H.Res. 1499

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

In this 119th Congress we have watched the President's followers in Congress surrender to the President one constitutional power after another.

Amazingly, the Speaker and the MAGA party have abdicated nearly every single essential power that the Framers exclusively vested in us, Congress, the Representatives of the people. First is the power to declare war, which has been usurped by the President with catastrophic results for the country and without a peep from his sycophants in Congress.

Next is the spending power, the power of the purse, the power to appropriate Federal dollars to spending and grant programs and to specify their purposes, powers that have been continually violated in acts of impoundment, nullification, and redirection by the President who has not only effectively shut down the Department of Education, USAID, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but has even helped himself, without any appropriation from Congress, to $1.8 billion of taxpayer money to give away to Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and other convicted insurrectionists who attacked this body in order to try to overthrow a Presidential election in January of 2021;

Next is the power to impose tariffs and taxes and the power to regulate

commerce with foreign nations, powers that have been ripped away from us without any protests from the majority so the President could launch preposterous trade wars against the world and aggressively insult and alienate our beloved neighbor and democratic ally Canada.

They have abandoned even the power to decide whether or not the President should receive Presidential emoluments, gifts, payments from foreign governments as he piles up a pirate's treasure of hundreds of millions of dollars in gifts from foreign autocracies and monarchies.

They have abandoned the unquestioned exclusive congressional power of Congress to build and exercise control over needful buildings and structures for the national government like the White House; the Reflecting Pool, which they are now calling the strait of warm ooze; and The Kennedy Center. All of these structures are being bulldozed, demolished, desecrated with Presidential graffiti, and renovated according to unilateral and independent executive decisions without even congressional consultation--all for the first time in American history.

They are dangerously ceding our power to regulate the times, places, and manner of Federal elections conducted in the States to the post office and to our monarchically minded President who has no constitutional role in elections and was impeached by this Chamber for inciting a violent insurrection to try to overthrow an election, which he lost by more than 7 million votes, 306-232 in the electoral college.

So what constitutional power do our colleagues propose to surrender today? Well, it is just a power that Congress has had since the beginning of the Republic under Article III, Section 1: the power to define the composition of the Supreme Court and the number of Justices who serve there.

Over the course of our history, Congress has exercised this authority seven different times by changing the number of Justices on the Court.

With the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress established the first Court with six Justices. In 1801, President Adams and Congress shrank it to five Justices.

When President Jefferson won in 1800 and came back to power, then it was back to six Justices.

In 1807, Congress expanded it to seven Justices when it created the Seventh Circuit, keeping to the congressional tradition of one Justice per Federal Circuit.

In 1837, Congress expanded the number of Federal Circuits to nine and then added the corresponding two seats to the Court, bringing the Court to nine Justices.

In 1863, Congress briefly added a 10th Federal Circuit during the Civil War and added a 10th Justice, giving Lincoln one more to appoint.

In 1866, Congress went back to seven Justices.

In 1869, President Grant and Congress increased the Court to nine again with another Judiciary Act, again, matching the number of Justices to Federal Circuits. That is the tradition of circuit riding.

Today, we still have nine Justices, although we have 13 Federal judicial circuits, the vast majority of which are not represented by even a single Justice among the nine currently serving on the Supreme Court.

In fact, the floor leader from Arizona has not only no Justices from his State on the Supreme Court, there are no Justices from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has 67 million Americans living there.

Five of the Justices today come from the New York City metropolitan area, basically one for each borough. Is it really possible that there are not people from other parts of the country who could effectively and honorably serve on the Supreme Court?

Well, if we decided this on an originalist basis, we might move to place 13 Justices on the Court to match our 13 Federal circuits or we might go to 6 Justices, which was the original number there.

However, MAGA's proposal is to strip Congress of all authority in the matter, to freeze it and cement it permanently in the constitutional architecture for all time, with the suddenly magic number nine.

This is odd. Nine is neither the number of Federal circuits we have-- that is 13--nor is it the original number of Justices Congress placed on the Court. That was 6. Therefore, what is going on here?

Well, surprise, surprise, America, it is another partisan power grab by MAGA, our colleagues who fear for the results of the November election, as their policies have brought us nothing but war, inflation, corruption, lawlessness, and a $40 trillion debt, one-quarter of it supplied by this Presidential administration.

The MAGA party wants to cement into place a profoundly partisan and lopsided 6-3 Roberts Court that was gerrymandered and engineered by Mitch McConnell after the untimely deaths of Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg, each in the final year of a Presidential term.

After Justice Scalia died on February 13, 2016, President Obama nominated my constituent, Merrick Garland, to fill the seat. Senator McConnell did not even allow hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, much less a vote in the committee, much less a vote on the floor. He said he wanted to let the people decide, and 11 months was too close to the next election; forgetting, I suppose, that President Obama had won one of those genuine constitutional 4-year terms in office.

That seat sat open for a record-setting 422 days before they filled it with Justice Gorsuch. In other words, they were for an eight-Justice Court during that year, but when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020, less than 2 months before the election, when early voting had already started in some States, Senator McConnell rushed through confirmation hearings and then a final vote for Amy Coney Barrett just 8 days before the 2020 Presidential election took place, laughing about this glaring disparity in treatment, acknowledging what everyone knew: Well, that 1-year rule was just for the Democrats. They were very happy to barrel through that nomination at the last moment.

Now, by essentially stealing these two seats from the American people, MAGA has put four of the five seats in the ruling majority rightwing faction in the hands of Justices appointed by two Presidents who lost the Presidential popular vote--George W. Bush in 2010 and Donald Trump in 2016.

The rightwing capture of the Court, fueled by corporate dark money and the Citizens United decision, has plunged this Court into a legitimacy crisis, an ethics crisis, and a jurisprudential crisis like has never been seen before in American history.

Trump's followers in Congress now seek to freeze into place the political Court that MAGA built for decades to come. Thus, they urge us to give away another critical power that the Framers vested in us.

As gas and diesel prices soar out of control and Trumpflation spirals up for groceries, healthcare, housing, as Trump's reckless and forever war of choice in Iran spirals downward, and America increasingly stands isolated in the world, MAGA wants to impose a straitjacket clamp-down on our democracy, our freedom, and our constitutional rights.

The Roberts Court overthrew Roe v. Wade and destroyed the constitutional right of women to comprehensive healthcare in every State in the country. It demolished the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, and the Callais decision just this term. Also, these fraudulent textualists invented out of thin air Presidential immunity from prosecution for felony crimes committed in office.

In Federalist 51, Madison said that the major safeguard against tyranny and despotism in America would be the natural identification and loyalty that Members of Congress would show to our own branch of government. We would stand up for ourselves, Madison thought.

``Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,'' he wrote, but today's Republicans show no loyalty to the constitutional architecture of Congress, to our rights, our prerogatives, our powers. They are content just to keep their heads down, to close up shop, to go home as early as possible just to keep their jobs so the President will not mobilize social media and Elon Musk's money against them in a primary. They want to preserve their survivability, their marketability. What a

humiliating and spectacular collapse of the tradition of congressional self-respect and constitutional patriotism.

I urge every colleague in this body to oppose this ridiculous constitutional amendment and giveaway of congressional powers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The floor leader offers a charming and completely self-defeating argument when he goes to the Roosevelt plan. FDR was a President, and Congress rejected his plan.

The gentleman acknowledges that Congress has changed the size of the Supreme Court seven different times, and we have also declined to change it several times.

Now, he describes what Roosevelt wanted to do as Court packing. This is Court packing on steroids. The gentleman wants to say that this President happens to like the people on the Court right now, through all of the packing and stacking and gerrymandering that has taken place in the last few years, and therefore we should freeze it, not just only for his own term but for all time. That is extraordinary.

In the meantime, they have not offered a single argument to explain why nine Justices should be the number that we constitutionalize and place in cement forever.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), who is the ranking member of the Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer the interesting questions raised by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Jordan, in seriatim.

First of all, anything that we do to try to improve the fortunes and the well-being of the American people, our colleagues call socialist. They call Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid socialist. That is just water off our back.

