my Republican colleagues, I know Republicans want to pretend like they are not in control because that absolves them of responsibility and accountability. They don't want to own their own record because they know their record sucks. They want to pretend like they are not in control because if they pretend like they are in control, if they acknowledge that they are in control, then they will be held accountable in November.

Look at what they have promised compared to what they have done so far:

Tax breaks for billionaires; they make sure their big donors are taken care of while they screw over regular people.

$40 billion to Argentina; hurting our farmers and ranchers, importing more beef from South America.

Bombing Venezuela, threatening to invade NATO allies.

Meanwhile, prices are not down. Prices are up because of the stupid tariffs and lousy economic policies.

They promised to release all of the Epstein files. They still haven't done that. In fact, they are covering up for the President of the United States.

People are struggling more than ever because Trump's economy sucks. They are making it easier for the elites, easier for the billionaires, easier for the Epstein class, and harder for everybody else.

Maybe that is why even Republicans are finally acknowledging MAGA was all a lie. Of course, their members only acknowledge that after they leave. Let's listen to Trump's former top ally, Marjorie Taylor Greene. Here is what she said: ``I think people are realizing it was all a lie. It was a big lie for the people. What MAGA is really serving in this administration, who they are serving, is their big donors.''

Look at who Republicans have helped. They have been in charge for a year. They have helped Big Oil. They have helped Big Banks. They have helped Big Tech.

Look who was in the front row at Trump's inauguration: billionaires. That is all he cares about. Look at their promises to go after ``the worst of the worst'' when it comes to immigration, another broken promise. Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem are not going after the worst of the worst. They are going after kids, VA nurses. They are deporting veterans, for God's sake.

We are sick and tired of the broken promises and the lies. Enough. I talk to Republican colleagues all the time who privately confess to me that this is a disaster, and then they come on the floor and talk to the press and say everything is beautiful. That is just not reality.

This President and this administration are taking this country in the wrong direction. We have people that are being murdered in our streets by U.S. Federal agents. When is enough going to be enough? I can't believe this. Go along to get along, I get it. Everybody over there is afraid of the guy in the White House, but maybe you should be more afraid of your constituents. Maybe you ought to listen to your constituents because they are sick and tired of this BS. They have had it. They want Congress to be a body that fights for them, that fights to improve the quality of life for average people. They want this body to be a place where we debate important issues passionately, and we skip all the crazy debates we have on trivial matters.

We can do so much better, but it requires my friends on the other side of the aisle to kind of grow a spine, to stand up and to say and do the right thing.

This is nuts what is happening: People being murdered in our streets; Federal agents crashing into people's homes without a judicial warrant; former off-duty police officers being detained by ICE; people with brown and black skin being detained routinely by ICE. This has to stop.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. Let's get to the negotiating table. Let's do something to reel in this out-of-control agency. Going along to get along is no longer an option.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1032 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, last night, the Committee on Rules met and granted, by a recorded vote of 8-4, a rule providing for consideration of three measures.

First, the rule makes in order to a motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations that the House concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 142 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or their respective designees.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4090, the Critical Mineral Dominance Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees and provides one motion to recommit.

This rule advances a motion to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026. Specifically, the Senate amendments to H.R. 7148 strike the Homeland Security Appropriations division, replacing it with a CR through February 13, 2026, and make other conforming changes to the text of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, by concurring in the Senate amendments to H.R. 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, we will end the Democrats' second government shutdown and fully fund the following departments and agencies for the remainder of fiscal year 2026:

President Trump's Department of Defense, President Trump's Department of Labor, President Trump's Department of Health and Human Services, President Trump's Department of Education, President Trump's Department of Transportation, President Trump's Department of Housing and Urban Development, President Trump's Department of State, President Trump's Department of the Treasury, and many agencies related to each of these departments.

Simply put, a ``yes'' vote on House Resolution 1032 enables us to consider legislation that pays our soldiers in the United States Army, providing $54.5 billion in military personnel funding to support Active-Duty soldiers, 172,000 reservists, and 328,000 National Guard members.

A ``yes'' vote enables us to consider legislation that pays our sailors in the United States Navy, delivering $40.5 billion to support 344,600 Active-Duty sailors and 57,500 reservists who keep our sea- lanes open and our country secure.

A ``yes'' vote enables us to consider legislation that pays our marines in the United States Marine Corps, investing nearly $17 billion to support 172,300 Active-Duty marines and 33,600 reservists sustaining the readiness of our most forward-deployed force.

A ``yes'' vote enables us to consider legislation that pays our airmen in the United States Air Force, providing $38.7 billion to support 321,500 Active-Duty airmen, 67,500 reservists, and 160,300 guardsmen defending our skies.

A ``yes'' vote enables us to consider legislation that pays our guardians in the United States Space Force, investing $1.49 billion to support 10,400 Active-Duty guardians, a growing force critical to modern national security.

A ``yes'' vote enables us to consider legislation that gives the brave men and women who are defending our country a well-deserved pay raise of 3.8 percent to ensure their compensation reflects the value of their service and sacrifice.

