H.Res. 1009

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

Mr. Speaker, we had plenty of time last night in the Rules Committee to debate these awful, lousy bills: H.R. 6945, H.R. 6359, and H.J. Res. 140. I encourage everyone to look them up. Don't take my word for it.

Two of these bills are about misleading pregnant women to stop them from making decisions about their own

bodies. This is all part of the Republicans' war on women. These bills are aimed to please anti-choice protesters who are flying into Washington this week. The third is about making it easier for a foreign mining company to dump pollution into a pristine wilderness recreation area in Minnesota.

All of these bills are being brought to the floor under completely closed rules--no amendments, limited debate, no nothing. I won't waste more time on these terrible bills. They are just more of the same stupid garbage that this majority has brought to the floor time and time again.

What I do want to highlight, Mr. Speaker, is that this week marks 1 year since Donald Trump was sworn in as President of the United States. Republicans have had total control of the entire Federal Government-- the House, the Senate, and the White House--for over a year.

Yet still, after an entire year in charge, Republicans continue to point the finger at Democrats rather than take responsibility for their own embarrassing failures and broken promises. Republicans and Trump ran on fighting for working people, but every single day, they have governed on behalf of billionaires and corporate donors.

Let's take a look at some of these broken promises. Donald Trump said he would put America first. He has not. What he has done is given a $40 billion loan to Argentina. He stabbed American ranchers in the back, proposing that we import beef from South America. He threw a fancy party at the White House for a Saudi Prince who murdered an American journalist. He has not put America first.

He also promised no more endless wars. Give me a break. He renamed the Pentagon the Department of War. Last year, he bombed Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. He bombed Venezuela and now says that we are running the country, whatever the hell that means. He is also threatening to take an autonomous territory from Denmark, a NATO ally.

Let's go over another failure. Donald Trump promised ICE would only deport the worst of the worst. Guess what. That is not true. ICE agents are terrorizing not just immigrants, but U.S. citizens, sowing chaos, murdering an unarmed American mom in broad daylight, and deporting veterans and asylum seekers who are here legally.

Another campaign promise: Donald Trump said he would lower prices on day one. Oh, my God, Mr. Speaker, has anyone in this administration gone shopping? Let me say this as someone who buys his own groceries in Worcester, Massachusetts. Prices are not only high, but they are going up even more because of Trump's reckless tariffs. Remember when Trump bragged about how he would get gas down to $2 a gallon? It is $3 a gallon down the street from my house.

Let's keep going down the list. Trump said he would get drugs off our streets and put criminals in jail. Give me a break. He pardoned the guy who created the dark web market that smuggled in tons of fentanyl. Then he pardoned the Honduran ex-President convicted of trafficking tons and tons of cocaine into the United States.

Let's not forget, he pardoned all the January 6 rioters, many of whom have since gone on to reoffend with illegal gun possession and committing child sex crimes after Donald Trump let them out of jail.

Then, of course, we have the promise that Trump would replace ObamaCare with something better. Instead of something better, Republicans let the enhanced ACA tax credits expire at the end of 2025, which means that now people are paying more. Tens of thousands of people in Massachusetts alone have now dropped coverage, meaning they have no insurance at all.

Republicans don't have a plan to replace ObamaCare. They never have. Fifteen years later, I am starting to think that they never will.

Now, another thing that Donald Trump promised: no corruption and full transparency. Remember that promise? Seriously, how much money does one family need to make off the Presidency before Republicans admit it is corruption? The Trump family has gotten nearly $4 billion richer since he took office last year. How much can one family treat the Presidency like a piggy bank before Republicans finally step up and do something about it?

Why is his ballroom being funded by billionaire donors? What are they looking for?

What about the Epstein files? There has been no transparency there. We had to force a vote in Congress. He reluctantly signed the bill, and he still hasn't released all the files. Less than 1 percent of the files have been released. What the hell is taking so long? What is he so afraid of? What is he hiding?

It has been clear to me since day one of Donald Trump's disgraceful Presidency what it has been all about. Look at who was in the front row of his inauguration, all billionaires: his Treasury secretary, a billionaire; his education secretary, a billionaire; his entire Cabinet, Health and Human Services, Energy, Interior, all led by billionaires.

These people don't shop for themselves or they don't worry about paying rent. They don't care about us. Trump said he would drain the swamp. What a bunch of BS. He moved the swamp into the Lincoln bedroom for God's sake.

The bottom line is simple: He has not done a single damn thing that he promised to do. Not only have they failed, they have failed catastrophically, and look no further than the bills on the floor today.

There is nothing for workers, nothing to lower grocery prices, nothing to take on price gouging, nothing to bring down rent, nothing to help people buy a home, nothing to lower prescription drug costs, nothing to raise wages, nothing to strengthen workplace protections, and nothing to create jobs. Just culture war garbage and corporate giveaways is all the GOP knows how to do.

After 1 year of total power, there is nobody else to blame. This is the Republican record, and it is awful. This is Donald Trump's economy, and it sucks. The people back home see it. They feel it. They are living it. They see who keeps getting help and who keeps getting hurt. They see the billionaires cashing out while working families get squeezed. The Republican Party has had a year, and the American people have had enough.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I will correct the Record on something. Donald Trump promised he would lower gas prices to $2 a gallon. I just did Google maps and looked at the price of gas in the gentleman's district. It is like $2.80. That is a far cry from $2.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act, to restore the rights of women to an abortion nationwide and undo extremist abortion bans in States across the country.

Mr. Speaker, since the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, 13 States have imposed complete abortion bans and many more have imposed extremely short timeframes to get an abortion, endangering women, threatening doctors with criminal prosecution, giving politicians in State capitol buildings extreme power over personal medical decisions and fundamental freedoms.

The bills in this rule are part of that dangerous trend. One bill actually diverts Federal TANF funds meant for low-income families to fund so-called crisis pregnancy centers, which provide pregnant women oftentimes with fake medical advice with the goal of dissuading them from accessing contraception or abortion care.

Republicans aren't providing more funding for TANF. God forbid they do that. Giving this money away to these fake medical clinics is stealing money from low-income families who need real help. The damage these fake pregnancy centers do isn't theoretical.

In my district, a woman was told by one of these centers that she had a viable pregnancy, but as time went on and she continued to feel sharp pains, she went to a real doctor and was diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy that threatened her life and resulted in an emergency surgery. She will have lifelong complications. If she had received actual medical care earlier, she could have received the treatment she needed before it was too late.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can bring up a bill that will actually protect women and allow them to access the full suite of reproductive care options.

