[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 4, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2002-H2008]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
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
Mr. GILL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1032, I
call up 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 ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1032, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 142
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
Congress disapproves of the action of the District of
Columbia Council described as follows: The D.C. Income and
Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act
of 2025 (D.C. Act 26-217), enacted by the Council of the
District of Columbia on December 20, 2025, and transmitted to
Congress pursuant to section 602(c)(1) of the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act on December 30, 2025.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 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 gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gill) and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Frost) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gill).
General Leave
Mr. GILL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H2003]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 142, a 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.
Congress has the constitutional right to review legislation passed by
the D.C. Council under the D.C. Home Rule Act. It also has the
authority to block such legislation. In this case, it should do just
that.
In December of this past year, the D.C. Council enacted, without the
Mayor's support, legislation that denies tax relief to D.C. residents
and businesses that was afforded to them by the Working Families Tax
Cut Act.
While D.C. taxpayers still enjoy the benefits of such tax relief with
their Federal tax filings, they are being stripped of corresponding
relief that should also be afforded to them at the local level. In
other words, the D.C. Council has rejected tax provisions that help
relieve the burdens faced by D.C. residents and businesses.
There are nine tax provisions that the D.C. Council has completely
opted out of in the D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and
Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025. Seven of them are targeted at
tax breaks for individuals. This includes service workers relying on
tips as part of their wages, workers relying on overtime, senior
citizens relying on Social Security, and even residents just trying to
write off their charitable contributions.
They are all being targeted by the D.C. Council. Specifically, the
D.C. Council is opting out of the following tax provisions that House
Republicans championed for all Americans: no tax on tips, no tax on
overtime, no tax on Social Security for senior citizens, no tax on auto
loan interest for certain personal car loan deductions, and even the
increased standard deduction, meaning that D.C. taxpayers who do not
itemize their tax deductions will not be able to claim the full amount
of the federally expanded standard deduction in their local tax
returns. In addition, individuals who take the standard deduction will
not be afforded an additional charitable deduction like they will have
in the Federal Tax Code.
Stripping away this tax relief from the residents of D.C. is
egregious, but, Mr. Speaker, that is not all. The D.C. Council has not
stopped there. They are working also to ignore the Working Families Tax
Cut Act's pro-economic growth business deductions.
That is, the radical D.C. Council also wants to stunt local
businesses and prevent economic growth. They are blocking the 100-
percent expensing of qualified nonresidential manufacturing and
property production and improvements that help fuel such commercial
investment.
Finally, the D.C. Council is blocking the full and immediate
expensing of a business' domestic research and experimental
expenditures. They apparently would rather have investments and
innovation in other States or even foreign nations as opposed to right
here at home in the Nation's Capital City.
You might find yourself wondering why would the D.C. Council do this
to their own residents and businesses. I will tell you why: It is
because the Working Families Tax Cut Act was President Trump's bill.
The D.C. Council would rather punish their own residents, their own
people, than recognize the achievements of President Trump's
legislation. This is anti-working class, anti-senior citizens, and of
course antibusiness.
They say they need more time to analyze and consider these
provisions, the same provisions that had numerous congressional debates
and hearings. These justifications are just excuses to play politics.
It is all at the expense of local residents and businesses who want to
and should be able to keep their hard-earned money in their pockets to
reinvest in their families, communities, and businesses.
The House must swiftly exercise its constitutional responsibility to
oversee the District of Columbia and reject this misguided legislation
from going into effect.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to unite in support
of D.C. taxpayers and businesses and support this necessary resolution
of disapproval.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to H.J. Res. 142, which would
repeal provisions of a law enacted by the District of Columbia because
D.C. deserves the right to govern itself.
The Supreme Court has held that Congress can delegate full
legislative authority to D.C. for local matters, but Republicans in
Congress choose not to do so.
Last year, President Trump and congressional Republicans passed the
one, big, betrayal bill, a deeply unpopular law that is the single
largest transfer of wealth and resources from the working class and the
working poor to the ultrawealthy billionaires and corporations in our
Nation's history. The law ripped healthcare coverage away from millions
of Americans to give tax breaks and tax giveaways to billionaires and
megacorporations.
Not only that, but for States across the country, it has caused a
revenue shortfall that has thrown State budgets into chaos, threatening
services like healthcare, childcare, schools, eldercare, and emergency
response. To protect against this, numerous States have passed laws to
decouple their tax code from the tax provisions in the so-called One
Big Beautiful Bill Act. This includes States like Maine, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, and Alabama. This also includes the
District of Columbia.