A ``yes'' vote on House Resolution 1032 enables us to consider legislation that funds the Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service, otherwise known as VETS, a program that serves America's veterans and separating servicemembers by preparing them for meaningful careers, providing employment resources and expertise, and protecting their employment rights.

A ``yes'' vote on House Resolution 1032 enables us to consider legislation that funds the Department of the Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, a critical component of our national security that disrupts and disables terrorists, criminals, and other direct threats to American citizens, and protects our country's financial systems from abuse by illicit actors.

A ``yes'' vote on House Resolution 1032 also enables us to consider legislation that funds the Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA, and our country's air traffic controllers, who keep our skies safe.

Given my district's proximity to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, I proudly represent more air traffic controllers than any other Member of Congress. During the Democrats' previous shutdown, our Democratic colleagues used our air traffic controllers and their families as political pawns, forcing them to go without pay for 43 days.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Democrats do not subject our country to yet another long government shutdown, but only time will tell, as we will vote on House Resolution 1032 within the hour.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us also provides consideration for H.J. Res. 142, a joint resolution disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025.

On December 20, 2025, the District of Columbia Council enacted, without the Mayor's support, legislation to decouple areas from the Federal tax code and deny District residents and businesses the local tax conformity impacts of several tax benefit provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Simply put, the District of Columbia Council doesn't want its citizens to benefit from the largest working families tax cut in American history.

Specifically, the District of Columbia Council wants to deny its citizens the ability to enjoy the increased standard deduction. The District of Columbia Council wants to deny its citizens the ability to enjoy no taxes on tips. The District of Columbia Council apparently wants to deny its citizens the ability to enjoy no tax on overtime. The District of Columbia Council apparently wants to deny its citizens the ability to enjoy no tax on auto loans. Finally, the District of Columbia Council wants to deny its citizens the ability to enjoy additional deductions during tax season.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my Democratic colleagues why the District of Columbia took these actions, but I think we already know the answer. It is politics because this happened following the various tax cut packages during President Bush's administration. This happened yet again after Congress passed the Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017. When a Republican President enacts tax cut legislation, the District of Columbia Council swiftly seems to act to deny its citizens the benefits.

I applaud my colleague, Representative Brandon Gill, for introducing this legislation. Representative Gill is a rising star in our Conference, our freshman class president, and a very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, the rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 4090, the Critical Mineral Dominance Act, legislation that codifies certain provisions of three executive orders by President Trump relating to domestic mining and hardrock mineral resources.

During our last election, voters across our country overwhelmingly voted to unleash America's energy potential, and this legislation fulfills that mandate.

This legislation requires the Department of the Interior to annually report on the dollar value of the overall economic impact of each mineral commodity for which our country is import-reliant.

This legislation requires the Department of the Interior, in consultation with the Department of Agriculture, to identify priority mining projects on Federal lands that can be immediately approved and expedited for completion.

This legislation directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to identify all Federal lands in their broad jurisdictions that may be suitable for hardrock mineral exploration, development, and production.

Finally, this legislation targets legal and regulatory bottlenecks that impede domestic mining by directing the Department of the Interior to revise or repeal rules and regulations that hinder mining projects.

Rolling back burdensome regulations is what Americans want and is precisely what this legislation delivers.

I commend my colleague, Representative Pete Stauber, for introducing this legislation. Representative Stauber is a natural leader of the Committee on Natural Resources who continues to swiftly deliver for his constituents and all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, passage of this rule enables our House of Representatives to debate and consider legislation that ends Democrats' second Federal Government shutdown, unleashes America's energy potential, and lowers taxes for working families, seniors, and small businesses within our Nation's Capital.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on House Resolution 1032, as it allows for our House of Representatives to govern, just as the American people deserve.

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

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

I enjoyed the passionate speech from the gentleman from Massachusetts, but I wonder aloud if the gentleman has such passion for some of the criminals who our Federal law enforcement have apprehended in Minnesota during their most recent operations.

For instance, our Federal law enforcement arrested a criminal illegal alien from Somalia with a record of multiple counts of credit card fraud, drug possession, controlled substance possession, and drug trafficking. By the way, this criminal was issued a final order of removal in 2022. Of course, that was never enacted under the previous administration. I wonder if the gentleman has as much passion about that illegal alien who has committed many, many crimes.

A criminal alien from Laos was also apprehended, with three prior convictions for selling drugs, as well as convictions for assault and contributing to a minor's delinquency. The criminal was issued a final order of removal in 2009, but here we are.

Likewise, law enforcement in Minnesota arrested a criminal illegal alien from Mexico previously arrested for child cruelty and battery. I wonder if the gentleman stands with that criminal illegal alien as well. We will surely see in further debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the distinguished Rules Committee chairwoman.

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

Mr. Speaker, it sure seems like the gentleman from Massachusetts is using a whole set of leftwing talking points himself, but I am curious and, rather, we should probably check the transcripts. I do appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts for applauding Federal law enforcement's efforts to apprehend and prosecute and subject to our system of justice some of the worst criminals in our country. I do appreciate that sentiment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine), who I may add is a champion debater, so I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle best wishes.