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 gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman who just spoke that some of us had different experiences. In my district, a woman almost died from one of

these crisis pregnancy centers because she got bad advice from a quack. Don't lecture us about our dedication to making sure that women are not only presented all options but treated by people who are actually qualified.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. Now the gentleman is blaming the Governors and not Biden. I don't even know where the hell Worcester is. I never heard of that place the way he is saying it. It is certainly not in Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, in any event, while this Chamber is wasting more time on yet more messaging bills, a real crisis is unfolding in plain sight. Our allies are preparing for a possible military conflict with the United States. Let me repeat that again.

Our closest allies, our partners in freedom and peace for decades, are reinforcing their territory because the President of the United States has plunged us into the greatest transatlantic crisis in a generation.

Are we supposed to be relieved by the fact that finally, after a week of chaos, he said he won't use force? Is that supposed to somehow comfort us? I don't really feel very comforted because these are the same people who told us they wouldn't invade Venezuela the week before they invaded Venezuela. Let me remind everyone how this started.

Last weekend, Donald Trump sent a message to Norway's Prime Minister. I want the President's words in the Record because the American people deserve to hear them.

``Dear Jonas, considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped eight wars plus, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace.''

Now, let's listen to that again. Since he didn't get the prize, the President of the United States says he no longer feels obligated to think of peace.

Then he pivots from grievance to threats, saying that he wants ``complete and total control of Greenland.''

That is nuts. Again, this is truly crazy. This is the President of the United States talking about a NATO ally the way that Putin talked about Crimea before he invaded Ukraine.

`` . . . if we don't do it the easy way, we are going to do it the hard way.''

Again, that is not a Putin quote. It is a Trump quote. You can hardly tell the damned difference anymore. Wake up, America.

Are any of my friends on the other side of the aisle going to step up and put an end to this insanity, or are we all just going to shrug it off and move on? The President's own words show that he is living in a different reality. He told The New York Times that acquiring Greenland is psychologically important to him. Not to the United States, but to him personally.

Mr. Speaker, just so we are all on the same page, the U.S. does not need to invade Greenland to protect America. We already have a U.S. military presence there, and Denmark has basically said that they are happy to partner with us even further, because our militaries already work very closely, to make sure that Russia or China doesn't gain a foothold in the Arctic, so his own justification is total BS.

Threatening to annex Greenland actually makes us less safe. If we wanted to stand up to Russia, I can think of a really easy way to do that that doesn't involve invading a NATO ally. No, no, no. In no way is this about national security or defending the Arctic. It is a cover story.

This is about a thin-skinned, petty man throwing a global tantrum because he didn't get the prize that he thinks he deserves. Through all of this, barely a peep from most Republicans--not a whisper. Imagine if this were a Democratic President. They would be up in arms. We would be having investigations and subpoenas, and it would be a national scandal. Yet, we are hearing nothing from Republicans because they are in a cult.

I will say what they won't: None of this is normal. This is not a joke. This is not something Republicans can

shrug off or turn away from. This President is threatening a NATO ally in writing, and the world is responding.

European allies have begun sending troops to Greenland to protect it from an American invasion. Canada has signaled that such an invasion would activate Article 5, meaning our allies would be obligated to take military action against us. Record-setting protests are taking place in Greenland and in Denmark because they have no interest in being taken over by Trump.

Instead of deescalating, Trump is ramping up--tariffs, threats, blackmail, trying to bully our allies into letting him grab territory.

Do you know what the kicker is to all of this? Working people will pay the price for Trump's little temper tantrum. When you blow up alliances, you don't just blow up diplomacy. You blow up supply chains. You blow up markets. You blow up global stability, and it is never the billionaires who eat the cost. It is families. It is farmers. It is workers. It is regular people.

Maybe that is why 91 percent of Americans think that taking over Greenland is a stupid idea, but here is the bottom line: China benefits when America alienates Europe. Russia benefits when NATO is weakened and distracted. Every authoritarian on Earth benefits when the President of the United States starts acting like a two-bit tyrant.

I will just end on this: The world where America invades Greenland is a horrible, horrible world. It is a world with no moral compass. It is a world with no North Star towards liberty and justice. It is a world where China, Russia, and America conspire together to subvert freedom, democracy, and peace. It is a world I don't want to live in, but it is the world that will come to be if we allow this President to do what he says he wants to do.

My message to our allies is simple: Do not mistake this President for the American people. Stand up to him. Do not appease him, and know that there are Americans and there are Members of Congress who will stand with you in defense of democracy, alliances, and the rule of law.

My message to House Republicans is even more simple: It is time to take the car keys from grandpa. Stop worshipping this President. Stop acting like you are in a cult. Grow a spine, and for once in your lives, cut the BS and do something to stop him.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to be lectured by people who claim they are pro-life but who vote to take food away from hungry kids in this country, who vote to cut SNAP by $200 billion in the big, ugly bill, who vote to cut Medicaid by $1 trillion in the big, ugly bill. It really is incredible. It takes my breath away.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let's be clear, all of these crummy bills that are coming to the floor today are under completely closed rules.

The gentlewoman who just spoke, her amendment was blocked from being debated and voted on on the House floor by my Republican colleagues. Everything is just closed--their way or the highway. It is a terrible pattern that has developed here.

Mr. Speaker, after 1 year of total Republican control, there is nowhere left to hide. Republicans ran on helping working people. They ran on lowering costs. They ran on grocery prices and rent. What did they do? They delivered all right--for billionaires and big donors.

If Wall Street wanted a tax break, it would get done in a nanosecond. If Amazon wanted another loophole, it would materialize out of thin air. If Big Oil wanted another permit, they would roll out the red carpet. If Big Pharma wanted to rip off people, Republicans look the other way.

That is how things have worked around here for the last year. It is never a problem paying for tax breaks for billionaires, but somehow, when everyday people needed help, Republicans were nowhere to be found. They cut food assistance, cut Medicaid, and cut help for regular people. They stole from those with the least to give more to those with the most.

I am so sick of the excuses. For a year, we have heard Republicans blame everyone but themselves: blame Biden, blame Democrats, blame George Soros, blame the Clintons, blame Kamala Harris, blame the blue States, blame the media, blame fill-in-the-blank.

Here is a thought, Mr. Speaker: Why don't you guys blame yourselves? You control the House, the Senate, and the White House. You are in charge. You set the schedule. You control the government. You have been in power for an entire year. If you are still blaming someone else, that is really not a strategy. It is a confession.

As much as you guys might need a priest, I am not here to offer forgiveness or absolution. I am here to demand accountability.

Republicans need to take ownership of your pathetic, incompetent, disastrous inability to deliver on anything you said you would.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1009, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 140) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN, 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.J. Res. 140.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Congressional Review Act resolution, which would overturn the Biden administration's reckless withdrawal of more than 225,000 acres in the Superior National Forest from mineral exploration and development.

Mr. Speaker, at issue is the Duluth Complex in northern Minnesota, one of the largest mineral deposits on the planet, including the world's largest copper-nickel deposit.