The President talks about communists. The only communists on Earth today are his best friends and his role models, like Kim Jong-un, who he writes love letters to, and President Xi, who he has praised more than two dozen times in public.

How about Vladimir Putin, who he follows around like a puppy dog? Vladimir Putin was head of the KGB. If there is a problem with communism, it is over on that side of the aisle.

The gentleman legitimately asked the question: Why did the former chair of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler, advocate for an increase of four seats on the Supreme Court--which we are not debating today? What we are debating is whether Congress should have the power to do anything, to increase or reduce the size. He asked about that. It is a legitimate question. I will tell you exactly why.

The gentleman may be unfamiliar with the history here, but Congress has traditionally linked the number of Justices on the Court to the number of Federal circuits. We have 13 Federal

circuits. His proposal was to go from 9 to 13.

Even the gentleman's beloved Ninth Circuit--which I think he is supposed to be representing in some sense--would be represented on the Supreme Court. We could have one Justice from each Federal circuit. That is what circuit riding was all about. You don't need some conspiracy theory to explain it. He was very overt about why he wanted to go from 9 to 13, which we could discuss another day.

Here the question is whether we should nullify, obviate, and destroy our own power to decide who should be on the Court. Still, the gentleman has not offered one single argument explaining why the number nine should be magic other than it cements into place all the decisions of this rightwing Roberts Court.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government.

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

By ``leftwing socialist group,'' I assume the gentleman is referring to the Framers of the Constitution. It is the Framers who set up the system. They are trying to overthrow the system that the Framers created. The Framers gave Congress the power to control the number of Justices on the Court.

Where does the number nine come from? I still await a single positive argument for why we should inscribe into law forever the number nine as the number of Justices we should have and nullify the power that the Framers of the Constitution and the Founders of the country gave to us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will add to the remarks of the distinguished gentlewoman, this point: It is interesting that our colleagues suddenly want to dabble in constitutional amendment politics. Nobody is crying out for this, as my colleagues have argued, but you know what people want by 85 percent? People want the equal rights amendment. Where is the Republican Party on that? They used to support it.

Three-quarters of Americans, more than 75 percent, want to overturn Citizens United by a constitutional amendment, which transformed every corporate treasury in America into a dark money political slush fund. We want to get rid of that. How come they are not here today on that?

How about a constitutional amendment on the right to vote or abolishing the electoral college and giving us a

national vote for President? We have commanding popular majorities that want all those things.

Yet, they come forward with a constitutional amendment no one is talking about where you need two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, and three-quarters of the States. You can measure the sincerity of this whole proposal by virtue of the fact that there is no national movement for it in any way.

This is, again, another little bone that is chucked over toward the White House to show them that they want to freeze into place the vanishing power of Donald Trump.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman quotes me as having said that I said there was no possible reason that someone would want nine. No, I didn't say that at all.

I think there might be a number of reasons. One very clear one is they want to freeze into place the majority they have in the Court right now, a majority that was created by the most suspect political maneuvers on the Senate side. The gentleman would like to lionize the number nine and place it in cement.

Why wasn't it nine when Senator McConnell blocked any confirmation or vote on a replacement for Justice Scalia after he died? He kept it at eight for an entire year in order to get to the next administration so they could put Justice Gorsuch in instead of my constituent, Merrick Garland, who is one of the most talented people ever nominated to the Supreme Court. He was the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit, and they kept him off. Eight was fine with them then. Now, they want to go to nine because President Trump likes it just fine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee).

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

Mr. Speaker, quickly, just as Congress has exercised its authority seven different times to reduce the size of the Court or increase the size of the Court according to appropriate historical circumstances, it has rejected numerous proposals to do that, including in the famed Court-Packing Plan.

I don't know why our colleagues insist on thinking that FDR's field proposal is somehow an argument for giving our power away. We exercised our power properly in that moment.

The gentlewoman from Wyoming refers to the Democratic political program. I am not sure what she is referring to, but it is certainly the opposite of the GOP political program of endless war, inflation, corruption, illegal tariffs, and billion-dollar ballrooms.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am moved by the remarks of the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado. It seems to me if it doesn't make money for the Trump family, they call it socialist. That is interesting, especially when it is President Trump who is taking large pieces out of American corporations, like Intel. No other American President has done anything like that. He is, obviously, the state socialist and hanging around and palling around with every communist dictator on Earth.

Again, we have not heard a single positive argument for why we should cement for all time nine as the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. I am beginning to conclude that there simply is no argument.

Mr. Speaker, 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, finally, a serious argument. I thank the distinguished gentleman, the former attorney general of Kansas, for responding.

First of all, he describes this as the Keep Nine Amendment. If you want to keep at nine, you don't need a constitutional amendment. You just make that argument in Congress, just like people argued in prior centuries to keep it at ten or keep it at six or let's move to seven, so we don't need to freeze it into the Constitution.

Secondly, he says that this should be a bipartisan issue. It should not be partisan. Agreed. We should have a bipartisan commitment to the handiwork of the Framers. It is in the Constitution that it is up to Congress. Yet, the gentleman leaves us by saying: Well, we are actually going to turn it over to the people to decide whether to revoke this power that the Framers invested in Congress.

Of course, that is what it would mean to amend the Constitution. Why would we want to do that? We have dealt with this in a responsible way throughout American history. We are suspicious that our colleagues first gave away the war power to the President.

Then they give away the spending power by letting him just abolish entire agencies and entities, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, USAID, and the Department of Education.

Then they give the President the power over tariffs, which we have because we have the power to regulate commerce domestically and internationally, and he imposed the largest tax in American history unilaterally. That is what a tariff is. It is not a tax on China or any other country. It is a tax on our businesses and our people.

Now we are in a trade war with Canada. If you travel to the north of Michigan in the Upper Peninsula, you go to the Boundary Waters of Minnesota, you go to the Adirondacks in New York, the small businesses are crying out for help because Canadians are boycotting us because of the whimsical, irrational, and deranged trade policies of this administration.

We have real problems to deal with. We don't really need to be giving away the powers of Congress and upsetting the proper balance of powers that was set by the Framers originally.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, one still searches in vain for a single justification for why we would surrender and abdicate yet another power that Congress has in the Constitution, this time freezing it into the cement of constitutional architecture for all time, that there will be nine Justices.

Mr. Speaker, they haven't even explained what that means. For example, let's say another Senate decides to do what Mitch McConnell did and hold a seat open for a year. Now that we have written a number into the Constitution for the first time, does that mean that the Supreme Court can't meet or can't vote? It is a serious question.

In other words, can the Supreme Court not operate if it doesn't meet the magic number of nine? They haven't told us, which shows this is just frivolous political confetti that is being thrown into the air. It is not an attempt to really think through the powers of Congress, the powers of the Court, and so on.

My friend from Kansas said that the Court shouldn't be a political football, and I agree with him about that because there are important things entrusted to the Court, like the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and due process, all things under attack by this administration.

Their gerrymandered Supreme Court, well, they have done all right sometimes, not as good as the district courts and the appeals courts have done. We have won more than 80 percent of the cases against President Trump in those courts, which is why they have been calling for the impeachment of judges, including Republican-appointed judges like Judge Boasberg, who was appointed by President Bush. They have called for his impeachment. That is making a political football out of it.

We have had colleagues who have put up posters to impeach this judge and impeach that judge. They wanted to have a hearing about it in the Judiciary Committee, where they are talking about it. That is making a political football about it.

I think we can all be intellectually honest. We know after Brown v. Board, the right-wingers, the anti-integrationists said to impeach Earl Warren, and the Republican platform for decades had language attacking the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade.

People have a right on all sides of the political spectrum to express what they feel about the Supreme Court, but why suddenly should we amend the Constitution of the United States to revoke our own powers simply because President Trump happens to like this Supreme Court and they voted for his immunity from felony crimes committed while in office, the so-called textualists and the so-called originalists.

Where do you see in the Constitution anything about the President having immunity? When the Framers wanted to write immunity into the Constitution, they did it, like through the Speech and Debate Clause for Members of Congress. Maybe that is what they are going to want to give up next, the Speech and Debate Clause protecting us from prosecution by the executive branch for saying things that he doesn't like.