Mr. Speaker, I hope, in the spirit of respectful discourse, the

gentleman from Massachusetts maintains standards of decorum on the floor and no longer takes the Lord's name in vain.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine), since my colleague did invoke the gentleman from Florida with respect to procedure and as it relates to our ability to actually run the show, to use his words.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that we stand in the midst of a second government shutdown. I just have a question for the gentlemen from Massachusetts and Mississippi.

Because we are in a shutdown today and this is a vote that will help us end this shutdown later this afternoon, I am curious: For how long are they prepared to block our military members from receiving not just their salary but also the hard-earned pay raise? For how long are they willing to withhold the dues that are owed to the people who protect us?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I think it is important to note that the reason why we are here today is because Senate Democrats, along with some Senate Republicans, advanced legislation that enables us to fund the government.

I do find it interesting that our colleagues in the House here are so adamantly opposed to funding our government when 20 of their colleagues in the Senate, in their own party, not only support giving our troops a pay raise but support paying and funding our government, as it rightfully should be, because of all of the wins that President Trump has accomplished thus far.

Mr. Speaker, I am curious. With respect to this vote today, I hear commentary over and over again on ICE and operations therein, but no one has addressed the fact that we are voting today to pay our servicemembers. It is a very simple vote. You can either vote ``yes'' to pay them or ``no'' to withhold payment and funds to them. I am just waiting for somebody to answer why that seems to be a bargaining chip that some of our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle continue to deploy at the expense of our servicemembers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, our Democratic colleagues have tried to distract from the historic achievements reached in 2025 by mischaracterizing the work of the House Committee on Rules with weaponized statistics taken out of context.

I will remind my colleagues that barely over one-third, or 37 percent, of rules this Congress have been closed at the discretion of the Committee on Rules. That means that for the vast majority of closed rules, there were not any amendments that could even be made in order.

My friends across the aisle, particularly my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), know all too well the often Herculean tasks required of the Rules Committee and the difficult discussions when deliberating amendment decisions. The Rules majority believes in meaningful lawmaking, not partisan messaging exercises. We do not need to come up with partisan messaging amendments at the last minute in order to score political points or manufacture floor fights but, instead, focus on advancing thoughtful, substantive legislation like the measures before us today through a fair and transparent process.

Mr. Speaker, under my Democratic colleague's stewardship of the Committee on Rules--who mentioned abolishing tradition or what have you--I think it is helpful to note that under his leadership of the Committee on Rules, they abolished the centuries-old tradition of the motion to recommit with instructions. I think we would all benefit from an explanation of abolishing that centuries-old tradition and the right of the minority.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I think when your arguments are hollow, that is when you revert to foul language. I think that is evident, as we have seen today.

Mr. Speaker, again, I ask the question for the American people. I hope that they demand an answer. Under the gentleman from Massachusetts' stewardship of the Committee on Rules, they abolished a centuries-old tradition during the 117th Congress. We are debating, in fact, procedure today. I think we would all welcome an explanation of that horrific abolishment of committee procedure.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first say that screaming doesn't make up for substance.

In closing, the rule I presented today, H. Res. 1032, enables the House of Representatives to carry out its responsibilities and to govern in an orderly and fair manner for the American people.

As a reminder, a ``yes'' vote on this rule enables us to consider legislation that ends the Democrats' second government shutdown and ensures that our government remains fully open. It ensures that our soldiers, our sailors, our marines, our airmen, and our guardians are paid on time and receive the pay raise they so rightly deserve.

A ``yes'' vote on this rule enables us to consider legislation that protects working families, seniors, and small businesses in the District of Columbia by allowing the House to address actions that deny them the benefits of historic tax relief enacted by Congress.

A ``yes'' vote on this rule enables us to consider legislation that strengthens America's economic and national security by advancing domestic mineral production--something we didn't talk about enough today--which reduces our reliance on foreign sources and supports job creation here at home.

Finally, a ``yes'' vote on this rule enables us to consider legislation that preserves equal debate, protects the rights of the minority, and allows Members on both sides of the aisle to fully participate in the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, this rule allows the House of Representatives to govern and to deliver on the responsibilities entrusted to us. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I hope those watching enjoyed our lively debate with the gentleman from Massachusetts and his colleagues, although for any families watching, I hope they edited out the gentleman's foul language and his taking the name of the Lord in vain.

Let's see which arguments prevail because we are about to vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4090, a bill that hands the mining industry, amazingly, the power to gut its own regulations while doing nothing to secure American mineral supply chains or help make life more affordable for the American people.

It is more of the same from House Republicans and this administration, more favors for their billionaire buddies, and more ways to enrich themselves all at the expense of the American people, who are struggling.

If we asked everyday Americans right now to list 100 things that you care about that you want Congress to be working on to make your life better, I promise you that giving more sweetheart deals to multinational mining corporations would not be anywhere on that list. I can think of a thousand better ways to spend our time than debating this bill on the House floor. We could be reining in the out-of-control agency ICE, which is terrorizing communities around the country and murdering people in the streets.

We should be addressing skyrocketing healthcare costs, which our Republican colleagues seem to have forgotten entirely about. We could be talking about how to lower energy prices, including the skyrocketing utility bills caused by Donald Trump's crazy war on clean energy, but no. We are back here, once again, talking about deregulation designed for and by the mining industry.