The Federal Government routinely granted and renewed mineral leases to these deposits beginning in the 1960s. Decades of planning, exploration, investment, and environmental reviews have gone into the region, and with good reason.

The minerals in the Duluth Complex include copper, nickel, and cobalt. They are the ones that make up the 21st century economy and help it run. They are the essential inputs for telecommunications devices, cutting-edge defense systems, and much more.

As we are all keenly aware, the Chinese Communist Party has a stranglehold on far too many mineral supply chains. Mining in the Duluth Complex was poised to change that. It was going to help usher in a new era of American mineral dominance and create and support thousands of American jobs. It was going to help end our dependence on foreign adversaries and reorder the entire global mineral market, positioning the United States at the center and driving our rivals to the margins.

When President Biden abruptly closed off 225,000 acres of Federal land in the Duluth Complex for mineral development, he threw a future of American abundance, security, and global leadership into chaos. The decision undermined America's economic, military, and strategic interests and those of our allies.

The minerals in the Duluth Complex are called ``critical'' for a reason. We need them. The whole world needs them. Nations, businesses, militaries, and individual consumers are going to acquire these minerals. The only question is whether they will be mined here in the United States by American workers, protected by American labor laws, and with the strongest environmental standards and most advanced mining techniques, or not.

The Duluth Complex is also home to a world-class helium reserve, which has attracted investment from investors. Specifically, the withdrawal itself locks up roughly 11,000 acres for helium exploration, blocking development of one of the largest and most concentrated helium deposits in the entire world.

Don't let the rhetoric around this issue confuse what is at stake here. The resolution before us today is about more than just one project. There are two options, Mr. Speaker: mineral dominance or mineral dependence. There isn't a third option, and it is long past time for the Federal Government to act like it.

Our global allies rely on America's leadership. If we are to remain a leader in the global economy, then domestic mineral abundance is a strategic necessity, not a political football.

The resolution before us does not mandate projects, mining sites, firms, or schedules. It simply reverses the Biden administration's unilateral short-circuiting of the normal permitting process.

This resolution is a step toward balance and the rule of law. It is a step toward the mineral abundance that the American people deserve and that Washington has denied them for too long.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) for introducing this resolution and for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Facts can be stubborn things. There are some things that we all can agree on. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area is a wonderful place, but the Boundary Waters Canoe Area has been protected, is currently protected, and will be protected even after this CRA is passed.

The Congresses that came long before us made sure this was the case, long before the Obama administration ever did a lease withdrawal in the area. They established the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Then, they set a buffer zone around the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, and they said this other part of the Superior National Forest could be used to develop mining and also used for forestry purposes.

Any deposits that we are talking about are not inside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. They are not inside the buffer zone to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. They are out in the forest that the Biden administration said can't be developed anymore, even after Congress had already said this was the case.

I think what we are doing today is we are exercising our Article I power where an administration abused it and tried to make rules. The Government Accountability Office said this bill or this rule is subject to the Congressional Review Act, so here we are, to right the wrong.

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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).

Mr. Speaker, again, I can't emphasize this enough: There is not going to be any mining in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. There is not going to be any mining in the boundary area around the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. If there is ever a project approved, it would be in the land set aside by Congress in the Superior National Forest for mining and timber harvesting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

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.

Again, Mr. Stauber said it, I have said it, and others have said it. This CRA simply reverses the withdrawal that the Biden administration put out. It takes us back to Congress' original intent to allow somebody to propose to develop a project. It doesn't change any of the permitting laws. They still have to go through every permitting law.

There seems to be a lot of scare tactics on what this mine, which hasn't even been permitted or approved yet, is going to do, but we know one thing. It will have to stand up to all the rigorous permitting requirements that the U.S. has to offer. It will also have to stand up to the labor, health, and safety requirements that we have here in the U.S., unlike many of the places around the world where these critical minerals are mined.

This gives somebody a chance to develop a project to provide the things that we need here in America, to provide jobs for northern Minnesota, and to provide a stronger sense of national security, as we all saw the equipment that these critical minerals go into that Representative Zinke showed in the poster.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I include in the Record a coalition letter from over 140 organizations in support of H.J. Res. 140. These groups include the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Minnesota Power, MiningMinnesota, Minnesota State Building and Construction Trades Council, Ely Public School District, Jobs for Minnesotans, Laborers' International Union of North America, and more.

January 20, 2026.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Thune,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson, Majority Leader Thune, Minority

Leader Jeffries, and Minority Leader Schumer: Our

organizations represent a broad range of Americans who care

deeply about advancing opportunities for individuals and

families across the country and fostering a stronger nation.

We represent vital industries such as mining, manufacturing,

transportation and energy; we represent hundreds of thousands

of union workers; we include economic development

associations; we are business leaders and much more.

We are writing to express our strong support for Congress'

efforts to utilize the Congressional Review Act to disapprove

of the mineral withdrawal that was enacted in northeast

Minnesota by the Department of the Interior (DOI) in January

of 2023 on more than 225,000 acres of federal lands.

Minerals are fundamental to everything in our modern world,

from wiring in homes, to energy technologies and

infrastructure, medical technologies, transportation, defense

capabilities, smartphones and laptops and more. Simply put,

critical minerals are vital for a safe, secure and prosperous

America.

Currently, China and other adversarial nations dominate the

globe in critical mineral production and processing, while

U.S. dependence on foreign sources for these materials has

recently reached an all-time high. The ban on mining across a

significant portion of Minnesota only set us further behind

as a nation.

As a result, this mineral withdrawal, an administrative

action which forbids any mining or exploration activity on

these lands for 20 years, was enacted in an area of the

United States that contains enormous amounts of the critical

minerals our nation needs to achieve its goals of energy

independence, stronger domestic supply chains and American

job creation. These are goals our organizations collectively

work to advance.

Northeast Minnesota is home to the world's largest known

undeveloped deposits of copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum

group metals and more. The area contains 95 percent of

domestic nickel resources, almost 90 percent of domestic

cobalt and about a third of our nation's copper. Industries

pursuing the responsible development of these resources, from

the mining companies who have invested in the region to the

suppliers to the high-skilled workers seeking employment,

have been negatively impacted by the enactment of the mineral

withdrawal, as have the communities in the region that want

to see mining projects move forward for the betterment of the

local and statewide economy.

Congress now has the opportunity to correct a detrimental

action that ran contrary to our national interest, and to do

so assures that these minerals will be produced domestically

according to some of the world's most rigorous environmental

standards.

Minnesota and the federal government have already put in

place comprehensive rules and a framework to ensure the

environment is protected and that any proposed industrial

activity in the area meets stringent regulatory standards.

The U.S. also has some of the most robust safety standards

for workers. To ignore the opportunity to produce

domestically for materials we use in our everyday lives means

that we are relying upon nations with low-to-non-existent

worker protections.

