H.Res. 1032

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 thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this unprecedented, undemocratic, and paternalistic disapproval resolution. This

disapproval resolution would sabotage the District of Columbia's tax filing season and credit rating.

The substance of the D.C. law that is the subject of this disapproval resolution should be irrelevant to Members of Congress since there is never justification for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters, but I will discuss it.

The D.C. law, which the D.C. Council unanimously passed, established a child tax credit, increased an existing earned income tax credit, and decoupled D.C.'s tax code from some of the tax provisions in the so- called One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

This disapproval resolution would repeal the D.C. law. Let's be clear: The D.C. law changed only the D.C. tax code. It did not, and could not, change the Federal tax code.

The D.C. tax filing season began last week. This disapproval resolution would change D.C.'s tax code during the current tax filing season, causing an administrative nightmare for D.C. and tax software companies. D.C. would have to suspend the current tax filing season for several months to update tax forms and guidance, and taxpayers who have already filed returns would have to file amended returns.

The D.C. law is not unique. Like D.C., approximately half of the States, both red and blue, automatically adopt Federal tax changes in their tax codes. However, like D.C., several of these States, both red and blue, have passed laws decoupling their tax codes from some of the tax provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The approximately 20 States, both red and blue, that link their tax codes to the Federal tax code, as of a specific date would have to change that date to adopt the tax provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The D.C. law expires in 225 days, giving D.C. time to evaluate which provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act it wants to permanently adopt or decouple.

This disapproval resolution could harm D.C.'s credit rating, forcing D.C. to pay higher interest rates. Rating agencies consider the possibility of Congress meddling in D.C.'s fiscal matters as negative for D.C.'s rating, but also consider as positive that ``Congress has never voided or otherwise overturned a revenue-raising measure approved by the District.''

If this disapproval resolution were enacted, Congress would have overturned a revenue-raising measure approved by D.C. Last year, when Congress cut D.C.'s local budget by $1 billion, D.C.'s rating was put on negative watch. This disapproval resolution is an even bigger threat to D.C.'s rating.

The D.C. law established a child tax credit and increased an existing earned income tax credit. These credits are projected to reduce child poverty in D.C. by 20 percent. This disapproval resolution would repeal these credits.

The D.C. law is expected to generate approximately $600 million in local revenue over the next 4 years. If this disapproval resolution were enacted, D.C. would have to make up for that lost revenue, such as by cutting critical programs.

The 700,000 D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of self-government. I urge my colleagues to oppose this disapproval resolution and to instead make D.C. a State. Free D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to Congress from the D.C. Office of the Chief Financial Officer, an independent office established by Congress.

Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the

Chief Financial Officer,

February 2, 2026.

Re Impact of Joint Resolution on District of Columbia

Finances.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives.

Hon. John Thune,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives.

Hon. Charles Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate.

Dear Speaker Johnson, Leader Jeffries, Leader Thune, and

Leader Schumer: We are providing information on the financial

implications to the Government of the District of Columbia

from Joint Resolution of Disapproval H.J. Res. 142 and Joint

Resolution of Disapproval S.J. Res. 102 (collectively, the

Joint Resolution).

If the joint Resolution passes both the House and Senate

and is signed by the President, the changes in District law

enacted by The District's Income and Franchise Tax Conformity

and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025 (the Tax

Amendment Act), which de-coupled the District from certain

provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, H.R. 1, Public

Law 119-21 (OBBBA), would be invalidated.

This document reviews the implications of the Joint

Resolution on the District's current four-year Financial

Plan, the District's tax administration processes, and the

District's cash position.

Financial Plan

The Joint Resolution would not have a material impact on

the four-year financial plan approved by the Mayor and D.C.

Council, and by Congress.

In the September 2025 Revenue Estimate issued by my office,

the District estimated a reduction in revenue from the

implementation of OBBBA provisions. However, such reduction

was estimated to be offset by revenues collected by the

District under current law (i.e., not taking into account the

impact of implementing the Tax Amendment Act) and as a result

of the general state of the economy in the District of

Columbia.

In particular, personal income tax revenues are estimated

to be strong due to capital gains earnings by higher-income

households, and corporate tax revenues are expected to

increase due to strong growth in earnings by businesses that

have a presence in the District of Columbia.

Tax Administration

Enactment of the Joint Resolution will disrupt the

District's ability to collect income tax revenues associated

with annual income tax filings due by April 15, 2026.

