Hill Heat

The Committee on Rules will meet Monday, February 9, 2026 at 4:00 PM ET in H-313, The Capitol on the following measures:

• H.R. 261 – Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025 (Text, Report
• H.R. 2189 – Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act (Report), with H.R. 4242 - Innovate Less Lethal to De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act attached (Report)
• H.R. 3617 – Securing America’s Critical Minerals Supply Act ([Text], Report)

While the majority claims H.R. 3617 targets and supports the development of critical minerals, including those needed for the development of clean and renewable energy resources, H.R. 3617 uses the term ‘‘critical energy resource’’ instead of ‘‘critical minerals’’ or ‘‘critical materials.’’ The bill defines ‘‘critical energy resource’’ to mean ‘‘any energy resource that is essential to the energy sector and energy systems of the United States.’’ This definition is not restricted to critical minerals and could be interpreted to include a range of resources, including those that are carbon-emitting or that support the fossil-fuel industry. The bill also does not specify or prioritize the securing of supply chains related to clean or renewable energy, even though the majority claims the bill will support these industries. Without a clear prioritization of clean energy supply chains, H.R. 3617 risks devoting additional DOE resources to supporting carbon-emitting industries. Additionally, there is ambiguity surrounding the definition of ‘‘critical energy resource’’ in H.R. 3617, and how it will interact with existing DOE efforts in the critical minerals and critical materials space. For example, the Department of Energy maintains a list of critical materials using the definition established in the Energy Act of 2020. The Trump Administration already showed an openness to adding fossil fuels to the critical materials list when Energy Secretary Chris Wright added metallurgical coal to the list. H.R. 3617 does not attempt to reconcile any of the tensions or differences in definitions with existing directives, and additional specificity would be needed. This bill gives the Trump Administration open-ended authorities to increase the domestic production of critical materials without any proper definitions or substantive guardrails. The bill tasks the Secretary of Energy with facilitating the ‘‘development of strategies to strengthen critical energy resource supply chains in the United States, including by . . . increasing domestic production.’’

H.R. 261 would prohibit the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from requiring any authorization for the installation, continued presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber optic cables in a National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) if those activities have been previously approved by other Federal or State agencies. The bill would remove NOAA’s authority under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) to conduct environmental review and charge fair market fees for major infrastructure projects in federally protected marine areas.

H.R. 2189 weakens federal firearms laws and goes far beyond the needs of law enforcement. Rather than being focused on the use of less-than-lethal devices by law enforcement officers, this bill would create a dangerous loophole in the Gun Control Act (GCA) by exempting so-called ‘‘less-than-lethal’’ devices from laws requiring firearms to be traceable, detectable by security equipment, and not available to prohibited purchasers like felons. This new loophole would allow dangerous people to more easily access untraceable, undetectable weapons without a background check. This legislation does real damage by rewriting the definition of ‘‘firearm’’ throughout the entire criminal code to exclude certain, ‘‘less-than-lethal’’ weapons—which are still highly dangerous—such as taser guns, which have been identified as a contributing factor in more than 500 deaths in the United States. Because the definition of what constitutes a ‘‘firearm’’ is central to our federal firearm legal architecture, altering that definition is a dangerous and complicated endeavor—and will have consequences that perhaps are not intended by the bill’s proponents.

H.R. 4242 is aimed at lowering taxes on dangerous weapons without meaningfully assisting law enforcement. Law enforcement officers are already exempt from much of the Gun Control Act and are able to procure both firearms and less-than-lethal projectile devices free of tax. Moreover, redefining ‘‘firearm’’ to exclude less-than-lethal projectile devices from background check requirements is of grave concern for public safety. If enacted, that bill would enable people who are currently unable to obtain weapons classified as firearms—such as people convicted of domestic abuse or violent felonies—to more easily obtain dangerous projectile weapons which may be easily modified.