Disapproving the withdrawal in Minnesota will undo an

unnecessary and damaging action. It will also correct a

course in which industries seeking to generate jobs and

revenue for generations to come, were simply no longer

allowed to propose mining projects in the area and forbidden

to go through the law and science-based environmental review

process to prove they can meet the high standards in place

before earning permits to construct a mine.

We collectively support the use of the Congressional Review

Act to overturn the mineral withdrawal currently under

consideration in Congress, as it is an essential step forward

in unlocking the resources that our nation needs to reduce

our dangerous reliance on China and other adversarial

nations.

Signed,

Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA);

Minnesota State Building and Construction Trades Council; The

National Association of Manufacturers; International

Brotherhood of Teamsters; MichAuto; Indigenous Business

Advisors; Better in Our Back Yard; Iron Range Building

Trades; Minnesota Pipe Trades Association; LIUNA Minnesota

and North Dakota; Northern Midwest Regional Council of

Carpenters; Minnesota Power; Whitebird Services Inc.; Duluth

Seaway Port Authority; Citizens for Responsible Energy

Solutions; Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; Women's Mining

Coalition; ClearPath Action; International Union of

Operating Engineers Local 49; Plumbers and Pipefitters

Local 589; Area Partnership for Economic Expansion (APEX).

Range Association of Municipalities and Schools (RAMS);

Mining Minnesota; Jobs for Minnesotans; American Exploration

and Mining Association; Society for Mining, Metallurgy &

Exploration; National Mining Association; United Way of

Northeastern Minnesota; American Chemistry Council; Teamsters

Joint Council 32; Teamsters Local 346; Laborers Local 1097

``Iron Range''; Sprinkler Fitters Local 417; UA Plumbers

Local 15; Local 6 Plumbers and Pipefitters; International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Minnesota State Council;

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 242;

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union

110; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local

31; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local

Union 1426; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Local 160.

Up North Jobs Inc.; Minnesota Conservative Energy Forum;

Green Bridge Metals; City of Babbitt, MN--Mayor Andrea

Zupancich; Duluth Area Chamber of Commerce; Laurentian

Chamber of Commerce; Hermantown Area Chamber of Commerce;

Copper Development Association; Mt. Iron-Buhl School Board,

MN--Lisa Kvas; Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce;

American Coal Council; Industrial Township, St. Louis County,

MN--Don Carlson; Northeast Technical Services; Grand Itasca

Clinic and Hospital; Lakehead Constructors; Ely Public School

District--Anne Oelke; Fight for Mining Minnesota; Road

Machinery & Supplies Co.; Feeley Township, Itasca County,

MN--Deb Langanki; Lake Country Power; Encampment Minerals,

Inc.

Giant; B.R. Clark Consulting LLC; RMS Tritec; Global

Minerals Engineering; Wyoming Mining Association; American

Peat Technology; Millcreek Engineering Company; Mine

Development Management LLC; Borell Consulting Services LLC;

StarPoint Resources, LLC; Geobrugg North America; Clementine

Exploration; Idaho Mining Association; Agnico Eagle; Pebble

Limited Partnership; Archkey--Parsons Electric; Superior Rock

Bit; Innate North; GEOTEMPS/GEOPROS, Inc.; Superior Marine

Charters.

American Peat Technology; Wescom Inc; Furin & Shea Welding

& Fabricating, Inc.; Sandvik Mining and Rock Processing; City

of Hibbing, MN--Mayor Pete Hyduke; City of Kinney, MN--Mayor

Patrick E. Haley; APi Group Inc.; ME Global Inc; A Martin

Consulting, LLC; Malton Electric Co.; Quick Supply Co.; North

Star Manganese Inc & Electric Metals (USA) Limited; GR

Engineering Services; Amvest Capital Securities; Twin Metals

Minnesota; Kalenborn Abresist Corporation; Larkin Hoffman

Attorneys; ME Elecmetal; City of Biwabik, MN--Mayor Steven

Biondich; Solenis LLC.

Kirscher Transport; General Equipment & Supplies Inc; JBW

Consulting Engineers; PX4 Software; Gerdau Amersiteel US Inc;

QT Environmental; Wolverine Fuels; Alaska Miners Association;

Furin & Shea Welding & Fabricating, Inc.; Universal Polymer

And Rubber; TJR Technical Services, Inc.; Beaver Bay, Inc.;

AMIGOS; Hayday; Tidal Health; Northeast Title; Marshall Area

Chamber of Commerce; Timberline Drilling; Ziegler Cat;

Kalenborn Canada Inc.

Superior Fuel Company; Baldwin Supply Company; Dodge

Industrial; Baldwin Supply; Avivid Global Water; Vics Crane &

Heavy Haul; Hamilton Monroe & Co; Electric Power Door; Duncan

Co.; Victaulic; General Equipment and Supplies, Inc.; LRL

Construction; Contour Inc.; Borealis Fuels & Logistics;

Cenovus Energy Superior Refinery; Hibbing Taconite Co.;

Snowbird Willies Boat Canvas; Hamilton Monroe; MHE

Consulting; Salem Republic Rubber; Enbridge.

Mr. Speaker, the letter states: ``Disapproving the withdrawal in Minnesota will undo an unnecessary and damaging action. It will also correct a course in which industries seeking to generate jobs and revenue for generations to come were simply no longer allowed to propose mining projects in the area and forbidden to go through the law and science-based environmental review process.''

Mr. Speaker, I will just say that I actually have taken hydrology courses. I am a professional engineer. It has been a long time ago, but I remember something very distinct from those hydrology and hydraulic engineering courses, and that is that water flows downhill. If it doesn't, you can get a pump. That is an engineering joke. It is probably not very funny.

The thing about these mines in Minnesota is, they are below-grade mines. They are not pit mines. They are actually digging tunnels down into the earth to pull this ore out to take it to the top to refine it. If there are tailings, these tailings will be placed in a secure area where there is no way they can be leached back into the watershed.

Don't let the scare tactics influence the way you vote on this legislation because the inputs we need to sustain our fast-growing electricity grid are right under our feet. We should be leading the world in technological innovation and AI infrastructure.

The only reason we are mired in mineral dependence today and not enjoying or sharing the benefits of American mineral dominance is because of outdated or misguided policies like the one we are overturning today.

The resolution before us would correct these policies by reopening mineral-rich land to exploration and reducing our reliance on China for minerals.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) for his leadership on the issue. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1009 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1009, providing for consideration of three measures. H.R. 6945, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, is under a closed rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

H.R. 6359, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act, is under a closed rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

H.J. Res. 140, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN, is under a closed rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a rule on three pieces of legislation. Beginning with H.R. 6945, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.