H.R. 4090 would codify parts of President Trump's executive orders on mining. I will say that we can agree on many of the bill's stated goals: creating good jobs, strengthening our supply chains, reducing the global influence of our adversaries, and safeguarding national security.

The stated goals are one thing. Then there is what actually is in the bill, what the bill does, and that is quite another thing.

We should not confuse the mining industry's best interests with the public interest. This bill would direct the Interior Secretary to take all necessary steps to expedite and approve certain priority projects with no restrictions on who operates the projects, what they mine, or where.

There is nothing to stop this administration right now from prioritizing mines owned and controlled by our foreign adversaries. That loophole, that glaring problem, that national security threat, is not corrected at all in this bill. There is nothing to require a focus on minerals actually needed for clean energy and national defense. There is nothing to prevent the administration from approving mines on sensitive public lands or even in our national parks. These are all simple safeguards that, for some reason, are not in this legislation. That is ripe for abuse and misuse of our public resources when you advance a bill like this.

In prioritizing lands for mining, the bill makes no mention of minimizing conflict with neighboring communities, like Tribes, or protecting other important natural resources and uses of public lands like logging, grazing, and recreation. The bill also looks to the mining industry itself for direction on which regulations to roll back, and again, no public input and no Tribal consultation.

My colleagues across the aisle often tout the United States' environmental and labor protections as the best in the world, but as protections are eroded in favor of polluters over people, who is to say that basic protections for drinking water and worker safety aren't the next targets?

Mr. Speaker, our environmental laws have reined in the industry's worst pollution and abuses, but regulations being successful doesn't mean that we no longer need them. Nothing in this bill guarantees that minerals mined here will stay here or benefit Americans.

Time and again, we have suggested guardrails that could be put in place, into bills like this, to make sure that foreign adversaries don't end up taking advantage of all of these corporate giveaways that our Republican friends keep putting on the table. It ensures that they don't come here and, practically for free, extract our publicly owned natural resources and take them to other parts of the world and use them in ways that are not in our interests. We keep offering these guardrails. Our Republican colleagues keep saying no.

Under the General Mining Act of 1872, anyone, including subsidiaries of foreign adversaries, can claim our publicly owned materials, mine them for free, ship them abroad into the global market, and do nothing to help the interests of the United States of America.

Time and again, we have raised this glaring vulnerability with legitimate solutions on the table to address it, and our Republican friends refuse to work with us.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 4090, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, there we have it, and I am sure not for the last time in this conversation. The risk of terrible environmental harm by this huge corporate giveaway is nothing to worry about because we have NEPA. We have the Clean Water Act. We have the Environmental Protection Agency. We have all of these environmental safeguards, every one of which is under withering attack from the same colleagues across the aisle who are moving bills like this and from this administration.

This is across the board. There is legislation to gut all of these bedrock environmental laws. There are actions by this administration and litigation moving forward from the industry.

Mr. Speaker, it is cold comfort indeed. I am, frankly, shocked that anyone across the aisle could even say these things with a straight face and point to our bedrock environmental laws as an assurance that nothing will go wrong for the environment, our public lands, our natural resources, Tribes, and others who are worried about this corporate giveaway.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from upstate New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva).

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

Mr. Speaker, there they go again. For the second time, we hear references to NEPA, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the bedrock environmental laws, that they will protect us from all of these terrible scenarios that they say Democrats are raising as scare tactics.

I just can't think of anything less persuasive than hearing that kind of cold comfort from the very folks who are attacking every one of those bedrock environmental laws with other legislation and through administrative actions by this President and in the courts. It is remarkably hypocritical and certainly not very persuasive.

Now, when we think about this mining free-for-all that our Republican friends are trying to create with this legislation, we are not having this conversation in a vacuum. We have to think about who benefits.

Just 2 weeks ago, the Trump administration announced that it would invest over a billion dollars and take an equity stake in USA Rare Earth, a mining and manufacturing company. So much for concerns about socialism. Reporting uncovered that USA Rare Earth hired Cantor Fitzgerald to help with fundraising, a firm chaired by Brandon Lutnick. If that sounds familiar, it is because he is the son of Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick.

In October, the Trump administration announced equity investments in the mining company Trilogy Metals, while simultaneously directing agencies to fast-track permitting for Ambler Road, the controversial project needed to access Trilogy Metals' proposed mine site. Trilogy Metals' third largest shareholder is John Alfred Paulson, a Trump mega donor and an economic adviser. His Trilogy shares increased by $70 million in value after that announcement.

It is a similar story for Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who personally sold shares worth between $50,000 and $100,000 in the mining company MP Materials following a July announcement of one of these lucrative equity deals.

The administration is making a pattern out of picking winners and losers in the mining industry, and a suspicious number of those winners have close ties to Trump officials or Trump family members. This is an incredible grift that our friends across the aisle are playing into.

These deals tie taxpayer dollars to corporate balance sheets and incentivize administration officials to prioritize individual corporate interests over the broader public good.

Earlier this week, myself, Ranking Member Robert Garcia of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Ranking Member Martin Heinrich of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources sent a joint letter to the administration, demanding answers on Trump's taxpayer-funded mining spending spree.