To avoid a more than $600 million budget loss over the next 4 years
from the big, betrayal bill tax changes, the D.C. Council enacted a
decoupling law. As part of this law, D.C. increased the child tax
credit and earned income tax credit benefits to put more money in the
pockets of working families struggling to afford the basic necessities
in their life.
{time} 1330
H.J. Res. 142 would overturn this law and rip away the money that
parents and low-earning families could use to stay afloat in this
disastrous Trump economy. Today is just another day in Congress where
instead of being on the floor debating legislation on healthcare,
instead of debating legislation on bringing down the cost of groceries,
instead of debating legislation on making sure we can make this country
more affordable for working people, congressional Republicans want to
use this time to attack working families in the District of Columbia.
Overturning this law will create chaos for D.C. families and
businesses at the start of tax filing season. The gentleman brought up
businesses, but D.C. began accepting and processing tax returns on
January 27. Families are already beginning to file their taxes and
claim the newly expanded EITC.
This resolution would force D.C. to suspend this year's tax filing
season, which is already underway, for several months. Changing their
tax code now would create additional hurdles and confusion for families
and, yes, for local businesses, as well, especially families that are
already counting on receiving that larger earned income tax credit to
deal with the failure of congressional Republicans and Donald Trump to
bring this economy to a place that works for working people.
The D.C. business community even sent a letter to Congress urging
opposition to this disapproval resolution because it would create chaos
and financial instability. This group includes the Federal City
Council, the D.C. Chamber of Commerce, the D.C. Association of
Realtors, the D.C. Hospital Association, and the Hotel Association of
Washington, D.C. They are all opposed to this resolution.
The big betrayal act is so deeply unpopular that half of the public
believes it will hurt them and their families, including two-thirds of
Medicaid enrollees. Instead of accepting this reality, congressional
Republicans are disregarding home rule and forcing it down the throats
of D.C. because they can.
I find it also very interesting and kind of cool that today I get to
debate with a colleague from the other side of the aisle where we are
both the youngest Members of the United States Congress. We may be the
youngest, but his ideas are very old.
Undermining democracy in D.C. isn't new. It is just wrong. The people
who live in the Capital of the world's greatest democracy deserve that
democracy themselves.
[[Page H2004]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), the future Senator.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for H.J. Res. 142, which provides for necessary and lawful
congressional oversight of the District of Columbia.
This legislation rightly exercises Congress' clear constitutional
authority to intervene in the District's affairs when its interests, or
those of its residents, are at risk. While there are many examples of
the District's poor governance that warrant scrutiny, the issue before
us today is whether the D.C. Council should be permitted to decouple
its local tax code from the historic tax relief enacted through the
Working Families Tax Cuts Act.
This landmark legislation, passed by House Republicans last July,
delivers meaningful tax relief to working Americans by expanding the
child tax credit, allowing nonitemizers to claim charitable deductions,
eliminating taxes on tips and overtime, and more.
As much as my colleagues on the other side have tried to spin this
resolution as a tax giveaway to the wealthy, the reality is that it
delivers meaningful relief to Americans at every income level. Yet now,
they are supporting an effort to deny that very relief to the residents
of the District of Columbia.
While States retain the authority to determine how they raise and
spend their tax dollars, let me be clear: The District of Columbia is
not a State. Congress has both the authority and the responsibility to
provide oversight in this matter, as well as many others affecting the
governance of our Nation's Capital.
Mr. Speaker, I thank this resolution's sponsor, Representative Gill,
and Chairman Comer, for their leadership on this important issue. I
urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of H.J. Res. 142.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garcia), the ranking member.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Frost
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I also strongly oppose this resolution, which is yet
another attack on the rights of over 700,000 D.C. residents.
This is the 10th bill that House Republicans are considering to
either repeal or amend local D.C. laws. We know that D.C. has more
residents than two States, pays more in Federal taxes than 26 States,
and more per capita than any State as it relates to paying those taxes.
D.C.'s locally elected officials are accountable to D.C. residents,
and local leaders should be empowered to address local matters without
Congress interfering.
I have said this many times before, but issues like this go straight
to the heart of representation. It repeals a tax law which the D.C.
Council passed unanimously. The act created a child tax credit and
expanded the earned income tax credit. These credits will significantly
reduce child poverty in D.C.