Mr. Speaker, across the country, pregnancy centers serve as trusted, community-based nonprofits that offer a wide range of material assistance and support, including pregnancy testing, prenatal education, parenting classes, ultrasounds, diapers, baby clothing, adoption referrals, and connections to housing and other services.

In 2024 alone, these organizations assisted nearly 2 million individuals nationwide, Mr. Speaker.

Despite their longstanding role in supporting families and advancing the core purposes of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, a proposed rule under the previous administration raised uncertainty about whether States could continue partnering with pregnancy centers even though these services clearly align with helping children remain in their homes and reducing dependence on government assistance.

H.R. 6945 addresses that uncertainty by making clear that States may not be restricted from choosing to work with pregnancy centers and that Temporary Assistance to Needy Families funds may be used for these services consistent with Federal law.

This bill does not mandate participation. Again, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not mandate participation, but instead preserves State flexibility and protects against future administrative overreach.

At a time when families are facing rising costs and difficult choices, ensuring access to proven community resources matters. This legislation reinforces support for pregnant and parenting women, respects State decisionmaking, and strengthens efforts to help families thrive.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6359, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act. Mr. Speaker, today's student population looks very different than it did decades ago. Nearly one in five undergraduate students is raising children while enrolled, yet many pregnant students remain unaware of the rights and accommodations already available to them under Federal law.

While Title IX clearly prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy and requires reasonable accommodation, those protections are only meaningful if students know they exist and understand how to access them. Too often, that information is buried, inconsistently shared, or not communicated at all.

H.R. 6359 takes a straightforward approach by requiring colleges and universities that receive Federal student aid to clearly disseminate information regarding pregnant students' rights and available accommodations, as well as both on-campus and community resources. This bill also ensures students know how to file a Title IX complaint if those rights are violated.

This legislation does not expand Federal authority or create new rights. Instead, it promotes transparency, consistency, and accountability so that pregnant students can remain enrolled, complete their education, and plan for their futures. By reinforcing access to information respecting existing law, H.R. 6359 supports students, families, and institutions alike.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for the consideration of H.J. Res. 140, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN.

The Duluth Complex is home to one of the largest undeveloped mineral reserves in the world. It contains roughly 8 billion tons, Mr. Speaker, of copper and nickel, in addition to cobalt and platinum. It is the world's second largest copper deposit and the world's third largest nickel deposit.

Currently, China controls approximately 60 percent of global critical mineral production, and we have seen them use their control over the industry as a bargaining chip. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that increasing domestic production of critical minerals is vital for America's economic and national security.

However, in 2023, the Biden administration issued PLO 7917, which withdrew 225,504 acres from mineral development in the Superior National Forest. This PLO locked these reserves for 20 years and prematurely ended the permitting process.

H.J. Res. 140 is simple. It permanently ends this irresponsible withdrawal and allows a transparent process to potentially develop the minerals in the Duluth Complex to move forward.

As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the sponsor of this bill, stated in the Rules Committee last night, this legislation doesn't green-light mining in the Duluth Complex. It reverses the Biden administration's mineral ban in the area and allows companies to continue to compete while following Federal permitting and environmental processes. Again, they will continue to follow Federal permitting and environmental processes.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these pieces of legislation. I urge passage of this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Bost, I will say that by my count, I think my colleague blamed Donald Trump 14 times for the things the Democratic Party did before he got elected. Gas is very close to $2 a gallon in Tifton, Georgia, and I think it costs a lot less for gasoline in most Republican States than it does Democrat States right now because of the Democrats charging more and more taxes on their citizens.

As for the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare that you all take so much credit for and are so proud of the way you wrote it, the benefactors of that legislation, the large insurance companies' CEOs are actually going to be on the Hill this week and will get to be questioned. I hope you will question them fairly hard, but I did bring one of my bills because I expected you to say that.

The charge is $546.53. The insurance carrier discount is $509.93. Insurance paid zero, nothing, not one dime. I paid $36.60.

Now, if you wanted to fix it for the American citizens, the question is: Why was it even a $500 charge if the fair value is $36? Republicans are trying to work to fix that. Unfortunately, we can't get a single Democratic vote for a piece of healthcare legislation that will actually work for all of the American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), my friend and chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crank).

Mr. Speaker, while the gentlewoman was speaking, I did take a second to pull up a couple of things on gas prices since they are blaming President Trump for it. They are correct.

In Worcester, the gas price is $2.91 a gallon on average. In Oklahoma, it is $2.21. In Wyoming, it is $2.22. In Texas, it is about $2.23. In Georgia, it is about the same thing.

Do my colleagues know what the difference is? We all have Republican Governors. Our Republican Governors are working to lower the cost of energy. The Democratic Governors are obviously keeping energy prices high and blaming the President for that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want everybody to take a deep breath, and I want you to know that Donald Trump, nor the United States is going to invade Greenland. It is not going to happen. It is just not.

Now, Russia might invade it, and China might invade it. As far as Canada and the NATO alliance goes, I just have to tell you that Canada committed to buying approximately 90 F-35s. Do you know how many they actually purchased? Less than 20.

Canada's national security strategy is to pick up the phone and call Donald Trump to protect us. Donald Trump has done the right thing by making NATO and our partners stand up and acknowledge that they don't have the defenses in place that they need.

While some people might not want to believe it, I will tell you one that does.

Mark Rutte, NATO chief, praises Trump at Davos by saying that he forced Europe to step up on defense. Now, this is the head of NATO. He is the head of NATO. A couple of comments about President Trump.

`` . . . I'm not popular with you now because I'm defending Donald Trump, but I really believe you can be happy that he is there because he has forced us in Europe to step up, to face the consequences that we have to take care more of our own defense,'' Rutte said.

Wednesday, in remarks at Davos, Switzerland: ``No way. Without Donald Trump, this would never have happened. They are all on 2 percent now.''

It went on during a panel at the World Economic Forum.

``I'm absolutely convinced, without Donald Trump we would not have taken those decisions. And they are crucial, particularly for the European and the Canadian side of NATO to really grow up''--``grow up,'' this is the head of NATO saying this about NATO--``in the post- Cold War world.''

``The Americans still have over 80,000 soldiers in Europe. . . . including in Poland, in Germany . . . they are still heavily invested in European defense. And yes, they have to pivot more towards Asia. So, it is only logical for them to expect us in Europe to step up, over time.''

I will tell you: Donald Trump doesn't have any plans to invade Greenland, but the Russians do. The Russians do. If NATO is not willing to do what it takes to defend Greenland, then the United States should.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell).

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

Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of people who work in these centers. They are honest, dedicated, hardworking people who care about the pregnant mothers and the unborn children. I think that the attacks on them are unfounded, unwarranted, and unprofessional.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, after listening to that, I can't help but go back to when 99 percent of Republicans voted to keep the government open just a couple of months ago, and 100 percent of Democrats voted to shut it down, how the Democrats were running around saying: See what the Republicans did. I mean, it is a totally false narrative.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the House can advance three simple pieces of legislation under this rule.

