Brian Jack (R-GA)
Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 7148) making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of 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; and providing for consideration of 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.
A Republican resolution with no cosponsors
Last activity — Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Adopted
The chamber formally agreed to it, and for a resolution that is the finish line: what it says is now officially the chamber's position, rule or tribute.
Nothing more is needed. A resolution is how a chamber speaks for itself or sets its own rules, so adopting it is what puts it into effect. It is not a law, so there is nothing for the President to sign.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Adopted by the House 217–215
A House resolution is the House speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the House agrees to it, it is officially the House's word; it is not a law, so the Senate and the President have no part in it.
What this bill would do
This resolution provides for the consideration of several different legislative items in the House. It addresses Senate amendments to H.R. 7148 regarding consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026. It also includes provisions for considering joint resolution H.J. Res. 142, which seeks to disapprove an action taken by the District of Columbia Council. Additionally, the resolution allows for the consideration of H.R. 4090, a bill intended to codify certain Executive Orders regarding domestic mining and hardrock mineral resources.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +3
Is this likely to create jobs?
Codifying domestic mining and hardrock mineral resource provisions is intended to support the mining industry and related jobs.
- Scored +3
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill supports the mining and mineral resource business sectors.
- Scored +2
Is this likely to grow the economy?
The focus on domestic mining and hardrock minerals aims to bolster domestic resource production for economic growth.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -3
Does this raise taxes on the highest earners?
The disapproval of the D.C. tax act may prevent changes to tax structures that impact high earners in the district.
- Scored -2
Would people in cities be better off under this?
The disapproval of the D.C. tax act may negatively impact the fiscal policies of the District of Columbia.
- Scored -2
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The joint resolution uses federal authority to disapprove an action taken by the District of Columbia Council.
What Congress actually voted on
2 recorded votes have been taken on this bill. One of them decided something; the rest moved it along.
- The House: the vote on whether to adopt the resolution A resolution is one chamber speaking for itself — setting its own rules, taking a position, honouring someone — and it never goes to the President. Agreeing to it is the whole decision. Passed 217 yes · 215 no
02/03/2026 · Roll call 52 · recorded as “On Agreeing to the Resolution”
- The House: a vote to stop debate and move to the decision A House procedural vote that closes off further debate and amendments. It is about the schedule, not the substance, and it usually falls along party lines. Previous question agreed to 212 yes · 210 no
02/03/2026 · Roll call 51 · recorded as “On Ordering the Previous Question”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Codification of Mining Provisions: The bill H.R. 4090 aims to codify certain provisions of Executive Orders relating to domestic mining and hardrock mineral resources (Sec. 3).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Disapproval of D.C. Tax Act: The joint resolution H.J. Res. 142 seeks to disapprove the action of the District of Columbia Council regarding the D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025 (Sec. 2).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Codifying domestic mining and hardrock mineral resource provisions is intended to support the mining industry and related jobs. Is this likely to grow the economy? — The focus on domestic mining and hardrock minerals aims to bolster domestic resource production for economic growth. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The codification of mining provisions supports the interests of domestic mining and resource companies. Does this raise taxes on the highest earners? — The disapproval of the D.C. tax act may prevent changes to tax structures that impact high earners in the district.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill supports the mining and mineral resource business sectors. Would farmers be better off under this? — The expansion of mining provisions may impact land use for agricultural sectors. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The disapproval of the D.C. tax act may negatively impact the fiscal policies of the District of Columbia.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The joint resolution uses federal authority to disapprove an action taken by the District of Columbia Council.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Domestic mining activities often provide economic benefits to rural communities where resources are located. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Codifying domestic mining provisions may prioritize resource extraction over some environmental protections.
- 2/3/2026
- The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 119-478, by Mr. Jack.
- Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 59.
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 217 - 215 (Roll no. 52). (text: CR H1951-1952)
- On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 217 - 215 (Roll no. 52). (text: CR H1951-1952)
- On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 212 - 210 (Roll no. 51). (consideration: CR H1959-1960)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1959-1960)
- POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H. Res. 1032, the Chair put the question on ordering the previous question and by voice vote, announced the ayes had prevailed. Mr. McGovern demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 1032.
- Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H1951-1959)
- The resolution provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 7148. Also, the resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 142 and H.R. 4090 under a closed rule and provides for one motion to recommit H.R. 4090.
- Bill introduced.
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.