That is not in the original Constitution. The President has it, but they made it up. Where did that come from? The stork brought it. They invented it.

They call themselves originalists. It wasn't in the Federalist Papers. It wasn't in the original Constitutional Convention records. It is not in any of the ratified convention records. Where did that doctrine come from? They made it up.

Mr. Speaker, we all can argue about what the Supreme Court does, but nobody yet has made a single satisfactory argument about why we should freeze, for the first time in American history, the number of Justices at nine when it has always been up to the Representatives of the people in the House and the Senate.

Let me just close on that thought. The Senate already gets some say over the Supreme Court by rendering the power of advice and consent. The only power we have is the power they want to give up.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, how long should the American people have to wait for our prices to come down? Republicans promised that prices would come down on day one. That was 589 days ago, coming up on 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my Republican colleagues again: How much longer do we all have to wait? Are they going to tell us, or is it a big surprise? Is it another week, another month, another President?

Mr. Speaker, when are my Republican colleagues going to take responsibility for the fact that they are in charge of everything? Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the executive branch. Hell, Republicans even control the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, because of Republican policies, the affordability crisis in the United States of America is getting worse. It is getting worse, so how long until they acknowledge that their stupid tariffs and their illegal war with Iran are driving up prices and making life harder for people?

Mr. Speaker, how long until the Epstein files are fully released? Some of us still haven't forgotten about that one or the fact that the files remain hidden and that Trump's involvement is being covered up despite congressional laws to the contrary.

How long does America have to wait until Republicans stop blaming everybody else and acknowledge that they have failed? I, for one, am sick of the gaslighting and the projection. I am sick of the broken promises. I am sick of the lies. I am sick of the corruption, the grift, and the greed. The people who I represent are sick of it, too.

Mr. Speaker, I do a farm tour every year. I represent a lot of rural communities and hundreds and hundreds of small- and medium-sized family farms that have been on the same land for generations. I heard a story about one farmer who is being asked to pay an extra $25,000 for a single piece of essential equipment because of Trump's tariffs. On top of that, the price of diesel is ruining their livelihood.

That is what this administration is doing to rural America, to small towns, and to the family farms that I represent. This President and this Republican Congress are destroying them. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are destroying them.

It is just as bad for consumers because Trump's tariffs, trade wars, and higher gas prices are getting passed along to us, as well. Gas is still over $4 a gallon. Ground beef is up 9 percent. Tomatoes and apples are up over 10 percent. Turkey is up 8 percent. Fish is up almost 8 percent. Cars are more expensive. Clothes are more expensive. Utility bills are more expensive. Everything is more expensive.

Inflation is killing people, and this Republican Congress has a bunch of bills today which will do nothing, nothing, nothing to lower prices.

I am going to talk about those bills in a second, but first let me say: Do you know who is not getting destroyed, Mr. Speaker? It is the rich, the powerful, and the well-connected. Those people who hang out in Mar-a-Lago are not getting destroyed. They are doing better than ever.

The multimillionaires and the billionaires are doing great, thanks to all the tax breaks that they got. Big Oil, Big Ag, and Big Tech get massive giveaways from Republicans. Some of those giveaways are in the bills we are considering today, one of which is a giveaway to the mining industry, and I am sure their lobbyists will get a nice, big bonus for getting that one across the finish line.

It is really gross. It is really gross. The rich and the powerful are doing better than ever while everyone else is seeing double-digit price increases, but don't bother trying to get Republicans to do anything about it. Let's look at their priorities so far this Congress.

Here is what they have been doing while gas is $4 a gallon. Let's see what they have been doing. They have been pretending to rename the Gulf of Mexico, pretending to rename Lake Ontario, pretending to rename The Kennedy Center, introducing a bill to put Donald Trump on Mount Rushmore, introducing a bill to make his birthday a national holiday, introducing a bill to put him on the $100 bill, introducing a bill to name Dulles International Airport after him, and introducing a bill to name the Washington Metro after him. I mean, you can't make this stuff up.

These are actual bills that Republicans have introduced; and let us not forget letting the President pilfer taxpayer money to build a tacky ballroom, a stupid arch, and fix the airplane that Qatar bribed--I am sorry, excuse me, donated to him.

That is the focus of this Republican Congress. That is what this Republican Congress is obsessed with: worshipping Donald Trump, while you stress out about how you are going to pay your mortgage or your kid's tuition or your parents' medical bills.

So, I mean, while they worship Donald Trump, the American people have to struggle with how they are going to make ends meet. And they are not getting any help from anything that is going on in this Chamber.

The big Republican push this week is repassing a nonbinding resolution that condemns socialism. They already passed it, and it already does nothing. So I am not sure why they need to pass it again, but that is their big, important bill this week. You just heard it from the chairwoman of the Rules Committee.

What is their definition of ``socialism,'' you ask? What exactly are they condemning? I actually asked Republicans last time around in the Rules

Committee to define what they are condemning. To define socialism if you will. You all might be shocked. Social Security? Republicans condemn that as socialism. Medicare? That is socialism. Medicaid? That is socialism. Public schools? That is socialism. Food safety inspections? That is socialism. National parks? That is socialism. Public transit? You guessed it. You guessed it.

They must really think Americans are stupid. This is the same old Red Scare bs. By their definition, anyone in the United States who supports Medicaid is a socialist sympathizer. I mean, is Joe McCarthy coming back from the dead?

This is insane. It is literally crazy that this is the garbage that we are talking about while people are seeing their costs going through the roof. People can't afford to make ends meet, and this is what this Congress is focused on right now? I mean, come on.

While we are on the topic of condemning political ideology that we disagree with, let me ask: Where is their condemnation of fascism? I mean, the Trump administration weaponizes the government to silence opposition. It attacks the free press, wants to invade our allies, shoots innocent people in the streets, dehumanizes immigrants by saying that they ``poison the blood of our country,'' calls political opponents ``the enemy from within,'' and let's not forget they tried to overturn a free and fair election in 2020. Is that not fascism? Where is their condemnation of that? Silence. Silence. Nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I don't envy the gentlewoman's task today. She has to defend a pretty lousy agenda, and I think she knows it. But I just wish we could get some acknowledgment from the other side that things are not all fine and well in America right now.

Prices are up. Inflation is up. Bills are higher. Life is harder, and it is because of this President's policies. Instead of acknowledging it, it is like Republicans are living in an alternative reality. I mean, it is like what happened to the Republican Party? It doesn't exist anymore. It is like a cult.

We do have an affordability crisis. That is just a fact. Instead of working with us to address it, Republicans are pretending like it doesn't exist. Instead, we get more culture war nonsense and more giveaways to special interests.

But November is coming soon. Mr. Speaker, November is coming very soon, and I think my Republican colleagues are getting desperate. I think they know that the jig is up. I think they know that the American people are about to hold them accountable for all of their broken promises. I think that is why you are seeing this last-ditch attempt to throw the kitchen sink of culture war issues at the wall to see what sticks.

This is a lousy, awful, rotten rule. And by the way, it is totally closed. Nobody can offer any amendments to anything in this rule. It may even fail because we had a bipartisan vote yesterday in the Rules Committee against this rule, so we will see what happens on the floor. But, come on, people are hurting.

I would say to my Republican friends: Your constituents are hurting. They want us to do something to help them. They don't want this. They don't want this. They want something real. So if you can give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and you can bail out the Mar-a- Lago class, how about helping the average person, the hardworking men and women who are trying to make ends meet. That is what they want. That is what they expect.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from North Carolina's explanation, and I know that those are the Republican talking points, but I have got news for you. Nobody is buying it.

I mean, I don't know whether my friend was home talking to her constituents over the break, but I was home talking to my constituents. I was in other States talking to voters, as well, and do you know what? Life has gotten harder for them. Prices of everything are through the roof. And to the extent that any working person got a small tax cut while the rich got these big tax cuts, millionaires and billionaires got all these big tax cuts, to the extent that they got that, any little tax break they received has been totally erased by the cost of living and by high gas prices because of this illegal, reckless war.