H.R. 6945, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, addresses uncertainty and makes clear that States may not be restricted from choosing to work with pregnancy centers and that TANF funds may be used for these services consistent with Federal law. This is not a mandate, Mr. Speaker. We are not saying that the States have to do this.

H.R. 6359, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act, requires colleges and universities that receive Federal student aid to clearly disseminate information regarding pregnant students' rights, available accommodations, and both on-campus and community resources.

H.J. Res. 140 rescinds the Biden administration's mineral ban on almost a quarter of a million acres in the Superior National Forest and allows a transparent process to develop the minerals in the Duluth Complex to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, all three of these measures are worthy of support, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment To H. Res. 1009 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 12) to protect a person's ability to determine

whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a

health care provider's ability to provide abortion services.

All points of order against consideration of the bill are

waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of

order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on

any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective

designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX and clause 8 of rule XX

shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 12.

Sec. 6. The Clerk shall transmit to the Senate a message

that the House has passed H.R. 12 no later than three

calendar days after passage.

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 opposition to H.R. 6359, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act.

This bill requires schools to provide pregnant students with information about on campus and community resources and accommodations to assist them in carrying a baby to term while they pursue an education.

Unfortunately, instead of sharing unbiased and comprehensive information, this bill requires schools to distribute only partial information about a student's rights under Title IX and selective information and resources that solely encourage students to carry a pregnancy to term.

It provides no information about rights and accommodations for students who may find themselves in a medical situation that requires an abortion. Now, repeating the idea that comprehensive information must be provided does not make it true.

Title IX entitles the students to the information, but this bill only requires some of that information to be provided. Now while the bill's proponents continue to assert that students are

unaware of their rights, they provide no justification or evidence that students are any more or less aware of their rights or accommodations specific to carrying a child to term. If we are concerned about students who do not have a full understanding of their rights, then we should provide all of the information necessary to address their concerns.

By shielding students from health information, resources, and the rights that are available to them, Republicans are denying them the ability to choose what may be best for them and their families.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I suggest that that big, ugly bill gave tax cuts primarily to the wealthy, but, meanwhile, it cut healthcare, Medicaid, SNAP benefits, and ran up trillions of dollars in additional debt.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from over 50 organizations representing civil rights, labor organizations, youth advocates, women's rights, reproductive rights, and others.

January 20, 2026.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: We, the

undersigned organizations, represent a diverse group of

advocates and experts dedicated to advancing civil rights

protections and institutional resources for pregnant and

parenting students. We write

to share our opposition to the Pregnant Students' Rights

Act--a thinly veiled anti-abortion law which would not

address the key barriers to pregnant students' educational

attainment, but would instead further shame and stigmatize

people for their pregnancy outcomes.

This bill that purports to ``protect the rights of pregnant

students'' falls far short of the protections that are

actually necessary for pregnant and parenting students and

their children.

More than 3 million undergraduate students in the United

States are parents, which is nearly one in five. Despite

earning higher GPAs than non-parenting students, parenting

college students are less likely to graduate. This is not due

to personal failing, but rather a lack of institutional

support and recognition of the unique barriers to college

completion for parenting students. Pregnant and parenting

students often experience feeling disconnected from the

larger education community and are not aware of who they can

speak to when they experience discrimination because of their

pregnancy or parenting status.

Students who are pregnant and/or parents deserve to

complete their education free from bias and harassment, in

environments that support them on their educational journeys.

Unfortunately, pregnant and parenting students are routinely

stigmatized, discriminated against, and denied the resources,

accommodations, and support they need to thrive in their

educational institutions. Many pregnant students risk their

health or the health of their pregnancies, because they are

unaware of their right to accommodations, including leaves of

absence, lactation accommodations, academic adjustments--

including virtual learning and extensions on completing

assignments--financial aid eligibility, and child care.

Ensuring that students are informed about their educational

institution's policies that can further their academic

achievement while also supporting their health and caregiving

needs is an important step in addressing the systemic

barriers that can keep pregnant and parenting students from

graduating.

Unfortunately, the proposed bill would do little to

mitigate these harms and instead risks further stigmatizing

pregnant and parenting students. The proposed bill relies on

anti-abortion language and seeks to limit students'

reproductive healthcare decisions. This language is part of a

political ploy that the anti-abortion movement hopes to use

to further its case for a national abortion ban now that the

Supreme Court has overturned the federal constitutional right

to abortion care as established in Roe v. Wade. Furthermore,

the bill language undermines existing legal protections under

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) for

pregnant students experiencing a range of outcomes related to

their pregnancies.

Our belief in personal autonomy and respect for every

person's capacity to make their own decisions--including

whether to continue their pregnancy or not--is at the core of

our work to support pregnant and parenting students. This

bill does not contain any meaningful supports that would

actually help pregnant and parenting students be able to

remain enrolled and meet their educational goals.

Such supports are critically needed, and include:

Explicit protections under Title IX

Nondiscrimination protections at the state and local level

Accessible and affordable child care, and increased funding

for on-campus child care

Access to early education and pre-kindergarten services

Transportation access

Support for basic needs, including food, housing, clothing,

etc.

Flexible school attendance policies

Lactation accommodations

Less stigma and shame around young parenthood

Increased accountability measures for institutions who fail

to protect pregnant and parenting students

Federal funding to support campus Title IX offices' work to

prevent and investigate discrimination against pregnant

students

Mandatory data collection on student parents to help

institutions better target supports and meet the unique needs

of this population

As mentioned above, pregnant and parenting students do face

stigma and need adequate resources to combat discrimination.

However, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act contains

little more than a hollow directive for these students to

file complaints with the Department of Education, which

the Trump Administration has been systematically

decimating since taking office, even promising to

dismantle the agency. A series of Executive Orders issued

early in 2025 substantially impacted the Department's

enforcement of civil rights laws, by prioritizing

weaponizing these laws to advance discrimination instead

of protecting students, including pregnant and parenting

students. Education Secretary Linda McMahon fired nearly

half of Department staff--with the Office for Civil Rights

(OCR), which is responsible for ensuring schools comply

with federal civil rights laws, being particularly

impacted. And Secretary McMahon also closed most of OCR's

twelve regional offices that have responsibility to

investigate alleged violations of civil rights laws.

Directing pregnant students to an institution that has

been gutted by the current Administration is little more

than lip service.

There is an alternate path forward. We applaud the

bipartisan legislation put forward by Representatives Lucy

McBath, Deborah Ross, and Don Bacon: the Understanding

Student Parent Outcomes Act of 2025. This bill would make a

meaningful difference by allowing essential data collection

on the barriers to college graduation for pregnant and

parenting students. Legislation like this is necessary to

ensure that pregnant and parenting students can complete

their education and that they and their families are

protected.