Several of the provisions in the District's Tax Amendment

Act were applicable for tax year 2025, and for certain

taxpayers, tax years 2022, 2023, and 2024. Beginning last

fall, the District's tax administration agency, the Office of

Tax and Revenue (OTR), undertook efforts to implement the

legislation in time for the opening of the tax filing season

on January 26, 2026.

Implementation required substantial changes to OTR's

systems and taxpayer forms for nearly all aspects of income

and franchise tax filings by District residents, trusts and

estates, as well as all corporations, unincorporated

businesses, and partnerships doing business in the District.

It also required OTR staff training and outreach to tax

software vendors, the tax preparer community, and taxpayers.

Enactment of the Joint Resolution means that the changes

that were made to OTR's forms and systems for tax year 2025

will no longer be consistent with District law. As a result,

OTR would need to suspend the current filing season until

such time as it can make the necessary changes to revert the

District's tax administration system to conform with legal

requirements prior to the Tax Amendment Act's enactment. The

necessary changes include, but are not limited to:

Updating forms, schedules, and instructions. Forms and

other relevant filing documents must be developed.

Additionally, preparation for each filing season typically

begins immediately after the start of the previous season. If

OTR is required to re-work tax year 2025 now, they will be

managing two filing seasons concurrently (i.e., Tax Years

2025 and 2026).

Systems changes. Reprogramming the tax processing system

will be required. This includes development of business and

system requirements, and tasks associated with Modernized

Electronic Filing. As noted previously, OTR would be required

to manage two filing seasons concurrently.

Changes to software of tax processing vendors. Vendors will

need to reconfigure software to allow taxpayers to properly

file. If the District must reverse the changes pursuant to

implementing the Act, it could be at risk of losing vendors

who normally participate in DC tax filing, as the current

products that are already approved and in use would no longer

be valid.

For the current filing season, OTR managers estimate that

adjustments will likely require several months, which would

extend District income tax filing deadlines into fall 2026.

The adjustments will also generate millions of dollars of

additional expenses that must be paid by the District's

General Fund resources.

Cash Flow

Invalidation of the Tax Amendment Act may lead to District

cash flow disruptions. In addition to the administrative

burdens described above, the District is assessing the impact

of the invalidation of the Tax Amendment Act on the timing of

collections of income tax revenues and the related cash flow,

among other matters. For example, it is possible that an

extension in filing deadlines could lead to a shift in the

timing of collections in income tax revenue from Fiscal Year

2026 to Fiscal Year 2027, thereby creating a shortfall in

cash collections of approximately $400 million in FY 2026.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions.

Sincerely,

Glen Lee.

Mr. Speaker, the letter states that if this disapproval resolution were enacted, the office would have to suspend the current D.C. tax filing season for several months to update tax forms, schedules, and instructions, to reprogram the tax processing system, and for tax preparation companies to update their software.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a joint letter to Congress from D.C.'s elected Mayor and the elected council chairman strongly opposing this disapproval resolution.

February 2, 2026.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives.

Hon. John Thune,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.

Hon. Charles Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate.

Dear Speaker Johnson, Leader Jeffries, Leader Thune, and

Leader Schumer: We write to express our strong opposition to

Joint Resolution of Disapproval H.J. Res. 142 and Joint

Resolution of Disapproval S.J. Res. 102. These resolutions

are an intrusion on the District's Home Rule authority and

would have major and immediate impacts on tax administration

in the District. We very strongly urge you and your

colleagues to oppose these resolutions.

The District of Columbia is one of many jurisdictions

across the Nation that routinely modifies its local tax code

in accordance with federal tax laws, including choosing to

decouple from federal tax changes to address local concerns

or mitigate projected fiscal impacts. At the end of last

year, multiple states and the District decided to decouple

their tax codes from some provisions of H.R. 1. While the

District adopted the majority of H.R. 1 provisions, a small

number were temporarily set aside. These decisions were made

through the District's legislative process and are the same

type of policy judgments that every state and local

government routinely makes on behalf of their residents.

The timing of these resolutions are especially problematic.

The District is already a month into the 2026 tax year and

has begun accepting and processing tax returns. Disapproval

at this stage would create huge administrative challenges,

require taxpayers to re-file their taxes, render existing

guidance and forms obsolete, and necessitate rapid mid-year

changes to tax administration systems. It is unclear how

quickly commercial tax preparation software could be updated

to accommodate such changes, and District residents and

businesses would likely experience confusion, as well as

delays. The resolutions would lead to the District's income

tax filing deadlines to be pushed to Fall 2026 and would

cause millions of dollars in additional expenses.