To date, there has been no public disclosure of procedures or safeguards in place to ensure these ownership stakes do not influence permitting decisions, regulation, enforcement, contracting decisions, or other agency decisions relating to these mining and mineral projects. Before we give this administration even more power to enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of everyday Americans, let's get some answers to these basic questions.

Now, with that, Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about China, the boogeyman of China, our adversary on the global stage. Yet, we have a bill before us that, my guess is, the People's Republic of China would absolutely love. Here to tell us more about that is the gentlewoman from New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

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

Mr. Speaker, if my friend from Minnesota actually heard us say the things that he just says he heard in his own mind, I am genuinely worried that we need to get an audiologist in here. I am glad that we have a court reporter and that we have a video record because we said nothing of the kind.

My friend, Mr. Westerman, did say something very important. I don't know if this was his intent, but he sort of made one of our points for us. We cannot mine our way to security with brute force because China controls 80 percent of the world's processing power and nearly 90 percent for rare earth elements. If our only solution is to just have more and more mines and to open up this mining free-for-all in the United States, as Republicans seem singularly focused on, we are essentially giving a gift to our largest adversary.

Let me tell you what this bill does to address the lack of processing capacity here in the United States--or anywhere outside of China-- nothing, absolutely nothing. That is what it has been throughout this Congress from our friends across the aisle--crickets about addressing the real problem when it comes to our competitive threat of China on processing but a rush to open

up our public lands and gut our environmental laws for the mining interests.

Setting up a safe, environmentally sound processing industry in the United States and with our allies does have some barriers right now, but rarely is the lack of raw mine materials one of those barriers.

Take copper and lithium, for example. The Bipartisan Policy Center published a report last year that found that sourcing feedstock domestically or from free trade agreement countries was not a primary barrier to processing.

Much bigger barriers are competition for labor and a lack of price competitiveness, which are major barriers across the board. For some of the other essential minerals like cobalt, nickel, and rare earths, while feedstock is a challenge, it certainly isn't the only one. It is naive to think that fast-tracking mines alone will secure our supply chains and fix these problems.

Instead, we should support a responsible processing strategy, build a more circular economy, and innovate around low-impact mineral sources, like byproduct recovery from mine tailings and recycling, as Mr. Tonko from New York talked about a moment ago.

We need to train the highly skilled American workforce that we need to do all of these jobs. These are things that we need to be working together on. Instead, it is always a rush to open up public lands and give more corporate giveaways for mines.

It has been suggested that there is some sort of a spiteful agenda behind all this, a NIMBY interest where some States allow oil and gas extraction but they don't want it done in Minnesota and other places.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez) to speak about some of those accusations that have been made.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I oppose H.R. 4090 for all the reasons that have been discussed.

This is a bill that directs the administration to prioritize and approve mines, any mines that it wants, even ones owned by foreign adversaries, giving them an expedited path to mine our publicly owned minerals and to export them, usually straight to China.

The Republicans have named it the Critical Mineral Dominance Act, but they forgot to make sure that it was America that would benefit. Democrats have tried again and again to add commonsense guardrails to stop foreign adversaries from benefiting from our

minerals. Republicans have repeatedly blocked these efforts with creative new excuses every time.

Let's drop the facade. This bill is not about American mineral dominance. It is not about critical minerals, either, because nothing in this bill limits the special treatment to strategically important minerals. Nothing in this bill would stop the administration from declaring a gold mine a priority and fast-tracking it. We have already seen them give millions of taxpayer dollars away to a gold mine in Nevada. Gold has never been critical, except when it comes to, I guess, decorating the White House.

This bill is an industry giveaway, pure and simple, and it leaves Americans footing the bill.

We have heard a lot of passionate talk from across the aisle about mining more here in America because we do it best and because we have such strong environmental and labor safeguards. However, this bill tells the Interior Department and the Forest Service to roll back those very regulations that my colleagues brag about and to go ahead and weaken pollution protections if the mining industry thinks they are too ``burdensome.''

Communities around the country know the consequences of unregulated mining all too well, especially Tribal communities who have borne much of the brunt of mining pollution: toxic waste, poisoned land, polluted water, and generations of pollution and disease.

Is this what it means to Make America Great Again? I think we can do a lot better than that. Democrats are willing to work to find responsible, strategic solutions to securing our critical mineral supply chains, but this bill takes us in the wrong direction, creating an industry-led free-for-all that allows anyone to mine our minerals, profit from them on the global market, and then leave Americans with nothing but the pollution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1032, I call up the bill (H.R. 4090) to codify certain provisions of certain Executive Orders relating to domestic mining and hardrock mineral resources, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4090.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4090, the Critical Mineral Dominance Act.

This legislation addresses one of the most urgent challenges facing our Nation today: our growing and unnecessary dependence on other nations for the critical minerals that drive our economy and sustain our national defense.

The United States has never been more reliant on hard rock minerals than it is today. Copper is the backbone of our electricity grid. Nickel, cobalt, and lithium go into the batteries that power our communications devices and back up critical infrastructure such as hospitals and data centers. Rare earth elements make possible the cutting-edge technologies that enable our economy to innovate and our military to keep us safe.