D.C.'s act temporarily paused several provisions of Trump's larger
bill from applying to D.C.'s tax code. Now, H.J. Res. 142 will deprive
D.C. of $600 million in revenue over the next 4 years. This could force
D.C. to cut public safety and education, and certainly impact its
ability to serve the community. The threat of a budget crisis will
increase borrowing costs for D.C., forcing more of the city revenue to
go toward interest payments than actually helping people, as happened
when Republicans cut D.C.'s local budget by about a billion dollars
last year.
H.J. Res. 142 will also cause chaos in the D.C. tax filing season,
which has already begun. Trump's Department of Homeland Security is
doing horrific things across the country. The DOJ is defying the law to
withhold the Epstein files. We are dealing with a cost-of-living crisis
across the country. Instead, today, we are debating to vote to actually
increase child poverty within the District of Columbia.
We strongly oppose this. Instead of actually acting like a super city
council for D.C., we should be considering issues like D.C. statehood.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 142.
Mr. GILL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Gill for yielding time
today.
Mr. Speaker, I was proud to vote in favor of the Working Families Tax
Cut Act to deliver tax relief to millions of Americans that included no
tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and support for small businesses, so
what does the D.C. Council do?
They voted to deny their own residents these benefits. This means a
waitress working in a Washington, D.C., restaurant gets taxed on her
tips on her D.C. tax return while her counterpart in Virginia doesn't
get taxed on their Virginia tax return. For a construction worker
putting in overtime, D.C. takes a cut.
This is the kind of move that makes people furious. Congress
delivered tax relief for Americans and Washington, D.C., said: Not for
our residents. The District claims they need the revenue.
By their own estimate, this revenue is .6 of 1 percent of their
annual budget. They are squeezing every penny out of working families
over less than 1 percent of their budget because they can't spend
responsibly.
Let's think about what that means. D.C. would rather tax a single
mother's tips and take money from overtime checks from hardworking
residents than make responsible spending decisions. That is not
governance. That is a shakedown.
This is D.C. politicians protecting their spending habits on the
backs of waitresses and construction workers. This is the same broken
government mentality we see time and time again.
Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution disapproving of D.C.'s tax
grab.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting, as we sit here, I keep
hearing my colleagues bring up the ``working families tax cut bill.''
They keep bringing it up, and I am asking the staff here, I don't
remember voting on the working families tax cut bill. We have looked it
up, and we can't find it. This body has not voted on the working
families tax cut bill this Congress. We did vote on the One Big
Beautiful Bill Act, and I asked myself, why do they keep changing the
name of their legislation?
{time} 1340
Mr. Speaker, they don't want to say the name of their legislation.
The reason why is simple. We know that Donald Trump came here to the
Hill after this bill was passed, and because it was so deeply unpopular
with the American people, he said that we have to rebrand, have to
change the name.
It goes to show how unpopular and how bad this bill is. They even
called it the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It has the word ``beautiful''
in it.
The bill is so bad for working people that 64 percent of adults--
Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and people who don't care about
politics--hate it so much that the bill that they put the word
``beautiful'' in, they can't say the name anymore because it is so damn
toxic because it takes most of the resources from working people and
gives it to the billionaires and megacorporations. Now, months later,
they still want to tout the bill, but they won't dare call it the name.
It just goes to show that this administration is obsessed with
helping the well-to-do and well-connected and not working people.
Anytime we hear in this debate this working families tax cut bill, we
never voted on such a bill. The name of it was the One Big Beautiful
Bill Act.
These are the most resources in the history of this country that are
going from working people to the ultrawealthy, billionaires, and
corporations.
Say it three times: One Big Beautiful Bill Act, One Big Beautiful
Bill Act, One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That is the bill that we voted
on. Mr. Speaker, 64 percent of Americans are against it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this unprecedented, undemocratic, and
paternalistic disapproval resolution. This
[[Page H2005]]
disapproval resolution would sabotage the District of Columbia's tax
filing season and credit rating.
The substance of the D.C. law that is the subject of this disapproval
resolution should be irrelevant to Members of Congress since there is
never justification for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters,
but I will discuss it.
The D.C. law, which the D.C. Council unanimously passed, established
a child tax credit, increased an existing earned income tax credit, and
decoupled D.C.'s tax code from some of the tax provisions in the so-
called One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
This disapproval resolution would repeal the D.C. law. Let's be
clear: The D.C. law changed only the D.C. tax code. It did not, and
could not, change the Federal tax code.
The D.C. tax filing season began last week. This disapproval
resolution would change D.C.'s tax code during the current tax filing
season, causing an administrative nightmare for D.C. and tax software
companies. D.C. would have to suspend the current tax filing season for
several months to update tax forms and guidance, and taxpayers who have
already filed returns would have to file amended returns.