By the way, wouldn't you think that Congress would want to exercise its constitutional prerogatives and actually debate the war in Iran and actually vote whether to authorize it or not? We have been forced to try to bring privileged resolutions to the floor to try to get any kind of a debate on this. There should be hearings. There should be a full vote on whether to authorize this and whether or not people want to go on record as saying we are going to spend over $100 billion on this stupid, reckless war in Iran. By the way, that resulted in the Strait of Hormuz being closed, which was open before the war began. We are going to spend the money on that, but we are not going to spend it on helping alleviate the high cost of living on people in this country.

This Congress is the least productive Congress in history. This has been a total failure, a total failure.

I would just encourage my Republican colleagues, don't take my word for it. Look at every public opinion poll, including those coming out by FOX News and rightwing influencers. They will tell you: Nobody is buying it.

One of the things that I have heard over and over again during the August work period was that the American people are rightfully outraged that an out-of-control AI data center buildup is wreaking havoc on their communities. Data centers are driving up utility costs and polluting water supplies, all while Big Tech reaps record profits. Yet, now with November on the horizon, some House Republicans are acting as if they did not turbocharge the data center buildup.

I mean, a year ago, Republicans were bragging about giving tax breaks to Big Tech in order to build data centers across rural America. You can check it out yourselves. It is section 70421 of the big, ugly bill.

According to the Republican chairman of the tax writing committee, this provision would: significantly reduce barriers for large-scale, capital-intensive projects in rural areas, most notably, hyperscale data centers. That is the Republicans.

That provision alone cost the American taxpayers $40 billion. That is money that is going to Big Tech to build unpopular data centers instead of lowering the cost of healthcare and housing or groceries.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article titled, ``Big, Beautiful Success Story: Rural America Rebound on the Horizon with New Opportunity Zone Incentives.''

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

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

Let me just say to my friend, the chair of the Rules Committee: You can't fool people. You just can't. I mean, people go to the supermarket. They have to pay their utility bills. They have to pay their rent. People are trying to see where they can afford a home.

I mean, they know what the reality is. To somehow say they are being beautiful, I mean, come on. That is ludicrous. That is assuming that people don't believe their real-life experiences every day.

She talks about the most productive Congress. I mean, 104 laws were passed in this Republican Congress. When the Democrats were last in charge, we passed 365 laws.

The issue is what do these laws do. We passed bills to try to expand healthcare for people. We passed bills to try to make sure that children had access to Head Start and to daycare. We passed bills to actually protect our environment. We passed bills to try to keep the world out of war. That is a big contrast to what we are seeing in this Republican Congress.

I would just say this: What Donald Trump has done with the acquiescence of the Republican majority is they have added a new tax on average people, close to $4,000. There is a $4,000 Trump tax on almost every family in this country. The people who don't feel it are the ones who benefited from the trillions of dollars in tax cuts given to millionaires and billionaires and big corporations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent also to include in the Record an article from Politico titled, ``Amazon's tax bill plunges after GOP tax cuts.''

Mr. Speaker, I am going to also urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 738, the Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act, which would ensure that all eligible voters in America have the option to vote by mail.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump has issued an executive order to undermine the credibility of our elections and to make it harder or even impossible for millions of Americans to vote by mail. We learned today from a whistleblower that Trump officials are defying court orders and pushing ahead with these unconstitutional plans.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind you, President Trump personally loves voting by mail. He voted by mail in Florida as recently as 2 weeks ago. To everyone listening, Trump wants to vote by mail, but he doesn't want you to be able to do so.

Voting by mail has been proven to increase turnout and reduce barriers to voting, such as bad weather, illness, disability, and long lines. We should expand mail-in voting to make it easier for Americans to participate in our democracy, which is what this bill would do.

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.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an article from the Associated Press titled: ``US consumer confidence falls to lowest level in 7 months with gas stuck above $4''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an article from NBC titled: ``How Trump's economic policies are widening America's wealth gap''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an article from CNN titled: ``Trump's tariffs are bigger than his tax cuts for most Americans''.

I say to the gentlewoman that I appreciate her reciting the RNC's talking points, and I would encourage her to keep on reciting them and bring that message home, to go home and tell the American people that things are great, that things are unbelievably wonderful, and that you should thank the Republicans in Congress and Donald Trump for raising the prices on everything.

Go home and sell that message to the American people. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we won't have to do anything.

The bottom line is that things aren't good for people. As I said, there is a Trump tax of $4,000 on average Americans. That is what they have to pay in additional costs for everything, from rent to healthcare to groceries to you name it. That is the Trump tax.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentlewoman how many more speakers she has on her side? We haven't seen any other than her. I am just curious.

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

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

Let me, first of all, respond to something the gentlewoman from North Carolina said about Republicans trying to protect our children. I would just ask, where the hell are the Epstein files? We have forced resolutions on this floor to be passed, to demand a release of these files.

Congressman Massie came to the floor. Again, he has another resolution. Still, we have no compliance with the law. We know that this administration is up to their eyeballs in the Epstein files. When is that going to happen? When is that going to be released? I mean, talk about protecting children.

Mr. Speaker, you know when Republicans send us home this week, what exactly will be cheaper? Will groceries cost less? Will rent go down? Will anybody's electric bill shrink? Will health insurance premiums come down? The answer is no. Not one damn thing on the agenda this week will address the affordability crisis. Nothing.

Congress will have condemned socialism again. Mission accomplished, I guess. You know that tells you everything about the priorities of this Republican majority. Whenever the conversation gets uncomfortable, they change the subject.

Why are groceries so expensive? Socialism. Why are healthcare costs so expensive? They showed socialism. Why did Trump start another new war in the Middle East? You must be a Socialist for asking the question. When are you going to release the Epstein files? When is that going to happen? Socialism, socialism, socialism. It is literally insane. It is Trump derangement syndrome.

Meanwhile, the President's big win this week is pretending to rename Lake Ontario after getting into a trade war with our closest ally and neighbor. This is nuts. This Chamber ceases to be a serious body when we don't call this stuff out and when we don't actually bring bills to the floor that address the real needs of the American people.

The American people are not stupid. They know who is focused on listening to their problems and who is focused on playing political games.

We should be working to lower costs, period. Contrary to what Trump says, affordability is not a made-up word, and it does have a definition. People cannot afford to pay everyday expenses. They can't afford their groceries. They can't afford their rent. They can't afford to fill their gas tank up. They want lower healthcare costs. They want lower housing costs. They want lower energy costs. They want lower grocery bills.

They want an end to the corporate giveaways and tax loopholes that let big companies jack up prices and gouge consumers. You know, they want an end to giving these corporations the ability to cheat on their taxes and to avoid accountability.

That is what people want us to do, not fight absurd culture wars and debate far-right fringe garbage. If our Republican colleagues want to have another debate about socialism, fine, let's have it. Waste more time passing more nonbinding resolutions. At the end of the day, people are going to vote based on their bank accounts, pocketbooks, grocery bills, and gas prices.

People look at life through their kitchen window. They are tired of all of this bs that is being talked about in this Chamber. They are sick of a Congress that debates trivial issues passionately but important ones not at all. They want to know when we are going to care about them. They are sick and tired of a Congress that gives tax breaks to entities, that gives big donations to political parties and political candidates. They want to know when they come first.

My friends, you have failed miserably to deliver on your promise to make life more affordable for people. People are counting on us. They want us to do better. You have a chance. We will work in a bipartisan way to try to deal with some of these high costs the people are faced with right now.

No, we come back after a recess, and this is what we are dealing with. This is garbage. This is a waste of time. This is an insult to this Chamber. It is an insult to the American people. They will remember in November.

Vote ``no'' on this rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1499, I call up the bill (H.R. 1501) to amend the FAST Act to include certain mineral production activities as a covered project, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1501.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act of 2025, which extends FAST-41 eligibility to mining and mineral processing projects.

I thank my colleague Representative Jefferson Shreve for introducing this important piece of legislation, which will bring much-needed efficiency and transparency to our domestic mining permitting process.