Although pregnant and parenting students face many

roadblocks, they can thrive when their educational

institutions listen to them, support them, and prevent

discrimination against them, While balancing their health,

caregiving responsibilities, and educational goals is

challenging, these added responsibilities often renew

students' dedication to their studies. While the decision to

parent and/or continue pregnancy is a personal one, the

barriers that pregnant and parenting students face are not.

This proposed bill would reinforce structural and

institutional bias and scrutiny of the decisions students

make regarding their personal lives.

We welcome the opportunity to have an open dialogue with

the sponsors of the ``Pregnant Students' Rights Act'' and

with any other members of Congress who are ready to be the

champion that pregnant and parenting students in our nation

need and deserve.

Sincerely,

Advocates for Youth, AFT, AFL-CIO, All* in Action Fund,

American Association of University Women (AAUW), American

Atheists, American Civil Liberties Union, American Humanist

Association, Center for Reproductive Rights, Clearinghouse on

Women's Issues, End Rape On Campus, Equal Rights Advocates,

Feminist Majority, Girls for Gender Equity, Guttmacher

Institute, Healthy Teen Network, Ibis Reproductive Health,

Just Solutions, Justice and Joy National Collaborative, Know

Your IX, Legal Momentum, the Women's Legal Defense &

Education Fund.

MANA, A National Latina Organization, MomsRising, National

Council of Jewish Women, National Education Association,

National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association,

National Institute for Reproductive Health, National Latina

Institute for Reproductive Justice, National Network of

Abortion Funds, National Organization for Women, National

Organization of API Ending Sexual Violence, National

Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's Law Center

Action Fund, National Women's Political Caucus, New America

Higher Education Policy Program, Physicians for Reproductive

Health, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Positive

Women's Network-USA, Power to Decide, Public Justice,

Reproaction.

Reproductive Freedom for All, Rocky Mountain Victim Law

Center, SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change, Stop Sexual Assault

in Schools, Tahirih Justice Center, The Pregnant Scholar at

WorkLife Law, Transgender Law Center, UltraViolet Action,

Union for Reform Judaism, University Survivors Movement,

Women Employed, Women of Reform Judaism, Women's Law Project.

Mr. Speaker, they describe the Pregnant Students' Rights Act as: ``a thinly veiled anti-abortion law which would not address key barriers to pregnant students' educational attainment, but would instead further shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes.''

They further say: ``This bill that purports to `protect the rights of pregnant students' falls far short of the protections that are actually necessary for pregnant and parenting students and their children.''

It points out that if you really want to be serious, there are some things that we could actually do to support the students, such as: explicit protections under Title IX; nondiscrimination protections at the State and local level; accessible and affordable childcare; access to early childhood education and pre-kindergarten services; transportation services; and others that would actually make a difference.

Mr. Speaker, we have constantly heard that they are providing comprehensive information and not amending Title IX. The fact is that Title IX does have comprehensive rights that are listed under Title IX that are comprehensive.

This bill, however, only requires partial information about those rights. When only partial information is given, that could have fatal consequences to women. Tragically, women have died because of anti- abortion legislation that was passed in some States that require women to be close to death before they can have what could have been a safe abortion if performed earlier. If they mistime it and get closer to death than they thought, many have actually died in those circumstances.

Legislators voted for those laws. We have to note that we should not allow colleges to withhold information that could save women's lives.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this bill would not pass under that situation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, State abortion bans have undermined healthcare for pregnant women, causing women to experience life-threatening health conditions and complications, with some women tragically losing their lives because of laws that legislators voted for.

Now, House Republicans are going to make things worse by limiting students' access to information about available resources, including information about their right to receive accommodations and protections under Federal civil rights laws available to pregnant or parenting students on college campuses. Women should have access to all relevant information so they can make informed decisions about their futures.

By requiring schools to provide only some information that encourages students to carry a pregnancy to term, this bill could unduly endanger students' health by keeping them in the dark about their rights and resources available to them.

The supporters keep saying that they are not amending Title IX, which entitles students to all of this information. They keep ignoring the fact that this bill only requires that some, not all, of that important information be provided. Repeating a misrepresentation does not make it true.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as families across the country are being crushed by rising costs and stripped of their healthcare, it is shameful that Republicans have chosen to bring a bill to the floor that does nothing to address these crises for pregnant women and families.

Instead, the bill before us today would allow Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, dollars to be used to fund so-called crisis pregnancy centers that have a proven track record of intentionally lying to, misleading, and endangering women.

It is no coincidence that this bill is being rushed to the floor this week as Republicans once again prioritize appeasing a national anti- abortion group in town for its annual rally instead of addressing the real crises facing American families.

I want to paint a picture as to what happens to a young woman who suspects that she may be pregnant. She has a mix of emotions. She may have overwhelming fear and anxiety, especially if she has few resources. She goes to what she thinks is a medical center or clinic, and it is called a pregnancy center of some sort.

When she gets there, she is greeted so warmly with open arms. There are people in white coats, who she assumes are medical professionals. They tell her she can get so many things for free: pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, pregnancy counseling, and, after the birth, even free diapers and formula. It all sounds so wonderful to this woman that she says sign me up.

They don't tell this woman that, in order to get these free services, she has to first sit through an ideological or religious indoctrination session in which all the reasons not to have an abortion are given.

They don't tell her that the person administering the ultrasound has no medical credentials, that, in fact, this is not an official ultrasound, and that she could be misdiagnosed.

They don't tell her that half of the personnel in the so-called clinic have no medical credentials at all and, therefore, are not equipped to advise on any medical complications, such as an ectopic pregnancy.

They don't tell her that this is not a medical clinic at all. In fact, because it is not, this woman's privacy is not protected, and her information could be shared with the public.

The real world of the crisis pregnancy centers is exemplified by an OB/GYN in Iowa, who has seen patients who visited these centers and were told that using contraceptives was the same as having an abortion. She has seen patients who suffered miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies because they were misdiagnosed by these anti-abortion centers.

These women were told that their pregnancies were in the early stages or that they were experiencing normal amounts of pain because the staff members they saw were not actual, qualified medical professionals.

As a result, these women ended up in the hospital, needing emergency care and surgery to save their lives.

In Illinois, a woman seeking an abortion was deliberately misled by a fake clinic. She was subjected to graphic videos and told that having an abortion would make her infertile and, ultimately, mentally ill.

Ultimately, she was coerced into carrying a pregnancy to term. After giving birth, she lost her job and health coverage, and the so-called clinic never offered real medical care or follow-up support.

This is why the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have raised serious ethical and medical concerns about these clinics.

Now, Republicans want to guarantee that taxpayer dollars through these TANF funds will fund these centers and that there will be no accountability for these dollars.