The global mineral race is not optional. Over the next 15 years, demand for copper and rare earth elements is expected to rise by 50 percent; cobalt, 150 percent; and lithium, up to 500 percent. Shortages of all the above could be upon us within a decade.

Yet these minerals are right here under our feet. We have the safest, most sophisticated, efficient, and environmentally friendly mining technology and workforce anywhere in the world. The United States should be the world's mineral supply chain. The only reason we are not is because of our outdated, shortsighted Federal policy that hinders domestic mining.

President Trump recognized the dangerous gap between America's mineral needs and mineral production. Upon returning to office a year ago, he signed three executive orders to help close that gap.

The first directed Federal agencies to correct or rescind regulations that unduly burden domestic mining and instructed the Secretary of the Interior to accelerate geologic mapping.

A second executive order required Federal agencies to prioritize mineral development on viable Federal lands.

The third directed Federal agencies to assess the economic costs and national security risks of our dependence on foreign minerals.

H.R. 4090, sponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), would codify the natural resources-related provisions of these EOs and require additional reporting from the Department of the Interior.

The reports will, for the first time, reveal the true costs that mineral dependence imposes on the U.S. economy. They will clarify the scope and location of America's vast mineral deposits.

During markup, the Natural Resources Committee worked in a bipartisan manner to strengthen the bill, adopting two minority amendments that required DOI to report to Congress on barriers to byproduct mineral production on Federal lands and to examine projects with the potential to produce hard rock minerals from coal ash and coal byproducts.

Mr. Speaker, the alternative to American mineral dominance is buying foreign minerals from supply chains controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. That is where we are now: mineral dependence. Mineral dependence benefits no one except the CCP. Mineral dependence does not help the environment. It does not drive economic growth. It doesn't make us or our allies safer.

American mineral dominance will create thousands of new mining and mineral-related jobs. It will establish the United States as the hub of the world's mineral market. It will secure critical mineral access for the U.S. military and for our allies.

Mr. Speaker, we need these minerals to build a better future. Our choice is whether to lead the world in meeting that need as only we can or to cede that responsibility to corrupt regimes, systems, and foreign enemies we know will abuse it. The American people have made their choice. It is time for us to honor it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Stauber for his work on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4090, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources and the lead sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a lot of agreement on this issue. There is the fact that we need more critical minerals in the United States, and the demand for that is not going away. We need it for economic security. We need it for national security. The rub seems to be where these critical minerals and elements are going to come from. What we are promoting is that they come from America.

The other argument seems to be that we need them but not in our backyard. That has been the position of our country for far too long.

Mr. Speaker, instead of not in our backyard, it is much better in our backyard because we have better labor standards, better environmental standards, and better health and safety standards.

God has blessed our country with these deposits of minerals really from sea to shining sea. We just need to be getting them out of the ground here, creating American jobs while doing that, creating more American jobs and more wealth while we refine those ores into metals and then manufacturing from that.

That is what our vision is. We want to see Americans use American resources to promote American security and American economic growth. I wish we could all agree on that, but that is what this bill will help to promote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

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

Mr. Speaker, if you read the bill, there is absolutely nothing in the bill

about allowing foreign mining companies to come into the U.S. and exploit our Federal lands, to bypass all Federal regulations, and create scenarios like may have happened in some other country. Those are just scare tactics to continue this idea of not in my backyard.

We all want these things. We all recognize that we need these things. We have to have these critical minerals. We have to have these rare earth elements, but the mindset is that we will just get them from somewhere else. We will ship off our environmental issues to some other country and let them deal with it instead of dealing with them here in America, where we, again, have the most stringent rules, have the highest expectations, protect human rights, protect the environment, and promote occupational health and safety.

Show me some place in the world that does that better than we do. It is certainly not Communist China, where all of these rare earths and critical minerals are coming from right now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

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

Mr. Speaker, in preparing for this floor debate, I should have asked my staff to bring posters of smoke and mirrors because it would be fitting for the arguments that we are hearing that seem to try to distract us from everything but the real issue. That issue is that we are not producing the minerals and elements here in our country that we need for our economy and our defense, and China is dominating those markets.

Now, I agree with the gentlewoman from New Mexico: We should be processing these mined materials here in the United States. We have to ask ourselves the question: Why aren't we processing more minerals in the United States? Number one is that we can't get new mines. Why do we need a processing facility if we can't get the material we need to go through the processing facility?

The other one is that we can't permit a new processing facility in a timely manner and build it in a cost-competitive manner because of our overburdensome permitting and regulatory processes and laws that we have here in the United States.

This is the argument why we need permitting reform, why we need to speed up the process, and why we need to give certainty to investors that we can build here in America again.

When we talk about refining metals, let's talk about copper. In 1995, we produced three times more copper than China. Today, they are producing 10 times more copper than we are. We have two copper smelters. They have 50. It is not because we don't know how to build copper smelters, don't have copper deposits, or don't want to produce copper in the U.S. It is the fact that there have been so many obstacles and barriers put in place that it has driven that industry overseas to other places.