We strongly urge you to oppose the disapproval resolutions

and to respect the District's governance of its local fiscal

affairs.

Sincerely,

Muriel Bowser,

Mayor.

Phil Mendelson,

Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, while they disagreed on whether the D.C. Council should have enacted the D.C. law that is the subject of this disapproval resolution in the first place, they both strongly oppose this disapproval resolution. Their letter states that this disapproval resolution, if enacted, not only would violate D.C.'s right to self- government but ``would have major and immediate impacts on tax administration in the District.''

Mr. Speaker, I finally include in the Record a letter to Congress from the D.C. business community.

February 3, 2026.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives.

Hon. John Thune,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives.

Hon. Charles Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate.

Dear Speaker Johnson, Leader Thune, Leader Jeffries, and

Leader Schumer: We write to you, in unison, as

representatives of the District of Columbia's business

organizations, urging you to oppose the Joint Resolution of

Disapproval H.J. Res. 142 and Joint Resolution of Disapproval

S.J. Res. 102 that would reverse the District's decision to

decouple the local tax code from some provisions of the One

Big Beautiful Bill Act's federal tax code changes.

A reversal of decoupling would create chaos in the middle

of tax filing season. The District has already begun

accepting and processing returns. It would take the DC

government and private vendors months to adjust local tax

administration. Filing deadlines would have to be pushed back

to the Fall of 2026. Delaying local income tax collection

would create a local cash shortfall of up to $400 million in

FY26, according to the DC Chief Financial Officer.

Local tax code decoupling from the federal tax code is not

unique. Many states have also voted to decouple from

provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as they have

many times in the past in response to federal tax changes.

Changes at this stage in the process would create fiscal

instability and uncertainty, impeding the District's ability

to attract investment. There are many ways that Congress has

and can continue to use its power to make the District a

vibrant city where Americans want to live, visit, and do

business, and we welcome your support for the District of

Columbia.

Sincerely,

The Washington, DC Business and Civic Community; Anthony

Williams, CEO & Executive Director, Federal City Council;

Jack McDougle, President & CEO, Greater Washington Board of

Trade; Chinyere Hubbard, President & CEO, DC Chamber of

Commerce; Lisa Mallory, President & CEO, Apartment & Office

Building Association of Metropolitan Washington; Scott

Reiter, CEO, DC Association of REALTORS; Jacqueline D.

Bowens, President & CEO, D.C. Hospital Association; Liz

DeBarros, CEO, District of Columbia Building Industry

Association; Edward Krauze, CEO, Greater Capital Area

Association of Realtors; Solomon Keene, President & CEO,

Hotel Association of Washington, DC; Malcom Fox, Executive

Director, Opportunity DC.

Mr. Speaker, while the D.C. business community may not have supported the D.C. law that is the subject of this disapproval resolution, their letter states they oppose this disapproval resolution because it would, if enacted, cause ``chaos in the middle of tax filing season'' and ``create fiscal instability and uncertainty, impeding the District's ability to attract investment.''

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to H.J. Res. 142, which would repeal provisions of a law enacted by the District of Columbia because D.C. deserves the right to govern itself.

The Supreme Court has held that Congress can delegate full legislative authority to D.C. for local matters, but Republicans in Congress choose not to do so.

Last year, President Trump and congressional Republicans passed the one, big, betrayal bill, a deeply unpopular law that is the single largest transfer of wealth and resources from the working class and the working poor to the ultrawealthy billionaires and corporations in our Nation's history. The law ripped healthcare coverage away from millions of Americans to give tax breaks and tax giveaways to billionaires and megacorporations.

Not only that, but for States across the country, it has caused a revenue shortfall that has thrown State budgets into chaos, threatening services like healthcare, childcare, schools, eldercare, and emergency response. To protect against this, numerous States have passed laws to decouple their tax code from the tax provisions in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This includes States like Maine, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, and Alabama. This also includes the District of Columbia.

To avoid a more than $600 million budget loss over the next 4 years from the big, betrayal bill tax changes, the D.C. Council enacted a decoupling law. As part of this law, D.C. increased the child tax credit and earned income tax credit benefits to put more money in the pockets of working families struggling to afford the basic necessities in their life.

H.J. Res. 142 would overturn this law and rip away the money that parents and low-earning families could use to stay afloat in this disastrous Trump economy. Today is just another day in Congress where instead of being on the floor debating legislation on healthcare, instead of debating legislation on bringing down the cost of groceries, instead of debating legislation on making sure we can make this country more affordable for working people, congressional Republicans want to use this time to attack working families in the District of Columbia.

