Providing for Consideration of Senate Amendments to H.R. Consolidated Appropriations Act, Providing for Consideration of H.J. Res. Disapproving the Action of the District of Columbia Council in Approving the D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Critical Mineral Dominance Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JACK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1032 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 1032

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 7148) making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question.

Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 142) disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or their respective designees. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit (if otherwise in order).

Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4090) to codify certain provisions of certain Executive Orders relating to domestic mining and hardrock mineral resources, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JACK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JACK. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Committee on Rules met and granted, by a recorded vote of 8-4, a rule providing for consideration of three measures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foxx), the distinguished Rules Committee chairwoman.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JACK. Mr. Speaker, I hope, in the spirit of respectful discourse, the gentleman from Massachusetts maintains standards of decorum on the floor and no longer takes the Lord's name in vain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 1032 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

Strike the first section to follow the resolving clause, insert the following, and redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly:

That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 7148) making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendments with the amendment specified in section 2 of this resolution. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question.

Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as follows:

Insert, at the appropriate place, the following:

Sec.__. (a) Sections 90003 and 100052 of Public Law 119-21 (139 Stat. 358, 387) (commonly known as the ``One Big Beautiful Bill Act'') are repealed and the unobligated balances of amounts made available under those sections (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act) are rescinded.

(b)(1) Section 71107 of the Act titled ``An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14'' (Public Law 119-21) is repealed and title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) shall be applied as if such section and the amendments made by such section had not been enacted.

(2) The amounts appropriated under section 71107(c) of the Act titled ``An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14'' (Public Law 119-21) are hereby rescinded.

(c)(1) Section 71120 of the Act titled ``An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14'' (Public Law 119-21) is repealed and title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) shall be applied as if such section and the amendments made by such section had not been enacted.

(2) The amounts appropriated under section 71120(c) of the Act titled ``An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14'' (Public Law 119-21) are hereby rescinded.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source