The D.C. law is not unique. Like D.C., approximately half of the
States, both red and blue, automatically adopt Federal tax changes in
their tax codes. However, like D.C., several of these States, both red
and blue, have passed laws decoupling their tax codes from some of the
tax provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
The approximately 20 States, both red and blue, that link their tax
codes to the Federal tax code, as of a specific date would have to
change that date to adopt the tax provisions of the One Big Beautiful
Bill Act. The D.C. law expires in 225 days, giving D.C. time to
evaluate which provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act it wants to
permanently adopt or decouple.
This disapproval resolution could harm D.C.'s credit rating, forcing
D.C. to pay higher interest rates. Rating agencies consider the
possibility of Congress meddling in D.C.'s fiscal matters as negative
for D.C.'s rating, but also consider as positive that ``Congress has
never voided or otherwise overturned a revenue-raising measure approved
by the District.''
If this disapproval resolution were enacted, Congress would have
overturned a revenue-raising measure approved by D.C. Last year, when
Congress cut D.C.'s local budget by $1 billion, D.C.'s rating was put
on negative watch. This disapproval resolution is an even bigger threat
to D.C.'s rating.
The D.C. law established a child tax credit and increased an existing
earned income tax credit. These credits are projected to reduce child
poverty in D.C. by 20 percent. This disapproval resolution would repeal
these credits.
The D.C. law is expected to generate approximately $600 million in
local revenue over the next 4 years. If this disapproval resolution
were enacted, D.C. would have to make up for that lost revenue, such as
by cutting critical programs.
The 700,000 D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown,
are capable and worthy of self-government. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this disapproval resolution and to instead make D.C. a State.
Free D.C.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to Congress from the
D.C. Office of the Chief Financial Officer, an independent office
established by Congress.
Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the
Chief Financial Officer,
February 2, 2026.
Re Impact of Joint Resolution on District of Columbia
Finances.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives.
Hon. John Thune,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate.
Dear Speaker Johnson, Leader Jeffries, Leader Thune, and
Leader Schumer: We are providing information on the financial
implications to the Government of the District of Columbia
from Joint Resolution of Disapproval H.J. Res. 142 and Joint
Resolution of Disapproval S.J. Res. 102 (collectively, the
Joint Resolution).
If the joint Resolution passes both the House and Senate
and is signed by the President, the changes in District law
enacted by The District's Income and Franchise Tax Conformity
and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025 (the Tax
Amendment Act), which de-coupled the District from certain
provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, H.R. 1, Public
Law 119-21 (OBBBA), would be invalidated.
This document reviews the implications of the Joint
Resolution on the District's current four-year Financial
Plan, the District's tax administration processes, and the
District's cash position.
Financial Plan
The Joint Resolution would not have a material impact on
the four-year financial plan approved by the Mayor and D.C.
Council, and by Congress.
In the September 2025 Revenue Estimate issued by my office,
the District estimated a reduction in revenue from the
implementation of OBBBA provisions. However, such reduction
was estimated to be offset by revenues collected by the
District under current law (i.e., not taking into account the
impact of implementing the Tax Amendment Act) and as a result
of the general state of the economy in the District of
Columbia.
In particular, personal income tax revenues are estimated
to be strong due to capital gains earnings by higher-income
households, and corporate tax revenues are expected to
increase due to strong growth in earnings by businesses that
have a presence in the District of Columbia.
Tax Administration
Enactment of the Joint Resolution will disrupt the
District's ability to collect income tax revenues associated
with annual income tax filings due by April 15, 2026.
Several of the provisions in the District's Tax Amendment
Act were applicable for tax year 2025, and for certain
taxpayers, tax years 2022, 2023, and 2024. Beginning last
fall, the District's tax administration agency, the Office of
Tax and Revenue (OTR), undertook efforts to implement the
legislation in time for the opening of the tax filing season
on January 26, 2026.
Implementation required substantial changes to OTR's
systems and taxpayer forms for nearly all aspects of income
and franchise tax filings by District residents, trusts and
estates, as well as all corporations, unincorporated
businesses, and partnerships doing business in the District.
It also required OTR staff training and outreach to tax
software vendors, the tax preparer community, and taxpayers.
Enactment of the Joint Resolution means that the changes
that were made to OTR's forms and systems for tax year 2025
will no longer be consistent with District law. As a result,
OTR would need to suspend the current filing season until
such time as it can make the necessary changes to revert the
District's tax administration system to conform with legal
requirements prior to the Tax Amendment Act's enactment. The
necessary changes include, but are not limited to:
Updating forms, schedules, and instructions. Forms and
other relevant filing documents must be developed.
