MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Jared Huffman

Democrat CA 13 statements translated

Jared Huffman, a California Democrat, uses most of his floor time leading opposition to Republican bills, lately mineral permitting legislation and a right whale protection rollback, and his arguments center on accusations that the Trump administration steers public benefits toward the President’s family, donors, and allied firms. He is consistently one of the more evidence-driven speakers in debate, citing specific figures and sources such as NOAA entanglement counts, Canada’s mineral export totals, and congressional funding amounts, and he rarely fills time with anecdotes or tributes. His most distinctive habit, however, is answering something other than the question at hand: debates about a bill’s provisions often turn into broader arguments about administration corruption, trade policy with Canada, or Senate inaction, and he sometimes insinuates opponents’ motives rather than engaging the measure on its terms. He follows his party’s messaging closely, frames Republican bills as favors to the President’s friends, and presses specific asks such as safeguards against adversary-owned mining projects and ropeless-gear funding rather than general appeals.Written by AI from their statements. Updated 2026-10-17.

Average grade

79 / 100 over 12 statements

Signal 75 / 100

Relevance 76 / 100

Reasoning 79 / 100

Respect Not scored yet

Clarity 91 / 100

Averaged over the 12 of 13 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.3.1 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×3.1

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.1.9 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.9

A conclusion that does not follow from the reasons given for it.1.6 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.6

Loses points less than most for A story that illustrates instead of making a point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Thanks and tributes.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Statements 13

House of Representatives · 2026-09-02

Protecting Domestic Mining Act of 2025

“I oppose this bill. It speeds up government permits for all kinds of mining projects instead of just the ones our country really needs. The administration is using these permits and taxpayer money to help mining companies tied to the President's friends and donors.”

“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.”

“I do not support this bill. Supporters claim we need it to stop relying on enemy nations for minerals, but that is not true. We can trade with allies like Canada instead, yet Republicans say nothing when President Trump attacks our trade relationship with Canada.”

“I want to change this bill so our foreign enemies cannot benefit from it. Democrats tried to add rules to stop foreign adversaries from getting these fast-tracked mining projects on our public lands. Republicans keep voting against our changes, even though the idea came from a Republican.”

“I oppose this bill. Supporters say we need it to compete with China for critical minerals, but it speeds up permits for common things like sand and gravel that we already have plenty of.”

“I oppose this bill. It speeds up reviews for all kinds of mining instead of focusing on critical minerals. The council handling these reviews does not have the money or staff to do everything. Taking on too many projects slows down the ones our country actually needs.”

“I oppose this bill. It fast-tracks environmental reviews for all mining projects, even if they have nothing to do with our national security or are tied to foreign adversaries. Mining projects are already allowed to use this faster process. This bill wastes government resources on the wrong projects instead of focusing on the critical minerals we actually need.”

“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.”

Speech on a bill

Reasoning 100 of 100

This statement drew 5 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.
See full analysis

House of Representatives · 2026-09-01

Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act of 2026

“I want the House to vote against this bill. It delays rules meant to protect endangered whales from getting caught in fishing gear until 2035. Waiting that long could cause these whales to go extinct, and it wastes money we have already spent on safer fishing gear.”

“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.”

“I oppose this bill. Since 2022, fishing gear entanglements have killed or badly hurt 31 right whales. This bill lets fisheries ignore wildlife protection laws for 13 years, which guts those protections.”

“I oppose this bill. It delays whale protection rules for seven more years. We already gave officials until 2028 to test safer fishing gear and collect data. They still have two years left to finish their work, but the administration is stalling instead of doing it. We should not extend this deadline.”

“Fishing gear is hurting and killing endangered whales. Most living right whales have been trapped in fishing gear at least once, and they are not having enough babies to survive. There are now more members in the House than there are of these whales left in the ocean.”

“I am sharing a letter from over 30 local and environmental leaders from New York and New Jersey. They oppose this bill and want us to protect the North Atlantic right whale using science.”

“I oppose this bill. It delays rules meant to protect endangered right whales from getting caught in fishing gear until 2035. Waiting that long will push the whales closer to extinction when safer fishing gear already exists.”

“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.”

House of Representatives · 2026-08-31

Hershel "Woody" Williams National Medal of Honor Monument Location Act

“I want the House to pass this bill again to place the Medal of Honor memorial near the Lincoln Memorial. The Senate should have passed our earlier bill instead of making us vote twice. This bill also shows the right way to create a monument through Congress, unlike the Trump administration trying to build an arch without congressional approval.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration awarded to brave individuals whose extraordinary acts of valor, selfless service, and sacrifice exceed the call of duty. In 2021, Congress authorized the placement of a National Medal of Honor Monument in Washington, D.C., to honor all of the Medal of Honor recipients from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard. As a next step, this bill we are considering will ensure the memorial is located next to the Lincoln Memorial in the shadow of a President who created the Medal of Honor during the first year of the Civil War. It is a privilege to speak on this bill. Medal of Honor recipients deserve recognition in the heart of our Nation’s Capital. I do note, however, that this is not the first time legislation for this memorial has been considered by the House this Congress. We voted on the House companion from Mr. Moore of Utah back in January 2025. It was one of the first Natural Resources Committee bills to pass this Chamber in the Congress. Unfortunately, instead of passing the House bill that we already sent over, the Senate is forcing us into a do-over. This is becoming an unsightly trend this Congress. The House Natural Resources Committee alone has sent 88 bipartisan bills over to the Senate that are still waiting for a vote. No wonder this has been such an unproductive Congress and one of the least productive on record. Mr. Speaker, I encourage Republican leadership in both Houses of Congress to start working together and talking to each other to better coordinate so that we are not forced to vote on all of these noncontroversial bills over and over. There is simply not time left on the calendar to continue this. Moving back to the bill that we are considering, I encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation again. This is an excellent example of the amazing work that we can do when we reach across the aisle and work in a bipartisan way. But it is worth noting that this bill is also an example of how monuments in Washington, D.C., should happen and how they can be lawfully established through a transparent and explicit act of Congress. The Commemorative Works Act is the law, and it is very clear. Monuments and memorials in the area of Washington, D.C., may be built ``only as specifically authorized by law.’’ If that weren’t enough, Congress enacted a similar law prohibiting any building or structure being built on Federal public grounds in D.C. without express authority of Congress. It is an insult to the American people that this administration is ignoring the law, that they are barreling ahead with an enormous arc de Trump in flagrant violation of these laws, an arch that would tower over the Lincoln Memorial and the sacred grounds of Arlington National Cemetery where we honor the very heroes that we have just been talking about here today. Our constituents can’t afford groceries right now due to Trump’s trade wars. They can’t afford gas due to his war of choice in Iran or electricity bills due to his war on clean energy. The last thing we need is another golden monument commemorating President Trump in the Capital, let alone one that circumvents Congress and flouts the law. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues should stand up to this administration’s lawlessness. In the meantime, this is a good bill. This is how you are supposed to do monuments in compliance with the law. You bring it to Congress. You pass it through the process. Soon this bill will become law, and this monument will happen. That is the way it should work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”