Overturning this law will create chaos for D.C. families and businesses at the start of tax filing season. The gentleman brought up businesses, but D.C. began accepting and processing tax returns on January 27. Families are already beginning to file their taxes and claim the newly expanded EITC.

This resolution would force D.C. to suspend this year's tax filing season, which is already underway, for several months. Changing their tax code now would create additional hurdles and confusion for families and, yes, for local businesses, as well, especially families that are already counting on receiving that larger earned income tax credit to deal with the failure of congressional Republicans and Donald Trump to bring this economy to a place that works for working people.

The D.C. business community even sent a letter to Congress urging opposition to this disapproval resolution because it would create chaos and financial instability. This group includes the Federal City Council, the D.C. Chamber of Commerce, the D.C. Association of Realtors, the D.C. Hospital Association, and the Hotel Association of Washington, D.C. They are all opposed to this resolution.

The big betrayal act is so deeply unpopular that half of the public believes it will hurt them and their families, including two-thirds of Medicaid enrollees. Instead of accepting this reality, congressional Republicans are disregarding home rule and forcing it down the throats of D.C. because they can.

I find it also very interesting and kind of cool that today I get to debate with a colleague from the other side of the aisle where we are both the youngest Members of the United States Congress. We may be the youngest, but his ideas are very old.

Undermining democracy in D.C. isn't new. It is just wrong. The people who live in the Capital of the world's greatest democracy deserve that democracy themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garcia), the ranking member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting, as we sit here, I keep hearing my colleagues bring up the ``working families tax cut bill.'' They keep bringing it up, and I am asking the staff here, I don't remember voting on the working families tax cut bill. We have looked it up, and we can't find it. This body has not voted on the working families tax cut bill this Congress. We did vote on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and I asked myself, why do they keep changing the name of their legislation?

Mr. Speaker, they don't want to say the name of their legislation. The reason why is simple. We know that Donald Trump came here to the Hill after this bill was passed, and because it was so deeply unpopular with the American people, he said that we have to rebrand, have to change the name.

It goes to show how unpopular and how bad this bill is. They even called it the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It has the word ``beautiful'' in it.

The bill is so bad for working people that 64 percent of adults-- Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and people who don't care about politics--hate it so much that the bill that they put the word ``beautiful'' in, they can't say the name anymore because it is so damn toxic because it takes most of the resources from working people and gives it to the billionaires and megacorporations. Now, months later, they still want to tout the bill, but they won't dare call it the name.

It just goes to show that this administration is obsessed with helping the well-to-do and well-connected and not working people.

Anytime we hear in this debate this working families tax cut bill, we never voted on such a bill. The name of it was the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

These are the most resources in the history of this country that are going from working people to the ultrawealthy, billionaires, and corporations.

Say it three times: One Big Beautiful Bill Act, One Big Beautiful Bill Act, One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That is the bill that we voted on. Mr. Speaker, 64 percent of Americans are against it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentlewoman say loud and proud, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a bill that 64 percent of Americans don't like and believe gives more resources to the rich, the well- connected, the wealthy, the billionaires, and the corporations than them. So say it out loud, and I am glad to hear that after I pointed out this fake name that my Republican colleagues keep bringing out.

As we are talking about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, my colleagues continue to bring up the fact that they worked hard to write and pass it. They worked hard to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. They said that they ``had numerous congressional debates,'' but D.C. didn't get a vote on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

They bring up that they have put this resolution forward. They are running from their offices over here to the House floor to debate on this resolution to overturn a local law passed by members of the D.C. Council who were elected by the people who live here. They claim to care about the taxpayers of D.C., but I guess they don't care enough to give them the real representation that they deserve: a vote in the United States Congress.

That alone shows us what this is all about. They don't care about the taxpayers of D.C. They have no problem

taxing them without representation. They care about using D.C., the people who live and work here year round, as a pawn and as a political punching bag so that they can go home and say that maybe they actually did something.

If they truly cared about the taxpayers of D.C., they would put this resolution aside and pass H.R. 51, free D.C., and make sure that we have D.C. statehood. That is making sure that you care about the taxpayers of D.C.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there it is again from one of the highest-ranking people of the Republican Party on the other side: working families tax cut bill. No bill exists. We haven't voted on a bill called the working families tax cut bill. We voted on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Mr. Speaker, even one of the gentlemen who was most instrumental in passing this bill that they are here blatantly lying about and saying that it helps working people when it really helps the richest, wealthy people in this country, he won't even call it by the name because most adults in this country know the truth. They know that it is the largest transfer of wealth from them to the billionaires, the corporations, and people like Donald Trump and his friends.