Additionally, preparation for each filing season typically
begins immediately after the start of the previous season. If
OTR is required to re-work tax year 2025 now, they will be
managing two filing seasons concurrently (i.e., Tax Years
2025 and 2026).
Systems changes. Reprogramming the tax processing system
will be required. This includes development of business and
system requirements, and tasks associated with Modernized
Electronic Filing. As noted previously, OTR would be required
to manage two filing seasons concurrently.
Changes to software of tax processing vendors. Vendors will
need to reconfigure software to allow taxpayers to properly
file. If the District must reverse the changes pursuant to
implementing the Act, it could be at risk of losing vendors
who normally participate in DC tax filing, as the current
products that are already approved and in use would no longer
be valid.
For the current filing season, OTR managers estimate that
adjustments will likely require several months, which would
extend District income tax filing deadlines into fall 2026.
The adjustments will also generate millions of dollars of
additional expenses that must be paid by the District's
General Fund resources.
Cash Flow
Invalidation of the Tax Amendment Act may lead to District
cash flow disruptions. In addition to the administrative
burdens described above, the District is assessing the impact
of the invalidation of the Tax Amendment Act on the timing of
collections of income tax revenues and the related cash flow,
among other matters. For example, it is possible that an
extension in filing deadlines could lead to a shift in the
timing of collections in income tax revenue from Fiscal Year
2026 to Fiscal Year 2027, thereby creating a shortfall in
cash collections of approximately $400 million in FY 2026.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Glen Lee.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the letter states that if this disapproval
resolution were enacted, the office would have to suspend the current
D.C. tax filing season for several months to update tax forms,
schedules, and instructions, to reprogram the tax processing system,
and for tax preparation companies to update their software.
[[Page H2006]]
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a joint letter to Congress from
D.C.'s elected Mayor and the elected council chairman strongly opposing
this disapproval resolution.
February 2, 2026.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives.
Hon. John Thune,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate.
Dear Speaker Johnson, Leader Jeffries, Leader Thune, and
Leader Schumer: We write to express our strong opposition to
Joint Resolution of Disapproval H.J. Res. 142 and Joint
Resolution of Disapproval S.J. Res. 102. These resolutions
are an intrusion on the District's Home Rule authority and
would have major and immediate impacts on tax administration
in the District. We very strongly urge you and your
colleagues to oppose these resolutions.
The District of Columbia is one of many jurisdictions
across the Nation that routinely modifies its local tax code
in accordance with federal tax laws, including choosing to
decouple from federal tax changes to address local concerns
or mitigate projected fiscal impacts. At the end of last
year, multiple states and the District decided to decouple
their tax codes from some provisions of H.R. 1. While the
District adopted the majority of H.R. 1 provisions, a small
number were temporarily set aside. These decisions were made
through the District's legislative process and are the same
type of policy judgments that every state and local
government routinely makes on behalf of their residents.
The timing of these resolutions are especially problematic.
The District is already a month into the 2026 tax year and
has begun accepting and processing tax returns. Disapproval
at this stage would create huge administrative challenges,
require taxpayers to re-file their taxes, render existing
guidance and forms obsolete, and necessitate rapid mid-year
changes to tax administration systems. It is unclear how
quickly commercial tax preparation software could be updated
to accommodate such changes, and District residents and
businesses would likely experience confusion, as well as
delays. The resolutions would lead to the District's income
tax filing deadlines to be pushed to Fall 2026 and would
cause millions of dollars in additional expenses.
We strongly urge you to oppose the disapproval resolutions
and to respect the District's governance of its local fiscal
affairs.
Sincerely,
Muriel Bowser,
Mayor.
Phil Mendelson,
Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, while they disagreed on whether the D.C.
Council should have enacted the D.C. law that is the subject of this
disapproval resolution in the first place, they both strongly oppose
this disapproval resolution. Their letter states that this disapproval
resolution, if enacted, not only would violate D.C.'s right to self-
government but ``would have major and immediate impacts on tax
administration in the District.''
Mr. Speaker, I finally include in the Record a letter to Congress
from the D.C. business community.
February 3, 2026.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives.
Hon. John Thune,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate.