On average, it takes 19 years to bring a new mine into operation in the United States. Permitting delays drive up costs, halt economic growth, stifle innovation, and increase our reliance on foreign adversaries.

Since taking office, President Trump has moved swiftly to set America on a path to mineral dominance. President Trump's March 2025 Executive Order 14241 entitled: ``Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production'' identified mining as a priority for national security and directed the Permitting Council to publish additional mining projects to its FAST-41 dashboard.

Under this administration, the Permitting Council has published 60 additional mining projects on the FAST-41 dashboard. Mr. Speaker, 22 mining projects and counting have completed the Federal permitting process under the dashboard. I will say, yesterday that was 21. They just completed another project this morning.

This impressive record stands in stark contrast to the Biden administration, which over 4 years, did not complete a single Federal permitting process for a mining project through FAST-41.

Permitting efficiency is crucial to building critical infrastructure projects. Extending FAST-41 eligibility to mining projects would help meet our Nation's increased demand for energy and mineral resources, and it would provide greater certainty for the domestic mining industry.

It is not enough to just mine here at home. Our country also needs mineral processing capabilities to secure our domestic mineral supply chain. Crucially, this bill extends FAST-41 eligibility to both mining and mineral processing projects. We must have a comprehensive mineral strategy that engages and bolsters the entire supply chain. Developing domestic processing capabilities encourages the onshoring of industrial sectors and strengthens domestic supply chains from mining to manufacturing.

H.R. 1501 would also prohibit any future administration from finalizing or implementing the Biden-era proposed rule to narrow FAST- 41 coverage to only critical mineral mining projects. Narrowing FAST-41 eligibility in this manner would further increase our country's dependence on foreign nations and adversaries for mineral production.

The U.S. Geological Survey annually publishes the ``Mineral Commodity Summaries'' that provide astonishing data on our net import reliance of certain minerals. The report, which is illustrated behind me, highlights our Nation's overwhelming reliance on foreign sources of minerals, including from adversarial nations. If you look at this list, and I know the print is small, the major supplier for most of these critical minerals is China.

Mr. Speaker, we need these minerals to build a better future. We have the safest, most sophisticated, efficient, and environmentally friendly mining technology in the world, and we also have the workforce to match it. The United States should be leading the world's mineral supply chain.

Representative Shreve's legislation is an important step in strengthening domestic production, securing supply chains, and ensuring that America leads the way.

I thank Representative Shreve again for his work on this legislation. I urge all my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would say that my colleague just made the case for why we need this bill. As I have testified, the Trump administration has 60 projects on the dashboard. They have completed 22 projects. The previous administration completed zero projects under FAST-41. Both administrations had access to use the FAST-41 process, but some administrations choose not to use the process.

These mining projects now take an average of 19 years to permit. That is down from 29 to 30 years just a few years ago because we have seen projects permitted more quickly under this administration.

Our need for critical minerals and mining spans administrations. We need certainty in the process so that we can access the supplies of ore that we have here in the United States to meet our own demands. If we start playing political permitting ping-pong from one administration to the next, that gives no certainty to investors in America to use our own materials. That is exactly why we need to codify this, so that it gives everybody a fair shot to use the process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Shreve), the lead sponsor of this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will, again, point out no Tribal consultation and no environmental laws are waived. This is just a process to fast-track permitting.

Also, I point out that when the ranking member talked about any old sand or gravel mine, that sand and gravel--gravel and then sand are the two main ingredients in concrete with Portland cement being the third, which is another product that we rely on about 20 percent of imports.

Concrete is the main ingredient in housing and in public infrastructure. The cost of concrete affects the cost of housing and public infrastructure projects. It affects Americans. If we want to address high costs, we should be opening more of these sand and gravel mines and producing more Portland cement here so that we can have more supply and lower the costs here at home.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters of support from the American Exploration & Mining Association, Essential Minerals Association, National Association of Manufacturers, and National Mining Association.

American Exploration &

Mining Association,

Spokane Valley, WA, August 31, 2026.

Re Support for the Protecting Domestic Mining Act (H.R.

1501).

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: The American

Exploration & Mining Association (AEMA) very much appreciated

the opportunity to testify on February 24, 2026, before the

House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources in support

of H.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act, which

codifies mining as a covered sector under Title 41 of the

Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. We

reiterate our strong support for the legislation and

encourage House passage of H.R. 1501.

AEMA is a 131-year-old, 1,800-member national trade

association representing the minerals industry with members

residing in 46 U.S. states. AEMA is the recognized national

voice for exploration, the junior mining sector, and

maintaining access to public lands, and represents the entire

mining life cycle, from exploration to reclamation and

closure. More than 80 percent of our members are small

businesses or individuals who work for small businesses.

AEMA members experience the challenges associated with the

federal permitting process every day, and they are

significantly impacted by permitting decisions from an array

of federal agencies. They also live and play in the

communities where they work. Mining in America is the most

environmentally responsible mining industry in the world.

Miner safety and workers' rights are the top priority, and

our members take great pride in responsibly producing the

minerals and metals America needs.

A mantra that is often repeated for many sectors of our

economy, including mining, is the need for certainty. It is

the uncertainty created by policies and debates over the past

several decades that has caused mining investment to flee

this country. To attract that investment, companies need to

know what the rules are, that they can have the security of

tenure needed to explore for and develop mining deposits, and

that they can get through the permitting process in a

reasonable timeframe.

As a Nation, we have acknowledged the urgency of increasing

domestic mineral production, strengthening our supply chains,

and reducing our reliance on foreign minerals. Because it

often takes two or three decades to get from exploration to

production, minimizing the land access and permitting

obstacles that impede domestic exploration and mining is

imperative.

Congress and the administration have been very clear that

they want to see all types of mineral projects move more

efficiently through the Federal permitting process so that

they can be developed to meet our essential economic, energy,

and national security needs. The predictability, transparency

and certainty of the FAST-41 process encourages more mines to

move through the process.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Commodity

Summaries 2026, our country's import dependence for key

mineral commodities has skyrocketed over the past three

decades, with the United States now 100 percent import

reliant for 16 mineral commodities and greater than 50

percent import reliant for another 38 commodities. That

import reliance exists even though we

have significant mineral deposits of many of these

commodities within our borders.

This mineral dependency comes with serious consequences.

Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian invasion of

Ukraine, and Chinese dominance of minerals markets have laid

bare the vulnerabilities that exist in critical U.S. supply

chains, including our reliance on imported minerals.

While the United States was pursuing policies over the past

several decades that discouraged mineral exploration and mine

development, China was methodically making strategic global

investments in mining, mineral processing, manufacturing

products like battery components and batteries made from

minerals, and educating mining professionals. Today, China

dominates the world's mineral supplies and products, and the

human resources required to mine and process minerals.

Consequently, the United States now faces a minerals

emergency that poses serious economic and national security

threats.

FAST-41 was enacted to improve the timeliness,

predictability, transparency, and accountability of the

Federal environmental review and authorization processes for

covered infrastructure projects. The Federal Permitting

Improvement Steering Council (FPISC) voted to include mining

as a covered sector in January 2020 and finalized a

rulemaking confirming that decision in January 2021.

It is important to note that the streamlining of the mine-

permitting process does not equate to reducing environmental

protections. In fact, FAST-41 coverage does not predetermine

or affect the outcome of any Federal decision-making process

with respect to a covered project, nor modify any required

environmental review or public or tribal consultation

process.

Beyond mining, current FAST-41 sectors include renewable

and conventional energy production, electricity transmission,

surface transportation, aviation, ports and waterways, water

resource projects, broadband, pipelines, and manufacturing.

It is important to remember that mining stands at the front

of the supply chain for these and nearly every sector of our

economy.

In fact, in its July 2024 critical minerals report, the

Government Accountability Office (GAO) illustrated that

critical minerals are essential to five key sectors:

aerospace, defense, energy, telecommunications and

electronics, and transportation.