It is time we bring it back here and do it in a more environmentally responsible manner--again, with human rights protections, health and safety protections, environmental protections, and the standards of the United States. It is time we start doing this in our backyard and not exporting our issues to other countries while we turn a blind eye to it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

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

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the issue at hand here. I want to address the policy issue and the weakness in the argument that we could restrict mining companies to 10 percent Chinese ownership. That is a bad policy decision.

It is a bad policy decision, Mr. Speaker, because if you are the Chinese Communist Party and see a mine is getting ready to happen in the United States, and it is going to be done by a company that is traded publicly, you could go buy 10.1 percent and stop the project. We don't need that kind of policy.

Plus, that policy doesn't apply to the jurisdiction of this bill. If a policy like that needs to be designed, then it needs to go through the Financial Services Committee.

Also, don't think, Mr. Speaker, that our opposition on this--being China, for the most part--will not play dirty. What they do is when they see any kind of mining project or processing facility considered in the United States, they dump product onto the global market, driving the price down to make the economics such that nobody would invest in that project.

Fortunately, that is being addressed. Just this week, the administration announced something called the vault, which will be a repository for critical minerals. It will be similar to our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We will have strategic critical mineral reserves.

We need to be able to produce those critical minerals here in the United States to put in that reserve, which will insulate against foreign bad actors dumping in our markets to drive the prices down to make projects not economically viable.

Again, the real issue here is that we need this material in America, sourced by American mining companies, processed in America, and going into American manufacturing. We can partner with our allies around the world to help make this happen, but when we look at where the deposits are, they are here in America. We have to produce oil and gas where the oil and gas deposits are. We have to mine copper where the copper deposits are.

Again, we are blessed to have all of those things here in our country, but we are not utilizing them. Because we are not utilizing them, we are allowing our adversaries to control the markets.

It is not just an economic issue. It is a national security issue. That is why we need legislation like this legislation. That is why we need permitting reform.

We talk about building processing facilities in America. We passed the bipartisan permitting reform bill, but, unfortunately, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against that.

The Senate is considering that now. Hopefully, the Senate will pass that bill in a bipartisan manner, like we did in the House, but with a larger bipartisan group. We can get it to the President's desk so we can create certainty, so we can start building more processing and manufacturing here in our country, and so we can utilize these abundant resources that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for speakers. 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, in closing, I will reiterate the fundamental fact of this debate. In the 21st century, America's economy, military, healthcare, communications systems, and transportation infrastructure depend on hardrock minerals.

There is no scenario where the United States and the rest of the world aren't competing to purchase these critical minerals. The only question is whether we are all competing for minerals mined here in the United States or in mines controlled by our foreign adversaries.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, in 2024, the United States was 100 percent net import reliant for 15 nonfuel mineral commodities. Additionally, of the 60 minerals identified as critical by USGS, the United States was 100 percent net import reliant for 12, and at least 50 percent net import reliant for an additional 30.

Mining them here is better for our economy, our national security, our allies, and the environment. H.R. 4090 will help close America's mineral production gap and begin to end our dependence on foreign minerals.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my bipartisan bill, H.R. 4090, the Critical Mineral Dominance Act.

This bill will help strengthen our Nation's critical mineral security and enable our critical mineral dominance by codifying several of the policies that President Trump put forth in his hardrock mining executive orders earlier this year.

This bill does three things, Mr. Speaker. First, it mandates a new study on the cost of U.S. mineral import reliance, including from adversarial nations like China. This will help give the United States a much clearer picture into our critical mineral security, including what kind of vulnerabilities we face by failing to mine here and continuing to depend on other nations.

Next, it requires the administration to expedite priority mining projects on Federal lands and identify Federal lands that have the potential for new mineral production, as well as increase geological mapping to give us a much clearer picture of our incredible mineral wealth right here in the United States.

Lastly, this bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to revise or rescind any agency actions that are a barrier to domestic mining, as well as make recommendations to Congress as to how current law can be changed to streamline mineral development. It will also conduct a broader review of State and local laws that are also holding us back from our true mineral potential.

I think each and every one of my colleagues in this body, from both sides of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, understands and realizes the important role that critical minerals play in our 21st century economy. This will only increase as time goes on.

We have tremendous mineral wealth in our country, not only in my district in northern Minnesota, which is home to the largest untapped copper-nickel deposit in the world, but in States all across this great Nation.

There is no reason for the United States to be dependent on other countries, including foreign adversarial nations, for our critical mineral future. Nobody does it better than the United States.

I implore my colleagues: Where is the world currently mining for critical minerals that have better labor standards or environmental standards than us?

Mr. Speaker, nothing in this bill green-lights any mining project without necessary scrutiny. Nothing in this bill allows for a project to bypass NEPA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or the Endangered Species Act, nothing.

This bill is a strong signal from Congress to the executive branch that we need to get serious about our critical mineral strategy and take necessary steps to win once again.

Before I yield back, I would note a number of the outside groups that are supporting this legislation. They include labor unions like the North America's Building Trades Unions and the Laborers' International Union of North America, LIUNA.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement in support from Albert Gore, executive director of Zero Emission Transportation Association, representing the views of the domestic electric vehicle industry; a letter of support from a group of 17 organizations representing different areas of the domestic mining sector; a letter of support from the Essential Minerals Association; and a November 2025 op-ed published by RealClearEnergy, expressing support for this legislation.