Dear Speaker Johnson, Leader Thune, Leader Jeffries, and
Leader Schumer: We write to you, in unison, as
representatives of the District of Columbia's business
organizations, urging you to oppose the Joint Resolution of
Disapproval H.J. Res. 142 and Joint Resolution of Disapproval
S.J. Res. 102 that would reverse the District's decision to
decouple the local tax code from some provisions of the One
Big Beautiful Bill Act's federal tax code changes.
A reversal of decoupling would create chaos in the middle
of tax filing season. The District has already begun
accepting and processing returns. It would take the DC
government and private vendors months to adjust local tax
administration. Filing deadlines would have to be pushed back
to the Fall of 2026. Delaying local income tax collection
would create a local cash shortfall of up to $400 million in
FY26, according to the DC Chief Financial Officer.
Local tax code decoupling from the federal tax code is not
unique. Many states have also voted to decouple from
provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as they have
many times in the past in response to federal tax changes.
Changes at this stage in the process would create fiscal
instability and uncertainty, impeding the District's ability
to attract investment. There are many ways that Congress has
and can continue to use its power to make the District a
vibrant city where Americans want to live, visit, and do
business, and we welcome your support for the District of
Columbia.
Sincerely,
The Washington, DC Business and Civic Community; Anthony
Williams, CEO & Executive Director, Federal City Council;
Jack McDougle, President & CEO, Greater Washington Board of
Trade; Chinyere Hubbard, President & CEO, DC Chamber of
Commerce; Lisa Mallory, President & CEO, Apartment & Office
Building Association of Metropolitan Washington; Scott
Reiter, CEO, DC Association of REALTORS; Jacqueline D.
Bowens, President & CEO, D.C. Hospital Association; Liz
DeBarros, CEO, District of Columbia Building Industry
Association; Edward Krauze, CEO, Greater Capital Area
Association of Realtors; Solomon Keene, President & CEO,
Hotel Association of Washington, DC; Malcom Fox, Executive
Director, Opportunity DC.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, while the D.C. business community may not
have supported the D.C. law that is the subject of this disapproval
resolution, their letter states they oppose this disapproval resolution
because it would, if enacted, cause ``chaos in the middle of tax filing
season'' and ``create fiscal instability and uncertainty, impeding the
District's ability to attract investment.''
{time} 1350
Mr. GILL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 22 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. GILL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Kim).
Mrs. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 142,
disapproving of D.C.'s recent decision to decouple from key provisions
of the Internal Revenue Code.
This resolution ensures that D.C. residents can benefit from
President Trump's historic tax cuts, just like hardworking families
across the country.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same for my constituents in
California's 40th District. Under Governor Newsom's rule, California
has repeatedly chosen to decouple from Federal tax relief, denying
hardworking families and small businesses much-needed breathing room
after years of Bidenflation.
Californians are struggling with some of the highest taxes and cost
of living in the Nation and are getting no relief from Governor Newsom
and Democrats in Sacramento.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this resolution because workers
and families in D.C., California, and across the country deserve a
chance to get ahead.
I hope this resolution inspires California's leaders to come to their
senses and allow the full relief of the important wins in the One Big
Beautiful Bill Act that provided the working families tax cuts to take
effect for Californians.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentlewoman say loud and proud,
the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a bill that 64 percent of Americans
don't like and believe gives more resources to the rich, the well-
connected, the wealthy, the billionaires, and the corporations than
them. So say it out loud, and I am glad to hear that after I pointed
out this fake name that my Republican colleagues keep bringing out.
As we are talking about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, my colleagues
continue to bring up the fact that they worked hard to write and pass
it. They worked hard to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. They said
that they ``had numerous congressional debates,'' but D.C. didn't get a
vote on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
They bring up that they have put this resolution forward. They are
running from their offices over here to the House floor to debate on
this resolution to overturn a local law passed by members of the D.C.
Council who were elected by the people who live here. They claim to
care about the taxpayers of D.C., but I guess they don't care enough to
give them the real representation that they deserve: a vote in the
United States Congress.
That alone shows us what this is all about. They don't care about the
taxpayers of D.C. They have no problem
[[Page H2007]]
taxing them without representation. They care about using D.C., the
people who live and work here year round, as a pawn and as a political
punching bag so that they can go home and say that maybe they actually
did something.
If they truly cared about the taxpayers of D.C., they would put this
resolution aside and pass H.R. 51, free D.C., and make sure that we
have D.C. statehood. That is making sure that you care about the
taxpayers of D.C.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Smith), the chair of the House Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J.
Res. 142, legislation to reverse a District of Columbia law that bars
the citizens of our Nation's Capital from seeing the benefits of the
working families tax cuts enacted by Republicans and signed into law by
President Trump on July 4.