The Permitting Council's 2020 vote to include mining as a

covered sector clearly recognized that mining projects almost

always involve the complex permitting processes that FAST-41

was designed to facilitate. It is great that the Permitting

Council voted to include mining in FAST-41 and followed that

vote with a rule. However, that decision can easily be

rescinded by a subsequent rule, as we saw with a proposal

from the prior administration to limit mining's eligibility

for FAST-41.

Enacting H.R. 1501 and codifying mining as a covered sector

under FAST-41 will send a positive signal to the investment

community that the United States is serious about increasing

domestic mineral production. FAST-41 provides a pathway to

reduce permitting inefficiencies while retaining our world-

class environmental protections, and it must be available to

the entire mineral mining sector.

We look forward to working constructively with Congress to

ensure that Made in America includes ``mined in America,''

and sourcing minerals from U.S. mines that use state-of-the-

art environmental protection measures, put a premium on

worker health and safety, and are committed to the

communities in which they operate.

Sincerely,

Mark Compton,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Begich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Kennedy).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note that Congress has already addressed this issue of foreign ownership through previous legislation, and it has passed well-considered restrictions on Chinese ownership.

The amendment that was offered would create an ambiguous standard that could inadvertently prevent non-Chinese publicly traded companies from mining domestically.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, already reviews foreign investments in American businesses to assess any national security risks.

Mr. Speaker, if you support our domestic supply of critical minerals, this bill provides the regulatory certainty necessary to strengthen domestic mineral supply chains. If you support weakening China's global control over minerals, then I would say join us in voting for the Protecting Domestic Mining Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this administration has sent a clear message that we must support our domestic miners and processors.

This legislation isn't about our current administration. There is a bit of illogic in the minority's argument. On one hand, they say: Why do we need this legislation, because the administration already has the authority to do projects under FAST-41. They are exactly right, just as the Biden administration had authority to do projects under FAST-41.

Anything this administration has been doing to permit mining projects, they can still do, whether we pass this bill today or not. This is about the future of mining in our country. This is about giving people certainty that if they go through the process to build a project, they will be able to invest and get a return on that project to supply those critical minerals and other mined products that are important to our country.

It has also been said that the Permitting Council doesn't have the bandwidth to do more projects. The Permitting Council has testified that they are: ``well situated to bring in additional projects and continue to show that FAST-41 works for projects of all shapes and sizes.''

The bottom line is that supporting our mining industry is foundational to our economic and our national security. For the United States to reestablish American leadership in the mining sector, it is crucial that we pass this legislation to secure our mineral supply chains.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Congress returned yesterday from a long district work period where most of us heard a lot of things from our constituents. They told us about the grinding cost of groceries, gas, and healthcare and the instability their small businesses face

thanks to President Trump's trade war with Canada.

What is the House majority prioritizing this week?

It is a bill that will push a critically endangered whale closer to extinction. I don't think many of us heard this as a priority from our constituents.

H.R. 9436 would extend the regulatory pause on North Atlantic right whale protections from fishing gear entanglements through 2035. This bill sells our fishing communities a false promise. We may hear that kicking the can down the road saves the Maine lobster fleet. In reality, this bill would lock in a broken status quo that guarantees disaster for both our historic coastal industry and the critically endangered right whale.

Right now, fewer than 380 North Atlantic right whales remain on Earth, with only 70 breeding females. Over 85 percent have experienced at least one fishing gear entanglement, and since 2022, at least 31 whales have suffered severe injuries or death because of entanglements.

In late 2022, Congress inappropriately paused all additional measures to protect these whales from fishing gear entanglements until 2029. This pause was advertised as a stakeholders' window of opportunity to give NOAA time to partner with fishermen, States, and technology companies to gather data to test and deploy safer fishing gear, namely, ropeless gear.

Instead, that pause becomes a license for complacency.

NOAA is lying down on the job, dragging its feet, firing staff, axing science, and deprioritizing ropeless gear, perhaps because they think Congress will bail them out and kick the can a little further down the road. All of this is illegal, and all of it is causing massive uncertainty for the lobster fishery.

Now, 2 years ahead of the deadline, this bill would add another 7- year delay.

Instead of holding NOAA accountable, House Republicans want to freeze action until 2035, abandoning accountability and setting up our fishermen for failure. The solution already exists. On-demand ropeless gear reduces deadly entanglements of whales without sacrificing catch. We can have this fishing industry. We can protect it for the long haul with this win-win solution. Fishermen are actively testing and using ropeless gear right now. They have landed over 1 million pounds of seafood using these methods.

This bill, though, would destroy the market incentives to deploy these safer and innovative technologies, damaging consumer confidence in the environmental sustainability of American seafood. It would unfairly place greater conservation burdens on the other Atlantic coast communities, from Florida to Maine, who are actively trying to do their part to save this whale from extinction.

Mr. Speaker, let's stop pretending that House Republicans and this administration care about the fishermen, coastal communities, or these iconic whales. If Congress can arbitrarily grant a decade-plus statutory exemption to bypass protections for a critically endangered species, then the Endangered Species Act is reduced to a hollow success.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to fight for strong, sustainable fisheries and to defend Federal wildlife protection laws, reject this dangerous precedent, and vote ``no'' on H.R. 9436.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from more than 30 community environmental and civic leaders in New York and New Jersey urging Congress to defend science-based management of the North Atlantic right whale and opposing this legislation.

August 31, 2026.

Dear Members of Congress: As community, environmental, and

civic leaders based in New York and New Jersey, we write to

express our strong opposition to H.R. 9436. This legislation

would delay urgently needed protections for the North

Atlantic right whale for seven years, freezing management

progress until 2035.

North Atlantic right whales are regularly seen in waters

off of Long Island, New York and the Coast of New Jersey.

Migrating over 1,000 miles from their northeast feeding

grounds to their southern calving grounds, they have already

been recorded in the New York Bight and southeast of Atlantic

City, New Jersey this year. In 2024, scientists from the New

England Aquarium recorded 82 Right whales--including 56 in

one day--forty miles south of Long Island. This represents

nearly a quarter of the total population.

Extinction is permanent, and the crisis facing the North

Atlantic right whale demands immediate, courageous

leadership. With fewer than 400 individuals remaining--and a

critically low count of roughly 70 breeding females--every

single year of delayed action brings this species closer to

disappearing forever. The science is undisputed: accidental

entanglement in vertical fishing lines is one of the primary

drivers of serious injury and death for these whales, with

over 86 percent of living right whales carrying scars from

past entanglements. These injuries and deaths are

preventable, but only if

our national policy allows science-based solutions to move

forward.

H.R. 9436 sets a dangerous precedent by locking our ocean

management into outdated status quo practices for nearly a

decade. Specifically, the bill would prevent NOAA Fisheries

from developing and implementing science-based management

measures that could reduce the risk of entanglements, such as

modifying fishing practices in areas and at times of highest

risk, and expanding new technologies that both protect whales

and maintain fishing opportunities. Protecting endangered

wildlife and fostering resilient coastal economies are not

opposing goals. Pushing safety measures off to 2035 stalls

the momentum behind collaborative ocean stewardship, science-

based dynamic management, and crucial federal resources that

help both whales and coastal communities thrive.

Communities in New York and New Jersey have consistently

supported forward-thinking, science-based approaches that

safeguard our shared marine heritage while ensuring our

coastal economies can adapt and flourish. Halting progress

for another seven years undermines the work our region has

done to promote a healthy ocean ecosystem.

The North Atlantic right whale cannot afford to wait until

2035, and neither can the communities that care about the

future of our oceans. We urge you to reject H.R. 9436 and

stand up for the recovery of one of the most endangered

species on Earth.

Sincerely,

New York

Candis Whitney, Executive Director, Amelia Island Whale

Ambassadors.

John Balet, MS, SUNY Master Science Teacher, Ballston Spa

High School, Ballston Spa, New York.

Diana Hernandez, Managing Director, Beyond Plastics,

Albany, New York.

Carolina Korth, Co-President, Beyond Plastics Queens,

Queens, New York.

Nancy Tudor, Climate Steward, Beyond Plastics Schenectady,

Clifton Park. New York.

Michael Rosenthal, President, Capital Region Vegan Network,

Albany, New York.