Let's first be clear about what TANF is actually supposed to be for. TANF exists to help families experiencing poverty meet their most basic needs and stabilize their lives so parents can work and children can thrive. TANF was never intended to subsidize anti-abortion propaganda or unregulated sham clinics that endanger women's health. Yet, that is exactly what this bill does.

Not only that, it goes beyond the regular TANF program, which requires reporting and accountability. Actually, this bill says that nothing shall be construed to restrict TANF funding for these centers, meaning that funding could not be taken away from them even if the center engages in deceptive practices or even causes a woman's death.

When the Ways and Means Committee marked up this bill last week, Democrats offered commonsense amendments that should have been uncontroversial to anyone who cares about women and families. We simply proposed that TANF funds not go to pregnancy centers that have engaged in deceptive or misleading practices that provide medically inaccurate information or that have endangered the health of a woman seeking care.

We also offered amendments to address the real crisis affecting the TANF program, which is the Trump administration's decision to seek revenge against five Democratic Governors by preventing them from accessing $10 billion in already appropriated funds for TANF and childcare.

Republicans rejected every one of these amendments.

Clearly, this bill is not about supporting pregnant women and families. It is about shielding deceptive actors, supporting Trump's revenge tactics, and using public funds to advance an extreme anti- abortion agenda.

If Republicans truly cared about pregnant women and families, we would be debating how to undo their $1 trillion cut to Medicaid, which rips healthcare away from millions of pregnant women, new mothers, and children, and how to help the millions of women seeing their health insurance premiums skyrocket due to months of Republican inaction.

Instead, this bill is merely an attempt to distract from these devastating realities with the ultimate goal of appeasing the anti- abortion advocates parading around Washington this week as countless women suffer and die under extreme Republican abortion bans. Their priorities are clear and profoundly misguided.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the previous speaker said that these clinics have trained staff, but many of these centers pose as clinics, offer incorrect medical advice, and even go so far as to wear scrubs and white coats to appear as though they are trained. Actually, fewer than half of crisis pregnancy centers have a licensed medical professional on staff. Mr. Speaker, 95 percent do not provide prenatal care, and only 1 out of 607 provides contraception, and the facilities are unregulated.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish the previous speaker could have met this Massachusetts woman who sought care at a crisis pregnancy center after a Google advertisement led her to believe it was a legitimate medical facility where she could confirm her pregnancy. At Clear Way, a nurse administered an ultrasound and told the plaintiff that she had a viable intrauterine pregnancy. The nurse was not licensed to diagnose viable pregnancies and did not undertake appropriate medical measures to rule out an ectopic pregnancy.

Rather than referring the patient for immediate medical evaluation, Clear Way staff focused on encouraging her to continue the pregnancy. As a result of the misdiagnosis, this woman's ectopic pregnancy ruptured, causing massive internal bleeding and requiring emergency surgery. She lost a fallopian tube and narrowly avoided death.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I wish we could think of the woman in Pennsylvania who was pregnant who sought care at what she thought was a medically certified clinic, but during her appointment, the staff told her she had already miscarried and was sent home.

As time went on, though, she continued experiencing pregnancy symptoms, so she later went to a licensed doctor who told her she was still pregnant and that the crisis pregnancy center had given her the wrong information. This misdiagnosis greatly increased her risk of having pregnancy complications.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about Kentucky, where a postpartum nurse with 20 years of experience was motivated to volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center. During her training, she learned that the clinic was using expired disinfectants to sanitize ultrasound equipment. Not only that, the kind of disinfectant that the clinic was using was ineffective in targeting human papillomavirus, which causes 90 percent of cervical cancer cases.

The volunteer nurse quit. She filed whistleblower complaints with the State, but nothing was ever done, highlighting the lack of accountability at the centers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, let me say, there is a comprehensive study by the Alliance for Women's Rights and Gender Equality that studied 607 crisis pregnancy centers across nine States, and they documented a consistent pattern of deception, misinformation, and patient harm.

Nearly two-thirds of the centers promoted patently false or biased medical claims about pregnancy, abortions, contraception, or reproductive health providers, and fewer than half reported having a licensed medical professional on staff.

These are not isolated incidents. These are standard practices for these centers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Morrison).

Mr. Speaker, well, it is not hogwash to this woman in Georgia. She sought care from an unregulated clinic that offered free ultrasounds and medical advice. She thought that was so great. The ultrasound technician incorrectly informed her that her baby's kidneys were filled with water and that she needed to see a primary care doctor.

The diagnosis was incorrect, but the stress of that misdiagnosis severely impacted the mother. She said: The irony in all this is that they could have caused me to lose a perfectly healthy pregnancy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that this bill actually allows these funds to be free of any accountability. It actually changes the way in which these TANF funds are being used.

Right now, there has to be accountability if States use TANF funds for the crisis pregnancy centers. What this bill does is, by amending section 404 of the Social Security Act to state that nothing in this part may be construed to restrict TANF funding for pregnancy centers, this bill actually overrides TANF's statutory purposes, reporting requirements, penalty authority, and HHS enforcement provisions.

As a result, any future Federal effort to limit condition or review TANF funding for these crisis pregnancy centers could be challenged as prohibited by this statute.

Even if that center engages in deceptive advertising and does actions that even result in the death of a woman, there would be nothing that could be done about that crisis pregnancy center.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

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

Mr. Speaker, the truth is abundantly clear. Both the American Medical Association and The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have raised serious ethical and medical concerns about so-called crisis pregnancy centers.

These facilities are unregulated. They have no obligation to provide accurate medical information. They are not subject to HIPAA. They are not required to protect patient confidentiality. Yet, Republicans are determined to send them Federal taxpayer dollars anyway.

I talked about this very comprehensive report by the Alliance for Women's Rights and Gender Equality, which studied 607 crisis pregnancy centers across 9 States. They documented patients' experiences at the centers.

In one case, a patient seeking abortion care was misled into believing she was too early in pregnancy to receive medical care and was encouraged to delay seeing a licensed provider, despite experiencing symptoms consistent with a pregnancy complication.

In another documented case, a patient was falsely told that abortion would cause infertility and severe mental illness, information that directly contradicted established medical evidence.

Several patients reported being reassured that severe pain or bleeding was normal, only to later require emergency medical intervention when complications were left untreated.

If Republicans truly cared about TANF oversight, they would have spoken out when millions of TANF dollars were stolen from struggling families in Mississippi to build a volleyball stadium and when the Trump administration stepped in to shield the perpetrators from accountability. Instead, they were silent.

The bottom line is simple. Anti-abortion centers that spread misinformation and put women at risk should not receive taxpayer dollars. Certainly, they should not receive taxpayer dollars that are completely unregulated.

If we want to support parents and pregnant women, let's continue helping them. That is why the House should reject this particular bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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