Mr. Speaker, there is something that Ranking Member Garcia brought up that I think is really important. This is the tenth piece of legislation this Congress that the Republicans have brought forth focused on the District of Columbia, focused on D.C.

If we polled every Republican district, polled my colleagues' districts on the other side of the aisle, polled everyone who spoke, polled everyone's district in the United States Congress, except for Eleanor Holmes Norton's district, polled every single one of them, I promise you that trying to overturn the laws that the D.C. Council has voted for will not appear in the top 10 issues that their constituents are dealing with.

Actually, I will go a little further. I don't think it would appear in the top 100 issues that their constituents are facing.

Instead of bringing forth 10 bills to undo democracy for the people of D.C., we could have done 10 other things. Instead of bringing forth a bill on D.C., we could have done something on housing. Rent is skyrocketing. People can't afford to live in a home because of the rising costs of rent.

Number two, instead of bringing the second bill on D.C., we could have done something about utility prices. The power of heat, the power of A/C, the power of power is up 6.7 percent. Donald Trump said that he would cut utilities in half. That hasn't happened. They have gone up.

When the third bill to do something on D.C. came to the floor, we could have done something about healthcare. We have a broken healthcare system in this country. While health insurance companies are making skyrocketing profits, we are paying more. More Americans are dying because they are not rich and because they don't have money.

When the fourth bill on D.C. came to Congress, we could have done a bill to lower grocery prices for Americans. Donald Trump ran saying that he would do something about it. Donald Trump said that when he was elected as the President of the United States, he would lower grocery prices on day one--on day one. Grocery prices are up.

When the fifth bill came to the House floor on overturning a D.C. city law, we could have done something on corruption or something on Congress. We could have banned Members of Congress from buying and trading stock. We could have done something to put some guardrails on the Presidency so that no President can make money off of being the President of the United States. We know that being the President is one of the most lucrative things that Donald Trump has done. We could have handled the corruption in the Supreme Court.

When the sixth bill came to the House floor on the D.C. laws, we could have done something on campaign finance reform. We could have ended Citizens United or done something about the fact that corporations and billionaires can flood our elections with unlimited amounts of dark money, essentially trying to change the outcome and to elect pawns and puppets to help them do what they want.

When the seventh bill came to the House floor on Washington, D.C., we could have done something to maybe rein in ICE, this agency that is going around and terrorizing our neighbors. I mean, maybe--maybe, just maybe--Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti would be alive right now if maybe on the seventh D.C. bill, we did something about this.

On the eighth D.C. bill, we could have done something to help small businesses by passing legislation because we do too much to help the big corporations and nothing to help small businesses and entrepreneurs.

On the ninth one, on the ninth bill that Republicans brought to the floor this Congress, maybe we could have done something on reversing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that they passed, and we could have taxed the billionaires.

The gentleman was saying we are the tax party. I want to tax the billionaires more. I want to make sure they are paying their fair share. Hell, if a teacher, a nurse, someone who works at a grocery store is paying their fair share, how come billionaires aren't?

On the 10th one, which is this time, maybe we could have done something about the tax that the Republican Party and Donald Trump have put on working families, which are the Trump tariff taxes, which are part of the reason why costs are skyrocketing across this country from housing to groceries.

There were 10 bills to undo the democracy of people who live here in D.C., 10 issues and 10 solutions we could have worked on to help working families.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I encourage all of my colleagues in Congress to oppose this joint resolution.

Voting ``no'' means that we refuse to support this congressional Republican effort to end the child tax credit in Washington, D.C.

Voting ``no'' means that we oppose the fact that Republicans are using important time in Congress that should be spent on making life better, safer, and more affordable for American people instead of attacking the residents of Washington, D.C., with higher prices and lower budgets for D.C.'s schools,

childcare, first responders, healthcare, and other services.

Voting ``no'' means supporting D.C. home rule and defending D.C. against bullies in Congress.

The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act is an attack on the working people of this Nation and across this entire Nation. It cuts healthcare and food assistance from working families to give massive tax breaks for billionaires and megacorporations.

Republicans in this Chamber need to work on accepting the unpopular and damaging nature of the law that they passed. It sounds like they are almost there because they have even gone so far as to rename the bill called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that they passed that 64 percent of Americans believe are bad for them.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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