Instead of seizing the opportunity to provide relief to the working
families and small businesses in their communities, the elected leaders
in D.C. are going out of their way to deny their own citizens tax
relief. That includes policies like no tax on tips, no tax on overtime,
and an increased standard deduction which 91 percent of Americans use
to file their taxes.
They say that they are the party of the working class. They are the
party of the taxing class because they do not want the people who are
waiting tables in Washington, D.C., to have no tax on tips because they
believe that they can spend their hard-earned dollars better than they
can. That is the difference between the Republican Party and the
Democratic Party.
We are the party of the working class: no tax on tips, no tax on
overtime, and tax relief for seniors. Under the working families tax
cut, a family of four who makes less than $73,000 will pay zero dollars
in Federal taxes, and every single Democrat in the House and the Senate
voted against that provision.
We also increased the child tax credit to $2,200 and made it
permanent, and every single Democrat voted against it.
We created Trump investment accounts for every new child born in
America, $1,000 in seed money to transform their lives, and every
single Democrat voted against it.
They are the taxing party. They are not the party about
affordability. They are not the party about working families.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, there it is again from one of the highest-ranking people
of the Republican Party on the other side: working families tax cut
bill. No bill exists. We haven't voted on a bill called the working
families tax cut bill. We voted on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Mr. Speaker, even one of the gentlemen who was most instrumental in
passing this bill that they are here blatantly lying about and saying
that it helps working people when it really helps the richest, wealthy
people in this country, he won't even call it by the name because most
adults in this country know the truth. They know that it is the largest
transfer of wealth from them to the billionaires, the corporations, and
people like Donald Trump and his friends.
Mr. Speaker, there is something that Ranking Member Garcia brought up
that I think is really important. This is the tenth piece of
legislation this Congress that the Republicans have brought forth
focused on the District of Columbia, focused on D.C.
If we polled every Republican district, polled my colleagues'
districts on the other side of the aisle, polled everyone who spoke,
polled everyone's district in the United States Congress, except for
Eleanor Holmes Norton's district, polled every single one of them, I
promise you that trying to overturn the laws that the D.C. Council has
voted for will not appear in the top 10 issues that their constituents
are dealing with.
Actually, I will go a little further. I don't think it would appear
in the top 100 issues that their constituents are facing.
Instead of bringing forth 10 bills to undo democracy for the people
of D.C., we could have done 10 other things. Instead of bringing forth
a bill on D.C., we could have done something on housing. Rent is
skyrocketing. People can't afford to live in a home because of the
rising costs of rent.
Number two, instead of bringing the second bill on D.C., we could
have done something about utility prices. The power of heat, the power
of A/C, the power of power is up 6.7 percent. Donald Trump said that he
would cut utilities in half. That hasn't happened. They have gone up.
When the third bill to do something on D.C. came to the floor, we
could have done something about healthcare. We have a broken healthcare
system in this country. While health insurance companies are making
skyrocketing profits, we are paying more. More Americans are dying
because they are not rich and because they don't have money.
When the fourth bill on D.C. came to Congress, we could have done a
bill to lower grocery prices for Americans. Donald Trump ran saying
that he would do something about it. Donald Trump said that when he was
elected as the President of the United States, he would lower grocery
prices on day one--on day one. Grocery prices are up.
When the fifth bill came to the House floor on overturning a D.C.
city law, we could have done something on corruption or something on
Congress. We could have banned Members of Congress from buying and
trading stock. We could have done something to put some guardrails on
the Presidency so that no President can make money off of being the
President of the United States. We know that being the President is one
of the most lucrative things that Donald Trump has done. We could have
handled the corruption in the Supreme Court.
When the sixth bill came to the House floor on the D.C. laws, we
could have done something on campaign finance reform. We could have
ended Citizens United or done something about the fact that
corporations and billionaires can flood our elections with unlimited
amounts of dark money, essentially trying to change the outcome and to
elect pawns and puppets to help them do what they want.
When the seventh bill came to the House floor on Washington, D.C., we
could have done something to maybe rein in ICE, this agency that is
going around and terrorizing our neighbors. I mean, maybe--maybe, just
maybe--Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti would be alive right now if
maybe on the seventh D.C. bill, we did something about this.
{time} 1400
On the eighth D.C. bill, we could have done something to help small
businesses by passing legislation because we do too much to help the
big corporations and nothing to help small businesses and
entrepreneurs.
On the ninth one, on the ninth bill that Republicans brought to the
floor this Congress, maybe we could have done something on reversing
the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that they passed, and we could have
taxed the billionaires.