Adrienne Esposito, Executive Director, Citizens Campaign

for the Environment, Farmindale, New York.

Barbara Heinzen, Member, Clean Air Coalition of Ravena-

Coeymans, New Baltimore, New York.

Christina Rupp, Ecological Artist, Ulster County, New York.

Jean Citarella, Leadership Team, Forest Hills Indivisible,

Forest Hills, New York.

Catherine M. Filloux, Playwright, New York City, New York.

Sara Gronim, Co-leader, 350Brooklyn, Brooklyn, New York.

Jennifer Vogt, Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, East

Northport, New York.

Carl Safina, Endowed Professor in Marine Science,

University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York.

Brody Eggert, Eastern Long Island Chapter Manager,

Surfrider Foundation, East Hampton, New York.

Natalya Khorover, Founder/Educator, Repurposer Collective,

Mamaroneck, New York.

Jessica Welshans, Volunteer Member, Rensselaer Enviro.

Coalition, Rensselaer, New York.

Chris Allieri, Executive Director, NYC Plover Project,

Rockaway Beach, New York.

Barry Pendergrass, Volunteer, Religious Action Center for

Reform Judaism, Albany, New York.

Mindy Block, President, Quality Parks, Port Jefferson, New

York.

Megan Wolff, Executive Director, P-SNAP Network, New Paltz,

New York.

Rob Weltner, President, Operation SPLASH, Freeport, New

York.

Gail Tierney, New York Field Representative, Oceana,

Brooklyn, New York.

Saman Mahmood, Director of Advocacy, NYC Bird Alliance, New

York City, New York.

Joseph Butera, President, NE Ecological Recovery Society,

New York.

Susan Schwarz, Board member, LWV Riverowns, Tarrytown, New

York.

New Jersey

Casey Deacon, President, Alliance for a Living Ocean Surf

City, New Jersey.

Allison McLeod, Interim Executive Director, New Jersey

League of Conservation Voters, New Jersey.

Gregory A. Remaud, Executive Director, NY/NJ Baykeeper,

Trenton, New Jersey.

Doug O'Malley, Director, Environment New Jersey, Trenton,

New Jersey.

John Turner, Conservation Policy Advocate, Seatuck

Environmental Association, Setauket, New Jersey.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the chairman and others here, the facts are these: Since 2022, 31 whales have died or been seriously injured by entanglements.

Entanglements are a huge problem. It is not even in serious dispute. Eighty-five percent of living whales have been entangled at least once, and 60 percent at least twice.

In terms of the alleged progress in the past year or so for this whale, they are not reproducing nearly fast enough to avoid an extinction trajectory. There are right now more Members of the House of Representatives than there are North Atlantic right whales living in our ocean.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was confused a moment ago because the chairman suggested that the effort to develop all this data and perfect ropeless gear is going really well. These investments are rolling out and this is all being taken very seriously, but here we have a bill that would shut all of that down 2 years early.

This is about running out the clock, Mr. Speaker. We were told that the 6-year pause granted in 2022 was for all these same things, for data collection and to allow time for collaboration and open rulemaking process, and more.

Congress invested $20 million in ropeless gear development, testing, and deployment. The States and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ran programs for fishermen to test the gear, but under the Trump administration, NOAA has shut this down. They have been telling the New England Fishery Management Council to deprioritize ropeless gear.

This is not a process that is being taken seriously or that is going well and, therefore, needs more time. This is a stalling tactic that has already begun and is about to receive 7 more years by virtue of the Republican Congress.

This administration has not provided Congress, by the way, with the annual reports on progress toward 2029. That is required in the law. They are ignoring it. They have 2 more years to do their job. States need to finalize that data collection. We don't need another 7-year extension. We especially don't need this to happen 2 years earlier.

Let's allow this process to run its course and see what it produces. Then, if there is a compelling reason for a further extension, we could talk about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why my friend from Maine just cited data from 2009 through 2018 to suggest there has been virtually no mortality. The numbers I gave are a little more relevant. From 2022 until now, we know that 31 North Atlantic right whales have either died or been seriously injured by the very type of entanglements we are talking about here--entanglements that would, if this legislation passes, somehow secure a total pass from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act regulations for a period of 13 full years. That is not honoring these environmental protection laws. That is not upholding them. That is gutting them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

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

Mr. Speaker, the data--31 deaths or serious injuries from entanglements since 2022--comes from NOAA. It is available to Democrats and Republicans alike.

Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to reject H.R. 9436. This bill moves the goalposts and risks the extinction of an iconic whale that calls our Nation's Atlantic waters home.

Instead of taking the next 2 years to address the progress that has been made and additional policy levers that may be necessary to support a thriving lobster fishery and recover the right whale, this bill legislates blindly. It throws away momentum amongst the States, tech companies, and many fishery participants, kicking the can down the road. This is a shame.

I recognize that fishing communities around this country are facing extreme levels of uncertainty, and this administration is doing nothing to help. In the lobster fishery, families who have fished these waters for generations are asking questions about what comes next. H.R. 9436 presents a false choice between saving a native species and protecting their livelihoods.

This delay would undermine massive public investment. Since 2022, Congress has devoted an estimated $280 million to right whale recovery. We are beginning to see results from these investments. Advancing monitoring technologies have improved mapping of right whale patterns. Vessels are using trackers to avoid conflicts and, most importantly for this debate, ropeless gear now has a near-perfect retrieval success record and a critical safety feature. The man overboard system is now open source technology for ropeless gear developers.

By removing the 2029 regulatory backstop, this bill creates a permission structure that discourages fishery participants from engaging in cooperative research to obtain the answers they say are needed. Worse, it punishes the forward-thinking fishermen who have spent money and time transitioning their gear in good faith.

Lastly, the bill would extend that waiver without authorizing additional money. By delaying action until 2035 without any new funding, NOAA would need to write rules using obsolete data from the early 2020s.

Democrats offered improvements to this bill to ensure that lobstermen and their families would get the support needed to confidently transition to this

new gear, but Republicans rejected these improvements.

Our suggestions would have authorized additional Federal investments for on-demand ropeless fishing technology to ensure fishermen can keep working, while removing the deadly vertical lines that entangle, injure, and kill these endangered whales.

True leadership invests in modernizing our fisheries, not freezing our conservation laws in place while marine life pays the ultimate price. Allowing a species to go extinct on our watch is a moral failure that we cannot erase.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous precedent, stand with science, and vote ``no'' on H.R. 9436. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

It is our third day back from a 5-week recess. We have 15 days left here in Washington before the election. It should be a time that we are trying to get some real work done, but instead of doing that, instead of doing a single thing to help our constituents who are struggling under skyrocketing costs of groceries, gas, and electricity bills, Republicans are scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with any bill that their chaotic Conference can find a way to pass, and one of the surest ways, it seems, is to find a way to do another favor for the President's friends and for foreign-owned mining conglomerates.

We could actually use some responsible, balanced mineral policy in this country to meet our needs, but, of course, that is not what we are here to do today.

We could all agree that we have been overreliant on adversaries for critical minerals for too long. As demand for these minerals grows, we should also want to strengthen our domestic and allied supply chains strategically with American security, sustainability, and human rights at the center of those efforts.

Unfortunately, this administration seems to have a different approach. They are throwing billions of taxpayers' dollars at the projects that only seem to benefit themselves. There is a lot of money flying right now in the name of strengthening the mineral supply chain, but when you look beneath the surface, it is going to projects that will not actually help the American people.

We have seen this administration make major investments and backroom deals with mining projects with no transparency about who benefits, about what the national security rationale is, or how these decisions actually reduce our dependence on foreign adversaries.

Who is actually benefiting? The President's sons, Secretary Lutnick's sons, and campaign donors are all profiting off their personal investments and business ventures.

Democrats are asking questions. Unfortunately, we are not getting any help from our friends across the aisle. We are getting stonewalled.

Handing out favors to industry and boosting your children's stock portfolios is not a mineral strategy that helps the American people.

Now this brings us to H.R. 1501. This bill would codify mining and mineral processing as covered sectors under FAST-41. FAST-41, of course, creates an alternative permitting pathway for covered infrastructure projects. It covers 18 specific sectors, including energy production, surface transportation, semiconductors, and more.