January 16, 2025.

Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA) is an

industry coalition representing approximately 50 companies

spanning the electric vehicle (EV) supply chain end-to-end,

including critical mineral and material producers, cell and

battery manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers, charging

companies and electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE)

providers, utility companies, and battery recyclers.

The United States is blessed to have vast mineral

resources, but a holistic government approach is needed to

fully unlock them. Critical minerals and materials are

necessary for EVs, battery manufacturing, defense, and nearly

every other advanced technology industry. Enabling the United

States to truly compete in these sectors is necessary to

maintain our edge in the global marketplace and create jobs

here at home.

H.R. 4090 (Stauber), the Critical Mineral Dominance Act,

helps us achieve this goal by supporting the secure and

reliable sourcing of minerals for domestic manufacturing.

Among other provisions, the bill directs the Secretary of the

Interior to determine the economic impact of each mineral

commodity for which the U.S. is import reliant, continue

mapping federal lands suitable for mineral development,

analyze regulations that may handicap the development of

domestic projects, and provide Congressional committees of

jurisdiction recommended policy changes to reduce regulatory

burdens for project development.

We were glad to see this legislation move through the

Committee on Natural Resources, and encourage Members of

Congress to support this bill when it comes to the House

Floor for consideration.

Sincerely,

Albert Gore,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan piece of legislation, H.R. 4090.

Mr. Speaker, my good friends on the other side of the aisle will promote, again, anywhere but America and any worker but the American worker when it comes to mining. Anywhere but America, and any worker but the American worker.

They are exporting their environmental guilt. They are okay with getting these critical minerals mined by child slave labor.

Mr. Speaker, 30 percent of the cobalt comes from child slave labor. Both the Trump and the Biden administration agree with that.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this legislation that removes NEPA. Nothing in this legislation removes the clean water. Nothing in this legislation removes the clean air in the decisionmaking, and nothing in this legislation removes any of the endangered species protections.

Mr. Speaker, we took a bipartisan trip last year up to Alaska. Greens Creek Mine is in a national monument. There is exceptional mining of the nickel in the national monument. We can do it here, Mr. Speaker, better than anywhere. We have the mineral wealth. We have the workers. We can do both. We can have a clean environment and clean water and domestically mine.

My friends across the aisle consistently say: Yes, we need critical minerals. Yes, we need if for strategic national security. Yes, we need it for medical instrument technology. Yes, we need it for our everyday lives. They refuse to allow it to happen. They put up roadblock after roadblock. They say that they want it, but they never support it, or very rarely support it.

That is the mindset and the philosophy, Mr. Speaker, that has brought American critical mineral mining to its knees and allowed China to take over.

China's global mineral dominance is not a threat. It is a reality. This is what is happening right now because of that philosophy of not in my backyard, not in our backyard.

There is a philosophy that it is better in our backyard. We do it better than anybody. Look at the unions that are supporting this piece of legislation. It came out of committee in a bipartisan fashion. This is what the American people want, bipartisan work. Here it is.

I look forward to this bipartisan piece of legislation that strengthens our national security moving forward this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I want to paraphrase in my own mind what was said moments ago across the aisle, real simple: anywhere but America, any worker but the American worker. I am paraphrasing from my own mind what I heard. The excuses, the excuses, the excuses, the excuses. We have to mine here. We can't mine here.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman who just spoke in her beautiful State, she has allowed oil and gas development. In her beautiful State, she has allowed mining. Why not in my State? Why can't my union workers make the $135,000-a-year jobs, but in her State it is okay? This bill is for the entire country.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents need good-paying jobs, too. It is good for our economy and good for our communities. The technology we use is second to none.

I want to answer my friend from New Mexico who just spoke. She asked: Why aren't we processing and refining here? I have good news for her. Very shortly, there is going to be legislation to allow that, to permit the mining and processing here in the United States of America. I am going to go directly to my good friend and colleague from New Mexico to help sponsor that with me because she is right. Let's do it here. Let's mine here, Mr. Speaker. I am going to give her and my friends across the aisle that opportunity very shortly.

The fact of the matter is, we have the opportunity. We have to remove the political science--the truth and the facts--to allow this mining to move forward.

This is our backyard. My good friend across the aisle, who is managing the debate, talked about the economic value or the lack thereof. I share with my good friend and colleague that in my State of Minnesota, just one mine proposed, just one, will bring between $1.4 and $1.8 billion of Federal revenue, $800 million for the taxpayers of Minnesota. Every single school district in the great State of Minnesota benefits from mining.

You want to know why I am passionate? These are my constituents that will be mining these critical minerals with the best labor standards and the best environmental standards in the world. We have been mining in Minnesota for 145 years. We have mined the iron ore that makes over 80 percent of this Nation's steel.

The cleanest water in the State of Minnesota, Mr. Speaker, is in the heart of mining country in Buhl, Minnesota. We know how to do it.

Let's stop exporting our environmental guilt. Let's stop exporting our environmental guilt and do it here with our labor standards, our technology, and our workers.

I am happy that New Mexico has oil and gas development and mining development. I am happy for those workers. We need that. Let Minnesota mine.