The gentleman was saying we are the tax party. I want to tax the
billionaires more. I want to make sure they are paying their fair
share. Hell, if a teacher, a nurse, someone who works at a grocery
store is paying their fair share, how come billionaires aren't?
On the 10th one, which is this time, maybe we could have done
something about the tax that the Republican Party and Donald Trump have
put on working families, which are the Trump tariff taxes, which are
part of the reason why costs are skyrocketing across this country from
housing to groceries.
There were 10 bills to undo the democracy of people who live here in
D.C., 10 issues and 10 solutions we could have worked on to help
working families.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I encourage all of my colleagues in Congress
to oppose this joint resolution.
Voting ``no'' means that we refuse to support this congressional
Republican effort to end the child tax credit in Washington, D.C.
Voting ``no'' means that we oppose the fact that Republicans are
using important time in Congress that should be spent on making life
better, safer, and more affordable for American people instead of
attacking the residents of Washington, D.C., with higher prices and
lower budgets for D.C.'s schools,
[[Page H2008]]
childcare, first responders, healthcare, and other services.
Voting ``no'' means supporting D.C. home rule and defending D.C.
against bullies in Congress.
The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act is an attack on the working
people of this Nation and across this entire Nation. It cuts healthcare
and food assistance from working families to give massive tax breaks
for billionaires and megacorporations.
Republicans in this Chamber need to work on accepting the unpopular
and damaging nature of the law that they passed. It sounds like they
are almost there because they have even gone so far as to rename the
bill called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that they passed that 64
percent of Americans believe are bad for them.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague pointed out, it is good to be here in
floor debate with the other youngest Member of the House of
Representatives. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I suspect
we would both agree that we do need more representation in Washington
in this body from younger Americans.
Even though he and I disagree on many things, including this
resolution, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot from the other side of the
aisle about how they support working families.
Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution that would provide no tax on Social
Security, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, provisions that
specifically help working families, families in this country. Yet, they
are opposed to it.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a little bit about fiscal responsibility.
That is something that Republicans have championed for quite some time.
In fact, it has been pointed out that our ideas are old. I would point
out that my colleague is right. Our ideas are old in the sense that
individual liberty and fiscal responsibility are ideas that have
withstood the test of time. That is something that conservatives
recognize.
The city of Washington, D.C., does not adhere to those ideas. If they
would like to pursue a more responsible budget, I think that we would
all be thrilled. Yet, what are they spending their money on?
Recently, the city of Washington, D.C., gave almost a half-million-
dollar grant to the Central American Resource Center, which advocates
for local rent supplement programs to go to noncitizens; in other
words, illegal aliens. They gave almost a million dollars over two
grants to Georgetown University, a university whose endowment is about
$3.6 billion.
In fiscal year 2025, D.C. spent approximately $434,000 to establish a
reparations task force. That same year, they spent $40 million for the
Office of Migrant Services to ``ensure migrants arriving in the
District are treated humanely and have the resources they need to reach
their destination or resettle.'' In other words, they are taking money
out of the pockets of working-class families and giving it to illegal
aliens.
In fiscal year 2025, again, D.C. spent almost $2.3 million on the
Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Affairs.
That same year, they spent $7 million for the Green Bank. In fiscal
year 2025, they spent $441,000 for the Medical Cannabis Social Equity
Fund.
Mr. Speaker, we support fiscal responsibility. This is not fiscal
responsibility. This is taking money from working-class families to
fund leftwing social programs and pet projects.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I strongly support this 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.
It is an egregious targeting of the hardworking residents of the
District, and it ignorantly and foolishly blocks economic growth.
Congress is within its right to deny this legislation pursuant to the
D.C. Home Rule Act, and it should do so because it is the right thing
to do for the people of this District.
The people and businesses of this town deserve the tax relief these
provisions grant, not just at the Federal level, but also at the local
level. It is time we support them.
The following organizations have endorsed this resolution, including:
AMAC Action, America First Policy Institute, the D.C. Police Union,
Heritage Action, the Independent Women's Forum, the International
Franchise Association, the National Association of Convenience Stores,
the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, the National
Restaurant Association, the National Taxpayers Union, the Small
Business & Entrepreneurship Council, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The House must swiftly exercise its constitutional responsibility to
oversee the District of Columbia and reject this misguided legislation
from going into effect.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to unite
in support of D.C. taxpayers and businesses and support this necessary
resolution of disapproval, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1032, the previous question is ordered
on the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________