The FAST-41 permitting process includes some positive transparency provisions like a centralized public platform that tracks Federal permitting timelines and milestones. Covered projects can also receive additional coordination and resources to help agencies move them through the process more efficiently.

It also places some limits on public input, including for Tribes. It also limits judicial review, and it includes limits on court-ordered protections.

Here is the thing, Mr. Speaker: We have just heard the main rationale for this bill, that we have to make sure critical minerals mining projects and the processing projects for those critical minerals are eligible for FAST-41. They made it sound as if today's bill would finally make that possible.

Well, I have a news flash for everyone. Mining is already a covered sector under a regulation adopted during the first Trump administration. Mineral processing projects are also allowed on FAST-41 as manufacturing, so we have an advertised solution here to a problem that does not exist.

What is this bill all about? That is the other half of the bill, the part that would potentially tie the hands of this and future administrations from using FAST-41 in a smart and targeted way that would focus on actual critical minerals projects that were in our national interest, that were all about our national competitiveness.

I will explain. The Permitting Council, which implements FAST-41, has limited resources. Its job is to provide additional coordination and attention to projects that meet the statutory requirements of FAST-41 coverage. Under this bill, every single mining project could be eligible for that treatment, regardless of whether it advances our national interests, our strategic mineral needs, et cetera. FAST-41 Permitting Council is required to put all eligible projects forward even though they have limited resources.

The Biden administration began considering a regulatory change to limit coverage to just critical minerals. That is what this bill is all about. H.R. 1501 would block that change from ever taking effect. That regulation was not finalized. It is not being implemented, but this bill would preemptively block anything like that from ever taking effect.

Under this bill, a gold mine with no connection to our national security could receive FAST-41 treatment. The same would apply to a mine controlled by a foreign adversary or a mine that plans to ship its minerals straight to China for processing, with no benefit to the American supply chain.

Under this bill, the Permitting Council would be required to devote precious time and resources to expedite these projects, to the detriment of real critical minerals projects, and it may prevent a future administration from ever narrowing the scope. How does that make America more secure? The answer is it doesn't.

Democrats have offered straightforward solutions. We have proposed targeted FAST-41 coverage for projects involving critical minerals, projects that actually strengthen key supply chains essential to our national security and our economic resilience.

We also proposed preventing companies owned or controlled by our foreign adversaries from receiving this fast-track status. These amendments were rejected by Republicans in committee and blocked from consideration on the floor here today.

This should not be a partisan issue. We have the opportunity to build a mineral supply chain that is secure, resilient, and independent of our foreign adversaries. To achieve that, we should be making strategic investments, not handing out blanket favors.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The chairman has touted the number of projects added to FAST-41 under the Trump administration. Therein lies the problem. Many of those projects are not critical minerals.

The Permitting Council only has so much budget, only so many resources

in order to administer this FAST-41 process. When you throw the door wide open to any old sand, gravel, gold mining project, when you invite in projects that might just have investments from the President's sons or Secretary Lutnick's family or your Mar-a-Lago oligarch pals, when the door is widened in that way and there is no new resources for the Permitting Council, then actual critical minerals projects and projects that are actually important to our competitiveness and our national security suffer. They go more slowly. They get less attention.

The Chair is actually making our point. We need to allow prioritization and focus so that this FAST-41 process can actually work as it was intended to work.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, a little blinding flash of the obvious: When it comes to sand and gravel, we are not dependent on China

or any other foreign adversary or any other foreign country. We have a lot of sand and gravel in this country. This is not about critical minerals. This is not about our competitiveness.

It is about sand and gravel which we can mine, as we always have. It is not what FAST-41 was intended to do or intended to benefit. But you just heard it right here on the floor in this debate, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues on the one hand are selling this bill as urgent to meet our competitive situation with China. On the other hand, they are opening FAST-41 wide open to anything that can be pulled from the ground including sand and gravel. It just makes no sense whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree with the gentleman from Utah that we need to be taking seriously our dependence on foreign adversaries when it comes to critical minerals and processing. That is why time and again my Democratic colleagues and I have offered amendments to make sure that when it comes to opening up our public lands--and, in this case, when it comes to opening up the benefits of this fast-tracked FAST-41 process--we are not handing it over to our foreign adversaries.

We have proposed amendments time and again, and those amendments have been opposed by our Republican colleagues. We have yet to hear a good reason why they keep opposing this, nor is there one. The language we have proposed time and again comes from one of their own Republican colleagues, the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party chairman, Mr. Moolenaar. We have proposed his exact language time and again as a commonsense guardrail to make sure that our public resources and the benefits of this fast-tracking are not simply used to hand a gift to the very foreign adversary we say we are so terribly concerned about.

It keeps getting rejected time and time again, which makes you wonder what this bill is really about. It is definitely not the competitive rivalry with China.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this argument that we need this legislation to address our dangerous dependency on foreign adversaries for critical minerals continues to ring very hollow. One of the ways that we can avoid being too dependent on foreign adversaries is to develop trading relationships with our allies, none closer to us than Canada.

Canada, for example, is one of our largest mineral trading partners. They exported about $76 billion in minerals to the United States in 2025. If making sure that we are not dependent on adversaries like China was really important to us, I should certainly hear a lot of alarm from my friends across the aisle about the fact that President Trump is starting a trade war with Canada, our neighbor, one of our closest allies and a critical minerals trading partner that makes us less dependent on foreign adversaries. Instead we hear crickets.

He is even trying to rename Lake Ontario to further antagonize this trading partner, and we hear nothing from the other side.

This bill is about many things, but it is certainly not about reducing our dependence on minerals from foreign adversaries.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this administration has demonstrated that it is all too willing to abuse the tools at its disposal to promote projects that simply line the pockets of members of this administration, their family, and their oligarch pals.

I will give you a few examples. Not too long 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. Reporting uncovered that USA Rare Earth hired Cantor Fitzgerald, a firm chaired by Brandon Lutnick, the son of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. How about that coincidence?

Last 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 MAGA donor and economic adviser. His Trilogy shares increased by $70 million in value after that announcement.

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 Donald Trump.

These deals tie taxpayer dollars to corporate balance sheets and incentivize administration officials to prioritize individual corporate interests over the broader public good. To date, there has been no public disclosure of safeguards or procedures to ensure that these ownership stakes do not influence permitting, regulatory enforcement, contracting, and other agency decisions relating to these mining and minerals projects.

Before we give this administration yet additional power to enrich themselves at the expense of everyday Americans, let's get some answers to some of these questions we have been asking about all this corruption and self-dealing.

We have been talking about whether the administration should prioritize when it comes to doling out the limited capacity of the FAST-41 Permitting Council. If everything is a priority, nothing is.

H.R. 1501 ties this and any future administration's hands from doing any prioritization to make sure that FAST-41 permitting is limited to critical minerals projects.

This does nothing to help lower prices for Americans. It just gives gold mines or even mines owned by our foreign adversaries the same access to FAST-41 streamlining as minerals projects needed for our national or economic security interests.

This ties up limited staff and resources meant to get nationally important projects built faster. It gives this corrupt administration another tool to abuse, to help their buddies get ahead. Let's be clear, even though the Permitting Council is supposed to work with any eligible project that is put forward by a sponsor, we know that that won't stop this administration from pushing to prioritize their favorite projects, which seems to be determined more and more by the President's profits than by the public interest.

This is an administration that has repeatedly put pressure on agencies to do favors for their buddies, whether that is pushing the National Park Service to give part of Yosemite to a private developer or making a call to the Department of Defense to speed up a funding deal for a mining company with ties to the President's son.

Why would this permitting be any different?

To rein in possible abuses, we did offer commonsense amendments to limit fast-track eligibility to critical minerals projects, projects that are by definition actually critical to our national and economic security, but Republicans voted it down in committee and then blocked it from even being considered here on the House floor.

Let's be clear: This legislation is not about what is best for our country. It is about giving one more of the President's favorite industries carte blanche for special treatment.

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

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